Let us Disagree Without Being Disagreeable

Scott Kirwin of Dean's World directs us to Harry Stein column in City Journal, and then amplifies on one aspect, saying that he, too has a mixed marriage, and that it works very well and helps make him and his wife better people. He quotes Gerald Ford, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."



First off, I want to corroborate his story. My wife's family are all democrats, she marched with Cesar Chavez as a young girl. Mind you, they've pretty much stayed in the same place politically while the Donkeys drifted further to the left, to the point where she has actually considered registering Republican in the last year or so. Furthermore, most of the people I tend to hang out with are either Libertarian or Democratic, and they keep me from going to far towards the right.



Second, when exactly did we lose the ability to disagree without being disagreeable? When and where did people start automatically assuming that the opposition is evil? Particularly if they don't convert to your point of view upon a first exposure to what you regard as pertinent facts?



Out of personal experience, I can trace the phenomenon back to 1976 on the left. Some members of my family are what we today call die-hard moonbats. I remember when Ronald Reagan was challenging Gerald Ford for the Elephant nomination back then them using some significantly over the top rhetoric on their part, "crazy attack dog who needs to go back to the B movies," "He'd have us in a nuclear war in twenty minutes", etcetera. I seem to remember him serving as president for eight years, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any nuclear wars during that period.



On the right the first I encountered it was Rush Limbaugh. I can remember the first time I listened to him, thinking, "Okay, he's funny, he's willing to call it like he sees it, he is a breath of something pointed vaguely in my direction politically, but he's dangerous." I haven't listened to Rush in quite some time. I stopped years ago because even when he and I agree, I could detect no pretenses towards what I see as rational thought process on his part.



People are entitled to hold to different viewpoints than my own. Some of these people are rational, thinking human beings. The universe knows my own views on many subjects have evolved over time. Why can't somebody with a different starting place be different now? Why can't they have gone further, or not as far, or off in a completely different direction? Some of the smartest people I know think differently than I do. My father, who was beyond doubt the best man I've ever had the privilege of knowing, was a Democratic New Deal man to the core. He voted the straight Democratic ticket every election his entire life. You could have run a Democratic slate pulled from their KKK wing and their Communist wing, and he'd have voted for them all. I loved him anyway.



Why do people believe differently than I do? First off, they have different value systems. Somebody who legitimately believes that surrender is preferable to war is not going to agree with me on much having to do with national defense. I take solace in the thought that there are a lot more people whose values coincide with my own on this point than there are of them.



Second, we've had different life experiences. Someone who's family comes from Central America, for example, is going to have a completely different viewpoint on the CIA and our national defense structure, as for a large part of the 20th century the US didn't exactly treat those countries with a whole lot of respect.



Third, we may even see different facts differently. I am completely convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the murder of John F. Kennedy, but we have major films from people who aren't. These people have regular conventions, periodicals, etecetera. I think they're in denial and even if they're right, it wouldn't make a difference today. They think I am the one in denial, and that by so believing, make myself into a Tool. Maybe one of these days I'll come across a fact, verified and vetted, that causes me to change my mind (not likely, I'll admit. But the possibility is there.)



Fourth, we have different competencies. I've got a fairly broad spectrum of general stuff that I'm pretty good at, with areas of specialization here and there. Some of these are because of college coursework, some due to vocational concerns, and a whole lot of them because I find them fascinating (For instance, the intertwining of military, political, and technological history). On the other hand, aside from marvelling at the skill involved in a masterwork painting, I have no clue about painting. I can sometimes spot that "This looks like a Van Gogh" before somebody tells me, but that's about it. I have no idea of the artistic heritage that led to Van Gogh, who his influences were, or anything else that crowd finds fascinating. Similar situations apply in other fields. It's not that I despise these people, it's just that I'm interested in other things. When I talk about Napoleon's influence on Clausewitz and through him on the Prussian (later German) army, or influences on tactics derived from the advent of rapid fire weapons, and how the American Civil War was a prelude tactically to World War I, I see the same blank stares back as I give them when they're talking about Rembrandt or Picasso. That's okay. But it means I see things through a different prism of learning than I do. Through the things I have studied, I am going to understand background facts without needing them explicitly covered, sometimes they are. And sometimes even after we have them explained, we're not going to change our minds. It may not be rational, but it is human. It doesn't make us evil.



Now, how do we disagree with someone without being disagreeable? First off, to the extent practical, we can aim our opposition at the issue, not the individual. It is not the same to say that "2 plus 2 equals four" as it is to say, "only an idiot wouldn't realize two plus two equals four." Second, spend some time listening to them. Try to understand what they're saying. It doesn't cause cancer. Maybe there's a fact in there that one or the other of you has wrong. Maybe there's a misunderstanding that you can clear up. Maybe you have a misunderstanding that they can clear up. And maybe the metaphorical temples that both of us listen to for our daily wisdom are both in the habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, and the real truth lies somewhere in the middle.



Once upon a time not too long ago we could disagree without automatically hating each other's guts. Back in the 1950s it was a national joke about the wife's vote cancelling out the husband's (or vice versa). If two people who agree about nothing political can nonetheless be and stay happily married for life then, why can't we be civil to those who disagree with us in public discourse today?