Stop Political Hatred in America

As we begin this week of the transition of political power, our country has never been so divided.  And while I’m not happy about the outcome of the November election, my biggest concern is not how the country will fare under a Trump presidency.  My biggest concern is whether our democratic political system is sustainable in today’s America.

As many have pointed out, the divide, distrust and downright hatred between our two major political parties is more extreme than anything we have previously witnessed in U.S. history. Based on recent studies by respected academics, members of opposing political parties are having less and less to do with each other, believe the other party is ruining the country, oppose any idea (no matter how rational) that is associated with the other party and earnestly believe politicians from the other party, and those who support them, are evil.  Apparently this new political distrust is stronger even than racial or ethnic bias.

There are a number of reasons that explain this deep distrust.  People are increasingly living in communities with similar political and moral values, in part through choice and in part because of educational and socio-economic barriers.  The 24-hour news cycle, driven by profit motive to cater to sensationalism and often to a particular base, has been outdone by the Internet, where unfiltered opinion is disguised as information, sometimes intentionally false and easily spread through social media.  And Congress has set a poor example for the rest of us, as our elected representatives deem it a badge of honor to demean the opposition, refuse to compromise and cater to a gerrymandered base.

Presidents are going to come and go, but the disintegrating tribe that we call America holds the future for our children and grandchildren.  I think our most important political mission in the years ahead is to try to rebuild trust and to improve communication between the two ends of the political spectrum.

Stopping political hatred does not mean ambivalence or withdrawal from political commitment.  There are many causes which claim to uphold the country’s deepest values, giving all our citizens the best shot at leading the best lives possible.  And it is part of our civic responsibility to discern, to the best of our ability, what those causes are and to work towards the common good.

In the meantime, can you take a few personal steps to help mend the political divide?  This is generally easier to do if your party is in power.  But it’s perhaps more meaningful when the opposition is in power.  At a minimum, a “loyal opposition” that is respectful, even when actively pursuing its own priorities, will be more likely to bring moderates to its side in the next election.

·        Do not accuse a person or a political party of evil intent.  You can’t get inside another person’s heart.  Try to limit your criticism to the idea and its impact.

·        Find a way to dialog with someone from another political perspective, at least occasionally.  Find at least one point on which you can agree that the other party has raised a legitimate concern.  Learn to be a better listener.

·        Reject news coverage that encourages conflict or is excessively biased, either way.  If your television news features a broadcaster or guest pundit who is hostile or excessively biased (even if there is a headshot of another pundit equally biased on the other side), turn off the television.   And better yet, send a note to the producer as to why you turned them off.

·        Pay more attention to the contrarians.  When an elected Republican agrees with some specific Democratic proposal, or when a Democrat votes against the party line on one proposal, send them a note of appreciation for willingness to cross the aisle.

·        Encourage our schools to teach civics.  Support school efforts to teach critical thinking, discernment of accuracy over the Internet and the importance of civic involvement.

·        Reward news commentators and politicians who admit that certain problems are hard, without easy answers, and that it’s not all that clear whether we should pursue one path or another.  When you run across any politician or pundit who will admit to shades of gray, reward him or her with a letter of support.

·        Accept the fact that there are legitimate theories of improving our society from both political parties.  After all, the persistent problems that plague us have not been changed much by changes in controlling political parties.  Everyone would agree, for example, that poverty is undesirable, particularly of course from the perspective of those living in it but also in terms of the well-being of society as a whole.  If there were an easy answer to this, someone would have already found it.

·        Support organizations that work around the country towards more balanced political discussion.  Explore whether there is some equivalent of the foreign policy discussions, “Great Decisions,” pertaining to politics.  Support political forums that are non-political, such as the League of Women Voters, and grapple with how to become a better democracy.

