We live in weird times. With the gulf between left and right, it’s difficult to agree on policies, motives, or even facts. Our heated language labels others as “evil,” a “mob,” or (I heard this at a rally) belittles opponents as “dogs with fleas.” Dehumanizing and cutthroat tactics have accomplished little, if anything, in persuading voters but have proven triumphant in driving us back to our partisan corners in some sort of foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid fury. We post black and white memes on social media with zero nuance, we reduce arguments from the opposition to frail straw men, and we forget our friends and family are more than their voting record.
“Finding common ground” or “getting on the same page” is admirable, but feels naïve in our current political climate. It’s tough to identify a starting point for discussion on issues like abortion, immigration, taxes, healthcare, or guns. Instead of pushing forward in our enfeebled quest to the promised land of “middle ground” (which often doesn’t exist), we should enact the principle of charity. This method “requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.”[i]
In practice, it looks like this:
- While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas.
- We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which might prove useful and helpful.
- Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or difficulties.
- We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent.[ii]
These provisions don’t dispose of our convictions but work to see the world from a different vantage point. They can foster the rare and precious civil debate, marked by our ability to “acknowledge [the] good in the position we disagree with.”[iii]
Even when we are listening to some far-out conspiracy theory about the federal government poisoning alcohol during the prohibition, President Truman hiring Nazis to win the space race, or Scientologists infiltrating US intelligence agencies, the principle of charity forces us to reckon with the humanity of the speaker and acknowledge their concerns as something authentic to their reality.
Because let’s be honest, most of the time when we are listening to a political opponent speak, we reduce them to an idea while we take inventory of the counter-attacks we've amassed from Facebook videos. We’ve created an environment where we assume the worst in others instead of realizing we’re all doing the best with what we have.
We should fight for change.
We should fight for justice.
We should fight against dehumanization.
And the best way we can achieve these ends is by seeking to understand instead of being understood.
Grace and Peace
