Communications Breakdown, Part II

“Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)

Last time, we reviewed the decline in society’s ability to come to anything approaching consensus on baseline facts/realities regarding issues such as curricular choices in schools, public health measures, election results, and ecological threats as we try to make decisions on how to move society forward. Our failure to agree on the fundamentals makes it impossible to reach necessary compromises on subjective choices, leading to endless stalemates and acrimonious feelings about those who have now become our “enemies,” even though these same people used to be family, friends, coworkers, and anonymous multitudes toward whom we had born no ill will. Humanity’s technological/informational evolution has contributed to this process mightily, as we’re now able to “prove” the rightness of our opinions with data, expert analysis, and facts from a seemingly bottomless supply. Unfortunately, those evil manipulators on the other side claim possession of better data, more expert analysis and “alternative facts,” to say nothing of the libelous, slanted, completely unfair personal attacks they level at us while ignoring the righteous fire with which we blast them. And blast them we do, instantly without remorse/thought/decorum, via anonymous comments sections, Facebook posts, and/or tweets which allow for spontaneous, vile characterizations that have nothing to do with the reality of what’s being discussed. Thus, the cycle intensifies in more tribal, emotional, and dangerous ways.

From my vantage point (Sixty-something, retired high school English teacher, who’s had a relatively liberal/Democratic and totally privileged middle class white man’s life, which helps to explain my arrogance in believing I have a worthwhile opinion to express on this; although, in my defense, society’s powerful [i.e., old white men] have been telling me my opinion rocks ever since I was born), the key problem isn’t with those spouting off all the verbal lava which creates the controversy; we’ve always had opinionated, aggressive souls who have shouted for our attention. No, the difference seems to be the combination of the immense number of shouters of which the rest of us cannot possibly hear even a small percentage, and our technology which has allowed us to edit that which we do take in to the point where we’re not coming in contact with any ideas which contrast with our own. We’ve stopped trying to understand what those who disagree with us believe and/or thinking for ourselves, allowing alliances, affiliations, rumors, labels, and biases substitute for the difficult work of using facts and empathy to adjust our views to accommodate those different from our own, or at least to give them due consideration.

That doesn’t mean we should simply accept anything which crawls into our brains, obviously. But we don’t do anybody any good when we resort to blind acceptance/rejection based on the message/idea/opinion’s source. The issue is that we’ve stopped relating/listening to each other in order to understand reasoning different from our own, instead rolling out all our counter evidence and expertise before the other side has even finished explaining its position. Rather than trying to understand the “why” behind different people’s views, we dismiss their facts and counter-attack with sources and data we know they won’t accept since they’ve already labeled our stuff as nefarious propaganda. In short, there’s never an exchange, dialogue, interaction, or discussion, much less a meeting of the minds to forge the compromises needed to make things better. So… the environment gets worse, blacks keep getting disproportionately killed by the police, Presidential elections remain contested, vaccines and masking protocols stay controversial, curricula taught in public schools get misinterpreted, voting rights are restricted, unbalanced teenagers keep getting assault rifles, and access to abortion becomes a combat zone.

Those last two offer an interesting insight into the mental gymnastics we often use to avoid modifying our precious positions and could lead us to an organization which demonstrates how to do better as we go forward, if we can ever bear to give up our hate: Most of us (including this author) engage in significant cognitive dissonance over gun control and abortion. My side (the correct one, of course) yearns for tight government control over anyone’s ability to own and operate a gun. (I’m talking Japan, people, which had one gun murder all last year! And Shinzo Abe’s assassination has been the only one so far this year.) When it comes to abortion, I am not “in favor” of it in the same way I’m in favor of people wearing bike helmets, but I readily agree that it’s none of my business and that the ultimate decision is between a woman and her doctor. I oppose the government’s involvement, especially when it comes to whether or not the procedure can be done (or pill be taken, as the case may be). You see how those approaches to governing contradict fundamentally. I rationalize that the harm guns can do to innocent people cancels out Americans’ individual right to possess what they want, while simultaneously claiming individual rights are more important than the harm abortion does to the unborn.

Flip those two positions and you have what millions of other Americans believe: 1. Murdering an unborn child negates any rights the mother might have and necessitates strict regulation if not an outright ban, and 2. The government has no business sticking its foolish regulations between lawful citizens and their right to protect themselves with any gun (and however many) they want to have. Has it occurred to any of the ardent gun rights, anti-abortion adherents or the passionate gun control, pro-choice believers just how contradictory their reasoning has to be to support those two positions? I’m guessing not very often. How is it consistent for me to claim that the abortion decision shouldn’t involve the government at all, but that I want legislators’ full power to be used to clamp down on these dangerous weapons that make me hold my breath every time my daughters go to some public place? Don’t second amendment advocates chafe when their calls for the government to stay out of their gun ownership choices get flipped so easily when it comes to the government dictating to pregnant women what they can do with their uteri?

