In recent years, public discourse has shifted from seeking common ground to emphasizing divisions and protecting personal beliefs. Social media often features harmful comments about others. In my over six decades, I have never seen anything quite like today’s climate.
Shortly after the horrific murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, opinions over the need for civil debate spread like fire across social media. Last month on Bill Maher’s comfy couch podcast, Club Random, where the host invites guests for one-on-one discussions, the topic of having debates with those you disagree with was discussed.
Maher’s guest was Rob Reiner, “Meathead” from the 1970s TV show “All in the Family,” who went on to direct some good Hollywood films like “The Princess Bride” and “A Few Good Men.” Reiner is a lifetime liberal, while Maher, still a liberal, has shifted on some issues, particularly “woke” culture and politics, which he believes is destroying the Democratic Party. Reiner insisted that you could only have a civil debate if you and your debate partner agreed on some fundamental subjects. Maher objected, insisting that truly free and open conversations can also begin with agreeing on nothing.
I would agree with Maher, as I don’t believe we can have open discourse if we place preconditions on the discussion. If we’re lucky, during the course of conversation we may discover that while we don’t agree on much, there might be a few areas where we can find common ground. Hopefully.
After all, if voting and citizen involvement are the fuel that powers the engine of democracy, respectful civil discourse is the lubricant necessary to keep that engine from overheating and breaking apart.
I certainly have my own opinion on the major issues, as we all do, but it’s important to remember that navigating a civil debate means to fully and respectfully listen to what the other side has to say, no matter what you think of their opinion. This step can be incredibly challenging for many people. We’ll have our turn to respond, unless heightened emotion from one side or the other, or both, keeps discussion from moving ahead. There is a reason why timers are used in candidate debates to keep the exchange going, but unfortunately in real life debate usually stops when voice volume amplifies. Have you ever watched people protesting on the street, shouting at each other from opposite sides? By then, any productive debate has ceased. Maintaining a calm demeanor, no matter how passionately righteous you feel, is crucial for going forward.
I’ve found the following two questions important when seeking to better understand the “why” of what people believe in, that is if they can be asked and can be responded to in a reasonably civil manner. You may not end up agreeing, but at least you’ll have a chance of better understanding one another’s perspectives.
“What do you mean when you say (fill in with any given position or slogan)?” This simple question asks us to explain what we have said beyond a bumper sticker phrase or accusation by offering some descriptive detail. It can seem intimidating, but shouldn’t be if asked with a calm demeanor. If we believe strongly enough in our positions, we ought to be confident enough to describe them in some detail, otherwise we risk simply parroting talking points and falling back on simple phrases from “our side.” Too often, we assume the righteousness of our cause is good enough alone to justify our positions. That’s not the case in a democratic republic that cherishes free expression and values healthy debate. After listening to the response, you will likely want to follow up with the next inquiry.
“How do you know that?” This is called an epistemological question in philosophy, where we are asked to show how we know what we claim to know so that what we’re saying is not pulled out of thin air but based on purportedly knowledgeable and credible sources.
At this point, we might be presented with everything from “I read about it online” to “I heard about it from a friend (or colleague),” to “I saw it on XYZ news/commentary show.” You may also hear the recitation of a few statistics. This is always thought to make a point more persuasive. But debate doesn’t stop there. Sources can be questioned for their level of accuracy and truthfulness, as they should be.
After several back-and-forth exchanges, we might find ourselves in total disagreement. Then again, maybe a few points of commonality will emerge. It may not bond us as lifelong friends, but at least we can walk away with a clear conscience that we were able to articulate our beliefs while hearing differing views, hopefully without anyone getting hurt.
