UO Student Series: If We Can't Talk About Politics, Then Our Democracy is Doomed
By respectfully listening to others, we can begin to create a space where ideas can flow in all directions, and where we will be heard as well.
**This post is from a member of Professor David Frank’s class at the University of Oregon. In the coming weeks, we’ll share several more of these posts from young Oregonians. Go Ducks!**
Nathaniel is a political science major and Clark Honors College student at the University of Oregon.
Despite what the title may have implied, I don’t really want to talk about politics. This may seem odd. After all, I am studying political science, and as such, I am clearly interested in the topic. But I am not alone in this aversion. A study by Pew Research shows that only 17% of Americans say they are “very comfortable” discussing politics with someone they do not know well, with almost half saying they would either be “not too comfortable” or “not at all comfortable.” Even religion ranks higher as a conversation topic, with almost a quarter of Americans expressing full comfort on the subject.
Some would say politics affects every aspect of our daily lives, so why has the topic become so taboo?
For me and many others, the taboo comes from a fear of conflict. The study referenced above shows that political debate is heavily favored by those who are “comfortable” with conflict. Although I’ve derived great enjoyment from spirited arguments in the past, there’s a tension in the air when the subject turns to politics that turns me and others off, particularly around strangers.
Personally, I believe this heightened sense of conflict has to do with morality. When we settle into our respective political camps, we choose our associations based on our sense of right and wrong. If we believe where we have settled is “right,” then, by the definition of this dichotomy, someone who disagrees must be wrong. As a result, the discourse surrounding politics becomes adversarial very quickly; people believe that those who disagree with them are morally flawed. The quick transformation of a political conversation into a moral one leads to a dangerous assumption: that there is no need to listen to their opponents.
I have heard people of all political persuasions in my hometown, at my university, and in my state demonize those who disagree with them, refusing to listen to what they are saying. I’m sure you have heard this as well. And this phenomenon is rising across Oregon and the country at large. Importantly, this wasn’t always the case.
In 1955, Oregonian Sen. Richard Neuberger and Rep. Sam Coon had a series of public debates across the state on the merits of Coon’s proposal to build a dam on the Columbia River. The two men were from opposing parties, and disagreed vehemently, but the debates were lively and informative for those that attended. Nowadays, when a single presidential debate turns into the verbal equivalent of a brawl, I am sure that many have trouble even picturing a series of debates between two opposed politicians.
This inability to even imagine a civil discussion around politics is amplified by the pugilistic approach to politics seen on social media. On the whole, the systems that structure our day-to-day life are now practically synonymous with fighting, and I believe that our inability to listen to each other is the most important problem we now face. Politics should be a realm that promotes discussion and compromise, but it no longer achieves this goal, instead causing division and sowing anger.
Although this is an issue across the country, we have to start small. This means focusing on discourse and listening in our home state, but also on our own political interactions with others. We must be willing to recognize the problems within ourselves if we want to make any progress. And so, I commit myself to two basic principles, and I hope you will do the same.
The first is that the majority of people, regardless of their backgrounds and opinions, are basically good and trying to do the right thing. Even those who I have critiqued for not listening are doing so mostly because they are committed to their sense of morality. In other words, I pledge not to demonize someone who is passionately arguing for a view based on their sense of justice and fairness; no one holds a monopoly on what those broad values hold.
The second principle is that we must accept that we are most likely wrong about many things. Think of the sheer number of opinions you hold. Mathematically, the chances that you hold the singular, pure, “correct” opinion on all of these issues is very small. I must acknowledge that I do not have all the answers, even on this subject. Perhaps more intense debate causes stronger ideas to rise to the surface. Perhaps my attempts at moderation are somewhat self-serving, allowing me to remain comfortably neutral on issues that require conviction and immediate action. I don’t know, and sometimes we have to take a moment to admit that to ourselves; only then do we open ourselves up to actually hear what others are saying.
True listening does not mean planning how to use our opponents’ words to shut them down. It means opening ourselves up to the possibility that they may make good points, even if we personally disagree with their conclusions. Many of us do not express our ideas because we are afraid that we will not be heard. By respectfully listening to others, we can begin to create a space where ideas can flow in all directions, and where we will be heard as well.
Some good points Nathaniel-and hey, a “correct” opinion is perhaps in the eye of the beholder right?
I heard recently that the letters in the word “listen” - also spell the word “silent”. Something to think about.
Finally-please give my regards to Professor Frank. I was in his forensics class and on his very first debate team in 1981-83 - Dawn & Lew (my debate partner) - he'll remember us. So glad he’s still at UO- “quack”!