Politicaloops

Some observations on what could be better about our political climate:

“WE love free speech, but THEY’RE advocating EVIL”  The goal here—often sought by both sides of an argument– is to cast the other side as so wretched, they don’t deserve to be heard. This argument is often made by people who insist there aren’t two sides to every story; there’s just one side, and it happens to be theirs.

Most issues do have two sides (Don’t believe me?  What’s this a picture of—a young lady, or an old lady?)  The way to advance the side you support is to advocate for it, and counter the claims of the other side with facts, not opinions or judgement.  Painting the opposite side as Satan fans the flames of fear that make it impossible to advance solutions, discussion, and—call me an old-fashioned girl– compromise.

There are clearly issues that have a “side” that’s really untenable—genocide, racism, political violence.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t keep people from supporting that nonexistent side, leaving the tough choice of ignoring them, or arguing as if their point is valid.  Look them straight in the eye, and calmly, lovingly say “You realize you’re advocating for a practice that is completely inhumane”, and walk away.  You’ve planted the seed.  That’s enough for now.

Limited Pie  People also resort to the “they’re not just wrong, they’re scum” argument because of fear—fear the other side might win, or be right, or convince others they’re right, which means their side loses.  These are all based on the assumption that politics and life are a zero-sum game; if you don’t get yours, somebody else will get it.

This can be the case in a few situations, but think about when limits don’t exist.  Is there a limit to the amount of integrity that can be demonstrated in this world?  How about the number 8—are there only so many of those to go around?  Even budgets have some flexibility, if thought of the right way.  When you feel painted in a political corner, stop and ask yourself—is there room for something more?

Facebook v. Face-to-Face  The corner bar kept us in touch with our neighbors, gave us a place to truly unwind, and required us to show restraint when controversial issues (and sometimes, too many spirits) almost got out of hand.

Social media doesn’t have that built-in human condition, so we keep on “discussing” well past civility, and sanity.  Except in very rare cases, democracy requires both.  If you can, take your ideological opponent out for coffee, or a drink.  If that’s not possible, respond once on social media, then go play with your kids.

(I also miss that corner bar staple of peeled, hard-boiled eggs in a tall jar of purple liquid.  What exactly was that all about?)

The Biggest Influencer  Fear, authority, and fear of authority may seem to be in vogue, but there are better tools, as Jimmy Kimmel demonstrated the first night his show returned from exile.  Take a look, especially at 17:30. He’s tapped into something we all could use more.

Right again If that one social media post just doesn’t seem like enough, remember the words of Mister Rogers.  “I’m very concerned that our society is much more interested in information than wonder, in noise rather than silence… How do we encourage reflection?”

Is it possible the biggest strength, in the end, is love?

(And yes, I get the irony– I’m blogging to tell you about the dangers of social media.  Buy me a drink, and let’s talk about it in person.)  

Spoutings

She writes alone in her journal
Of hate
Destruction
And the wrong of the other side.
He talks about it
Cameras rolling
A bank of microphones in his face.
The difference of effect is audience
The similar cause is fear.
Both
Require
Balm

Like what you see? Subscribe for free!