 |
 |
Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Do you oppose affirmative action, or do you support it? Are you for welfare reform? Are you against homosexual rights?
Politicians and many activist groups have created largely artificial and bitter divides between Americans who desire progress on these and other vital issues, but who propose different means to that end. Predictably, the politicians elected in this partis an spirit often stand in the way of progress by rejecting compromises, not based on principle, but instead based on what the party leadership or an aggressive group wants.
In reality, there is not a vast divide between liberals and conservatives, because there are rarely only two sides to an issue. Real progress is possible only when we move beyond polarization to find solutions. Yes, we should have convictions, and yes, we should vote. However, we need to find better ways to listen, to speak, and to act if we truly want to move forward and not in circles.
To illustrate how politics moves in circles, we should examine the political scene which we have listened to and watched: This month, the most loyal partisans of each party gathered at their respective conventions and booed at speakers' references to the sinister Other Parties, telling stories the way only people deep into an election year can while wearing funny hats. Strangely, they thought this silly act would win our votes.
Over the next three months, each party will present a series of television and radio ads which will paint a picture of the doom the United States will experience if anyone other than its candidate is elected. Our reaction to the conventions and ads will m ost likely be increasing disgust and cynicism, and only a fraction of those of us who are eligible to vote will do so in November. In four years, we will have the chance to do this again.
So far, this is the same story with a new set of candidates from all parties. We are, however, in the "space between stimulus and response" that Steven R. Covey, A. Roger Merrill and Rebecca R. Merrill discuss in their innovative "fourth generation" time- management book, First Things First. At this point in the political process, we can choose to change not the whole system at once, but instead our personal responses to it.
For example, rather than reacting negatively to the politicians' pandering to our fears about the loss of our freedoms, our fears of poor health care, or our fears of poverty as we come upon hard times, we can search publications, the Internet and TV for more information about the issues and candidates. By sifting through truth and distortion alike, we can dispel some of the political gloom to see what is really going on, as many of our professors are already asking us to do. This is a better way to liste n.
Now that we have some information on the issues that concern us, we can discuss the insights and creative ideas we all have with others, rather than antagonizing others by rehashing old arguments. It is often the curse of opinionated people to open the pa per or turn on the TV and find their position distorted beyond recognition, and we often do become angry.
The challenge here is to try to see why others are behaving dishonestly, because the root problem is usually in the area they are trying to shield from scrutiny. Once we start focusing on the root problem, we must apply our ingenuity to it, rather than la mbasting each other. We can carry out this process in many places, from our classes, to our dinner tables and to the editorial pages. This is a better way to speak.
Even with abortion, possibly the single most emotionally-charged issue in the United States today, there is room for positive discussion. Perhaps, a logical focus on this issue would be to try to help women in desperate situations where abortion may seem desirable.
Finally, we can elect those rare politicians who have shown that they can follow their consciences while working for unity. We must make up for what politics lacks by continuing to listen and to speak, and we must work for change ourselves, possibly by vo lunteering. This is a better way to act.
Exchanging insults with people who have similar goals but who suggest different actions is the height of selfishness when we consider that others genuinely need our support. The stakes are far higher than the victory or loss of an election, and it is esse ntial that we close the divide.
Kristen Roberts is an Arts and Sciences sophomore. Her column, 'Life in Balance,' appears every other Thursday. Her homepage can be found at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~knr.
|
|
|