November 19

Defining Respect - Part II


In the first half of this essay (posted under the title: Don't Taunt the Tiger) I argue that respect, unlike admiration or trust is an appropriate response to power inequalities. At its most basic level respect means not slandering, or cursing those in power. It also means that we don’t flippantly disregard decorum and laws so as to provoke violent confrontations. In other words don't taunt the tiger.

However as Americans I think we aspire to give and receive a respect that goes beyond the above prohibitions. Here I will offer some further thoughts on what it means to show respect, especially to political leaders such as the President of the United States.

Be Honest

Respect requires us to be honest. If you discover that someone was dealing with you dishonestly you are not likely to feel respected. Honesty is a virtue that has many applications but let me suggest one that I think is especially relevant. We need to be honest about our agreements and disagreements with those in power. We live in a world that loves to portray people as either all good or all bad, however the truth is that rarely will we completely agree or completely disagree with an administration. If we are to respect the President let us have the honesty to admit when we think he is correct as well as when we disagree. Be wary of the person who can offer no criticism or compliment to the President, such a person is likely to see the President only as a partisan or patriotic symbol and not properly respect them as an important participant in our national conversation.

Get Involved

Have you ever worked really hard on a project only to another person respond with a weary, “whatever” when you finally present it? I bet you didn’t feel that your work was respected. Apathy is a form of disrespect. If we are to respect our President as a serious and important leader than we will need to be involved. Minimally we’ll need to participate intelligently in our qaudrennial elections but I think that respect should motivate us to go beyond that. Respect ought to motivate us to listen to what our leaders have to say, it is especially important that we listen and interact with their actual words rather than the spin of our favorite news outlet or comedy show.

While it important that we engage in the political dialogue on the big issues of state (war, constitutional rights, macro-economics etc.), I also think that respect for the President entails involvement in local politics. Few people are more irritating than those that complain of others while neglecting their own responsibilities. Our country will never prosper simply because of the wise decisions of our President. By getting involved in our local communities we demonstrate that the political process is important and that we are willing to do our part. I believe that such engagement also demonstrates our respect.

Play fair

We show respect when we are honest, when we get involved, and when we play by the rules. Or conversely, dishonesty, apathy, and cheating are all forms of disrespect. What constitutes fair play? At one level it means understanding and working within the political framework established by our constitution. We are blessed to live under a constitution that has many checks and balances on the various branches of government and when we respect that system we both respect those it gives power too and preserve the established limits to that power. But I think the need for fair play goes beyond following legal precedent.

Democratic politics at their best are a contest of ideas. Like other contests, there are rules for engaging in a debate over competing ideas. Rules that are taught under the title of logic. Unfortunately both the study and practice of sound logical argumentation has been neglected in our country. Here are a couple of points to be mindful of. First, don’t exaggerate the effects of a political program either by committing the fallacy of a hasty generalization (A is bad for this person so it must be bad for every person) or by appealing to the conveniently slippery slope (if A then maybe B which might mean C and that could bring about D so if A then definitely D). This type of argument provides fodder for partisan talk radio programs while it fails to respect earnest efforts to engage in a dialogue about our political future.

A final fallacy that I will mention here is countering an idea or policy by attacking someone’s character (the ad hominem fallacy). I think the character of our leaders is important and should be open for discussion but unfortunately discussions of character are often used as a substitute for engaging with ideas and specific policies. This is wrong. If you disagree with a proposal of the administration, you should be able to make your case without disparaging the character of your opponent. This is one of the basic rules of intellectual fair play and respect demands we abide by these rules.

Do your best

Have you ever played a game with someone who let you win? I doubt it was very fun. It also wasn’t respectful. The way you show respect to an opponent is not by giving up, but by diligent preparation and maximum effort, because you know that you are facing a worthy foe. I believe this principal is also true in the political arena. We show respect to our opponents by presenting our case as clearly and compellingly as possible. Strong argument (granted that it is honest and fair) raises the level of dialogue and makes everybody think more carefully. I believe that it will ultimately improve the proposals that get enacted from what they would have been without it.

Thus I would urge all my fellow citizens to bring their “A games” to our national discussion. If you honestly think that a President’s policies are not in the best interest of our country, then I think your respect for both country and President ought to compel you to state your objection as well as you are able. But I would ask that you pay attention to the rules of debate and refrain from unsupported character attacks or hype. I would also ask that you demonstrate your respect by not just talking but also by getting involved in improving your community. Finally, I think respect requires that we neither demonize nor flatter our leaders but are honest about the complexity of our world and their task.


