The beginning of thought is in disagreement – not only with others but also with ourselves. –Eric Hoffer
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. –Mohandas Gandhi
Greetings all! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Brynn, and I’ll be joining the fantastic stable of authors at Dangerous Intersection. I’m flattered that Erich asked me to be a part of what is being built here. Lots of very talented people are contributing their thoughts to the ongoing discussion generated on various topics, and I’m honored to be a part of that.
I’ve been a regular reader of DI for about a year, and I’ve been impressed with the quality posts as well as the engaging discussion that often occurs in the comments following the post. One thing that is never shied away from is disagreement. Nor should disagreement be avoided. There is no party line here, there is no heresy. What is abundant is the type of quality discussion and debate that is the hallmark of a vigorous, open community.
Too often in contemporary American society, honest debate is stifled. Politicians have learned to speak in sound bites. Media commentators have learned to present insipid and truncated stories to a largely passive and apathetic audience. The constraints of time or column inches prevent a lengthy examination of any given issue. Talking points are adopted by the major parties’ respective constituencies as though they were absolute truth. The vehemence with which one holds an opinion has become a substitute for thoughtful reflection on the reasons why one holds an opinion.
[1]This must change. The staggering array of challenges that face us demand a well-informed and engaged citizenry. Disagreement is the best way to expose the faults in one’s thinking. To openly and honestly consider the points that are being argued creates a kind of healthy intellectual tension that demands complex thought. Whether one ultimately comes to agree or not is irrelevant, the value is in the process. The questioning that occurs within as one struggles to determine the truth or falsity of a claim creates the foundation for growth and change. When disagreeing, both sides must open themselves to the possibility that they are wrong. This openness allows one to deliberately choose one’s beliefs, rather than being held as a slave to tradition, or convention, or circumstance.
It is with these thoughts in mind, that I would like to draw your attention to Dangerous Intersection’s comment policy [2]:
We welcome comments, especially those that disagree with our posts and those that point out perceived errors.
That’s what debate is all about. The only way for me to grow, to learn new things, to explore a world with which I’m unfamiliar is by exposing myself to disagreement. I frequently read authors with whom I disagree, and I have felt the thrill and uncertainty that comes with changing long-held opinions. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong (which has been often), and that has made me more certain when I feel I am right. However, I’m painfully aware of how much more I have to learn. So please, I beg of you, disagree with me. Point out the errors that I am making, and don’t be offended if I do the same for you. Help me see the world the way you see it, and perhaps we can both learn something along the way.
Last week, Dan posted about the Hierarchy of Disagreement [3]. Can you imagine how different the political landscape would be if our politicians and pundits would confine their speeches and commentary to the top half of the pyramid? Disagreement would become a tool to educate ourselves, rather than a symptom of rabid partisanship. Issues that hold the potential to reshape the direction of the country would contain the promise of meaningful participation in the political process. Instead, these issues have become a banal “topic of the day” in which both sides exchange soundbites, leaving most of the public feeling unsatisfied and displeased with the process. Is it any wonder that Congressional approval ratings are hovering around 30%, while disapproval ratings are around 60%? A decades long trend of declining voter turnout is also a symptom of this disaffection with the process.
Both left and right constituencies are pressuring Congress to slow the legislative process down, with the goal of making sure that both the Congress and the public understand what a given bill contains before passing it. Colin Hanna, president of the conservative Let Freedom Ring organization, was quoted by CBS News [4]:
Legislation has become so complex, you can really make the argument the system the framers devised is broken,” he said. “Most bills are voted upon without those voting understanding much of what’s in it.”
That’s when members are forced to resort to speed readers. “It makes a mockery of the process,” Hanna said.
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) as much as admitted that there’s no point in having one’s representative read the bill [5], without also alotting “two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill.” It seems clear that the country is demanding a more informative and deliberate political process. This process will necessarily entail a great deal of disagreement, but the goal ought to be to have sincere debate rather than jingoism. Witness the current fascination with “death panels” in the media to get an idea of the depths to which our public discourse has sunk.
In the end, the only things we have to lose from attempting to gain a greater understanding from one another are our own misconceptions. The internet is a powerful force for communication, but it does not discriminate in the types of communications presented. It’s up to us to generate the type of clear, honest, compelling, and informed debate that can help guide this country in a direction that we consciously choose. Educating ourselves is not only our right and prerogative, it’s our obligation– even more so today, as it seems the corporate media and opportunist politicians have largely abdicated their role in educating the populace.
Print this post [6]
[7]