Why does every controversy, every scandal, and every news headline divide our country in half?
A TALE OF TWO SIDES
Picture your favorite divisive subject:
- Abortion
- Politics
- Obamacare
- Syria (...or any other possible military strike)
- Gay rights
- The economy
The subject changes, the details are different, but culture responds the same way.
The country quickly divides down the middle into two sides. Each side has their extremes, but neither side has true moderates. There are just two entrenched positions. As the debate progresses, neither side makes any reasonable effort to understand the other.
Instead, they just get better and better at screaming their position louder, clearer, and more memorably. Instead of attempting to approach the other side on their terms, each side tries to reframe the other side's position with clever language.
As new revelations come to light, each side puts their own spin on the news which conveniently fits the narrative they're attempting to construct.
When there are gaps between expectations and performance, each side is extremely generous in offering explanations when it comes to those on their side. However, when similar gaps arise with the other guys, they are extraordinarily quick to assume the worst. Both sides look at the exact same information and one side believes the best and the other side assumes the worst. So absolutely no progress is made.
Cable news is the ultimate example of this. The people on the left only assign the absolute worst explanations for the actions of those on the right. And the reverse is equally true.
THREE CASE STUDIES
Wendy Davis
On June 25th of 2013, a Texas Senate bill was on the verge of passing, banning abortions after the 20th week and raising requirements for abortion providers. Wendy Davis stepped up to the plate, and pulled off an epic 11-hour filibuster to delay the vote. As always, the internet went nuts with opinions.
Two Sides:
- Pro-Wendy - Finally, someone making a stand for women's health and her control of her own body
The Spin - These religious nut tea-baggers are waging a war against women. - Anti-Wendy - We're defending the unborn, and these new restrictions promote women's health by requiring abortion providers to meet a higher standard.
The Spin - This abortion barbie just wants to kill babies. Late-term abortions are barbaric. Who would want to do that?
Mark Driscoll
In late November, Mark Driscoll appeared on a radio show to discuss his latest book, but instead he found himself being accused of plagiarism. In the following weeks more accusations arose, and Christians picked sides.
Two Sides:
- Anti-Mark - Driscoll stole intellectual property, and when he was called on it, he became rude and condescending live on the radio. He then used his power to bully his accuser into submitting.
The Spin - Driscoll is a thief, a jerk, and a bully. He's leading some sort of Christian mafia who suppresses anyone trying to hold him accountable. - Pro-Mark - Driscoll was blindsided during an interview with accusations of plagiarism. The interviewer was biligerent and obviously looking to pick fight. When you look at the details, this was clearly just a a case of sloppy or lazy footnoting.
The Spin - The hostess was looking for a scandal that wasn't there, and she started a witch hunt for no reason other than to drive up her numbers. She had him on the show under false pretenses. Of course Driscoll and Tyndale pressured her for an apology.
Phil Robertson
In a recent interview with Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, he bluntly stated that homosexuality was a sin, and gay marriage could lead to worse things like beastiality. His network promptly pulled him from his show, and Facebook and Twitter instantly lit up with divided opinions.
Two Sides:
- Anti-Phil - He's a vile, homophobic, hate-filled redneck who faced the consequences of his offensive, bigoted beliefs.
The Spin: This homophobic bigot thinks all homosexuals are going straight to Hell. - Pro-Phil - He's being persecuted for stating his religious beliefs
The Spin: The media's message is clear: the only thing it's ok to be intolerant of is intolerance. (I think I know someone who wrote a blog about that)
HOW TO DISAGREE WHILE KEEPING UNIFIED
I'm going to throw out an idea which isn't all that extreme, but that would transform the caustic climate in our nation. If people applied this idea just to politics, we would pass a budget, obstructionism would end, and we wouldn't need government shut downs and sequesters. This principle won't cause us to agree or resolve all tension, but we would start to make progress.
Here's my revolutionary idea:
Treat people with whom you disagree with the same level of trust you give to those with whom you agree
&
Treat people with whom you agree that behave suspiciously with the same scrutiny you treat those with whom you disagree.
If someone behaves in a trust-worthy manner, trust them. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are untrustworthy. Give those who disagree with you the same benefit of the doubt that you give those who agree with you. Likewise, agreeing with you isn't an out for behaving in a shady manner.
What if...
- What if Republicans didn't just view Democrats as trying to buy votes from the poor by promising them entitlements, health care, and birth control...
- What if LGBT community didn't view Christians as just trying to steal their happiness and freedoms...
- What if the pro-choice side didn't think the pro-life side's agenda was trying to control women's bodies...
- What if the pro-life side didn't think the pro-choice side was pro-abortion...
What if we started to listen to each other?
If you liked this blog, here is another blog where I discussed similar ideas:
No comments:
Post a Comment