It's gratifying to know the level of discourse that stimulates my readers. For the record:
- No pushups, ice or dental work were involved in the making of the picture
- I have a high pain threshold, but consider Photoshop a better use of pre-campaign time than waxing
- A certain dalmatian seems to think we are descended from the apes; I have not taken a position
- Putin suggested much with a simple rod and reel; I am leaning toward the harpoon over the Kalashnikov
- I have mastered the soulful look and will be more careful to include it in the future
- I did notice some atrophy in the biceps; if I decide to run, I will get on it.
Now, seriously, folks...
Some weeks ago Bruce Benidt got crossways with another blogger over their responses to the I-35W bridge collapse. Benidt stepped back, took stock and invited Ryan Evans to lunch. He writes about their encounter and so does Ryan.
If the rift can be bridged in even a small way by two people who feel quite passionately about their causes, is the cause really all that lost? Party hardliners may think differently, but I am starting to wonder if middle ground can be reached without sacrificing values and being labeled [gasp!] moderate.
A year before Black and Tice became an item, I outlined a few principles that Benidt and Evans seem to have followed.
Search for Common Ground calls for a non-adversarial approach that focuses on a common problem rather than on each other as the problem, and speaks to everyone's highest place, not the lowest:
"Often when people disagree, eventually they have to meet in the middle and everyone has to compromise. What we're talking about is creating a new, 'highest common denominator.' Not having two sides meet in the middle, but having them identify something together that they can aspire to and are willing to work towards.
"When people care passionately about two sides of an issue, there is usually something of value in each point of view. People's underlying interests, concerns and values tend to be much broader and less polarising than their negotiating positions. When we look from this perspective, the truth of each competing point of view can be appreciated and creative options can be generated that benefit all."
The Public Conversations Project encourages dialogue instead of debate as a way to bridge differences. I've digested some of their principles here:
• Listen to understand instead of to refute. Try to understand the deeper interests and concerns behind people's perceptions rather than trying to change their perceptions to fit your reality.
• Speak to each other as individuals, from your own unique experience, rather than be your side's representative.
• Explore complexities of the issue. Reveal differences within the same side.
• Question the usual language, problem definition and possible solutions that constrain public discussion.
• Demonstrate the values you believe are essential to the process, such as inclusiveness, tolerance, mutual understanding and respect.
We can all learn from these experiments, but we'll be even better off when they become the norm.
