You know that feeling when you run smack dab into another worldview? Kind of a "Huh? How can you think like that?" feeling. Like you have to turn your brain around to understand where the person is coming from. I've been thinking about that lately, prompted by a few things, including the whole
strict father/nurturing parent paradigm of politics , the buzz about bringing disaffected voters back to the polls (and the Democratic Party), and the
Wellstone Civic Dialogue Project. The questions in my mind are along the lines of "how can we as a society talk to each other more?" and "how do we keep political discussions civil?" But most importantly, I wonder about that colliding worldviews problem. When you talk to someone who disagrees with you on such a fundamental level, where do you start?
I'd like to offer an example. I recently sent out an email to friends and family, encouraging them to
Support (and vote for!) one of the Democrats. If you don't support a candidate, work on getting out the vote, or just have a conversation about politics with someone new. I know it's late for New Years resolutions, but make one anyway: Resolve to care this year. Resolve to hope this year. Resolve to believe, and to act as if, it's not too late for a small group of concerned citizens to change the world.
I added some more information, and a list of actions to take.
This is the response I got from a close family member:
Great message - {Her Husband} is 150% a Bush supporter, so I guess you won't get much help there. He sees the war in Iraq as an important and positive thing - a way to change the political dynamic in the Middle East.
I'm not sure what I think, but one thing I know for sure is that I am much less sure now that those of us who totally believed that war and violence was the wrong way can be so sure of our right-ness.
I think we have seen the face of evil in the persons of the terrorists. I have no idea how to combat evil, but I am sure that there is no negotiation with someone who wants me dead, and I am sure also that alleviating poverty in his land, or being nice to him, will not make him want me dead less.
So who knows? Can you imagine a world run by men who want women veiled, wearing the chador, staying at home, not driving, not leaving the house except with a man, stoned to death for sleeping with someone she loves, not allowed to be educated - men who believe in killing everyone that is not of the same religion they are, in running their countries under religious rule, with complete power to jail and kill those of different religions? We may actually have to fight to make that not happen, in our lifetime. Would I go to war for the rights of women? You bet, just like I would have fought Hitler taking the Jews to the ovens, just like I would have fought in Israel in 1949 when all the Arabs declared war on Israel.
What does this have to do with Bush? I have no idea. I just know that things are not so simple as before 9/11, and any political candidate who says that they know the perfect way to protect freedom for us or anyone in the world is probably is wrong. So maybe Bush is totally wrong. I don't see anyone offering a compelling set of ideas of how to combat the growing evil in the world, (and I am not afraid to say that I think this time it is called Islam - in previous centuries it was Catholicism) perhaps a real test of western civilization. Do you?
So there you go - that is my political conversation of the day! I know it is a pretty grim view. But conversation and involvement are definitely a good thing - better than TV and shopping at the Mall.
I should say first that I was shocked to here her husband is a Bush fan, although in retrospect it's not surprising. I was also struck by the fundamental difference in how she thinks and how I think. Part of why this surprised me is because we are so similar - although we are from different generations, we are both well educated, professional women who are/were active in women's rights, the peace movement, etc. After taking a while to mull this all over (and talking to some friends), I decided that I'd take a stab at breaching the worldview barrier. Here's my letter back to her:
It's nice to hear from you, and to read some of your thoughts on this crazy world we're living in. I appreciate your sharing them with me.
I wanted to first say that although I am of the opinion that Bush has done more harm than good as a president, and I will actively work to prevent his reelection, my encouragement of involvement and conversation is for everyone, regardless of who they support or what they think. The more involved I get in politics, the more I feel that it is really important for all of us to talk to each other - and not just to people we agree with. I also feel strongly that anyone who wants to be patriotic should be involved, voting, and should work to keep our electoral system fair and accessible to all (but the state of the electoral system is another email altogether!).
Second, although you wrote mostly about the war, I have to say that that is only one reason that I disagree with Bush. My primary concern (not surprising, given my career) is the environment. The Bush administration has done a tremendous amount of damage to federal environmental law, and is consistently putting the profits of already wealthy corporations ahead of our common environment and our environmental legacy to the next generation. Just one example is the administrations absolute refusal to deal with global climate change. As a scientist, I'm sure you see how ridiculous this is.
I'm also very concerned about the economy, particularly with the indescribably large deficits that we will hand down to our children; the nomination of anti-choice judges to the federal bench; the interference of the federal government in state redistricting (notably in Texas); and the general partisan tone of the administration. Given that Bush did not win the election, and in fact was supported by only roughly a quarter of the population, I think it is inappropriate for him to act like he has a mandate for radical change.
That said, I do think the war in Iraq is wrong. I should say that, like you, I don't think all war is wrong (although I do think all war is bad - a distinction few make, I think). There can be just wars, there can be justification for military intervention. WWII was obviously an example of that, and although I'm not sure that we have the perspective of history on them yet, interventions in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and East Timor are examples too. But I don't think that the war in Iraq is just. That's not to say that I don't think Saddam Hussein was an awful tyrant who did terrible things - just that I don't think that this war, in this way, at this time, is justified.
My opposition falls into two general categories - first that is was wrong to go to war, and second that it was wrong to do it the way they did. It was wrong to go to war because Iraq was not a threat to us. The inspections were working, and the Iraqi government was contained. Saddam Hussein was not collaborating with Al Queda, and was not (as far as we know) harboring terrorists. We didn't have the support of our allies or of the UN, which to me is a necessary precondition. It was wrong also to do it the way they did, by lying to the public (and the world) about Iraq's connections to Al Queda, it's possession of WMD, and the "imminent threat" it posed. I don't know why they really wanted a war - I strongly suspect it has to do with oil - but it wasn't because there was an imminent threat. Most importantly, I think that this war, rather than making the world safer and decreasing the threat from terrorism, has actually increased the danger we are in. We've certainly alienated many of our allies, and squandered the global good will we had after 9/11.
Fundamentalism frightens me as much as it does you, and I agree that humanitarian action is not likely to change the mind of any current terrorists. I do, however, think that it can prevent people from becoming terrorists. I also agree with you that no one (at least no politician) has articulated a plan that I think would decrease the threat of terrorism and make the world safer. I have some ideas and instincts about the right direction to be moving in, though, and I don't hear anything from Bush that makes me think he'll go that way.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe that Bush has the best interests of the American people at heart. I think he has an agenda (which stems in part from his fundamentalist Christian beliefs) that he is implementing regardless of the effect it has on real people. Maybe history with show that he made the right decisions (I doubt it, but it's possible), but I don't think he made them for the right reasons. To me, the path is at least as important as the destination.
I haven't received a response yet, so I don't know how successful I was. My question to you is how do you deal with these situations? How do you bridge the partisan divide, break the worldview barrier? Not on a large scale, but face to face - how do you talk to the Republicans in your family?