|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Did shouting “he started it” ever work for you?
The two of us are lifelong Rochesterians and friends with diametrically opposed political views. Rick is a liberal Democrat and Geoff is a conservative Republican.
Yet we get along, probably because we share Henry Kissinger’s belief that “one always learns more from ‘friendly critics’ than from uncritical friends.” Over the years we’ve engaged in many spirited debates, exposing our respective positions to the other’s critiques.
But while we’re political opposites, we are of like mind about one issue, something that extends well beyond Washington, D.C., or Albany. It exists here in Rochester, sometimes even in the pages of the Beacon.
We’ve lost the ability to talk to one another about contentious subjects.
Sure, it’s a lot easier to point fingers at the opposition than it is to focus on solving the underlying problems. But do you really believe hurling accusations at the other side will convince them of the validity of your arguments? When was the last time you heard someone say, “You’re right. I’m an idiot. My position doesn’t make any sense.” That just doesn’t happen.
So, why do we keep doing something that is doomed to fail?
There’s an old trial lawyer saying: “When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When they aren’t, attack the witness.” And that’s what’s happening. Most of the political arguments we hear these days are rarely supported by hard data gleaned from legitimate sources or framed within historical context.
Instead, it’s all about pointing fingers at the party opposite.
Unfortunately, rather than helping to heal our divisions, elected officials from both parties have enflamed the tone of America’s political debate. The language is shrill, with shouting from both sides obscuring complex issues that deserve detailed thought and examination.
We tend to reject complex explanations which, in the minds of many, are the work of the elites. Instead, we demand simplistic solutions to problems that are anything but simple. Far too few of us are interested in sophisticated analysis because that either requires the investment of time and effort or because deeper examination just might expose flaws in the logic of the positions we have already staked out.
Moreover, we have a very human tendency to want solutions that favors us. Those simplified solutions to complex problems we espouse invariably require someone else to make sacrifices so we’ll be insulated from any pain involved.
Here’s an example. The “Social Security Trustees Report” will be published sometime in the next few weeks. Take some time to read through the report when it comes out. Consider all of the assumptions explored by the trustees and the care taken to develop sound forecasts and policies. Then watch to see if the subsequent political debate around Social Security bears any resemblance to what you just read. It won’t.
Instead of a debate about the facts, what you’ll likely hear is how the other political party wants to “take way your Social Security” and how my party is going to “save Social Security.” The rhetoric will be 100 percent accusatory and zero percent substantive.
We mostly listen to cable news shows or podcasts that reinforce our existing points of view. When a member of your political party dares suggest that the other side might have a valid point, the mob invariably questions the speaker’s political “purity.”
It’s almost as if we’ve begun to see ourselves as Republicans or Democrats first and Americans second. Of course, no one will ever admit to doing that. Only the other side is comprised of faux Americans.
Let’s be honest. Neither side has clean hands.
Elected officials are programmed to give voters what they want. And if villainization of the party opposite is what voters demand, then that’s what they are going to get.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. At least not here in Rochester. When commenting on a Beacon article or reacting to someone from the “other side,” try proposing solutions as opposed to placing blame—solutions other than those requiring everyone else to change or make sacrifices so that you won’t have to.
Document your arguments with data gleaned from reliable sources as opposed to some blog post. Avoid hyperbole.
Civility matters. And it has to begin somewhere. Why not right here in Rochester?
Richard Dollinger is a retired Court of Claims judge and a former state senator who lives in Brighton. Geoff Rosenberger is retired co-founder of Clover Capital Management Inc.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected]
Do the men who wrote this article agree with each other on what our problems are? I would say if they both think “immigration is a problem,” “crime is a crisis,” and “entitlement reform is necessary”, but that grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality, epidemic lack of safe and affordable housing, needless death due to the primacy of the military-industrial complex, or the imminent threat posed by fossil fuel emissions are not part of their “spirited debates,” then they are essentially on the same side. That side is that the status quo is working for them. This gives them the luxury of political debates that can stay in a comfortable range of “we can agree to disagree, because either way, we are both fine.”
If they really do talk about these deeper problems, I’d love to hear how one can agree to disagree civilly on whether some families deserve to live in poverty while others accumulate riches they cannot possibly spend; whether every individual deserves a safe place to live regardless of their circumstances; whether people seeking a better life are worthy of the freedom to move regardless of lines on a map; whether all children should live in peace rather than have their lives cut short by bombs and bullets; and whether we have an obligation to preserve the Earth that sustains us for the people who come after us.
The fights over these premises are not over “solutions …requiring everyone else to change or make sacrifices so that you won’t have to.” If you agree with them, you also know that all of us have to make sacrifices to preserve space for the humanity of others. That’s what living in a community where all humans are valued is about.
I would happily read a scolding editorial on civility from anyone who demonstrates how to have a reasonable debate with someone who disagrees with these premises. But I honestly can’t imagine “agreeing to disagree” with someone who denies the basic humanity of others.
This sort of delusional both-siderism puff piece is exactly how our country has gotten to where we are. I agree with one small part of this: we do not have to be uncivil to one another in our one-on-one interactions. But the idea that one party has completely undermined democratic, legal and ethical institutions and practices while the other also has “dirty hands” is laughable. Maybe this is why neither Mr. Dollinger or Mr. Rosenberger have been relevant to local politics in over 20 years.
The authors of the article are correct. People need to treat each other with civility. Otherwise the discussion at hand can turn into a shouting match, which solves nothing. If one does not do so then, in my opinion they should be discounted by people witnessing the discussion.
We live in a time and place that demands instant gratification. If we can’t fix something right away we tend to get our instant gratification by expressing negativity. We need to get away from that.
Solutions to problems very often do not come easy. That said, we do need to consider all options available, no matter who comes up with the solutions. We need to work together to figure out what is best for the community vs what’s best for our team.
It’s not a question of civility. It’s a question of integrity, rationality and patriotism. No one who supports Donald Trump in any way, shape, or form can claim to posses any of those three attributes. To attempt to civilly discuss America’s problems or to “propose solutions” to a member of that cult is, by definition, an exercise in futility.
I never think of Geoff as a Republican but a Trumper for sure. I understand there are no more Bill Buckleys, Bob Doles and the like. They have been replaced by Trumpers which is very sad. As an independent I paid attention to the exchanges between Pat Moynihan and Bob Dole as well as others. Very sad to see the state of the Republicans, now just Trumpers. A place where people like Liz Cheney are not welcome.
DEM- OCRACY or DEMON – OCRACY?
============================
Trump and the Right are creating a demonic “Frankenstein” like monster in politics,
This insanity may spread, all over the country, at the local level, and all over the world, now. Is this the future we want, for ourselves?
But we might blame the Democrats and the Democratic Party, for standing back silently, hoping and waiting for future elections to turn things around. We should be afraid, but we should seek out ways to wake up the American people, right now!