January 26th, 2020 | Written by - Katherine Cassese '21
For the Laurel Political Review and our D3 this year, I’ve thought a lot about how we talk about political disagreement. We are inundated with messages about making compromises, overcoming our differences, and discovering the unity that lies just beneath the surface of political tension. Not only is this solution idealistic, but it demeans our real disagreements. Instead of pretending the political chasm that separates us doesn’t exist, we need to learn to embrace it.
I used to try to reach agreement at the end of every political discussion. For example, after speaking to someone who had a different view than me on gun control, we could both agree that 1) fewer people ought to be killed by guns and that 2) individual rights ought to be protected. These agreements are general to the point of meaninglessness: obviously fewer people should die! Obviously neither of us wanted to live in a totalitarian state! I celebrated this agreement and ignored our disagreements: she believes individual rights supercede collective security, and I believe collective security supersedes individual rights.
I didn’t want to end our conversation in such a messy way. I was satisfied with my empty agreements, and I believed that my companion and I had bridged the chasm between our views in a way that politicians in Washington never had. I was so careful to maintain civility and mutual respect that I ignored our true opinions. Ultimately, this is an ineffective method.
Both of our opinions are nuanced, warranted, and thoughtful, and I ignored this to manufacture agreement that didn’t exist in our conversation. In doing so, I bulldozed over anything meaningful we had said, demeaning and reducing our opinions to rubble. Instead, I wish I had faithfully represented our views, including- most painful to me at the time- the fact that they are incompatible.
Moving forward, I have begun to respect thoughtful opinions by recognizing when they conflict and by realizing that this isn’t a deficiency: reasonable people can come to different conclusions. Once I recognized this, my conversations have grown deeper, my thinking more nuanced, and my opinions more refined. My hope is that this year, with the Laurel Political Review and at Laurel, we can do the same. Let’s all try to embrace not only the consensus we may reach in a conversation, but also the clash. We’ll be better for it.
Comments