Don’t Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater
It seems like we must answer every issue with a binary choice: yes or no. The all-or-nothing standard leads us to believe that disagreement over part is disagreement over the whole, leading to unnecessary alienation.
You either approve of the political party’s entire platform or are labeled a RINO (Republican in name only). As a presidential candidate, Biden said those with the audacity to consider his opponent were not legitimate members of a particular race.
Ironically, we do not apply a litmus test of unconditional support to our loved ones. I grudgingly accept Cathy’s brusquely dispensed disagreement with some of my decisions and actions without consigning her to the couch. We blame the class brat’s misbehavior on his parent’s overindulgence and insufficient discipline.
The Israel-Hamas Conflict
Can one unquestionably support Israel’s right to exist and question the severity of its response to the October 7 terrorist attack?
Many do not think so. Senator Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish American in the US government and steadfast Israel ally, was vilified for criticizing Netanyahu and suggesting a change in the war against Hamas.
Unfortunately, an opportunity arose to prove the answer could be both. When Iran attacked Israel, the US resolutely assisted Israel’s defense despite numerous politicians criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The college campus protests highlight the complexity of expressing views on contentious issues. Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, their respective definitions, social responsibility, and simple consideration for people and property are all implicated. Disturbing scenes from the History Channel documentaries of Nazis terrorizing Jews and water hoses turned on civil rights protesters also come to mind.
Abortion Rights
Abortion rights is another emotionally charged issue, with both sides possessing steadfast positions and demonizing the other. Time limits and specified exceptions are mostly unpalatable to both, and a policy consensus has proven elusive.
Given their hardened stance and vitriolic debate, one would think it would be impossible to find any common ground. Or is it? Both sides must grieve the circumstances compelling a decision to terminate a pregnancy. It is also fair to assume virtually all abortion rights advocates grieve the loss of a fetus/child, regardless of when one believes life begins.
With this much in common, you could hold the ladder while I stand on it to hang sheetrock at the facility we are building to meet the needs of “at-risk” women.
Impossible?
You may say I suffer from a profound mix of naivety and hopeless optimism (that otherwise serves me well). What is the alternative? Shall we continue to argue hopelessly or seek progress? Surprisingly, programs bringing abortion rights opponents together exist.
Programs in Wisconsin and Massachusetts did not seek or reach an agreement on irreconcilable moral and ethical views. However, the moderated discussion humanized the participants and dispelled negative perceptions of baby killers and misogynists. As a result, they engaged civilly and gained greater understanding and respect for each other. Some even put aside their paramount disagreement and became social friends.
The most favorable outcome occurred in Kentucky. Both sides agreed to disagree on abortion rights but committed to promoting initiatives that reduced abortions. In a noteworthy joint statement, they expressed no opinion on the morality or legality of abortion, rejected the negative characterizations of both sides and endorsed programs addressing the causes of abortion. The result may be a seldom exercised (un)acceptable right.
Their statement proves that one does not need to surrender firmly held beliefs to make headway, but one will need to give respect and find a common cause.
Is Ignorance Bliss?
Do I need to know if (i) the parent beside me cheering on our daughters’ soccer team is a tree-hugger or science denier, (ii) the guy drafting behind me in the cycling peloton believes gender is elective or fixed at birth, or (ii) my fellow volunteer at the soup kitchen is voting for the idiot presidential candidate or mine?
____________________________________________________
Where does your requirement for unconditional agreement turn allies into enemies or prevent enemies from becoming allies? Where can common objectives allow for progress without compromising your values?