THOUGHTFULNESS

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines thoughtfulness as: absorbed in or involving thought, showing consideration for the needs of other people, and showing careful consideration or attention.

Sadly, thoughtful expressions of beliefs and policies have given way to toxic diatribe and name calling, where substance is replaced by emotional and often inflammatory exclamations.  Anyone paying even the slightest attention to public media has experienced this in the growing division in so many areas of our culture.  We are now “at war”: there is a “war on women”, a “war on God”, a ”war on the 2^nd Bill of Rights”, and more.  What thoughtful dialog that does exist is drowned out by the noise of the extremists whose only concerns seem to be to discredit the opposition and rally their “base”, rather than present a well-reasoned narrative explaining their position and supporting it with facts.  The losers in this climate are truth, understanding, and we the people,

I am not proposing that we ignore our differences; that would be neither possible nor desirable.  On the contrary, we should, learn from one another by embracing them and selecting the best that each has to offer.  And this cannot happen until we learn to respect opposing viewpoints, and replace diatribe with thoughtfulness.  Without thoughtful dialog there can be no compromise, and a Democracy representing over 300 million people cannot survive without reaching for a compromise on political, fiscal, and religious differences. 

A frequent refrain is “we will not abandon our principals”.  I would suggest that fiscal policies – tax rates, financial regulations, etc. – are indeed, policies, and should not be confused with principals that should never be compromised - honesty, integrity, civility and respect.

HALF TRUTHS

Pick up a coin; look at it from every conceivable angle.  No matter how you hold it, you cannot see both sides of the coin at the same time (unless you use a mirror).  Although you cannot see it, you know it has two sides. 

That coin can represent almost any major political, social, or cultural issue we are currently debating.  The only difference is our denial of the existence of another side.  We erroneously conclude that what we “see” is the only accurate description of the subject.  What we see may indeed be authentic and accurate, but also incomplete.  The result is a dialog where all we do is defend our half of the truth, forgoing any effort to see the complete picture, and options are presented as an either/or choice, neither of which completely addresses the issue at hand.  The goal of the debate or dialog is not to reach the truth, or a workable solution to a problem; it becomes one of doing everything possible to have your view prevail.  In this atmosphere it is easy to ignore facts, stoke emotions, and give in to prejudices and uncritical thinking.  Consider the issue of entitlements and welfare.

Some conservatives like to link Federal payments to its citizens – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food stamp programs, and others – under the demonized name of entitlements, “give away” programs that encourage laziness and dependency on the government.  They characterize the recipients as a drain on American prosperity that would rather sit around and collect money from the taxpayers than go out and work.

I prefer to view these supplements as a grand and noble gesture by the citizens of this country to reach out and help the less fortunate.  (There but for the Grace of God go I.)  They are a reflection of our civic compassion and willingness to share our bounty.  Are there some who abuse our generosity, of course there are, just as there are legitimate business enterprises that take advantage of government programs.  But that does not justify withholding help from everyone.

Are the conservatives mean and cruel, judging others unfairly?  Am I a foolish Pollyanna blinded by unrealistic “do-goody” fervor?  Or are we both only capable of seeing our side of the coin?

Why is it so difficult to change this pattern that seems to have seeped into so much of our public discourse?  Are we so insecure in our beliefs that it is threatening to even consider other views, let alone the possibility we may be wrong?  Perhaps we are blinded by the comfort and rapture of our beliefs and do not want to have them changed in any way.  It can’t be easy to abandon ideas and opinions that have been held so tightly for so long.  Insecurity, fear, and, vested interests, are undoubtedly a factor in some, if not all, of our thinking. 

I suspect we all possess some of these traits, in one degree or another and the best we can do is look at ourselves critically and honestly in an attempt to identify our prejudices and understand our thinking.  If we can’t completely discard some of them, maybe we can soften them enough to become the mirror that will enable us to see the other side of the coin.  Until we do that we will continue to bang heads with one another and accomplish little.