This is an actual interview between actual human beings. You can even view the clip at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/09/60minutes/main7134156.shtml?tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody
(On page 3)
Here, Lesley Stahl is interviewing incoming Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R), about a certain word he doesn't like.
Boehner: We have to govern. That's what we were elected to do.
Stahl: But governing means compromising.
Boehner: It means working together.
Stahl: It also means compromising.
Boehner: It means finding common ground.
Stahl: Okay, is that compromising?
Boehner: I made it clear I am not gonna compromise on my principles, nor am I gonna compromise…
Stahl: What are you saying?
Boehner: …the will of the American people.
Stahl: You're saying, "I want common ground, but I'm not gonna compromise." I don't understand that. I really don't.
Boehner: When you say the word "compromise"…a lot of Americans look up and go, "Uh-oh, they're gonna sell me out." And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense.
Stahl reminded him that his goal had been to get all the Bush tax cuts made permanent.
Stahl: So you did compromise.
Boehner: I've, we found common ground.
Stahl: Why won't you say you're afraid of the word.
Boehner: I reject the word.
It's more likely that he avoids a word that scores poorly in test groups. Now, if you have been within 500 miles of me, you are probably aware of my political alliance. Although it may be more accurate to just say 'the people I tend to vote for', as the Democrats and I aren't exactly BFFs. And while there are a handful of issues where I could happily stand with the GOP (or at least I should say the GOP of days past, I haven't seen much to imply that they still value anything I value), I can at least value someone for taking the place of the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition keeps you honest. They make you defend your position. They make you argue your case.
I value my friends who argue with me and do these things, because then when I take my many strong viewpoints out into the world, I know they are battle (or bicker) tested. Any holes have been filled, any common misconceptions or exaggerations have been debunked, and I really know how I think about it. More likely than not, I also have a solid respect for the viewpoint that isn't mine, and before I take a stand on something that I'm going to argue about, I do my homework.
Why am I talking about what a smarty smarty smart pants I am (not to mention my loyally opposing pals on the internet who I love even though I think they are all wrong)?
Because I'm still friends with my loyal opposition. I'm not going to ask John Boehner to make friends with anyone, because that's not how he's chosen to play this game. And it makes me sad that he's chosen to play this game with the Congress I know, love, and obsess over, but it makes me even more sad that that people who are not politicians will try to play this game. Because politicians should know better, but I know that the no-compromise, vote-the-party-line game works. It wins. For the party.
But it loses for the government. Now, people who are politicians might not care about that, because they will probably get re-elected, or hired as a lobbyist or at a think tank. So, this still kind of works for them. It is in their interest to act like this, and there's not much I can do about it (until I take over the universe and rule with a dainty, benevolent, iron fist. Then you guys are all picking up trash for the rest of your lives. But hey! Free health care.).
But if you're not a politician (and why would you?), I kind of have higher hopes and expectations. And when I hear and read about people sniping over political/religious/social issues, it doesn't bum me out that they are arguing, because I argue, and that makes it a virtuous behavior. It does bum me out that the thrust of the argument has become one of proving the other person wrong (or worse than wrong, a socialist) in order to argue that you are right. To argue that the other person is stupid to prove that you are smart. To argue that the other person is a moral sinkhole in order to contrast yourself as a radiant beacon of virtue. (I have still done all of these things before, and may well do them again, because I am a human being and we do irrational things. Feel free to loyally oppose me on it.)
But this binary thinking is an illusion. If I engage in it, I am lying to myself. I am not the polar opposite of my loyal opposition. I am not even the polar opposite of Rep. John Boehner. I am not the polar opposite of Sarah Palin, Tony Blair, or Justin Bieber. I share all of my DNA, most of my alleles, most of my life experiences,most of my values, most of my language, and all of my emotions with these people. And while I can always value arguing with what someone writes or says or does- that doesn't mean I'm addressing who they are as a person. You can dispute my words or my actions without attacking me as a person- but if you start attacking me as a person, you've probably just missed the point of anything I've said or done. Which means we both just lost.
