Make no mistake. We have a public health crisis on our hands and it’s killing millions of us. No, I’m not talking about that one. I’m talking about the political polarization of our nation. When politicians speak of the need to heal, oh boy do we ever. Polarization, like smoking, has caused needless deaths through:
- A savage attack on our Capitol: 5 deaths
- COVID-19 mismanagement: 130,000-210,000 deaths
- Health inequity as a result of our disagreement on how to achieve high quality, lower cost care for everyone: 5 million deaths annually
- Polarization-induced stress: I have no idea if we can quantify the physical effects of having political arguments with Uncle Henry or worrying about the state of our nation but stress does lead to premature death by creating inflammation in our bodies and shortening our chromosomes’ telomeres. (See my blog post, “Another Kind of Deadly Force”)
Once we tackle public health enemy #1, COVID, we need to turn our attention to this other deadly public health crisis. It will require all hands on deck, including a smart advertising campaign like the one that got so many Americans to quit smoking as well as courageous leadership by our politicians, clergy, celebrities, and other public figures. Finally, we the people must want to do our part to bridge the divide by taking medicine that might taste bad at first.
Not just the facts, ma’am
The yucky medicine to which I’m referring is civilly engaging with those on the other side of the political spectrum to better understand each others’ points of view. As a liberal, I will say upfront I’m not thrilled about the prospect of trying to understand alternative points of view on things I see as settled facts like who won the election, whether climate change is manmade, or whether COVID poses a serious threat. However, millions of Americans believe one or all of these things and I ask my fellow liberals, what should we do? Engage or ignore? I’d like to think there’s an alternative to throwing up our hands and ignoring the huge gulf between both sides’ opinions and I would hope my conservative readers agree.
We often respond to opposing views by launching a barrage of facts at the proponent of said views, but good luck with that. This factual assault typically causes our sparring partners to double-down on their beliefs and marshal more facts to support these beliefs. The expert consensus is that facts don’t work in persuading someone with whom you disagree, but I would counter that this is too simplistic. I think facts can be an effective ingredient of a dispassionate discussion containing arguments that rely on a close examination of both sides’ facts and assumptions rather than a lazy parroting of our respective partisan talking points. Are you open to doing this? Are you equipped to? I’m not sure I’m open or equipped to at this point but I think it’s a goal worth aiming for.
Unfortunately, there is so much in the way of our having constructive arguments with our foes. For starters, it’s easier for each of us to passively accept our view of the world rather than question it from time to time or let anyone else question it. Also, the endless posts by like-minded friends in our social network and the constant bombardment of our brains by opinions from our favorite pundits cement our beliefs into place. In addition, let us not underestimate the role schools play in fostering uncritical thinking by emphasizing memorization over engaged discussion with teachers and fellow students. And to top it all off, our society is way too concerned with protecting kids from being exposed to any ideas that might upset them, as academics Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff argue in their provocative book, The Coddling of the American Mind.
Take a chance
It may be scary at first for us to ditch the culture of safety-ism that Haidt and Lukianoff talk about. Leaving the sheltering shore is indeed harsh medicine when we’re used to sheltering in place but we better start taking it if our society is to begin to heal.
Besides rationally engaging with people that challenge our assumptions and facts and vice versa, we also need to appreciate that people vary in what they value most. A person’s value system is the wellspring from which their opinions flow so that until we understand and respect each others’ value systems, we might as well be speaking two different languages.
According to Stanford sociology professor Robb Willer, “Liberals tend to endorse values like equality, fairness, care and protection from harm more than conservatives. Conservatives tend to endorse values like loyalty, patriotism, respect for authority and moral purity more than liberals do.” If you can frame your argument in terms of the other side’s values, you have a better chance of persuading them because then you’re speaking the same language. And you might find yourself being convinced of something that you wouldn’t have dreamt of agreeing with if the other side speaks your language.
Don’t get me wrong. If I seem to have the equanimity of a Zen Buddhist, I’m putting on a good front. I’m as mad as the next American right now but it’s good to know that there’s a path out of this swamp. We should follow it like our health depends on it because it does.
