Real Friends Don't Let Friends Agree with Them All the Time
Earlier this week, I caught the Facebook status update of a high school friend of mine, in which he lamented the fact that he had been "defriended" by someone who he had been having a disagreement with online about the current health care debate. I don't know any context beyond this one update, but it saddened me to read this. Real friends are friends not because they always agree with you; and having only friends who agree with you is a sure way to become narrow-minded and self-congratulating.
Alas, a lot of this happens in this country. "The Big Sort" is a recent book that discusses this phenomenon of people congregating near other like-minded people, to the detriment of open and civil discourse. California is just the most prominent example of the radicalizing effect of gerrymandering, in which the real elections are at the primary level, thus rewarding extreme positions rather than a more compromising, moderate perspective. And the 24/7/365 news cycle has become so glutted that only the most outlandish views get staying power, further cementing our incomplete stereotypes of what "the other side" thinks.
I recall a few years back waiting in the lobby to meet a friend for lunch. When he came out to meet me and saw me reading a book on Ronald Reagan, he practically slapped the book out of my hand and proceeded to question me loudly as to how I could possibly be reading about him. Yet whether or not you think President Reagan had any redeeming qualities, or even if you think he had none, you have to think that reading a biography about him is a good thing, as it relates to being informed; but my friend would have me do no such thing.
"Defriending" those with opposing beliefs on Facebook would seem to be all the more puzzling, given the generally open and genial nature of the social networking platform. Sure, I've read my share of inappropriately incendiary and close-minded dreck on FB; but, in general, it's hardly a setting where a cordial disagreement about a hot issue can't take place.
Alas, we stroke ourselves in the wrong way when we only huddle up with those who agree with us. Their affirmations make us feel good that we are indeed right; and our rejections of those different from us make us feel we are being doctrinally "pure." But isn't American democracy founded on open discourse, political parties, and peaceful transfer of power, and spirited opposition? Bah, but who needs that patriotic crap, when you can feel good about what you believe in and get some good licks in against "the enemy."
As for me, I'm going to try to remember that every debate has two sides, neither side has a monopoly on the truth, and the goal of an argument may not be for one side to win but rather for both sides to be better for having exchanged ideas and concepts. And, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to make a connection to Jesus, who bore the snickering and judgment of the established religious leaders of his day, who wondered aloud why he would associate with society's marginalized and sinful; never mind that their faith heritage spoke often of helping the outcasted, and not about holy huddling.
"The Big Sort"? "Defriending" those who disagree with you? Talking ill of a curious rabbi who dared bread bread with the most scandalously immoral people around? It is tempting to be like this. Let us instead value diversity of opinion, and be humble enough to believe that those who disagree with us may have something to teach us now and then.
Comments
The only time I am forced to make a decision based on this dichotomy is one day every 2-4 years when I vote for national candidates. (Local candidates don't always fit party affiliation very well). It seems silly to base my identity on this in any way.
I am gradually developing my own sense of how I should participate in civil politics (we often forget that civics is but one of many settings where politics "occurs"). What I am settling down to is the concept that I should only give my vote to a person with whom I am linked by an unbroken chain of genuine personal relationship.
That may sound weird, so I'll put it another way: if I can't locate the person effectively in the network/constellation of living relationships that surrounds me and which makes me who I am, I am never going to vote for him or her, for an elective office. In practice, this means that I will probably vote in township (Lower Merion) elections, maybe (not likely) in county (Montgomery) elections, less likely still, in state (PA) elections, and so on.
You can imagine, this makes me a bit of a weird conversation partner, since "political discussion" has pretty much become synonymous with "discussion about national and international policy". Discussion about those things is fine, if you've already done due diligence (in all sorts of ways), with politics in your own backyard. I firmly believe there is way too much of the former, and not nearly enough of the latter. Especially on the part of Christians.
I have a mystical attachment to Jesus' admonition to remove the log in your own eye, before seeking to remove the speck from another's eye. It is not (to put it mildly) the normal interpretation of that verse, to say "do local before you do global", but I fervently believe that that connection is there.
* Focusing your time and involvement only where you can genuinely invest enough to be informed and connected (goodness knows many of us would do well to heed such a discipline, lest we get spread too thin and/or opine on things we know little about or having little leverage in); and
* Opting out of other issues or elections, which means, in our democratic form of government, ceding additional influence to others besides us who are not opting out on a particular issue or election.
Not sure I have any clarity for you on finding that balance; just wanted to point out it is one we all have to find.
It was intended as a declaration of principles, vis a vis political participation, for "the masses". You (Lee) are *definitely, definitely* not "the masses", not even close. I am closer to the masses than you; sufficiently close that in this discussion I can stand in for them.
My point was that our entire cultural system focuses on "the big", "the powerful", and Americans on average have worse knowledge about "events", for any historical period you want to pick (including the current period), than citizens of other "developed nations", on average. What this means is, the "American masses" are horrifyingly ignorant of what's really going on anywhere, and what they do know is info-tainment geared toward the "sexiest" of national and global news stories. And only while the subject is "sexy".
I think Christians must relentlessly engage with their neighbors on issues of common concern. And I think Christians of a "progressive" stripe, politically, need to stop talking *constantly* about communicating with the federal government, about issues of justice and equity.
This could easily turn into a rant. I obviously feel very strongly about it, so I'll leave it at that, and get back to my day job.