Homophily, or the desire to surround ourselves with like-minded people, is a common social instinct – and one that finance warns against. Yes, it’s easier to be around like-minded types, but finance recommends the hard work of exposing yourself to differences, not shielding yourself from them.
I gleaned this phrase from a book I recently borrowed, “The Wisdom of Finance,” by Mihir Desai. Desai is a Harvard professor who developed the idea for the book after delivering a final lecture to a class of graduating MBAs. The crux of the book, as the inside flap puts it, is “Desai’s lucid exploration of the ideas of finance through the unusual prism of the humanities.”
The quote I withdrew above is indicative of an issue we face daily, the idea of an echochamber. As has always been the case, we tend to be drawn toward people who think, look and live like us. There is nothing inherently wrong with this desire, as I’m sure plenty of biological observations could point to examples where people lived together with like-minded folks and turned out just alright. Today, Twitter and Facebook and whatever new social media will launch before this publishes use algorithms that help reinforce what we already see and believe.
We often hear politicians, like Barack Obama, say that diversity is our strength. In that context, he might mean differences in religion or race, but it really transcends those frames of humanity. The diversity that makes us stronger, intellectually, as the book suggests, is a difference of thinking. We should not shy away from those who view politics differently than we – in fact, it makes our society better when we not only accept but embrace those differences.
In an essay for Harper’s, Rebecca Solnit writes about “Preaching to the Choir,” and how it is not wasteful but indeed beneficial to converse and explore both similarities and differences within our own political tribes. Part of her argument, though, seems to suggest that focusing on your own group is more important, or at least more useful, than trying to sway others. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with her on that point.
I understand that it is tedious to try and sway “undecided voters,” but it is essential for our republic that citizens with heartfelt beliefs do try to spread the gospel, as it were. Even if certain people may not be swayed by one side or another, in a time where fringe groups are becoming accepted in the mainstream, we shouldn’t dally.
You may not convince someone of your position, but they should still have the chance to hear and consider it. Intellectual diversity does not mean that only mainstream liberal or conservative opinions have credence – it suggests that anyone with a voice can proselytize. Rather than sit idly while that happens, voices of reason across the spectrum should come to the forefront and offer their thoughts.
Solnit is right, though, that preaching to the choir is important. It is not enough just to criticize and debate the opposition; both sides need to police their own. Turning a blind eye on certain strains of their party, the GOP has partially capitulated to Bannon and his acolytes. Fostering that “conservatism,” if it can be called that, has stained their brand, perhaps irrevocably. It benefits no one to have marauders like Bannon and his ilk trying to tear down society, lamenting an impending apocalypse they seem to be fomenting.
But this is not a criticism of the GOP, per se. What needs to occur is a return to regular order. Debates should be forceful and substantive, but most importantly civil. If the major parties do not offer reasonable positions and candidates, people will look elsewhere. Oftentimes, that elsewhere is not a good alternative.
Kirk Kovach is a native North Carolinian interested in writing about politics, communication and culture.
Seems that from the responses so far, progressives are in no mood for civility, even at Christmas season. Not really surprising, as their intolerance of opposing views has characterized our political discourse since the turn of the century.
I disagree, unless you consider racism an opposing view. I do not consider bigotry a legitimate viewpoint in this country. There are plenty of people I disagree with, that I can have discussions with, but it is difficult to take someone seriously who does not condemn bigotry.
Ebrun, I disagree. You and I have had relatively civil discourse on here several times. However, you don’t really do anything but look for points to pick apart. You never, ever, ever, consider anything we have to say seriously. We can’t always be wrong, you know. You just come her to argue and it’s sad. I’d love to have a conversation with you where we could find some small measure of common ground. Like maybe we don’t need a tax exemption for yachts?
Eilene, I appreciate your willingness to have a civil conversation about our political differences of opinion. Actually, my primary reason for commenting here is to expose the staggering intolerance many on the left exhibit when their political opinions are challenged. Instead of arguing the merits of their views, they often resort to name calling and personal insults when exposed to a different point of view..
With regard to a ‘conversation’, let me begin one by putting forth the idea that most of the political differences between liberals and conservatives can be reduced to a difference in personal values. As I have posted here before, I believe most liberals share what can be characterized as collectivist values. Thus their preference for centralized authorities to govern human behavior and deal with the inevitable inequities that exist among human beings.
Alternatively, conservatives tend to prefer values that support individualism. Thus their preference for decentralized authority and market economics. Neither set of values is morally superior. The real debate should be which ideology best supports universal values shared by both sides such as freedom, prosperity, peace and charity toward fellow human.
