Us vs. Them: The Erosion of Civil Discourse

Posted by Jason Douglas on 09.23.2009

These days when the average person thinks they're not being heard, they just talk louder. Imagine getting everyone, even those who generally disagree with you, to willingly hear you out. It's time to open our lines of communication...

Greetings once again from the former Shockmaster (this is the last time I'll go out of my way to note that). I was having trouble settling on what to write about this week, so I sat back and waited for inspiration. We had a major story on ACORN advising people on ways to conduct criminal behavior without getting caught, which some immediately associated with Obama. There's no denying the number of unsavory characters he surrounds himself with. But making a firm connection and claiming one reflects the character of the other calls for too much speculation at this point. Then we have Jimmy Carter playing the race card over Joe Wilson's outburst. He offered no proof at all that race was a factor in Wilson's deplorable behavior. It's the sort of thing where if you're predisposed to believe it, then minor details like proof don't matter.

J. Alexander Mitchell wrote in his most recent post: "when you find yourself immediately rejecting a thought as wrong, make a concerted effort to understand why the person that says it makes the statement that s/he does". This is the perspective I used when writing about Republican obstruction, looking to get in their heads and see where they're coming from rather than being dismissive. In doing so I actually found my own take on things evolving simply by looking at the same issue from a different perspective.

Robert Zimmer shined a light on the values preaching still going on from the right. In particular was a claim that watching straight porn can turn you gay. That's when inspiration hit me for a topic. Senator Tom Coburn said "if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants." This is absurd on multiple levels. First of all, have you seen a copy of Playboy lately? My grandpa would barely consider that pornography. Second, was I a late bloomer? I was thirteen before I could have used such material for its intended purpose, so I have to wonder about Coburn's choice of age in his example. Third is the clear implication that being gay is "the last thing" he wants. While prejudices make being gay in America difficult, many of us have moved past seeing it as the worst thing a person could be.

Now comes my concerted effort to understand why Coburn made this statement. Scoring political points with like-minded people is fairly obvious, but that's secondary at most and pure cynicism won't lead us to any insight. Let's step back and look at the context of his remarks. I won't copy Zimmer's entire post, which you should read if you haven't, but the summit included numerous crackpot theories which even level headed conservatives reject. The underlying theme was that there are groups of people out there who are different from the audience, which is dangerous and threatens their way of life. Since the days of cavemen a core part of human teamwork has been the creation of some idea to rally around. To get people to work together toward a goal which one of them cannot achieve alone, there must be either a perceived mutual benefit or a mutual threat. This is the origin of the "us vs. them" mentality which has both benefited and plagued mankind for ages.

Mutual threats have been tangible and very real. From rival tribes to the Red Menace, convincing people to seek strength in numbers has been an easy task. It so happens that when there is a common enemy, it's much easier for a leader to get compliance from the group. As such, it serves a purpose to convince people there is always a threat. Military bogey men are hard to find and sustain, since if any one of them gets too scary we're strong enough to take them out. It's far more convenient to create an enemy which is intangible and cannot be defeated.

Numerous comments on Zimmer's post asked a variation of a reasonable question: Why do these fringe groups insist someone can't be born gay? It's because if they concede that point, they have to admit that God made gay people that way. That would mean having to accept them, since saying God messed up is not an option. They would lose a perceived enemy and with it a great rallying point. Gays are just one of many bogey men in our history. Slaves, freed slaves, illegal immigrants, atheists, religious fanatics, racists, reverse racists, the list goes on. Both sides do it because it's so effective. "See that group? They're the cause of your problems, so give me power and together we will conquer the enemy." It also provides cover for not fixing society's problems once the ambitious hate monger has attained status. "Everything would be sunshine and smiles by now if not for this group standing in the way. Just give me one more term and we'll beat them." Every form of bigotry originates from self serving nonsense meant to manipulate the masses.

If Jimmy Carter wanted to rake Joe Wilson over the coals, he had an easy and effective way to do it. Every time President Obama bows to a royal figure, shakes the wrong hand, or even admits certain dictators exist, the right claims he is making us look weak. So how strong did the U.S. look to the world when a Congressman called the President of the United States a liar during a national speech? If that level of disrespect is tolerated domestically, why should any other country take our top figure seriously? Jimmy Carter, instead of putting some thought into his response, went straight to the Democrat's rallying cry, which predictably has one side behind him and the other offended. But I'm betting most conservatives agree with my point here, meaning Wilson could have been universally rebuked without stirring the pot.

This brings me to my own challenge to 411 readers. Once you make the effort to see where someone you disagree with is coming from, ask yourself a question: Why were you so quick to attack and label this person? Are you viewing the issue objectively, or through a biased lens of your own? Conditioning people to give quick, trained responses to complex questions discourages independent thought, making us easier to influence. Stop arguing based on which historic figures you think would agree, or insisting that your personal interpretation of sacred documents is the correct one. Stick to making intellectual points that all reasonable people can accept. Yes, there are fringe lunatics who are immune to logic, but you don't care what they think. You're an intelligent adult who can state your ideas without name calling or parroting talking points. As I said in my debut, I like being shown a new way to look at things. I come away from such moments feeling a little bit wiser. Even if 90% of what a person says is gibberish, you'll still learn more from them than from the sound of your own loud, angry voice. We can only gain knowledge when we accept that we don't already have all the answers.