Politics and religion can be dangerous topics to discuss in casual conversation. So, typically we refrain.
However, the other night while dining with some new friends, the political barrier came down. It all began when one member of our foursome mentioned reading The New York Times, which led another member of the group to reply that The Times was too liberal for him and that he read The Wall Street Journal. From there, the conversation went from comments on political journalists in each paper to TV channels — Fox versus CNN. And then, as you might imagine, the conversation went to the Arizona shooting, President Obama, the role of government, the Tea Party’s political view and Sarah Palin’s charismatic effect on the political scene and her future potential.
For four people who have many common interests, the sharp diversity in political opinions was startling. However, there was no hostility expressed and I enjoyed the lively conversation. It started me wondering why so much weight is put on the adage about avoiding discussions about politics and religion.
The morning after the dinner, I received an e-mail from a member of our foursome. “I seriously hope my responses to a few things were not so vehement as to make you uncomfortable. While we have different perspectives, I respect yours and I enjoy a lively discussion.”
I started thinking about the impasse that is facing our government. Two groups — the Republicans and the Democrats — with such different solutions for our country and such seemingly intractable approaches. I found some encouragement in an article in the December AARP Bulletin by two former congressmen, John Porter (a Republican) and David Skaggs (a Democrat), urging members of Congress to work together to address national problems ().
Remarks shared by speakers at the 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival apply here, too. Walter Isaacson, CEO of the Aspen Institute, spoke of ideas as a way of looking at the world. He suggested that they are best when shared, then refined by others, and eventually returned in a more glorious fashion.
Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford law professor, said, “Regaining the American people’s trust of their own government is one of the greatest current challenges. It deeply worries me that we continue to be afraid to share ideas and so many thoughtful people don’t trust their own government.”
It would be naïve to suggest that dinner table conversations can solve our political polarity. And yet we have to find a way for our American political system to function better. Of course, there will always be differences, but the lack of tolerance today is frightening. Maybe the mixed seating at the State of the Union address on Tuesday, an idea suggested by Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, will be a beginning. Too bad it took a shooting to foster that idea. And too bad one blogger made this comment: “You can’t make people get along by forcing them to hold hands. Is this kindergarten?”
It’s tempting to shrug our shoulders and say that with a new Republican majority in the House, a slim Democratic majority in the Senate, and Obama as president nothing is going to get accomplished in the next two years, so why waste our time talking about it? Rather, thoughtful citizens need to share ideas and think of ways to avoid a dysfunctional government. We need to know what the issues are and take the responsibility to communicate with our elected officials, and let them know our wishes. And we need to refine them by sharing our ideas with each other.
As Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Margery Fridstein (mfridstein@comcast.net) is a psychological counselor in Highlands Ranch.
