How We Should Talk With Those With Whom We Disagree

Just recently, the Daily Princetonian posted an interview with a well-known progressive and a well-known conservative (click here for the interview). And what they did in that interview was to provide an example for all of us Americans to follow when discussing issues with each other.

The well-known progressive was Cornel West (click here for his bio). The well-known conservative was Robert P. George (click here for his bio). And despite the racial and ideological differences, they referred to and regard each other as brothers. This is something that we should notice when watching the interview. It is something we should learn from so that we can better relate to those with whom we disagree. For the more we can learn from the examples they have set, the better we can learn from each other and function as a more healthy nation.

There are some points from the interview that should be emphasized--btw, please watch the interview because it is important to see how these two men get along. One of the most important points made was made by Robert P. George. He said that zeal, even for a good cause, can have negative results if it goes unchecked. He correctly said that it can lead to tribalism. And with tribalism, though George didn't mention this, one of the negative results is that those who are tribal embrace moral relativity. That is because with tribalism, loyalty go a group trumps commitment to principle and thus what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. And from there, we lose public civility and the ability for opposing groups to resolve differences by discussion rather than by force.

Both West and George spoke about how not only are leaders and famous people mixed bags, all of us are as well. Our own faults should, when properly recognized, limit our criticisms and treatment of others. Thus without a proper self-recognition, we cannot contribute to the open and fair discussion of ideas. And that eventually results in a power struggle between groups as more and more people from the different groups can only see the sins of others.

Something else that both West and George pointed out was about groups. The groups we see today are not monolithic. Thus we need to be careful about how we speak about groups. We cannot afford to speak about them as if each person in a given group act in complete conformity with the others in the group.

Of course, talking about groups as monoliths is done for the same purpose as making character or other significant accusations about individuals or other groups: they are, as George pointed out, conversation stoppers. By that he meant that the intent of so misrepresenting groups is that one does not have to deal with the specific issues and points made in a discussion because the conversation stopper has already stopped the discussion. Such descriptions can become slander with the intent to injure, in terms of credibility, the other person.

Much of the negatives that George and West discussed can really be attributed to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism refers to the hostile way one responds to dissenting opinions. Authoritarianism is a fear-based approach, fear because the right view or group is not being rightly honored and followed. With authoritarianism comes black-white thinking where a person has a binary view of the world. Those who are with one's own group are good and can be trusted while those who are in other groups have nothing of value to say and can even be regarded as a dangerous enemy. We should also note that with authoritarianism's hostility to dissenting opinion, comes a desire to punish those with opposing views or from opposing grups--not something brought up in the video. And thus, we see what discourse in much of America has become.

Finally, if I was to criticize anything from the interview, it is what was said about presentism. Presentism exists when we judge people from the past by today's standards. The problem with presentism is that it fails to give due recognition to the fact that we are all products of our time.

That being said, presentism has its good points. For example, the more that the present has given us a better better grasp on absolute values, the more presentism serves us. But there is another problem with presentism. It is that a feeling superiority over those from the past can accompany presentism. Such blinds us from what we have in common with those from the past, even those with whom we disagree. And thus civil discussion about the past becomes more difficult.

When employing presentism, we should always keep in mind is that just as those from the past are subject to our judgment with what we know, so too will we from the present be subject to the presentism practiced by those in the future.

There are other things that could be brought out from the interview of these two men, but it is much better for people to spend the time watching the interview.