The meeting of the minds has become a contact sport!
Much is made of the lack of civil discourse and the breakdown of public discourse in American culture today. Is it time we declare the meeting of the minds to be a contact sport with special headgear?
The art of diatribe – a long, angry, bitter, satirical criticism against a different opinion – has always been practiced in the public square across generations and cultures. But doesn’t it seem worse than ever? Maybe I’m waxing nostalgic, but even in my lifetime, I seem to remember healthier expressions of dialog and debate on fiercely contested ideas.
Okay … I was born shortly before the Civil Rights Act was signed into law … my childhood was marked by the Roe v. Wade, the Vietnam War, nuclear proliferation, Watergate, and economic Stagflation. So it wasn’t very peaceful then either.
But I still seem to recall the mainstream political debates – every bit as contentious as today’s issues – having more civility. I think. Well … sometimes.
The constant companion of the diatribe today is the ad hominem attack – attacking the person rather than the person’s argument – which has always been recognized as a logical fallacy but has always been an effective way to win an argument – or at least sway public opinion long enough to win an election. Particularly if people aren’t paying real close attention. Which is usually. But don’t personal attacks seem to have gone to a whole new level?
I grew up in the Nixon era – interpret that any direction you want – so probably not.
Even so, the most successful figures in politics and media as I grew up seemed to have had a more modest and moderate (and moderating) approach to handling differences of opinion. For example, America’s most trusted news anchor during the tumultuous 60s and 70s, Walter Cronkite, hid his political leanings until he retired from his seat at the news desk. (Not everyone agrees with that.) Even politicians seemed more grown up. At least most of them.
Today, success, even – or especially – for mainstream media personalities seems to be dependent upon an aggressive combination of style and message that polarizes viewers by design.
Is it any wonder we are witnessing such an exaggerated breakdown of public discourse? Not even the mantra of politically correct speech seems to help – and some would argue that PCS even fans the fires of miscommunication further.
Milton Friedman argued trickle down economics. I won’t win a Nobel Prize, but I’m arguing that our current state is a matter of trickle down dialogical deficiencies. The idea that if you want to avoid arguments you don’t discuss religion or politics has been around a long time – long before Facebook and earlier online watering holes.
But doesn’t the current polarization of American culture and dialog seem to be at least in some measure manufactured? From somewhere up there?
Maybe there’s a vast conspiracy to keep us from talking to each other.
Even if one wants to hold and speak the middle ground today, it is a precarious if not impossible undertaking because just by trying there is now double the chance that your words and position will be set up as a straw man from one direction or the other to be easily knocked down. I don’t believe the bromide that the truth is always somewhere in the middle – that just isn’t a logically necessary conclusion – but I have long believed that if we approach differences in opinion from a middle ground, based primarily on the notion that though we see things differently, we both fundamentally want what is best, then we can solve problems and implement solutions more effectively.
Demonstrating such trust and respect today will get your words – and heart – interpreted and twisted in shapes and shades you never imagined. If you explain or defend it will only make things worse, proving your ignorance or self-delusion.
As the vitriolic accusations and counter-accusations hit the proverbial fan, what basis is there for trust and respect and dialog? Did I mention that there is a breakdown in public discourse?
I’m just not sure I believe there are conditions for healthy public discourse and debate anymore, no matter what your intent or style.
Why even try even try if the spirit of the age is expressed in a rant … a diatribe, a personal attack, a scintillating demolition of the straw man?
Controversy sells. And I know that marketing helps fuel today’s contentious meetings in the public square. But in a sense, the marketing model is based solely on what the market is willing to buy. Passionate anger and attack – with little room to discuss and debate the issues – is what people are adding to their shopping carts. If you want response, you must write or say something that is provocative – which is often construed (at least in the mind of the presenter) as profound. Or at least entertaining.
So maybe it isn’t trickle down dialogical deficiencies … maybe what’s deep down in each of us has bubbled to the top!
Again, as a Baby Boomer, perhaps I am simply waxing nostalgic for a less contentious public square that never existed.
I’ve stated the obvious – yes, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
And I offer no profound words of wisdom, though I still believe that convictions and civility are not mutually exclusive and offer the best path for the potential for people to work together who come from differing perspectives.
I do believe there is one personal application all of us might consider based on what I see driving current public communication or lack thereof. In today’s alienating and polarizing exchange of ideas, there seems to be an incredibly arrogant presumption from all quarters that we can know true heart, the real intentions off someone we disagree with – all of which is obviously evil. We comfortably stand in the judgment seat with others’ motives, which makes it easy to separate the sheep from the goats. Such presumption is toxic in that it leaves no room for giving the benefit of the doubt. It allows us to declare that those who disagree with us are haters … stupid … evil … hypocritical … irresponsible … greedy … and justifies not even trying to listen or understand.
We can judge a tree by the fruit it bears, true. But that is not the same as knowing the intention of a person’s heart on what are sometimes speculative solutions to all that ails us.
We’ve become a society of armchair psychologists that probe and parse a person’s every word and mannerism and then make bold blanket claims of knowing who they are. Without a doubt.
The Apostle Paul wrote, “No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:11, NLT).
So I’ll keep my takeaway simple and modest. I’ll avoid the provocative.
When you feel your blood pressure rising over what someone has said or purportedly said … as you find your cheeks beginning to flush pink and then red … slow down … and at least try to imagine that they are a person of good will.
Even if they are sorely misguided!
good writ, esp after Br William’s circumstance