I frequently post essays detailing
my thoughts on current culture, society, and political machinations. Normally,
I try to focus on ideas that undergird our culture and political decisions and
not on specific individuals or their decisions. I try to raise ideas and let
readers draw their own conclusions. But recently, I did take the time to
criticize a specific policy and the decision that flowed from it.
As expected, it infuriated some
readers, pushing them to respond. I expected this and was not overly concerned.
After all, if I enjoy freedom of speech, so should others. What surprised me
was the virulence of some of the responses. I was also taken aback by the ad
hominem attacks. One respondent demanded that I leave the country, moving to
some unspecified place where I would learn the error of my ways and come
groveling back, seeking forgiveness for my ignorance and boorish behavior. I
was also a bit surprised at the vulgar language bandied about by some of the
authors. Now, not all who responded negatively did so with vituperative vigor.
Some respondents were gracious and careful in their wording, seeking to
convince me with evidence and carefully constructed arguments. These were
efficacious, forcing me to do more research and even adjust my thinking. One
friend even approached me via a different platform, which resulted in an online
conversation. What was the reason they chose another venue? They did not want
to enflame the already burning passions. The result, again I was able to
improve my understanding and further adjust my thinking. This one post and the
associated exchanges reveal what is wrong and what is right in our current
political communications model.
What is wrong? We let our own
ideological litmus test rule our passions. Anger replaces thoughtful measured
response. If someone says or believes something we find unacceptable, we consider
them the enemy and attack their character. We unleash withering broadsides comprised
of angry attacks on the person with very little in the way of facts or other
possibilities. We use language that is more fit for a barroom brawl than for a collegial
debate. Our aim? Humiliation and validation. We seek to humiliate anyone that disagrees
with us, and we desperately want validation from those who think the same as we
do. We’re quite content to batter each other across the great divide we’ve constructed
through our own intransigence.
This mindset of intransigence and consigning
all those who think differently to the enemy camp hobbles our national discourse,
our politics, and our government. We accept boorish behavior from our elected
officials and the accompanying policy failure as status quo. Oh, we blame those
who think otherwise; but, we fail to own up to our own role in digging the dividing
canyon and resultant chaos. We’ve forgotten the power of a well-spoken
thoughtful word adroitly delivered.
Returning to my recent experience.
Those who sought to savage and pillory me had no real effect on my ideological
construct. Their baseless attacks on my character and intelligence so obscured
their ideas as to render them impotent. My friends who approached me with thoughtful
words, appropriate facts, and well-reasoned ideas forced me to reconsider and
reshape my worldview. Their words were powerful in effect, which is what we
need. We do not need more braggadocios posturing. We do not need digital
bullies who engage in personal attack when confronted with an idea or opinion
that they do not like. If we’re ever going to find our way out of the morass which
so stifles the goodness of our land, we must recover our ability to engage in
civil discourse and even entertain ideas which, at first blush, we do not agree
with. When we do that, we can start making good progress towards solving the
problems that so vex us.
No comments:
Post a Comment