By Kevin Meyer
A couple months ago I wrote a piece titled Listen to the Naysayers that prompted considerable public and especially private reaction. The fundamental premise was that it's pretty much in our nature to not want to listen to contrary opinions and therefore we discount or distance ourselves from people that spout such opinions. However listening to, acknowledging, and considering those opinions may be critically important in our quest to find the best strategies and solutions to problems.
I've been trying to practice my own medicine and seek out opinions that are different from mine, and I've become somewhat sensitized to such ideas as well as situations where being oblivious to different sides of an issue has led to problems.
One such situation just this morning was an update tweeted via Jamie Flinchbaugh on the CPSIA fiasco, which we had also told you about over a year ago. Once again the government looks at and tries to fix "effect" rather than understanding the root cause. And once again a regulatory band-aid is laid on top of a mountain of other band-aids instead of figuring out how to fix the specific underlying issue. And… once again in a year or two we'll try to unravel all the unintended consequences of shallow action. The same happened with health care reform, the same is happening with financial reform. Band-aid after band-aid instead of understanding the true root cause of the problem and channeling and leveraging the creativity of human nature instead of stifling it. Private organizations and even individuals are just as guilty of this disease as the government.
Let me make a spirited attempt to get back on track…
We seem to have lost the underlying understanding of true debate. Debate is not just spewing forth your opinions to convince others. It is making your case, then actively listening to and considering the opposing view, and then having the courage to modify your opinion based on that consideration. Yes, courage. Really listening to the other side of the story – which is very different than listening to how others that agree with your position tell the other side of the story.
I'll return with some fear and trepidation to the example of the government and political arena. As someone firmly in the political center, socially liberal while fiscally conservative and probably more libertarian Ayn Rand-loving than anything, I see this every day. We hear a lot about the polarization of political perspectives, and the growing number of us independents really experience it.
One big reason for the polarization is the lack of true debate.
The left-leaning blogs do nothing but quote other left-leaning information sources, and right-leaning blogs do the same on their end. By effectively looking inward for all their information each becomes convinced in the singular validity of their opinions at the expense of all others. They begin to redefine "left and right" as "the left and right sides of the left" and the "left and right sides of the right"… and come up with crazy terms like DINO (Democrat in Name Only) and RINO to describe those that dare move toward one edge of their bubble of information and perspective. Each side moves further and further apart, leaving those of us in the middle less and less aligned.
Other examples? On the left we have the maligning of Fox News by people who have never watched the channel, and probably don't realize that contrary to most other live news sources they make a point of having two people from wildly different opinions on each topic. You betcha! Or the condemnation of the Arizona immigration bill by people (apparently including our Attorney General) who haven't even read the short 10 page law. But it must be evil – because all of the information sources that agree with them claim it is evil. I personally have a mixed opinion and wish I could find a real debate.
On the right we have a sudden disgust for wasteful spending when Reagan and Bush also increased the size of government, and somehow military spending is on a different plane than spending on human services. Or the condemnation of those that oppose the Arizona immigration law without actively considering their arguments because those who oppose must be evil – because all of the information sources that agree with them claim they are evil. I personally have a mixed opinion and wish I could find a real debate.
Yes I did write that correctly – both sides have failed those of us in the middle. And that's one reason why we have an upsurge of splinter groups on both sides, such as the Tea Party – although that particular one also doesn't exactly represent a center opinion. And in a polarized environment what happens? Groups like the Tea Party are instantly thrashed with code words like "racist" and "violent" and "stupid." Violent? I guess we forgot about the likes of Code Pink and Move On, how they also threw pies and created disruption in an attempt to change the left. Stupid? Even The New York Times showed how Tea Party members are more educated than average. I could make similar arguments for the other side.
Tea Party supporters, similar (hmmm… similar?) to Code Pink and Move On supporters, are dismissed as illiterate radicals. Instead of being listened to and considered. Besides being disingenuous by both sides, there's a lot of danger in that. Not to mention an outright discounting of information and opinion that might lead to solutions. And believe me, with today's problems we need as much from as many different perspectives as we can get.
I try. I watch and listen to both Fox News and MSNBC. Perhaps more for grins I even peruse the forums on both Free Republic and the Democratic Underground. I purposely transposed those hyperlinks to try to make you look! It's actually rather amusing how worked up the lefties on DU are about "Obama's abandonment of progressives" and similarly (similarly?) the Freepers on the Senate Republicans not wanting to mount a fight on Kagan. They are so wrapped up in their left and right information bubbles that they couldn't find a centrist opinion if it sat on them.
