The longer conversation

No one wants to have the longer conversation. Or so it seems. Or maybe they don’t know the value in having it and so they just don’t.

Political discussions, religious discussions, social discussions – they all have at least a couple of sides and a lot of emotion built into them.

For the sake of time and fear of losing a moment to “score one” for a particular side, arguments are stacked up for and against a short list of people, ideas, and actions.

Few people, at least in my experience, take the time to understand their own side, much less the “other side(s)” in any discussion or rhetoric.

Maybe it is because we know that IF we actually look into our own side, we know there will be some inconsistency found or clarity showing that other people have a point.

Maybe it’s because we just enjoy being for something and against something else – like it gives us meaning and we don’t necessarily want to know all the details.

Often, in my experience, it’s because we don’t want to change something we’re doing, and we have invested a lot of time, pride, and hope into a comfortable, personal direction.

Some examples…

Democrats versus Republicans versus Libertarians and others – there are a lot of words, images, and emotions shared over politics.

Democrats used to be known (for about 40-50 years) for being the party of the people, ensuring that the common man was not overlooked and abused by those who have power, exposing corruption, and fighting for equal rights for all.

Republicans used to be known (for a similar amount of time) for be the party of small government, ensuring that the raw materials were available for the pursuit of happiness, but without interfering in the process of the pursuit, so as not to favor anyone.

Libertarians and others – well, that’s a lot longer history than one post can share – but they too had high ideals with practical and understandable outcomes based on a position they developed in response to some weakness or flaw they saw in other groups or positions.

As time goes by and the ability to communicate has increased in speed, volume, and color, few take the time to understand the “histories and whys” of each group in such a way to unpack the differences and find some acceptable middle ground with others. Now, it’s “winner take all”.

I don’t pretend to be able to explain it all, but a common example is government spending on things like social security versus the military. Those who want to ensure the benefits of social security are willing to lower military spending and vice versa.

The complexity of moving the money from one camp to another is large. Instead of having some formal, invested time to help people understand each side and the benefits and consequences of each position, most of the time each side demonizes the other side to gain emotional support so they can win a next election.

It’s much easier to make the other side look stupid, evil, and cartoonish than it is to educate people so they can, to some degree, rationally disagree with someone else. Time is money. We live in a 24-hour news cycle. Getting the outcome we want justifies what we do to get it.

Instead of talking about keeping the military sharp against different kinds of potential enemies and their weapons and tactics, it’s easier to say that the pro-military people are against “the little guy” and that they’d just as soon see that little guy go hungry and homeless.

Instead of talking about the history of social security, the development of the current idea of “retirement”, and how money set aside for it should be protected and not used for other things, it’s easier to say the pro-social security people are willing to make our nation weak, militarily.

These are longer conversations that need to be had. They are conversations that ought to begin being informed earlier in life, in schools, in communities, and in places where people spend their time and attention. Instead we mainly have TikTok and Twitter.

Religious and social discussions – like politics, there are a lot of words, images, and emotions shared over the very different religious and social positions in culture.

The number of “sides” in these kinds of discussions are slightly larger and more slippery than those for politics. There are conservative, moderate, and progressive or liberal flavors that run along a continuum or graph. 

Different “positions” can be mixed up with different, sometimes contradictory beliefs and practices. You can have a formal, traditional worship style with very progressive beliefs and vice versa. 

You can have race, gender, theology, and views on “church” blended in ways that are way more complicated than a drink off the menu from Starbucks.

Because we live in a culture with a “buffet style” approach to religion and cultural preferences, people can and do pick and choose what they want. There are groups or communities in our culture that will support just about any perspective you would like to pursue.

Again, I don’t pretend to explain it all, but a good example of the differences in this realm of life would be sexual ethics or morals. There’s a good number of people in culture, religious and secular, who say, “anything goes”. There’s a good number of people who say, “but not that”.

Those who are more conservative, generally speaking, say that people should pursue heterosexual “beliefs” and practices exclusively. Those who are more progressive, generally speaking, say, “no, everything else should be included too, if people are consenting adults”.

The complexity of each position is typically overshadowed by the emotional, personal investments that everyone has into their lives and community. 

Just like people do with politics, instead of having some formal, invested time to help people understand each side and the benefits and consequences of each position, most of the time each side demonizes the other side to gain emotional support so they can protect their own group from the abuses (words, exclusion, shame, etc.) of the other group.

Instead of unpacking history and discussing the nature of family, community, sexual practices, and how society, the economy, and the education system influence it all, it’s easier to pick out one thing to be for or against and then fly a flag showing the side you’re on so that people can know which crowd is likely to beat them or benefit them. In short, we use fear a whole lot.

Instead of talking about how ALL sexual practices should be controlled and self-regulated – like any other desire – so that people aren’t living with an obsession for things, but instead living in harmony with their creator and one another, it’s easier to dismiss and condemn one group of people while turning a blind eye to all the people in your own group who don’t self-regulate and “keep themselves pure till they get married”.

Or, on the other “side”, instead of talking about why it IS okay to ignore some “traditional sexual norms” and explain from an historical, cultural, and even religious/scriptural point of view why it’s okay to see, think, and practice differently, it is a lot easier to say the other side is just bigoted, unaccepting of people who think differently, and should not be accepted by anyone.

These are longer conversations that need to be had. Much longer. They are conversations that ought to begin being informed earlier in life, in schools, in churches, in communities, and in places where people spend their time and attention. Instead, we have TikTok and Twitter.

Kick the can down the road – one feature that has developed alongside the technological and communication advances of the last few decades is the ability to keep things moving for the sake not having longer discussions.

It’s a lot easier not to have discussions and instead to allow the battle of ideas to be relegated to be fought for us by those who are influencers, formal or otherwise. 

Our fear of personal interactions with others who might disagree with us or even “lead us astray” shows that something else is missing a little deeper.  

I’m not completely sure, but I think that thing (or maybe one of many things) is that people don’t know what they believe or if there is something to believe.

And if they don’t know what they personally believe, they leave it up to someone or some collection of people who seem to benefit them or align with things that will make their personal path smoother, emotionally, socially, financially, etc.

So what people really believe, at some core level is, “I do for me and mine. I don’t need to understand why, I just know what I want and like and that’s what I will pursue. Yes, I understand that I’m just “kicking the can down the road” and that what I want will have consequences for people who come after me. I’ll be dead and gone by that time and they can figure out what’s best for them just like I did.”

__________

That is why I would love to see a cultural movement that slows things down. A lot. 

A movement that has conversations. A learning of what it looks and feels like to have a sharing of ideas without shame, but instead with a goal of understanding and finding common ground so that shared goals can be pursued.

And it’s probably something that has to be done somewhat regularly and generationally so that people don’t have to pretend they “get it” when they’re not sure why something is said or done a certain way.

I know it’s complicated and time consuming. But the alternative is the law of the jungle in which someone comes out on top because their might makes right, and their end justified their means.

I think it’s probably something that people just have to do on their own and not wait for their politicians, pastors, priests, or other people of influence to “make it okay” to do.

Starting with me and you.

Grace and peace.