On Western unity, a request of my contemporaries

Ideas, thoughts, and resources from the permanently curious.

Living

World

Politics

On Western unity, a request of my contemporaries (12/2/06)

With the introduction of full-time politicians came the introduction of professional communicators and with them, different tactics of communication. The one we are most familiar with is that of dialog; the method we use with our friends and family. Outside of those circumstances professional communicators move to something called "point scoring" where they assume the audience is only partially engaged in listening to what is being said and attempt to communicate points to the listeners so they will form the desired opinion without the time and dedication required to reach the same opinion by dialog.

I can't stress how much damage I believe this tactic of communication has done to us. People's thoughts become fractured while their dedication isn't, causing a lot of stress and anger that can prevent true progress. The politics we hear about daily mirror this. For instance, take the positions on the death sentence. When was the last time you heard an honest dialog about it? Let's try an example.

I oppose the death penalty on humanitarian grounds. What does that actually tell you about my position? Nothing. That's because it is a talking point. Now for dialog:

Over the past 50 years our understanding of neurology and psychology has expanded far beyond what anyone thought possible. We've uncovered a number of conditions that can lead a person down a problematic path. Drug use we're all familiar with but even simple genetics can leave a person with an imbalance of chemicals in their brain that can seriously destabilize them. The present system of justice doesn't account for these things and while they certainly don't excuse a person's actions I do believe they establish reasonable doubt that a person deserves to die for their actions. Until I know they have been checked, I can't support using the death penalty on them.

The problem expands from there. What about the conditions we don't know about yet? We're identifying them all the time. Is it the responsibility of the defense teams to display this 'evidence'? I don't see how they could all be experts on neurology and psychology. Some jurisdictions screen inmates before incarceration for just these reasons and the inmates who need help are placed in a ward that can properly treat their conditions. Anecdotes about the wards for those who didn't need treatment stand in sharp contrast to the ones we are familiar with:

"I remember one heated exchange where a prisoner and a jailor both threatened to file formal complaints. It was a bit surreal." - 'ryanrs', 4/20/06 comment on Ask MetaFilter.

My point is this: modern politics doesn't tolerate such dialog very easily. If they did I doubt many people would disagree with my dialog, while an easy 50% would disagree if their decision were based solely on my talking point. There simply isn't enough information contained in that talking point to make an informed decision. Yes, within the dialog there are business decisions to be made in carrying out my position, but they are just that; business decisions, open to discussion, experimentation, and revision.

We stand exposed to one of the greatest threats we have ever faced at a time when we are least prepared to counter it. Doing so will require a united people which will be our greatest challenge. All I can ask for is that we give each other the benefit of doubt, commit to honest dialog where feeling a position out and being wrong is not only tolerated but also expected, and to do those things as quickly as I know we are capable of doing.