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.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 3, 2018

Dec 29

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost on how an economic principle could restore civil discourse. This appeared in Acton blog.

A significant part of the unfounded confidence in one's own views or the views of one's groups and the rising intolerance for the views of others comes from authoritarianism. The source of authoritarianism can come from cultural values as well as tribalism--we should note that tribalism is nothing more that group authoritarianism. We should note the following about authoritarianism:

1. Truth depends more on the credentials of the source than the facts and logic employed by the source.

2. Hostility and aggression toward those who question one's traditions and authority figures are natural reactions

3. The perception that the world is a bipolar place consisting of us vs tehm. Thus, truth, and the world, is very simple and black-white thinking is common.

The first studies of authoritarianism were prejudiced toward conservatives by listing conservative overreactions to other views as the list of traits for authoritarianism. This has changed because of the obvious existence of authoritarianism in non-conservative circles. We should note that religiously conservative Christianity tends to inadvertently promote an authoritarian culture for its adherents. And certainly, religiously conservative Christianity isn't the only religion/ideology that does so. As mentioned before, tribalism also incorporates authoritarianism. That is because the strong group loyalty that defines tribalism promotes authoritarian reactions to internal and external challenges to one's own group

The only way economics can help overcome this authoritarian-driven overconfidence in one's own view and hostility to the views of others is when hybrid economic systems are developed. For without hybrid economic systems, economic ideological tribalism reigns and incorporates the thinking that Martin Luther King Jr. attributed to the West in his speech against the Vietnam War (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

If we replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank,' we can see how far reaching King's statement becomes even in addressing the subject of the above article. The question becomes for us religiously conservative Christians is this: Can we put aside some of our misinformed religious beliefs about the world in order to learn from others?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the similarities between defending slavery in the old South and defending abortion on demand. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I don't see the degree of connection between defenders of a woman's right to an elective abortion and slavery that Clark does, but the denial of the humanity of slaves and the unborn child is a definite connection.
One has to wonder whether  the denial of the humanity of the child has to do with attempts to correct another abusive relationship: the dominance of men over women in society. And in the desire to eliminate all such domination, denying the humanity of the unborn child became necessary for some, not all, to eliminate all such dominance. This might be similar to some Zionists who deny equality for Palestinians because their Zionism is a correction for Anti-Semitism such as that which occurred during the Holocaust and those who oppose Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians who are tempted to deny the Holocaust because of how it has been used to excuse the oppression that occupation has caused. Here, both truth and people become collateral damage from attempts to correct the oppression and exploitation  of other people.

Thus, if we who oppose a woman's right to an elective abortion want to influence others, not only do we have to speak out for the unborn, we have to speak out for women who have been dominated by men either by individuals or through systems that run society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Viktor Orbán, who is the Prime Minister of Hungary, and his Christmas speech article that defends his nation’s treatment of refugees who were fleeing from the Mediterranean. Here we should note that the refugee crisis which has seen hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees descend upon Europe was initially caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Christianity is a culture and civilization? And the commandment to love one's enemies involves a commandment to love oneself? Here we should note here that the Greek version of the whole statement does not command us to love ourselves. Rather, it assumes that love of self is a starting point. In addition, loving oneself is, by the Scriptures, contrasted with trusting God to take care of us. And then we are not to mix with people from other cultures lest we lose Christianity despite the fact that the Great Commission requires the Church to go out to the whole world to make disciples for Jesus? And what about the many Europeans who are not Christians? Are such people true Europeans? If not, are they a threat to Europe?
This article by Victor Orbán is a ruse for Christians to feel both free and obligated to lord it over others in society to the point of promoting discrimination and oppression against others. This article is really written as apologetic for Hungary's sometimes barbaric treatment of refugees whose plight was the result of their own doing. If Christianity is a culture and a civilization, as Orbán claims, then, since it also stresses salvation for the individual, is everyone who lives in a Christian culture and civilization saved? And does acknowledging that we Christians are not perfect really explain the centuries of religious wars within Europe, the almost 2 millennia of Anti-Semitism, along with European imperialism and colonialism that included Europeans lording it over those in far away land along with practicing ethnic cleansing?

We fulfill the Great Commission by preaching not commanding. We are called to serve others rather than presuming to be their masters. This message by Orbán is like a tick bearing Lyme disease. Only the malady being spread here is just another form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a disease that can easily result as a conservative Christianity subculture--note here that different forms of Christianity can have or promote their own cultures without Christianity being that culture. That authoritarianism not only shows little regard for those who are different, it is downright hostile toward them. And in that, we should recognize that the Christianity of which Orbán speaks is not the Christianity of the Bible.