With three weeks to go in the election, I caught a cab early in the morning from my hotel in Pittsburgh to head to the airport after the Pittsburgh Perl Workshop. One thing I really love about Pittsburgh is their cab drivers. On this trip to PIT, I met a German immigrant who started the conversation by saying, “I just can’t wait until this election is over.” I was pretty sure he and I were going to cast opposite votes as far as the presidential election was concerned, but I agreed wholeheartedly with him on this: “I can’t wait either.”
Why did I get tired of the election? It was a number of things. The primaries started way too early. I didn’t really have a candidate to root for, just candidates to root against. Most of all, though, I don’t like the tone of the discussion that occurred. In fact, there wasn’t much discussion at all.
In this election, if you didn’t agree with the candidate someone else chose, it wasn’t because you had a different ideology or potentially legitimate concern, you were just an idiot and probably a bigot. This makes debate impossible because the only way debate happens is if you look at your opponents point of view to try and find where that view is valuable, contrast it with your own viewpoint, and then determine which is better and why. Of course, no one has time to do this all the time, but it is a good exercise to be in as much as you can if you want to continue to sharpen and strengthen your own position. When you start with the assumption that your opponent has nothing of value because he’s stupid or bigoted, you’ve cheated yourself out of the ability to determine the truth of your assertion. This latter sentiment seemed to me to be more prevalent than usual in this election.
It played itself out in a rather disturbing way when it came to the running mate of John McCain. For example, there was, early on, a popular video of Matt Damon saying that the choice of Sarah Palin was like a bad Disney movie and wondered if she really believed that dinosaurs walked around on earth 6,000 years ago. The implication is that no one but an utter moron could possibly believe such a thing. Therefore, everything she believes must be utterly moronic. This sums up my perception of the tone of criticism of her and anyone who agreed with any part of her platform.
Rather than confronting her views and saying, “She’s wrong. This is why.” The response was instead, “She’s stupid. Ignore her.” Instead of trying to figure out why she believes such things, I saw people ridiculing her northern accent. Instead of refuting her positions, people were ranting about how she pronounced the word “nuclear.” Some of these concerns were espoused by people I consider very intelligent and capable thinkers in other contexts. The majority of Palin’s ideas aren’t that controversial at all. She values family and friends. She believes in a strong work ethic. The things that are most important to nearly everyone are most important to her. The positions she holds that are debated are just a different way of viewing reality, not frank stupidity. She sees the world differently.
Similarly, “refutations” of some of my suggestions of why Obama might not be a good president were phrased using words like “ridiculous” and “puhleese.” This is language designed to suggest I was just an idiot without valuable input. They weren’t an attempt at rational discussion and debate. With this kind of response, I’m not even permitted to agree to disagree. Instead, I’m a dumb bigot hater whose trying to force my ideology on others. Yet, I don’t hate anyone. Disagreeing about which human behaviors and rights and entitlements should be granted or forbidden by government does not make me a hater anymore than having a more “open” viewpoint prevents them from being a hater.
It is so easy to just point at the other side and demagogically state, “Duh! He’s stupid.” It is not easy to look carefully, consider why that viewpoint is held, and then reply, “Well, he may be right on this point, but he’s wrong for all these other reasons.” We may disagree, but at least we’ve held a discussion. I may not be the best at this myself, but I really have tried.
For me, it came down to this in the election. Too many people have a very narrow definition of tolerance. When many say the world “tolerance” they mean, “I will tolerate your different point of view until you tell me I’m wrong. At that point you are a stupid bigot hater. Go to hell.” This is false tolerance. True tolerance is one that states instead, “I looked over your point of view and I’m not moved by your arguments. I disagree and I will fight you for the hearts and minds of others. May the best ideal win.” That’s idealistic, but that’s the world I long for.
Cheers.
Leave a comment