I got this email link from a basketball friend. The author of this piece used to play in our game until acadmia pulled him westward. Link: http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/columnists/story/4134823p-3899955c.html On the run, friends can talk politics – and remain friends RONALD S. BYRNES Sunday, October 24th, 2004 12:01 AM (PDT) Increasingly it seems birds of a political feather almost exclusively fly together. All of my teaching colleagues are Kerry supporters, as are the parents from my daughter’s soccer team. But I live in a Bush-Cheney neighborhood. I buck this trend toward ideological segregation four times a week when I run six to 10 miles with Mike, my neighbor, friend and loyal training partner. Mike is a conservative Republican; I’m a liberal Democrat. Our friendship, formed over several thousand miles of running together over the last six years, is unique. Few people have close friends whose politics are markedly different than their own. People prefer associating with like-minded friends who affirm rather than challenge their thinking, their values and their politics. We are either too insecure to engage with those who think and vote differently than us, or it takes too much energy, or we haven’t figured out how to disagree with one another without compromising our friendships. My friendship with Mike gives me hope when pundits tell us our country has never been more divided and partisanship has never been more pronounced. How do we, as red and blue runners, bridge the political divide? We bridge the chasm by getting to know one another. We pass the miles debating the merits of the war in Iraq, multiculturalism, Title IX, gay marriage, candidates for political office, and tax and education reform. Sometimes I measure our debates by miles, telling my wife after a run, “We had a nine-mile debate on gender differences and athletics today.” Our political disagreements often lead to personal stories, stories that help me respond thoughtfully to Mike’s conservative claims. The nature of my internal dialogue has changed from “How can you be so stupid or reactionary to take a position like that?” to “What in your past might explain your taking that position?” In listening to Mike’s stories and learning his story, I better understand his politics. I have also learned to appreciate many of his personal qualities, including his work ethic and unpredictable sense of humor. We have learned we hold some important values in common. He is as committed to his wife, kids, church and friends as I am to mine. We work hard and respect those with whom we work. We both try to make our corners of the world better. Mike’s decency matters more to me than the way he votes. We respectfully consider each other’s position on specific issues while realizing neither is going to forsake his overarching political philosophy. People are threatened and fearful of political differences. When a dinner guest states an unpopular point of view, typically he or she is met with awkward silence. Conservatives don’t just want liberals to support the president’s actions in Iraq; they want them to passionately embrace the ideas of limited government and free-market capitalism. Similarly, liberals don’t just want conservatives to oppose the death penalty; they want them to passionately embrace the ideas of pluralism and social justice. For Mike and me, our differing political philosophies stem from our disparate worldviews; our worldviews flow from our different life experiences. We grew up in different households, attended different schools, have lived in different communities, chose different mentors and worship in different churches. Now we read different periodicals, see different movies, vacation in different places and socialize with different people. There is nothing I can say to get Mike to switch sides and value pluralism and social justice as much as me. Similarly, he knows there’s nothing he can say to get me to value limited government and free-market capitalism as much as he does. We accept our fundamental differences and set our sights lower. We know we can influence one another’s thinking on specific issues because we’ve done it. Lower-case “change” is a more manageable and constructive goal than upper-case “Change.” We resist the tendency to present our ideas as inherently superior and thereby avoid projecting feelings of superiority. Conservatives complain liberals are arrogant and condescending. If they are honest, though, they will admit to feeling superior to their political opponents. Neither end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on projecting a sense of superiority. In debating with Mike, I try to avoid that pitfall by reminding myself that his politics make sense given his family background, where he grew up, his school and work experiences, the media he tunes into and the friends he spends time with. Most ideologues are convinced their opponents are irrational, but most everyone’s politics are rational if understood in the context of their life experience. In fact, people can’t truly bridge the political chasm until they acknowledge that if they had lived the same lives as their political opponents, they would in all likelihood think and vote similarly. This realization has helped Mike and me work through our political differences. When one of us, like the dinner party guest, makes what the other interprets as an outlandish claim, the most constructive response is “Why do you believe that?” That often leads to, “What values are most important to you?” Then, perhaps, to “Why those values and not others?” In a recent debate, for example, I asked, “Why is your church up in arms about gay marriage but relatively silent on divorce rates?” Developing meaningful friendships across the political continuum seems like a lost art. Mike and I have succeeded by getting to know one another, by respecting each other’s views and resisting the urge to feel superior. That’s not to say we’ve mastered this balancing act. We don’t always get it right. But instead of retreating, we persevere. I’m indebted to Mike for these lessons, and my life is richer as a result of his friendship.
I have long maintained that one learns very little -- or expands one's outlook -- when one confines his discussion and reading to those of like mindsets.
Heh...I read the title...and figgered that Giddy either was endorsing Deck's campaign...or making fun of it... ....I dont have any problems socializig with peopleof differing political values than I...Im alot more likely to debate the issues with someone in person...I find that positions are too easily misunderstood over the net...and hence lead to acrimonious arguments and namecalling that makes civil debate impossible. The biggest problems I have seen this year that is different than past election cycles is that instead of tryin to see where the other is coming from...most seem to jump right into the incredulous superiority complex of "Are you f-in nuts? I cant believe you are stupid enough to believe that"...... It doesnt take that much more effort to try to understand why people believe the way they do....and respond accordingly. the author of that piece is a shining example of what is imo the proper way of dealing with someone that doesnt agree with your politics... Proud to be the only other member of the Keep D&D Civil Coalition
R2K, it's our campaign, and whoever else wants to join in. thumbs, right on, as usual. giddy, you're still a pistol.
which leads to the next question in our quest to effectively derail this thread.... If giddyup was a pistol, what kind would he be?
Powder and ball? Slow to load, explosive but inaccurate! I don't think I like that analogy... I was thinking more along the lines of a Water Pistol or one of the Sex Pistols...
