Monday Links for 6.29.2015, A Slightly Different Take

I've been struggling with "this" post ever since I started writing a Monday Links post.  I like sharing the things I read, be it through the book reviews/thoughts I post, or through these links to articles over the past week.  Yet, sometimes, the post feels like more of a chore with no overarching purpose; and that bothers me.  But I'm not sure where that leaves me.  The possibility of less sharing but more focused reflections is attractive, but the lack of built in structure/consistency with that approach is a disadvantage for someone like myself who relies upon the routine to force me into doing something I enjoy and get a benefit.  I think sharing more frequently during the week on Twitter, with something more substantive here, is attractive; yet, I still don't know where that leaves me....

The past week was taken up with more reading than usual at work, due to several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that actually affected some of the work I do.  Because of that, I didn't read the usual amount of articles and stories online.  So, for a slightly different tact this week, I'll pass on the following two pieces: Nine Angry Justices at The Atlantic and this editorial on how President Obama is treated.

For me, the pieces get at something that has been nagging at me - our inability to discuss differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful matter.  Everything has seemingly become vitriolic, even at the U.S. Supreme Court.  I read some of the opinions this past week, and some of the dissents in particularly, and kept thinking to myself that if I used language (even the artful language of the Justices) in a brief submitted to a court, referring to opposing counsel or a prior decision of a Court, I would be admonished.  And rightfully so; a system of rule of law depends, on some level, for respect in the process.  And the language used to described opposing ideas, attacking the intelligence of those that hold those opposing ideas, is misplaced in any serious discussion, let alone at the Supreme Court.  It was disappointing.

But, as the editorial points, such seems par for the course in our civic discussions of late.  It started with George Bush as President, and the Left's insistence in ad hominem attacks on his intelligence.  Such makes great fodder for SNL and comedians (and is appropriate in that context, I think), but in the context of serious political discourse, such should be disfavored.  Yet, the last 8 years with President Obama, as the editorial writer suggests (and I agree) has been much worse.  At times, the dissent to Obama has been very, very personal; which seems inappropriate in the context of policy and direction of the country.  The amount of meanness Obama has faced for reasons that have nothing to do with policy has been absurd; and for me, meanness even for disagreement on policies is misplaced.  There should be, are, better ways to discuss and have dialogue over policy and practice disagreements.

There is no level for nuance anymore in politics.  Everything has become a hyperpartisan, black-white, dichotomy issue.  As someone who leans left, I yearn to read and listen to serious conservative approaches to climate change, to economic inequality, to health care, to social and family structures.  Yet, it is impossible to get that from any politician these days.  The problem crosses political ideologies, as so many politicians on the left also simply regurgitate talking points that have little critical analysis or examination to them.  For someone who earnestly believes in the power of discussion and dialogue, even contentious but respectful dialogue (perhaps especially because of contentious but respectful dialogue), can forge better ideas, and therefore better policies and practices, it is disheartening and disenchanting.  I imagine it is why many have checked out of the political process; it feels like a multiple choice test where an essay should be required.

Anyway, these are the things I am thinking about tonight, in response to these pieces and other thoughts over the past week.  It increasingly seems that respectful disagreement is an endangered species.

“We must be ever courteous and patient with those who do not see eye to eye with us. We must resolutely refuse to consider our opponents as enemies.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“Love is wise; hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. But if we are to live together, and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.” - Bertrand Russell