I'm honored that you mentioned me in this context, David. Here's how I see it:

True communication sometimes involves output (talking or writing) but just as often involves input (listening and learning).

True communicators have two passions: truth and connection (with other people).

When truth and human connection are the goals (and we all forget this at times), we proceed gently. We avoid hyperbole, posturing, and blanket statements. Winning the argument is no longer important, and drinking one's own bath water is pointless and counterproductive.

And, of course, GROSS. :-)

I've had one real rough patch in my marriage, some years ago. You know how I knew we were in trouble? One night I found myself thinking if I yelled LOUD enough I could WIN. Win, I had to finally ask, what?

Despite the great political divides in this country, I still believe that there is a chance we can reconcile SOME of our differences, maybe even a lot of our differences, if we're at least as interested in doing that as we are in smugly enjoying the superiority of being the least ignorant ignoramous in the room.

The best (and only) experiments going: Watch Huckabee. Watch Obama.

If only we could say, "Watch Lieberman." Or--and this is me in my fantasy world--"Watch Krauthammer."

This topic is one I struggle with daily, and not least because Jane (who is smart, funny and insightful) is my friend too!

I have always believed I MUST read and listen to the opinions of people with whom I disagree. This is FAR more important (although perhaps less fun) than reading and listening to people I already agree with, because how much can I truly learn from that?

No, as difficult as it is for me, I watch Bill O'Reilly, I read (deep breath!) Ann Coulter, and I watch (in small doses - after all, I'm only human!) Fox News.

I cannot legitimately think of myself a thoughtful, inclusive person, who is willing to be convinced that an opinion I don't on the surface agree with, has merit. Because it is important to me to try to be that kind of person, I consistently and intentionally expose myself to opinions that conflict with my views.

My difficulty, is that (with wonderful exception of Jane!) I find people on the other side of an issue tend to refuse to discuss their positions with me at all once they know I don't already agree with them. I think I am respectful when I discuss a contentious topic -I certainly strive to be. But I find that people react to a question about why they believe what they do, or how they came to that opinion as an attack instead of a request to understand (which I assure you is what it is!).

David, I think you're right that many of us have become so polarized in our various "camps" that we cannot (or will not) even entertain divergent opinions, which is a shame. We don't have to agree to talk to each other, or at least, we didn't used to have to.

There are exceptions. I believe Coulter is a kind of communication criminal, a bomb-thrower and I won't watch her except out of a perverse desire to feel hatred. Same, to a slightly lesser extent goes for O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Nor do I expect O'Reilly peeps to listen to Keith Olbermann.

These folks are all making money on their views—O'Reilly and Olbermann both know their ratings would plummet if they suddenly became reasonable—so they can be easily dismissed.

I also think it's fair to dismiss another person, ONCE YOU'VE HAD SINCERE DISCUSSIONS and have found their point of view simply illegitimate, or based on their own warped experience or psychology. It is not our lot in life to butt heads with people with whom we will never agree or who we believe don't fight fair.

But to me the key is to be as open as one can possibly be and to remember to believe that people are more similar than they are different, and common ground exists between most pairs of us, between most groups of us. And to do the best we can to find it.

Amen David!

Thanks to Eileen Burmeister for reminding me of Rick Warren, another advance scout in the search for the common ground:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73073

David, you struck the right chord when you said O'Reilly and Olberman would suffer a ratings drop if... It's all about the money for those most visible media hacks.

I saw an interview not long ago with Bernie Goldberg and someone else whose name escapes me right now. Bernie is the very conservative guy and the other was a very liberal guy. They have come together to write a book called (I think) Common Ground, in which they try to heal the divisiveness currently happening.

The most striking example they discussed of an area where we might be able to find "common ground" was abortion. I know -- I couldn't believe it either. They said research has revealed that of all the pregnant women who seek abortions and are given a sonogram of their unborn child, fully 90 percent don't go through with the abortion. They (the book authors) predicted that if all potential abortive mothers were required to receive sonograms, the number of abortions would drop substantially. The common ground is that right-wingers would be happy because of the substantial drop in abortions -- something they've been clamoring for -- and left-wingers would be happy because the woman's right to choose isn't impinged.

