Much as I crave and seek
solitude, complete withdrawal
is neither possible
nor particularly useful in a
shrinking world. Having
been raised to value community
and the work required
to maintain healthy
and viable communities,
recent behavioral trends in
this country have conspired
to undermine my faith in
its ability, and willingness,
to do what is necessary to
bring about its salvation.
The Federalist papers
issued the strongest warning
to date about the dangers
of factionalism. Perhaps
every one of us ought
to go back and read those
papers to remind ourselves
of what is best about this
country — and about the
pitfalls that loom large if
any democracy is not wary
of its inherent danger
points. It might also be a
good idea to review relevant
sections of deTocqueville’s
Democracy in America, perhaps
the most insightful
study of America ever written.
The vitriol that seems to
characterize political discourse
in this country has
achieved levels of incivility
and anger that I for one
would never have imagined
possible in my lifetime. I
was fortunate to have been
raised to value difference,
to understand that dissent
is an essential element in
any successful democracy,
and that protecting one’s
views from challenge is
both unhealthy and rather
cowardly. When I do have a
discussion with someone
whose views differ from
mine I enjoy the give and
take. And what I most value
is the extent to which an
opposing perspective makes
me look even more deeply
and analytically into my
own. I try to play what Aristotle
described as ``the believing
game.’’ It is a tough
game to play, but it is worth
the effort.
The recent outburst during
the President’s address
to Congress on health care
is an unfortunate example
of the sad state of discourse
in America. The notion that
an individual who sees
things differently is a liar is
as reprehensible as it is
counterproductive. No wonder
so many of our really
fine legislators started leaving
Washington years ago.
As former Republican Senator
Alan Simpson said
when interviewed several
years ago, it used to be that
political opponents would
debate on the Senate floor
by day and have dinner together
at night. Or even
spend family weekends together.
Sadly, that does not
happen much anymore. A
more local example is a conservative
columnist whose
word choices to describe the
opposition are both offensive
and certainly not conducive
to the kind of dialogue
that should
characterize debate in a
great democracy.
In the last several days I
have heard friends lament
the impossibility of having
civil political discussions
with close friends over dinner
because of an intransigence
so deeply embedded
as to preclude civil debate
of any kind. I experienced
the same thing several
years ago over lunch with
my brother, whose commitment
to conservatism ran
so deep and was so personally
felt, that discussion at
any level was impossible. It
was not a pleasant lunch,
which was unfortunate,
since we only got to see one
another infrequently. The
irony of it all was, and still
is, that despite our political
differences, we had a lot in
common. And that is true of
all of us.
Compromise is not a bad
thing. I see things one way.
Someone else sees things
differently. This penchant
for name calling and offensive
behavior will get us nowhere.
If it continues, who
knows, Edward Gibbon, author
of The Rise and Fall of
the Roman Empire, might
come back from the dead
and write another history
of a country whose downfall
was caused primarily by internal
rot.