8:39 PM GMT  |  Read comments(0)

November 12

Defining Respect - Part I



2:11 PM GMT  |  Read comments(0)

November 10

What do We do Now? Part II

There are some great online groups out there that are actually making a difference in the world. However, we've also probably all been seen online groups or communities that are fun but pointless and not worth visiting a second time after signing up. The reason such groups are extraneous is that we know they don't affect us and there's no call for actual action and change.

Since we got this thing started a couple of days ago, I've been thinking about what it is that we can really be doing to bring about change. Of course, as I argued in an earlier essay, I think the biggest thing we can do is change our own minds and attitudes before we worry about anyone else. In doing this we change the culture from which our leaders are drawn and thus we provide ourselves with leaders who reflect a new, healthier way of thinking about politics and expressing disagreement. 

But what else? In this section I want to repeat a few earlier suggestions, offer some new ideas, and invite your feedback as to what we can be doing practically to bring about change in how we talk about and think about all things political.

In the essay above, I proposed four attitude shifts that I think are a great start. In that essay I advocated moving away from a sports fan mentality concerning politics, respectfully allowing those with whom we disagree to express their emotions about the election, looking for good in the other party, and rooting for America regardless of who's in power.

I'd like to add to that list. Here are more specific things you can do if you agree with the foundational ideas of this organization.  You'll find that many of the points in this essay have a lot to do with respectful argumentation and treatment of others in general.  In a sense, I'm calling for "conversation and debate reform" in our private and public conversations, and offering suggestions on how to do that.

1. Invite people to join the group.
   
   0This isn't a conservative or liberal group. One thing that both parties really have in common right now is that we're both complicit in poisoning the tone of political discourse with our anger and bitterness. Surely we can agree on that. Since we've all got progress to make, we can find a point of unity in this even if it's difficult to find points of unity on policy at the moment. So invite anyone and everyone. In addition to Respectourpresident.org, there is a Facebook group by the same name (Respect Our President) that anyone can join.  It's primitive but true that the larger our group is, the more influence it will have.
   
   
2. Support groups like this.
   
   If you encounter a like-minded group or individual, let us know via email or in the "Getting it Right" section of the discussion board on Facebook. Let's not just gripe about how much we get wrong, let's express appreciation for those who are getting it right.
   
   
3. Advocate these ideas among friends in conversation.
   
   The notion that we should end divisive rhetoric, disagree appropriately, treat our leaders with respect, and root for the success of our country shouldn't be controversial. Fourteen hundred people have joined the Facebook group in a day and a half, and fifteen hundred have visited this site because this is a message that's hard to say no to. There's no reason not to be more respectful and conduct ourselves with more honor and civic virtue.
   
   Talk about it. People will listen. When we advocate something, we obligate ourselves to adhere to our spoken principles and draw others into change in ways that are appropriate for them.
   
   
4. Give others the freedom to correct you.
   
   Taking a stand for rightly regarding our elected officials is a risk and an obligation. Such a public stand means that we can wield great influence in consistency and demonstrate great hypocrisy in inconsistency. We should let our friends help us stick to what we've decided to do. I suggest letting those close to you know that you invite them to graciously remind you of your stance if you relapse into old ways.
   
   If this sounds like recovery-group language, that's because it sort of is. We've made habits of slandering and disrespecting those with whom we disagree. We might need help to form new and better habits.
   
   
5. Respectfully defend our leaders names.
   
   It feels good to know that your name will be defended by your friends when you're not around. For that matter it would be perhaps even more surprising and encouraging to find that a rival had defended your good name when you were being slandered by others. We don't need to be self-righteous and abrasive (which is always a risk when we strive for positive personal change and call for it on a larger scale in society), but we can find ways to ensure that public and private conversations of which we're a part stay at least civil and respectful.
   
   I can't stress enough that this doesn't preclude disagreement. We can vigorously disagree with an idea while still respecting an individual. Which leads me to my next point.
   