So here's your challenge: if you run a left-leaning blog, quote in the positive something from a right-leaning blog (yes, this means you actually have to go and read one). The same if you run a right-leaning blog. If you don't have a blog, find something positive to say about someone with a different opinion. Truly consider the other opinion. If you're on the right, say something good about Obama, and if you're really up to a challenge, Henry Waxman or Nancy Pelosi. If you're on the left find something good to say about Bush, or for a real challenge, Cheney. And I don't mean "I'm glad Bernie Sanders lives 3000 miles from me" or "it's a positive that Bush is out of office." Remember what I said about courage. I know most of you have it in you. Hopefully. I know I could find something good to say about all of them, although I acknowledge it's a bit of a struggle in a couple cases.
There are very, very smart people on all sides of every issue. Discounting a different perspective is not only ignorant, it's dangerous. And wasteful as we attempt to find real solutions to real problems.
Courage. Do you have the courage for a real debate? To actively consider other opinions and to modify your own? To actively explore outside of your traditional information bubbles? Or do you just spinelessly pontificate your own opinion to people that already agree with you? Isn't that also a waste?
Can you work to find real solutions, or only ones that fit your specific perspective and paradigm?
And once again I mean that on a day-to-day basis, not just with our political opinions but in our companies and organizations and even personal lives.
kelly says
kevin, that post is a work of fine art. beautifully said. three cheers! so when do YOU run for office?
Pete Foster says
Kevin – usually I move on when I realize you’re writing a politically-oriented rant, but this one sucked me in. Nice job describing how many of us feel and why we’re disgusted with what’s happening inside the beltway – regardless of our political persuasion. And I’m not even an American.
So… to your challenge. I’ll try saying something good about Bush. I just read this morning where Obama is going to decrease spending on AIDS while Bush tripled it. So I’ll say Bush was more of a humanitarian than some people make him out to be. Ok that took nearly every fiber of my being to say, but you’re right there was an inner satisfaction in acknowledging something I didn’t want to admit existed.
Now find a rightie to say something good about Pelosi… well, finding a leftie might be hard too these days…!
Thanks for the inspiration.
Anonymous says
As a gun owner and NRA member, I forced myself to read all the incidents where a .50 cal rifle has been used in a crime on a anti-gun organization’s website (context: the NRA claims the .50 cal has never been used in a crime on US soil and the anti-gunnies want to ban it because terrorists can shoot down planes with it).
In turns out that there have been 1 or 2 incidents in history where a deranged lunatic used it in a crime. All the other incidents were not legitimate (for example, a convicted felon found in posession of a .50 cal rifle does not constitute as a crime of firing the weapon illegally).
Kevin says
Run for office? Ha! Be serious. Too many skeletons, and I’m doing my best to create even more.
Jason says
Three cheers from the middle! You’re absolutely right about the entrenched wings of each ideology living in their own information bubbles. I hadn’t thought of it that way but wow! So much sense and now I understand. What’s funny is that both sides hate the “main stream media” thinking it caters to the other, which sort of makes your point about neither side being able to even recognize a reasonable perspective anymore. That’s very scary. Speaking of reasonable, I find Reason magazine to be the best centrist reporting. http://reason.com/
Bryan says
How about this for a challenge…
Take yourself off the political spectrum and consider that point of view…
War spending, a plank of the “right”: Is it just? Is it moral? Does perpetual peace through perpetual war pass the common sense test?
Entitlements, a plank of the “left”: Does this really “lift” people from poverty, or does actually encourage people to live off the government.
Taxes: isn’t this just a form of control by both parties, so that government officials can remain in power by redistributing our money to special interests?
If you and I seized another person’s money, and gave it to somebody else according to our values, isn’t that theft? Why does the government allowed to get away with crime?
Government is in possession of monopolies in these segments of our economy: elementary education, road building and maintenance, utility, defense, mail delivery, etc. If any company had a monopoly in these industries, crimes would have been committed. That is of course, unless government allows corporations to have monopolies or advantages that we as individuals cannot possess.
I encourage everybody to consider the notion that to reside on any spot on our left-center-right spectrum through the act of voting is to give others consent to have authority over your life. For a totally off the radar point of view go to the Center for a Stateless Society, the Molinari Institute or the Mises Institute. Warning: open mind is necessary, leave your political paradigm at the door, as it brings too many blind spots into the picture.
Dean Reimer says
Bryan, what the heck are you talking about?
What monopoly does government have on mail delivery? On utility?
Road building and maintenance? There are thousands of companies that are contracted to do this work. I’m sure government would be glad to find someone else willing to pay for it. And if you own your own land, you don’t need to contract with the government to put a road through it.
Elementary education? I don’t know about the US, but there are plenty of private school options at all ages here in Canada.
Your post (at least that paragraph) is nonsensical.
JR Earl says
“By effectively looking inward for all their information each becomes convinced in the singular validity of their opinions at the expense of all others.”
