There was a meme about successful people versus losers today on the interwebs. A "meme" is one of those pithy pictures with a thought-provoking, snarky, or otherwise hilarious caption made to make a point. Anyway, it said that people who watch TV and fail to keep daily journals were losers. [What if you kept a daily journal about watching TV?--ed.] That's what I was thinking.
In any case, it got me thinking: Have you ever noticed that people always say they don't like "bumper-sticker" politics? First of all, you're lying. You don't like the other side's bumper stickers. I know I don't. And let's cut the mess: There are "sides" in politics, just like in every discussion. And there's nothing wrong with this, inherently. But I think disenchantment comes when we use the same words, but mean different things. We get really hostile with politicians who willfully equivocate for political advantage. But I think it's fractious because we don't define terms, and we don't have a common patriotic heritage anymore that gets us through the frustration of the times when we don't agree on terms. You have to respect someone at a basic, human level in order to define terms together. That's what we've lost: The creative space to do the hard work of defining our terms in policy. That's what people are actually talking about when they say we need "civility." We don't need a rigidly enforced "politeness", though; we need a non-threatening, human, gentle way of teasing each other to make a point. We need bumper stickers.
In the same way that a parable disarms a defensive audience to make a point, that's what our politics should be. But we need to restore the boundaries between the political arena, and neutral civic space. Because the workings of our democratic institutions and processes are a good chunk of the space where rebuilding that common heritage is going to take place, if we are able.
I think if I am called upon to seek and hold political office, my first two promises will be to not make everything political, and to not promise the world. I really want to have a good conversation about the nation and its people. I'd rather lose having committed some mythical "heinous" gaffe in the attempt to have a meaningful discussion than to not have one at all.
Not that I've always been known for level-headedness, but it's worth a go, eh?
In any case, it got me thinking: Have you ever noticed that people always say they don't like "bumper-sticker" politics? First of all, you're lying. You don't like the other side's bumper stickers. I know I don't. And let's cut the mess: There are "sides" in politics, just like in every discussion. And there's nothing wrong with this, inherently. But I think disenchantment comes when we use the same words, but mean different things. We get really hostile with politicians who willfully equivocate for political advantage. But I think it's fractious because we don't define terms, and we don't have a common patriotic heritage anymore that gets us through the frustration of the times when we don't agree on terms. You have to respect someone at a basic, human level in order to define terms together. That's what we've lost: The creative space to do the hard work of defining our terms in policy. That's what people are actually talking about when they say we need "civility." We don't need a rigidly enforced "politeness", though; we need a non-threatening, human, gentle way of teasing each other to make a point. We need bumper stickers.
In the same way that a parable disarms a defensive audience to make a point, that's what our politics should be. But we need to restore the boundaries between the political arena, and neutral civic space. Because the workings of our democratic institutions and processes are a good chunk of the space where rebuilding that common heritage is going to take place, if we are able.
I think if I am called upon to seek and hold political office, my first two promises will be to not make everything political, and to not promise the world. I really want to have a good conversation about the nation and its people. I'd rather lose having committed some mythical "heinous" gaffe in the attempt to have a meaningful discussion than to not have one at all.
Not that I've always been known for level-headedness, but it's worth a go, eh?
Comments