   
6. Separate people and ideas.
   
   Ideas were made to be ruthlessly examined, refined, and improved. People (in my opinion) were made in the image of their creator and are worthy of respect because of that creative imprint and because of their intrinsic value as thinking beings. A common mistake in argumentation is to too closely attach a personality and an idea. We will all be better if we're able to honestly scrutinize ideas, eliminating the bad and embracing the good. However we alienate people, discredit ourselves and our process, and substitute power for merit in making group choices when we "debate" ideas by destroying our opponents.
   
   The best ideas are selected when we debate them honestly. Those ideas are refined into great ideas when we evaluate them ruthlessly. People, however, are to be respected, and respond in the opposite way when treated ruthlessly.
   
   
7. Don't waste time guessing at political opponents' motives.
   
   This one's simple. When we assume that people aren't being forthright with us and that they have ulterior motives, we won't trust them and their ideas won't get a fair hearing. We'll always assume the worst. We'll assume that those we disagree with are angry and power hungry and that their devious desire to control is driving them to lie and manipulate. Instead, we should be forthright in what we say; eschewing manipulation. If we know that we are being direct and honest, we might be able to trust that those with whom we disagree are doing us the same courtesy. Then we can have honest conversation and the best ideas are more likely to emerge because we've all transparently put our cards on the table and displayed motives that have the best interests of all at heart.
   
   
8. Don't let inflammatory people on your side get you riled up.
   
   Even since I wrote Respect Our President's statement for the main page two days ago, I've been tempted to relapse by the hostility I've heard from TV and radio personalities. There's a reality here; those people on TV need to keep our attention, because advertisers won't pay them to hawk their products if they don't have an audience. What we're trying to do here, for example, isn't sensational enough to demand a captivated audience, but fear and threats and tirades are. Though they may have many altruistic intentions, the talking heads in the media need our attention in order to make money, and that fundamentally compromises the integrity of their message. They have played no small roll in what's gone wrong over the last 16 years.
   
   Listen to them and watch them if you want, but remember who they are and what they are doing. Glean good thought from them and treat them respectfully as well, but don't let their hostility become your hostility. There is a better way.
   
   Consider that more than one way might be possible for making America work.
   
   I'm convinced that small government and an unregulated free market will make America work and will provide good for her people. However, it would be arrogant and presumptuous to assume that I advocate the only way. It's possible that other tactics and policies (though not my preference) could have the desired effect in our country (preserve freedom, spread prosperity, ensure peace, etc.). If we can't have our way, we should at least choose to root for policies with which we disagree to succeed so that peace, freedom, and prosperity continue to be prevalent in our country even when we're not in power.
   
   
9. Forgive and reconcile.

Elisha Harvey put up a great post in response to my last essay. Earlier today she wrote:

"I'm also wondering--and I'd love to hear what others think-- what role should confession and reconciliation play in this? I feel I need to seek forgiveness from a few friends and family members for things I said and thought about them during this election cycle... but I'm wondering if we need to corporately seek forgiveness from our President(s)? Thoughts on how to pragmatically go about that?"

It will be hard to move forward on this new path unless we clean up the damage we've done in the past. Surely we should forgive - which brings healing, but perhaps we should even consider reconciling in some cases. That is, it may be wise to seek out those we've wronged and make it right.

It would be great if those people who disrespected us and the leaders we like would come and seek our forgiveness, but we don't control them, we only control us. Perhaps in doing the right thing they might be prompted to soften and reciprocate.

I'm struck by the suggestion that we might owe such apologies to leaders as well. I don't know quite how to pull that off practically, but I love the idea. If that's something we decide to do, then I've got some bridges I need to personally mend with William Jefferson Clinton.

Here's the thing, if we're going to get this right and be agents of real change, we've got to change how we think and act. It requires us to acknowledge whatever roll we've played in the culture of political hostility in which we've lived, and then chart a course in a new and redeeming direction. I think our country and maybe even the world will look different if we change the way we do politics from us as individuals all the way to Washington.

I'd love to hear your feedback.

- Matt Whitman



7:23 PM GMT  |  Read comments(0)

November 05

What do We do Now? Part I

To those who put your support behind Obama, congratulations. To those who put your support behind McCain, no shame.

We knew going into the election that about half of us would be very disappointed when the results came back. Now it's happened and sure enough, just like always, there was a winner and a loser. No surprise there.

But what happens now?

Will we proliferate the trend of the last 16 years and reduce Washington to a power struggle, or will we bring about grassroots change in the tone and manner of politics in our country?

