Opinion | Medium Writing Contest
Can We Please All Find the Space Within Which to Breathe the Same Air and Agree Not to Agree
Suggestions on how to save the American experiment of a republic based upon a representative democracy by, of and for the people
Typically, but not often enough in our polarized, factionalized, and tribal-mentality-based society, one would state my title with the words “agree to disagree.” I chose “agree not to agree” to evoke that no one's alternate truth, as long as based upon indisputable facts, needs to be disagreed with, and to show that nuances are not semantics. I cannot stand when I point out in a discussion, with a black and white thinker, using rhetoric appropriately, that the answers may reside in a grey area that does not comport with their need for simple answers to support their positions, and their snorty retort is “that’s just semantics.” That seems like gaslighting (Medium story by Danielle Loewen) to me.
I often quote this parable, instilled in me by my late uncle, Richard Maidman, who ironically most would accuse of never having been able to admit that someone else was right, or that he may have been wrong:
A young couple are having marital problems. The wife’s mother takes them to see the Rabbi. The wife speaks first and tells the Rabbi what’s going on and her complaints. The Rabbi says, “You’re right.” Husband says, “but wait you didn’t hear me yet.” Husband tells his side of things, and the Rabbi says, “You’re right.” Then the wife’s mother exclaims, “Wait, you said they’re both right, how can this be,” and the Rabbi says, “You’re right!”
Independent thinking seems not to exist in our society infected with confirmation bias. While roughly 40% of Americans express disdain for both major parties and identify as independent, they still overwhelmingly tend to align their thinking with the Democrats or the Republicans.
In fact, we’ve already seen some of the consequences of this, as elected officials from the two parties are increasingly far apart ideologically, both in Congress and at the state level. The abandonment of voters openly identifying with one of the two parties has led to less political engagement, which means Americans are exerting less influence on what the parties look and sound like. That’s a real problem since the parties are still the fundamental building blocks that organize our politics. But with party building left to more stringent partisans, the parties’ bases have largely cultivated candidates who tend to be more ideologically extreme than the voters they seek to represent. [emphasis added]
So, How Can We Begin to Solve This Political, Philosophical, and Community Conundrum of Existential Geometric proportions? I offer a few suggestions.
Embrace Moderation
The value of moderation versus extreme behavior of any kind, both generally beneficial and detrimental, is well-reported.
Yet, please do not jump to a conclusion here. I do not argue that a staunch conservative or passionate liberal should move towards the center. Either one of these polar opposites can also practice moderation. I often cite this Op-Ed column by David Brooks:
Much of Mr. Brooks's column resonated with me. For my present point, I quote this passage:
Moderation is not an ideology; it is a way of being. It stands for humility of the head and ardor in the heart. When you listen to your neighbor, you see how many perspectives there are and you’re intellectually humble in the face of that pluralism. When you listen to your neighbor, you see that deep down we’re the same and you hunger to deepen that connection.
In other words, moderation, regardless of where you fall on the political compass, allows the space to agree not to agree.
(Sidebar: I would like to suggest now that you take this political compass test. The results will plot you against the extremes of two axes, not simply left or right.)
David Brooks also suggests that love can bridge gaps and provide a unifying force.
What big idea counteracts division, fragmentation, alienation? It is found in Leviticus and Matthew: Love your neighbor. Today’s left and right are fueled by anger and seek conflict. The big idea for moderates should be solidarity, fraternity, conversation across difference. A moderate agenda should magnify our affections for one another.
If staunchly opposite political activists like James Carville and Marlee Matalin, and Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski can successfully marry and share bedrooms, can’t the rest of us agree not to agree and still accept each other?
Stop the Lying
Our political system has become a battle of who can lie more effectively. It’s disgusting. Free speech does not mean the unfettered right to lie. We have reached the point where lying is so rampant that people expect it and do not care. Perhaps people have been conditioned not to care; or perhaps as long as the lie fits their version of reality, or what they would like the world to look like, they do not question the lies nor demand accountability and truth.
I believe that truth in advertising laws should make all lying designed to promote a political agenda illegal and this would not be unconstitutional as freedom of speech is not absolute. In any event, the First Amendment does not restrict private companies from policing posts on their websites, and social media platforms need to stop placing profit over the public interest.
In November 2020, I read this story in the Atlantic:
I wrote this on Medium in response:
I have been railing for months in any forum that I can about confirmation bias, which I now see as a malignancy infecting all aspects of life, politics being among the most obvious.
…
Many believe that the root problem with our political system is money and if Citizens United is overturned all will be well. Money was affecting politics long before Citizen’s United. That decision just provided an amplifier for the dissemination of propaganda, disinformation, outright lies and deceptive presentation of facts. Confirmation bias cannot be cured.
I wager that while many expect a politician to lie, that confirmation bias is particularly impactful on elections because most do not know that the false advertising laws do not apply to political advertisements. It is beyond absurd that one can be deceptive in a political campaign advertisement but not in an advertisement for a pack of gum. I am sure “Money” created the exception.
Before we give up on democracy, let’s let the people show what we can do when afforded the opportunity to vote based on facts.
An Extreme Outside-the-Box Proposal
Two months ago, I published a story about how the Founders greatly feared that factions would destroy democracy. I noted:
Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”
I published this poem last week:
Factions Burn enemy Why not see into eyes Why not agree to disagree I beg
So, my extreme proposal is if we cannot start placing country before party, we should make parties unconstitutional. Since it would be accomplished by a constitutional amendment, there is no first amendment issue.
In Rama I create, with soul-energy surging through my body, inspiring me and breathing wind into my sails,