BINGO Kevin! It’s obvious (well to most of us?) that this happens in politics, but as you mention it also happens in companies and even our family lives. I have to make a point of listening to my teenage daughter, without prejudice for her age or perceived maturity or perspective. Her thoughts and ideas are still very important, and yes sometimes I do change my opinion.
Meagan Simpone says
I’ll add to JR’s quote with another I really enjoyed:
“They are so wrapped up in their left and right information bubbles that they couldn’t find a centrist opinion if it sat on them.”
That’s a slap upside the face for many of us, and I’ll admit I never watch Fox because all my friends say bad things about Fox. I wonder how many of them have actually watched that channel? Maybe I’ll turn it on for a while today. The horrors? Or maybe I’ll broaden my perspective a bit. At a minimum I’ll form a judgment based off of real knowledge.
Lots to think about today and perhaps lots to change. I wishyou would have done this to me on Friday instead of Monday!
Richard Silkey says
And to think that I thought no one understood how debate is really done!
The dangerous tide of Monday morning quarterbacking and know-it-all opinion experts has muddied the waters so much that getting to actual truth is almost impossible. I’ve stated for years that left and right ideology’s need to be seen as correct all the time would have dire consequences on how things are perceived. News isn’t news anymore. Debate is not debate anymore. They are layered with opinion, generalizations, and agenda. I have found that to really understand any issue one needs to be open minded and test the, “other side”, and put to practical use the ideas that you disagree with to see if they do in fact have any merit. The Bible itself states that we are to test the spirits too and discover which ones are true and the ones that are false. So too must we learn not to fear and to test other ideas that may be counter to our own.
Thanks Kevin for an insightful peek into how debate should actually be done. By-the-way, my campaign starts in 6 weeks! Would you consider being my VP? (Just kidding!)
Jamie Flinchbaugh says
Kevin, first thanks for helping to raise awareness of the CPSIA which isn’t getting any media attention.
Second, I could agree with your point more. I don’t feel comfortable affiliating myself with either party, since mostly they seem to act like children. It’s hard to participate in the dialogue when each side decides that if it comes out of the others mouth, then it must be a lie.
Mark Graban says
Substitute “left” and “right” with Lean and Six Sigma or Lean and ERP an you often run into the same problem. Or Lean and “systems thinking”.
Lots of talking past each other an little attempt at understanding.
Like you, Kevin, I made a point of watching MSNBC during the GOP convention and Fox News during the Dem convention.
Bryan says
Dean:
US Postal Service = monopoly.
Ownership of the road system isn’t exactly a private enterprise, either. In the U.S., a voluntary contract isn’t necessary, we have eminent domain, a nice way of saying, seizure of private property by Uncle Sam. And now, eminent domain has expanded beyond seizure of property for roadways and utilities, it is now used to generate tax revenue by seizing low-value property (home) and developing it into high-value property (commercial real estate) according to local policy. Again, gov’t has the power to grant special market privilege, distorting market values, where you and I do not.
You are correct in saying that there is some competition in education (thank goodness), but the government still has vast control over the direction of education through goal setting, appropriation of tax payer dollars and who gets that money. Again, that is special privilege. It is the misdirection of wealth from one party to another. Your one private school alone doesn’t have that sort of market power, only gov’t does.
Mary C says
Damn straight – it has always seemed very silly to me that most of those political blogs and news outlets are just preaching to the choir. What’s the point? A bunch of people reinforcing themselves instead of actively exploring contrary positions. Some may claim they are “exploring” but give me a break. They aren’t. I took a look at that Democratic Underground you mentioned – really incredible if not disgusting how they completely put down any viewpoint not exactly in line with their own, then everyone piles on with a bunch of epithets. Who’s really hateful? I even found some posts decrying the “vicious and hateful tea baggers” and then being completely hateful and vicious toward them. Geesh. And I’m sure the same exists on the other side.
A pathetic state of affairs. I’m glad you helped raise awareness. Most of those goofballs on both sides have no clue how moronic they have started to look to those of us independent thinkers.
David Drickhamer says
Great middle-of-the-road (not middling!) post Kevin. Politics quashes real debate I think because passion (and money) for election and re-election comes from each side’s “base,” who tend to see everything as black and white, good and evil. Reason and facts and perspective and history and what happened the last time we tried x and what we might have learned gets lost in the inability to offend the party faithful. Two fringe representatives spouting their views on TV (you can’t really call it news) might make for good ratings but it does not reflect majority thinking. Both sides go to Washington to “do something” about their pet issues, which always means spending more of our money. More sources of real, thoughtful debate, consensus building and decisions that reflect that knowledge would be great for the country.
Thomas says
Great post Kevin! I think in addition to the courage and patience required to have true debate, we also need better analytic skills… how often do you hear nonsensical rubbish being quoted as statistical
support for an argument?