So I ran into Ron, a former co-worker of mine in a Safeway yesterday. I hadn't seen him in three and a half years, when I left the company we'd both worked at. That company went out of a business about a month or so after I'd left. I knew Ron was probably doing fine, though. Ron, who I recall being in the neighborhood of 50, was an Air Force veteran who'd served over twenty years. His military pension was enough for him. I asked why he worked then, he said the extra money might come in handy. "Also," he said, "I'm too young to retire."
Ron and I had that peculiar workplace relationship wherein we would periodically engage in the verbal equivalent of a political wrestling match, arguing politics, at least in part for the amusement (or possibly just the irritation) of other co-workers. Ron invariably represented the right in this arguments, saying with a straight face that Bill O'Reilly was "an independent". I invariably represented the left. It was archetypal, really, the conservative in the argument being a somewhat older veteran while the liberal was a twenty-something fresh (sorta) out of UC Santa Cruz. The arguments were a little for show and a little about killing time in a frequently boring work environment, but for me, I just like arguing. There was no heat in these arguments, but I was more than a little competitive. I wanted to "win".
Looking back, I'm not truly sure what winning entailed. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area, more of our co-workers leaned towards the left than the right, but while an observer might later comment that I made the better argument, I'm skeptical that I convinced anyone of anything he didn't already believe. Still, I like talking politics with someone who disagrees with me. It challenges me, forces me to articulate my views in an environment prone to exposing any fallacies I might cling to.
Sometimes it's reduced the stridency of my arguments, for instance I've re-thought just what the "well-regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment was really intended to create. I tend to think that the differing interpretations were likely in existence then as well, with some of the framers intending unfettered ownership of firearms while others thinking specifically of something more like the National Guard. I'm still not a fan of guns, and I would support banning them, but, feeling that the right to bear arms is indeed constitutionally-protected, I would only support doing so by amending the Constitution. Obviously such an Amendment would not succeed in the current political structure. It may never succeed. But, looking at Prop 8 here in California, I'm okay with the process required for the removal of any constitutionally-protected right being a lot more difficult than a 50%+1 prospect.
In other instances, it's firmed up my beliefs, as in the case of my opposition to the death penalty. Saying aloud that I felt the state, and the judicial system as it stands today, lacked the moral authority to sentence a man to death. The courts simply aren't perfect, and if they can't be perfect, they should not be imposing the ultimate penalty.
But for all that these effects might be more far-reaching in personal terms, when I'm in a political debate, I want to win. I'd been thinking about past sparring partners like Ron that morning, mere hours before I ran into Ron in the frozen foods section of a nearby Safeway. We caught up. I told him where I'd been working. He said that after the place we worked at closed down, he hadn't worked a day since. He seemed fine with that.
With a hint of schadenfreude, I commented that "This year in politics must be hard for you." He said, "Nah, I'm for Obama this year." After a moment where I blinked and confirmed that it was the same Ron I remembered from work, he said that the Republicans "had screwed everything up, and that we might as well give the other guys a try."
Huh.
I guess we both won this one.