In my last entry I wrote about how too many of us have created an environment where we only hear what we want to hear. I think how I may be guilty of this as well; at least to some extent. After all, when I listen to jackasses like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump spew hatred, racial invective and errors of logic (horrors!!), I just get angry. And since I’m trying to develop a more peaceful, accepting and forgiving side to my personality (good luck with that, Bill), why should I deliberately expose myself to things that are going to make me mad? (A bit of tortured syntax there, but I think you get my idea.)
I thought that West Wing was a phenomenal TV series. Maybe it was because I liked the politics of the protagonist and his staff, but in my defense I think it made some excellent points and generally told a good tale. In the context of this entry, there’s one sequence that stands out to me. I’ve tried to find the appropriate section on YouTube (so far unsuccessfully), so I’ll try to explain it briefly.
A Supreme Court Justice position has become available, and with a Republican Congress President Bartlett (Martin Sheen’s character) is faced with the next-to-impossible task of finding a replacement supportive of his beliefs who will be approved by the opposition party. In the course of his vetting process, he decides his ideal candidate is a liberal judge, Evelyn Baker Lang (played by Glen Close). He knows there’s little chance of her being approved by Congress without considerable maneuvering, so in order to hide his intentions he invites a number of potential candidates from across the political spectrum for meetings, including Christopher Mulready (played by William Fichtner, a great character actor) who would gain an easy Republican approval, but who has almost the exact opposite views as Bartlett.
Anyhow, Mulready is no dummy, realizes that he is not being seriously considered, and says something to Barlett like “Of course, you’ll have to nominate someone middle of the road in order to have a hope of approval. Too bad. That’s safe politically, but good law comes from spirited and honest disagreement.” As he’s leaving, he runs into Lang and it turns out that they knew each other from law school; indeed they were (and still are) close friends. They disagree on most things, but have remained friends over the years; it’s a friendship based on mutual respect and a willingness to truly listen. They still disagree, but they never lose that respect and the friendship upon which that friendship is built. Bartlett solves his dilemma by convincing another Justice to retire and nominates both Lang and Mulready to the fill the vacancies. Excellent episode.
A real-life example of life imitating art is the relationship of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Understand that I am no admirer of the positions of our most recently-departed Justice. I do recognize he was an extremely smart and capable jurist, but while I admired his mind, I disagreed with nearly every position he took. I have friends who had no regard for him at all because of his views, to the point that they were unwilling to see him in any but a negative light. While this was somewhat tempting for me as well, I found it extremely interesting when I read prior to his death that one of his best friends on the Court was Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. She represented the ACLU prior to her appointment (just try to get her approved today!) and I am quite sure she disagreed with Scalia on nearly everything as well, but they were still close friends. Fascinating.
Next, I think of Bob Dole. Dole was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1996 and at the time I thought he was totally the wrong person to be president. But it turns out, Senator Dole was known for his ability to cross the aisle and make deals with the Democrats. I am not sorry I voted for Clinton, but I would have to admit that Dole would likely have been an effective POTUS, largely because of his ability to listen to and understand his opponents on the other side of the aisle, and build a consensus.
I read that Nancy Reagan was close friends with Katharine Graham, the owner of The Washington Post. The WaPo is pretty reliably liberal in it’s editorial positions, so having a Reagan-Graham friendship is a bit surprising, particularly since, by all accounts, it seems it was a genuine friendship. They’d get together regularly over brunch, and maintained their friendship throughout (and after) Reagan’s tenure as Commander in Chief. Clearly their nearly opposite political views were no impediment.
Now, take a look at Ted Cruz. He refuses to compromise on anything. Trump is correct (one of the few times, IMHO) when he says Cruz is roundly despised by nearly everyone in Congress for his refusal to budge on his ideology. Former House Speaker John Boehner called him “Lucifer in the flesh, saying he’s “never worked with a more miserable son-of-a-bitch in my life” in a recent forum at Stanford University. Being that much of an intransigent idealogue may make him the darling of the “Drag the government to the bathtub and drown it” crowd and the other nut-jobs in the far right wing of the Republican party, but that’s not how you get laws passed. Cruz accomplished pretty much nothing as Senator other than an ideologically-driven shutdown of the government, which cost the US economy billions of dollars, not to mention making Congress look like a bunch of whiney third-graders badly in need of a timeout. And amazingly, he’s actually proud of that, and has gone on record as stating he’d do it again!!
Back to echo chambers (and how to tear them down). We need to stop, take a deep breath, and start having respectful conversations. Not rehashes of someone else’s talking points, not ad-hominem attacks, and especially not shout-downs.
