Civil Discourse

Bruce, you and I have been having a conversation by email that I want to carry onto the blog.  For our readers, here is the conversation so far.

Knowing that Bruce is a follower of Glenn Beck and not a fan of the New York Times I was struck by a recent column by Frank Rich. Rich has been with the NYT for nearly 30 years, the last 15 of which he has been writing opinion columns for them.  His column was actually somewhat sympathetic, to my way of thinking, to the concerns Beck raises and which energize his followers.

Bruce’s response was to point out how much the NYT gets Beck wrong and even suggested that they didn’t even watch the show in which Beck allegedly accused Obama of being racist, fascist, and communist.  If they had they would have known that he only accused Obama’s associates of being so.

During the show, Beck questioned Obama’s true political beliefs in that he had surrounded himself with black nationalists, avowed fascists, and Communists.  He stopped short of accusing the President of being a racist, but not very short. [email by Bruce to Mark]

I doubt that we are going to have agreement about what a racist, a fascist, or a communist even is, much less, who is one.  My concern has more to do with the observation that even Frank Rich is acknowledging the high level of anger and distrust that is present in these conversations.  I am wondering if we would like to have a discourse which leads to a productive use of anger and the construction of greater trust?

To my way of thinking we would do better to try to resolve the conflict.  That would require us to have a sense of what the conflict is about and what it would take to resolve it.  I must say, I don’t know what the conflict is about.  The government is making choices which scare and hurt people, and those people are reacting in anger.  But I am not sure that even the people who are angry know clearly how it is they are being harmed. 

If we can clarify the issue, then the next question is, “What would it take to resolve the conflict?  What do we mean by resolution?”

If what we mean is that my side makes the other side lose, then name calling makes sense.  It is a way of making the other look bad or silly.  But if what we mean is that we come to a way of working together that gets everyone what they need, then name calling is just another way of picking a fight.  What we would find as a more constructive strategy would be to see if we can each see the validity of the other’s perspective, even when it is not one we hold to ourselves.  This is what I see Frank Rich trying to do.  He is trying to appreciate the validity of the point of view of Beck and his followers.  As hard as that is to do, I think it is a much more constructive tactic than calling people names.