Reflective Wanderings - Reflections on various topics that arise out of my personal, life and professional experiences. There are also are some family related news, travels and pictures.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Unity?
Yesterday I heard a political commentator repeatedly and proudly proclaim, “I am helping unit the country.” The commentator went on to say that when she first started on the air that the country was divided 52/48 and that the country could not get more divided that that type of split. She went on to note that it is 71/29 against Bush which she proudly proclaims as proof that she is uniting the country. The same individual has a habit of belittling those who do not agree with her by questioning either a) their capacity to think, or b) their state of mind.
From time to time I listen to this commentator. Frequently she will depict in demeaning and demonizing terms those who take opposing political and social views. Any idea raised by someone on the other side is immediately viewed as valueless and decries when those of similar views to hers seek to take a more posture as selling out or compromising their principles. She will highly complement those who agree with her as being intelligent clear thinking individuals with such language as to imply that those do not agree with her are ignorant and lack the capacity to think.
As I listened to her going on about uniting the country I wondered where is the place for civil discourse and the ability to agree to disagree agreeably. I enjoy listening to her from time to time as she does have occasionally some good points. Her idea of unity is clearly skewed. Unity is not in not found in votes and poll results. Unity has more to do with people of diverse views working together to common solution on problems for the sake of the whole. Passion for one’s perspective does not need to be surrendered. Rather, the passion for one’s views needs to be maintained just as the passions of the other should be respected and affirmed. Passion that drives one to defeat the other and advance only one’s views at the cost of the other is a destructive behavior. Unity seeks to eliminate winners and losers for the sake of having a win-win as much as possible for all.
As I listened to her speaking about uniting the country while degrading a person of an opposing view I remembered reading in college a book or article by a political/social activist for a philosophy class.
The author too spoke of the need to unify the country, to bring everyone into agreement through various techniques to a common viewpoint. He noted that some would be easy to persuade while others would only be persuaded by demonizing those who disagree and making fun of their shortcomings while over exaggerating yours. He went on to tell of the importance of making others who come to the correct position believe that they are intelligent people. As broad civil discourse is viewed as divisive, expression of doubt should be strongly discouraged. He stressed that it was important to have as complete unity as possible and once eight out of ten people agree with you that the remaining should be persuaded more forcefully or marginalized so that they will not harm the unity of the country. I was amazed how similar this political commentator sounded and was thinking like Lenin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The problem with civic discourse in the USA is not the fact that there are different points of view. It is the fact, as you note, that there is little or no respect for opposing viewpoints. Even worse, there is little or no respect for people who hold opposing views from one's own.
It's one thing to disrespect a point of view - some opinions are simply poorly based and don't deserve respect. It's another thing to respect the people who hold such views. This respect for persons is clearly lacking in American society.
One final observation: many of those who cry out for unity really want conformity, which is not at all the same thing. We probably will not achieve unity until we learn the difference.
maybe you should think about politics!
I liked your point about civil discourse meaning the ability to agree and disagree agreeable. Isn't this what democracy is about - listening to opposing views with respect while feeling free to make up our own minds? There are a lot of opinions I shudder when I hear, but living in a free society means I listen respectfully, just as when I express my viewpoint I should be listened to respectfully.
Demeaning someone else's ideas and views only makes people more defensive and unable to listen to or respect your ideas - so how is that helpful?
I firmly believe(!) that it takes many different people to make the world go around. What a dull world we would live in if, as you state in your comment, that unity means conformity. BORING!
One more point - often I find that my views become refined or consolidated by listening to oposing opinions since those opinions often make me look at an issue froma different perspective and consider ideas I hadn't thought of before. That's unity - a gradual coming together by repecting all views.
Post a Comment