Verified by 
Tossing insults back and forth is easy. Insisting that you are speaking from facts and the other person is reciting fabrications feels right. But this isn’t dialogue. Words are being exchanged, but nothing is heard. No one is learning anything, not a bit of curiosity is being spurred, and certainly no one is changing anyone’s mind. Such stalemates only tend to intensify bad feelings on both sides.
We can’t leave it like this. Our personal relationships and our democracy both depend on our capacity to talk to each other and to hear each other out. We don’t have to agree; we don’t even have to strive to meet in the middle. We do need to find out what matters to the other person, what drives their point of view, and they need to know the same about us.
A starting point is to pull back and locate a set of facts you both can agree on. This is not a trivial exercise. Meaningful dialogue hinges on these reference points that can give us moments of repose together. Maybe you both agree on free public education. Well-maintained highways and bridges? Laws requiring drivers to have licenses? Access to clean drinking water? Having fresh air to breathe? Assembling a list like this pushes ideology to the sidelines, by definition. Something makes it to the list only if both see its necessity.
It is crucial to notice exactly when this glimpse of a mutually appreciated commons starts to fracture. Here’s an example:
“How about health care available to everyone?”
“That’s socialism!”
“No, that’s a basic human right, like clean air and water.”
Here a pause must be invoked and the issue set aside. Talking in slogans goes nowhere fast. It doesn’t help to try to persuade, cajole, or preach to the other. Instead, the process of making the agreed-upon list should continue as long as possible, perhaps with another tally kept of subjects in too much contention to make the list. The second list is likely to grow much longer than the first. So be it.
What’s next? One person proceeds to ask questions of the other. The attitude of inquiry must be sincere, stemming from a desire to understand the other’s point of view. “Tell me what worries you about a government takeover of health care.” Keep going with questions, layer after layer. If the person speaks in generalities, ask for specifics. Take notes, repeat back the concerns. “OK. Waiting lists for procedures. Less quality in the care provided. Loss of innovation without the profit motive. Little choice among providers. Parceling out who gets what. The government dictating our choices.”
Anytime someone moves from slogans to their heartfelt worries, true dialogue has begun. I tried this exact conversation once with someone I met at a campground. After I read this list back to him, I remarked, “You know, these are all really valid concerns.” I meant this, as I had many of these same anxieties. His tone of voice grew less strident. I smiled. “Now, ask me what I’m worried about, if things continue on the way they are.” He smiled. “Let’s hear it.” “Medical debts piling up. Copayments and deductibles adding up to more than I can handle. The only insurance policy that I can afford hardly paying for anything. Medicine prices going up and my income going down. Someday having to choose between getting my medicine and paying rent.”
We both got quiet, sitting there at a picnic table under tall pine trees. We were talking across the divide. He was hearing my standpoint and I was hearing his. During this exchange of our points of view, the complexities had multiplied. We wondered, was it possible to make the system more fair without losing our choices and preferences? How much compromise would be worth it? We both didn’t have a ready answer, but we agreed that we had a lot to think about.
E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. Many points of view can be put forth—this is actually productive when situations are complicated. Agreeing to disagree works out fine, so long as both parties hold to the commitment not to disparage the other’s position, not to engage in personal attacks, and to take turns listening. Disagreement can be energetic, divergences in views can be miles wide. It can take a lot of work to understand what is behind someone’s stake in a particular issue, often because the person hasn’t ever tried to verbalize realizations at this depth. Finding common ground can prove quite elusive, and the effort to get there can be exhausting. The key is not to give up on the quest, for the sake of a relationship or a democracy.
Copyright: Wendy Lustbader, 2021.
