How to win in politics, understand each other without losing respect
The much-welcomed political activism of students supporting reform of the nation’s gun laws obscures an underlying challenge: True progress depends on civil discourse, the search for understanding through conversation. Amid so much political strife, the one thing that most Americans can agree on is that incivility prevents our nation from moving forward. According to a University of Arizona study, 78 percent of us say so.
It is possible for those with seemingly opposite views to discuss issues with passion while treating each other with respect. It requires the courage to make yourself vulnerable, to concede points to your opponent to win a bigger victory, to let go of being right in favor of being understood and of understanding.
Those with drastically different positions on guns can begin by asking each other, “What makes this issue so important to you?” From that place of curiosity and interest, they can list their core values. Even if the lists of values stay distinct, the act of acknowledging the importance of each other’s values matters — we all want to be heard.
On the other hand, this process may lead the participants to discover they have shared values, like safety. From that place, they can then explore specific concerns. For instance, how does the other side define safety, and how do guns contribute to achieving it or not?
Now that the proverbial table is set, those in dialogue can begin adding the food for thought — ideas to carry out the values. If all participants commit to the preservation of a “safe space” for these ideas to surface, some of the most innovative and compelling suggestions often emerge. Rather than simply identifying an age restriction for gun ownership, perhaps a participant devises a creative process by which one receives adequate training and licensure to own and operate a gun.
When the ideas surface, participants evaluate those ideas based on the previously stated values. If safety for all matters, does the suggestion to restrict gun ownership based on age advance that vision? Participants search for what they can support in consensus, rather than what they must “give up” in compromise. If they feel determined to “defeat” a proposal, they have to be prepared to offer an alternative. If age-based restrictions on gun ownership don’t work, what restrictions would?
It is unclear whether we are capable of sustained civil discourse of this kind. But there is reason to hope.
In the Boston area, over a period of several years a small group of abortion rights and anti-abortion advocates met with the help of pioneering mediators and facilitators Susan Podziba and Laura Chasin to discuss abortion, one of the most contentious issues in American politics. The group eventually co-wrote an article in the Boston Globe documenting their work that received widespread praise. They sought to eliminate violence and the threat of violence from the abortion debate; anti-abortion participants even contacted the FBI and wrote to an anti-abortion clergyman asking him not to visit Massachusetts during the trial of a man accused of a shooting at a women’s health care clinic. The original group of dialogue participants has reportedly continued to meet to talk more than 20 years after initially convening.
The benefits enjoyed by participants in the abortion dialogues are but a sample of what could be achieved — the potential for better policy where all views are considered, and the possibility of speedier success, if only partial, in saving lives.
Activism has its place, but It is clear that the current approach is not working to provide sensible policy in a timely way. For some issues, we have to move beyond marching, beyond demonstrating, beyond being active, beyond being focused on just winning to being focused on understanding.
I have never been prouder to be an Austin Independent School District parent and volunteer. I found out recently that Travis High School has a state-ofthe-art maker space.
I was nearly brought to tears at a community lunch at Eastside Memorial Early College High
Austin is failing its homeless community. There’s the Austin Resource Center for the Homeless, and the Salvation Army. Both provide emergency shelter. But it’s not sustainable housing. Each day, people line up hoping to get a bed for the night. The next morning, everyone leaves and the process begins again.
And transitional housing? Imagine you’re a full-time student and single parent with a child under 5 ... and homeless. How could you meet part-time work requirements? If you can fit in a job, how to afford day care?
The solution? More transitional housing with less requirements, and more support so that people have a real chance at moving themselves out of homelessness and into stable, longterm housing. Austin loves dogs, but it should love people, too.