That sounds brilliant to me, and I can't wait to get my hands on the book.

Will

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter are often factually correct, sometimes funny, but almost always rude. Rudeness gets in the way of establishing relationships and also offends those who believe differently. One can have strong conservative leanings without worshipping at the Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Coulter altar, just as one can have strong liberal leanings without worshipping at the Kennedy/Reid/Carter altar.

The trouble happens when we start to think and talk about groups--Those damn liberals. Those stupid conservatives--as if they were individuals. Most people I know are a fascinating mix of liberal and conservative, artist and philistine, hick and urbanite. And there's more than enough bullshit in every camp. I love it when I find someone who laughs at it all equally.

That book does sound very interesting, though I'm not sure whether that abortion solution would actually create a compromise. I have a hard time imagining the Forced Sonograms—"look at the picture! look at it!"—and I think there are too many hard-liners who would not accept ANY abortions.

If I were a lefty candidate reaching out to righties I'd just ask them:

"For all those Republican candidates who SAY they want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and all the votes they've gotten over the years on the strength of that issue, they've accomplished exactly what I've accomplished on that issue: A whole lot of nothing. I know you feel mighty strong about that issue, but just for conjecture, let's entertain my personal theory that these guys aren't about to get Roe v. Wade overturned during these next four years, either—because if they did, then they'd have to run on other issues—issues on which I think you and I see very much eye to eye ....."

And, once the Big Issue is addressed squarely and set aside, at least for just the moment .... maybe ... just maybe ....

Right on, Jane. There's two kinds of people in this world: Thems that try to split the world into two kinds of people, and thems that don't.

I'm both, depending on the day.

But I have more fun when I look for all the complexity in people, rather than common denominators.

Okay, I remember growing up in Ohio in the 70s and my parents were Democrats, my dad was involved in local politics as a Democrat, and they were socially conservative (Irish Catholicism can do that to you).

So I grew up with a deep ndesire to help others, feed the hungry, help the widowed and fatherless - all biblical principles, mind you. And all very democratic principles at that time.

So when did all of this change? Why is it now that Christian is synonymous with Republican? Why, even among fellow Christians, do I get suspicious looks when they discover I will most decidedly not vote for another "George Bush?"

Yes, I am a Christian, but I still hold those views that I was brought up with, which were AT THE TIME very Democratic. When did abortion and homosexuality take over the entire party political system? And in the meantime, the hungry, homeless, and fatherless are ignored by these more "political" issues. It's stupid.

Did I miss something/sometime when this great switch occured?

Why can't I be a Christian and an individual committed to social change for the better? (It's a rhetorical questions, obviously, since I'm very comfortable being a Christian socialist already.)

David, they acknowledged all the arguments you just noted about that abortion example. The point they were trying to make is the division between left and right is huge and we should take any opportunity to narrow the gaps. It's agreed that hard-liners on both sides will not be happy with any common ground solution.

Will

Eileen, there isn't any logical reason to equate Republicanism with Christianity. You can find plenty of athiest Republicans in corporate boardrooms and plenty of liberals in Christian missions around the world.

We can probably blame all the misconceptions on Jerry Falwell and his bunch when they declared themselves the "moral majority" a number of years ago. But they don't speak for all conservatives or Replublicans any more than the Clintons speak for all Democrats or liberals.

Will

Interesting your comments, Eileen. While organized religion does not have anything to offer for me personally, I understand and appreciate that it has much for others.

However, your comments remind me of a book I read by Jimmy Carter called "Our Endangered Values." I read it because I was curious what he would say about his religious perspective and religion in general, but I did not expect to be particularly affected by it.