Hard arguments in support of your view of the world turn out to be very ineffective in changing someone else’s mind.  Respect, openness to alternative points of view and courtesy are more effective political tools than argument.  Let’s start with the assumption that most Americans have good intentions and want to do what’s right to create a better world for their children and grandchildren.  If we can agree to that much, we have a chance to do a better job in running our democracy.       

  

If Mother Teresa Ran against Hitler for Congress...

I am deeply disappointed in the way the media is covering the U.S. presidential election and in their abdication of responsibility to instill critical thinking into the political process.

There are two problems at the root of our media’s role in the deterioration of the electoral process and ultimately of democracy itself.  The first rests at the foot of the colleges and graduate schools who teach ethics in journalism.  The second is a by-product of a capitalistic economy run amok.

Today’s newspaper reporters and television producers have been indoctrinated with an odd theory relating to a journalist’s responsibility to present news without personal bias.  The method being taught directs the journalist to give equal time and credibility to each side of every issue and to every political candidate.  And since the media apparently cannot afford their own research on complicated issues, they meet this requirement by bringing in two partisans representing each extreme side of the issue and letting them go at it, each making full-throated arguments for their particular self-interested view of the world, without any kind of screening by the anchor or producer.

If Mother Teresa were running against Adolf Hitler for Congress, for example, you’d bring in a Catholic nun (who, in addition to her seminary credentials, holds a law degree from Harvard), on one side, to argue against, say, Joseph Goebbels on the other.  They would each get equal time and equal respect and nobody would try to interpret what they said.

Whoever thought this up, what on earth made you think anything useful to public understanding of complicated issues could come out of it?

The second cause of the pathetic state of critical thinking among the American electorate is the single-minded profit-driven focus of television news (and, to a lesser degree, every other source of political news) to make everything a controversy, blowing up every molehill into a mountain, keeping viewers glued to the channel no matter how ridiculous the overplay of conflict and chaos.  I first figured this out when I would check the weather channel before going somewhere, packing in anticipation of hurricane and tidal wave, only to find sunshine when I arrived.  You may think one channel or another is excessively biased, and while it’s true most of them are trying to attract a particular base, the truth is they all want to see a close race.   The only loyalty these guys have is to their quarterly profit. 

Is anybody surprised that so many of our citizens are conspiracy-theorists who believe anything they hear on talk radio?

These two candidates for president are nowhere near comparable in their capability to serve the nation and it just makes me heart-sick that the citizens of this once-great democracy no longer have access to the necessary education or to a public-interested news source to help them understand what’s going on.

Brooks on Welfare and Character

In last week’s New York Times, David Brooks broached the highly charged topic of welfare and personal responsibility in an article entitled “The Character Factory.”

There are good reasons why politicians and pundits won’t talk about this. In Brooks’ own words, “Nobody wants to be seen as blaming the victim.” And, of course, there is no reason to believe that the poor have less character than the rich.

A perceived lack of compassion for the poor is the biggest obstacle facing the Republican Party and is probably the main reason conservative doctrine has so little appeal for young people, women and immigrants.  Caring for the weak is the most fundamental value of modern progressive political thought.

Brooks wades into this hazardous terrain with a simple premise.  He compares the way we interact with the neediest segment of our population with the way we raise our own children and grandchildren:

“Nearly every parent on earth operates on the assumption that character matters a lot to the life outcomes of their children.  Nearly every government antipoverty program operates on the assumption that it doesn’t.”

Brooks goes on to tap into his considerable knowledge of behavioral science to support the concept that the ability to delay gratification, work hard and control impulsiveness is more important to later achievement than pure cognitive skills.

It’s one thing to agree with this premise and to practice it by means of the influence we have over the children in our own families.  And quite another to assume there’s some way such skills can be imposed by a government agency.

That said, the discussion of character building shouldn’t be off limits in our political discourse.  Those of us who hope to improve our collective future by decreasing the wealth gap and ensuring equal opportunity should not ignore the need for strength of character, not only in our own offspring but throughout society.