I know this brief analysis of the liberal/conservative dichotomy can be challenged as oversimplified, and there are many aspects of our differences that can be discussed in more depth. But I offer the above as a starting point for a civil “conservation.”
Kirk: Well done. One of the most difficult things in contemporary political life is to get people of opposing views to listen and perhaps even HEAR one another. Without that skill, there is no compromise and no progress, just frustrating and depressing stalemate–witness the current Congress and our state legislature. When I helped put the NC Institute of Political Leadership together (with Terry Sanford) in 1974-75 on of our principal goals was to get Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians to meet, talk and compromise with each other. When the IOPL was restarted in the late 1980’s (with Bill Friday, Smith Richardson, Richardson Preyer, Ham Horton, et al), the communications problem was even worse and, of course, today it dominates our political and governmental life.
That is why the NC IOPL is one of the only leadership programs that tackle this head on. For eleven weekends, the IOPL Fellows are forced to live with each other and defend their issue positions (e.g., “Why I am a Republican, Democrat”, etc.). The Fellows’ faculty, curriculum, seminars, and hands-on activities are designed so that when the Fellows campaign and get elected to public office they will know how to defend their positions, sure, but they will also know how to compromise for the public interest.
So, those of you who feel strongly about this need to apply now for the Spring, 2018 IOPL class.
I have always enjoyed having spirited debates with people whose views differ from mine. I have always thought that I benefitted from hearing all different opinions. Sometime my views were strengthened through these discussions, and other times I have begun to question my beliefs. But I have always come away from these discussions with a greater understanding about those I disagree with.
Perhaps I have put on blinders, but I believe we have entered a different era. I no longer view these differences as a difference of policy, but a difference in character. Donald Trump is a bigot. He questions whether judges of Mexican descent can rule fairly, he questions the heritage of our first African-American President, he equivocates when denouncing neo nazis and white supremacists, he bullies female reporters. The list goes on and on. Not one of these things has to do with policy, but it is difficult for me to have a meaningful policy with someone who doesn’t denounce Donald Trump the man. Not because of his policies, but because of his unabashed bigotry.
I am pretty sure Jeff Flake and I disagree on most policies, but I respect his oppinion. He voted to repeal Obamacare, he voted for a tax cut I strongly disagree with, but he also speaks out clearly against bigotry.
I agree that the central issue is not a difference in policy positions. It is one of values, which I believe our character reflects. I can find no common ground with those who think putting a sexual predator in the Senator or the White House is OK. I am also pretty sure I don’t want to.
This Christmas, I worry about the direction the GOP is taking the country. I worry that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are making a comeback and have a direct support line to the White House. I would like to think the country will eventually punish the GOP for aiding and abetting all this. But I don’t see it happening. I see the GOP as a party that has staked out or supported extreme positions and, by doing so, has made them mainstream. Should the Dems do that as well? I don’t know. But it has worked for the GOP. This country is much further right than it was just a few years ago. I’m not sure listening to each other buys us all that much anymore. Sometimes you just have to punch the bully in the nose. Merry Christmas.
“The punch them in the nose” impulse is one I sometimes share, while also being convinced that rational and courteous dialog with others is essential. I think the larger problem is that the article assumes, as I often do, that rational discussion is possible, that facts matter and accurate information is the basis for a dialog. I doubt that has ever been the reality as much as I have believed, but today it seems that a very large percentage of people simply don’t use fact based information or logic, nor even common sense.
Right and Left are easy positions to hold when hard thinking and questioning, both of oneself and others is required to get past the glib categories. Add to that the chaos of the last 18-24 months of our political life, the welcoming attitude toward neo-Nazis, and so many other forms of bigotry and the result is fatigue and anger.. I am not in the mood to talk to people who make choices in a tax package that harms my loved ones. Especially not when they pretend they are helping precisely the people they are harming, and will be causing more harm in the next few years.
Ultimately, I think the “punch in the nose” that is required is to win a lot of elections, local, state, and federal — every where AND without making the deals that undercut a progressive agenda based on inclusion, fair treatment of everyone, care for those in need, an economic system that reverses our growing inequality and a recognition that democracy requires compromise — from all. I don’t see any of those as “extreme” positions, but I also don’t see the Dems actually doing enough to voice them clearly and proposing innovative thoughtful policies. I am not interested in warmed over rhetoric from the ’60s, nor Madison Avenue slogans, and telling me to “resist” is wearing thin.