I was "smack-me-in-the-face-flabbergasted" at the perspective on religion and faith the book proposed. There was no preaching, no converting and no finger-shaking. Just: "here's how I approach faith, and religion and being kind to my fellow man." At risk of being melodramatic (who, me?!) it was a revelation. In fact, for the first time in my life, I was compelled to write an author and tell them how affected I was by their book. He even wrote me back a (hand-written) note in reply.

I think if more people approached this whole thing the way Carter does, our world would be a much more kind and generous place, regardless of what branch of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) you belong to. Something to work for anyway!

There's a blog about my neighborhood, put up by newcomers who want to change it to match what they are used to (right before they move out, as they invariably will -- who stays in the same place that long any more?). The tone of the blog is that anyone who resists *any* given change or who actually is dull enough to like neighborhood instituations is one of the old-time die-hards resistant to progress (and, naturally, capitalism). Anyone who is on the side of the blog is intelligent, thinking, wise, what have you. Age-ism, something I thoroughly loathe, abounds. Clearly, this blog, run by someone who claims to teach at a university level, is not for intelligent dialogue about real issues, but is no more than a soapbox for ranting to adherents (and there are plenty of them, they like to point out). The insulting language, the parodies, the age-ism, and the other divisive tactics aren't meant to accomplish anything other than chest beating. And I don't think it's unusual.

In the end, don't we all want the world to be better than it is now? Does that mean my vision, and my vision only, unadulterated, unimpeded by any counterpoint? I've never found any one political platform, any religion, anything, with which I completely agree, and I imagine most feel that way. If failure to communicate (and to be communicated with) kills/damages marriages, what is it doing to everything else?

"If failure to communicate (and to be communicated with) kills/damages marriages, what is it doing to everything else?"

This is one to think about, Diane.

Okay, I debated about even going where I'm going, but considering the topic, I thought I'd give it a try.

In this post and its comments, there have been "smirks" and smugness about conservative talk show hosts and commentators, right-to-lifers, and the "Moral Majority." It's making me want to go on the defensive--and if you think I'll have a hard time finding Democrats and liberals (and Canadians!) to smirk about, think again.

Yes, a blog is a conversation, and there aren't many rules. I like conversation, and being defensive is death to conversation, so I'm fighting the urge. But it's just not reasonable to say, "That group has some noisy kooks, so everyone who shares some of the group's basic values is an idiot." For every noisy kook in one party there are two in the other.

Not sure where you're going with this, Jane, or how you would have me/us behave/write about this issue differently. Certainly not meaning to be smug. But we smug bastards never do mean to be smug.

All I'm saying is, if we're going to be open to the truth, let us be open to the truth. Let us fight the urge to generalize. I feel a lot of generalizing about conservatives and Republicans going on.

Jane, I said I'm open to the truth, not to REPUBLICANS.

KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I appreciate and admire your courage and, more than that, your continued devotion to this blog despite my obvious ideas. Would be insanely easy to dismiss all my ideas because I'm a moron lefty. (I know how easy, first hand.) I'm glad and proud to have you hear even when you infuriate me, and I cannot wait to meet you in Chicago in May .....

That's where I stand.

Yeah, Jane will be there in May? I'll be there in May for CCC. Did somebody say "Shades of Gray" bloggers night out? On David?

Oh yeah! Big night out. On me ... or Mark Ragan.

Jane - I agree with you that there is a tendancy to generalize and sometimes "demonize" entire groups of people because of some very public and extreme proponents on either "side."

Unfortunately, to some extent that's human nature - we look for ways to understand things by trying to categorize them. In doing so however, we can miss the many nuanced levels of opinion that are always included in a "group."

I don't think we're all going to agree on everything anytime soon, and that's okay because as David says, complexity is interesting. The important thing is that we do keep talking to each other.

I do, however, like Jane's proposition, which she's mentioned here and on her own blog, for us to try for more a more mannerly, respectful approach as we have our discussions. It's actually easier than it sounds, and you get better conversation that way too!

David: I infuriate you?

My work here is done!!!!!!

Love, Jane :-)