The first step in arriving at a consensus is to understand the other’s perspective. And that will never happen if we get all our information from people with whom we agree on everything.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
Echo chambers (part 2)
I thought that West Wing was a phenomenal TV series. Maybe it was because I liked the politics of the protagonist and his staff, but in my defense I think it made some excellent points and generally told a good tale. In the context of this entry, there’s one sequence that stands out to me. I’ve tried to find the appropriate section on YouTube (so far unsuccessfully), so I’ll try to explain it briefly.
A Supreme Court Justice position has become available, and with a Republican Congress President Bartlett (Martin Sheen’s character) is faced with the next-to-impossible task of finding a replacement supportive of his beliefs who will be approved by the opposition party. In the course of his vetting process, he decides his ideal candidate is a liberal judge, Evelyn Baker Lang (played by Glen Close). He knows there’s little chance of her being approved by Congress without considerable maneuvering, so in order to hide his intentions he invites a number of potential candidates from across the political spectrum for meetings, including Christopher Mulready (played by William Fichtner, a great character actor) who would gain an easy Republican approval, but who has almost the exact opposite views as Bartlett.
Anyhow, Mulready is no dummy, realizes that he is not being seriously considered, and says something to Barlett like “Of course, you’ll have to nominate someone middle of the road in order to have a hope of approval. Too bad. That’s safe politically, but good law comes from spirited and honest disagreement.” As he’s leaving, he runs into Lang and it turns out that they knew each other from law school; indeed they were (and still are) close friends. They disagree on most things, but have remained friends over the years; it’s a friendship based on mutual respect and a willingness to truly listen. They still disagree, but they never lose that respect and the friendship upon which that friendship is built. Bartlett solves his dilemma by convincing another Justice to retire and nominates both Lang and Mulready to the fill the vacancies. Excellent episode.
A real-life example of life imitating art is the relationship of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Understand that I am no admirer of the positions of our most recently-departed Justice. I do recognize he was an extremely smart and capable jurist, but while I admired his mind, I disagreed with nearly every position he took. I have friends who had no regard for him at all because of his views, to the point that they were unwilling to see him in any but a negative light. While this was somewhat tempting for me as well, I found it extremely interesting when I read prior to his death that one of his best friends on the Court was Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. She represented the ACLU prior to her appointment (just try to get her approved today!) and I am quite sure she disagreed with Scalia on nearly everything as well, but they were still close friends. Fascinating.
Next, I think of Bob Dole. Dole was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1996 and at the time I thought he was totally the wrong person to be president. But it turns out, Senator Dole was known for his ability to cross the aisle and make deals with the Democrats. I am not sorry I voted for Clinton, but I would have to admit that Dole would likely have been an effective POTUS, largely because of his ability to listen to and understand his opponents on the other side of the aisle, and build a consensus.
I read that Nancy Reagan was close friends with Katharine Graham, the owner of The Washington Post. The WaPo is pretty reliably liberal in it’s editorial positions, so having a Reagan-Graham friendship is a bit surprising, particularly since, by all accounts, it seems it was a genuine friendship. They’d get together regularly over brunch, and maintained their friendship throughout (and after) Reagan’s tenure as Commander in Chief. Clearly their nearly opposite political views were no impediment.
Now, take a look at Ted Cruz. He refuses to compromise on anything. Trump is correct (one of the few times, IMHO) when he says Cruz is roundly despised by nearly everyone in Congress for his refusal to budge on his ideology. Former House Speaker John Boehner called him “Lucifer in the flesh, saying he’s “never worked with a more miserable son-of-a-bitch in my life” in a recent forum at Stanford University. Being that much of an intransigent idealogue may make him the darling of the “Drag the government to the bathtub and drown it” crowd and the other nut-jobs in the far right wing of the Republican party, but that’s not how you get laws passed. Cruz accomplished pretty much nothing as Senator other than an ideologically-driven shutdown of the government, which cost the US economy billions of dollars, not to mention making Congress look like a bunch of whiney third-graders badly in need of a timeout. And amazingly, he’s actually proud of that, and has gone on record as stating he’d do it again!!
Back to echo chambers (and how to tear them down). We need to stop, take a deep breath, and start having respectful conversations. Not rehashes of someone else’s talking points, not ad-hominem attacks, and especially not shout-downs.
The first step in arriving at a consensus is to understand the other’s perspective. And that will never happen if we get all our information from people with whom we agree on everything.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.