I've griped and I've heard plenty of others gripe about how bad things are in Washington - how all politicians do is bicker and maneuver for power without any consideration of the greater good. But I was reminded today that we are a representative democracy, and it makes sense that what we have in Washington is a representation of who we are and the attitudes we embrace. What I'm saying is, it's not just the politicians' fault. We set the tone, and if the tone is caustic and biting it's probably because we're caustic and biting.  If we want our representative government to change, then logically, we must change first. Washington will ultimately reflect our values. Right now our values need an overhaul.  This is a central point in my argument.

Here are some practical suggestions for how we might begin the process of change in Washington by first changing ourselves:

1. Abandon the sports fan mentality.
   
   We need to examine immediately our thinking whether we affiliate ourselves with the winning side or the losing side. We should not conceive of what happened in the election the way we conceive of a Super Bowl.
   
   This isn't a team sport that we should root for like we do for athletic contests. In sports, victory is determined by strength, training, and athletic skill - not a popular vote. The results of this election represent the will of the people; sure, there was competition involved, but ultimately all that happened was that we gave everyone a chance to share their opinion, and the people decided they wanted Barack Obama to be the next President. Victory in sports tells us which team is better, but victory in politics can only tell us which candidate the majority desire. Elections don't determine who was or is right, they determine who the people want to give the next chance to try to lead the country well.
   
   We've been conditioned to think in terms of the red team and the blue team. However, though it is a great thing to enthusiastically support a candidate, we should move away from this blindly loyal team mentality. If one doesn't support the Lakers, but they win an NBA championship, it hurts nothing for that disappointed fan to resent and badmouth the reigning champions. After all, the Lakers don't ultimately make decisions that affect the lives and welfare of people around the world. However, if one doesn't support a candidate and then that candidate becomes president, it is tremendously destructive to resent and badmouth the new president because it undercuts his support and ability to lead. And unlike the Lakers, the president does have great influence over the lives and welfare of people around the world.
   
   We cannot bring our sports fan mentalities with us to the political arena, it results in vicious division. That aggressive divisiveness may be fine for college football, but it undermines our society when applied to political dialogue.
   
   
2. Graciously allow the other side to express their emotions concerning the election.
   
   It's difficult enough for even mature people to honorably process public defeat; it's even more difficult to be honorable in defeat when one is being mocked and taunted. Obama supporters should understand that, in the same way they have been so emotionally invested in their candidate, McCain supporters have rallied to their man. It feels bad to lose - even embarrassing in some ways. Don't rub it in. Instead, try to sympathize imagining how crushed you would have felt had another Republican been elected.
   
   Even the most callous of McCain supporters must acknowledge the historical significance of Obama's victory. There is reason to celebrate what this election represents regardless of political affiliation. It's a big deal and it should be treated as such. Acknowledging that doesn't mean that McCain voters need to yield that Obama is right. McCain supporters should try to remember what a relief it was to see a Republican back in the White House after the Clinton years. Obama supporters are excited in the same way. Let them be and be gracious in defeat.
   
   McCain offered one of the most generous and kind concession speeches in recent memory. That sets a good precedent and departs from the negative trends of the last 16 years. Obama was eloquent and considerate in victory. He found ways to praise McCain that were sincere. He was generous in giving credit to others. Both preached unity and respect. We should follow their examples.
   
   
3. Look for good in the other party.
   
   McCain supporters won't have to work to find points of disagreement with Obama, but they might need to go out of their way to find common values. We're so accustomed to playing the zero-sum game in American politics that we aren't well practiced at compromise and finding common ground.
   
   Many Christians enthusiastically supported McCain in part because he is pro-life and seems loyal to what some call family values. Christians appreciate this because they feel these are positions that are in keeping with scripture. Obama may disagree on these issues, but does seem very interested in promoting love and a merciful society. Both of those things were very high values for Jesus, and, in principle, should be points of agreement shared between McCain and Obama supporters.
   
   I can't stress enough, disagreement is fine, but disagreement apart from looking for common ground is nothing more than petty and divisive. We should disagree respectfully and seek agreement where ever we can.
   
   
4. Root for America.
   
   Barack Obama is the next president of the United States. Our fortunes for the next four years rest in his hands. We can't have half of the country wishing failure on him so that power can change hands in the next election. Instead, we should want him to succeed even if it isn't on our terms. His success is America's success and resultantly, our success.

7:09 PM GMT  |  Read comments(3)