But understanding that all sides aren’t completely sure how to draw the line where government regulation becomes intrusive at the cost of individual rights or when to restrain individual rights due to the harm exercising those rights might exact on others seems the key to finding reasonable, rational compromises that will bring about the most benefit for all. And for these two issues (as well as the host of others which would also benefit from our finding compromises on the absolutes of freedom vs. restraints needed for the greatest good), we have a readily applicable and red/blue-state accepted model already in place: the DMV. Yes, the bane to many a fledgling driver, to say nothing of a dreary place on its best days, our humble Department of Motor Vehicles might be able to show us the way forward on gun control and abortion. When it comes to what I see as a crucial freedom, we have somehow come to accept certain standards as necessary before we’re allowed to own or operate a motorized vehicle. And understand that these societal requirements are clearly arbitrarily created, imposed, and enforced by the government, with little objection from anyone. Bottom line: The DMV can serve as an exemplary model of how our government, laws, and bureaucratic regulation work together to make all our lives better.

Automotive regulations across the country seem readily adaptable to gun ownership: If you want to drive a car, every state has clear, specific training requirements culminating in a driving test, which must be passed. Once those steps have been fulfilled, you get an ID issued which affirms you are licensed to drive, which all other states recognize. And before you can own a car, it also must have a license, be issued plates, be insured, and have its identification number registered with its owner’s name tied to that number. That you never hear complaints about this complicated system (except for ones about the efficiency of the bureaucracies which administer it) suggests that everybody has come to accept how it works. Nobody attacks North Dakota’s regulations as conservative fascism any more than New York’s are seen as Libtard overreach. So why wouldn’t it work for guns as well? Before you get a gun, you should have to prove that you can safely use and store it, and all of them and their shooters should be registered the same way cars and their drivers are. Many states’ DMVs also address the age question by allowing temporary permits to operate cars during the training period, issuing licenses physically different (horizontal vs. vertical setup) to call attention to the licensee’s age, having more frequent testing, and/or imposing more restrictions on new, younger drivers (as well as more frequent tests for older drivers). The same could be true for younger/older gun owners, with just a few tweaks.

I recognize that gun rights people see gun ownership as a constitutionally guaranteed right, but modern reality has proven that cars are a lot more necessary for individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness. This is where the compromising part and listening to the other side’s point of view comes in. Just because James Madison didn’t know what a dangerous, unnecessary hazard guns would become in modern American society doesn’t mean we’re forever stuck with his 18th century understanding of human rights. Remember the whole slavery thing our founders sort of overlooked? These guys were not infallible, and we’ve all got to recognize that. And I keep coming back to all those other, significantly more consequential rules and regulations—on taxes, land ownership, and yes, CARS—that we all live with despite their much more intrusive, costly nature. Think of the billions spent on car insurance, for example, as required by law. It makes no logical sense that guns have to be exempt from well-established rules just because of the second amendment (which by its very name implies that changing or “amending” is something that we do in this country).

No, I haven’t forgotten the abortion problem; it’s just that many of my friends won’t like what comes next: Those who want an abortion should go through a “similar” process before being granted permission for an abortion or permission to perform one. Such processes are already in place in some states, just like for car licenses, but their purposes vary widely depending on where you live: Many (before Roe was overturned) served primarily to make it as difficult as possible for abortions to be performed—from the counseling (by organizations opposed to abortions) to the regulations on abortion providers—laws were enacted primarily to limit access, which has been the case, especially for those with low incomes. So, the first major obstacle to overcome is that safe, legal abortions should be available. Yeah, that’s a significant hurdle right off the bat, but it was the law for fifty years. Congress will just have to legislate abortion’s legality. Remember that the government will never force anyone to get an abortion; we’re only talking availability here.

Once we have that, I have no idea what a reasonable, rational abortion-approval process would look like, but given the significance of aborting an unborn fetus, I can’t claim there shouldn’t be one, especially if I favor the gun licensing program advocated in the previous paragraphs. From contraception and adoption education to understanding resources available pre- and post-abortion to wait periods, there should be experts convened to create a reasonable, humane process anyone seeking an abortion would go through. Additionally, that process could be more controlled and restrictive when a minor is involved. It does sound weird to me as I write all this, but I also can’t pretend to be objective about abortion when both of my daughters were adopted, and both biological mothers could have made different decisions about going to term. And I don’t know what the equivalent of that training/driving test for those seeking an abortion would look like. (The equivalent gun usage training/test should be easier to put together, at least so it seems to this completely gun-ignorant essayist.) Nor am I able to articulate what extra provisions would be appropriate for minors. But just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be willing to discuss a compromise with those who oppose abortion entirely, especially given the extremes now in place or being planned. We could be looking at a national abortion ban as soon as when the next Congress takes office in 2023. I gotta believe that preventing that is worth some compromising, just like setting up a gun regulation system which prevents Uvalde tragedies would seem to be a good deal for those who don’t want Japan-like restrictions.

Of course, second amendment advocates and pro-choice activists will both reject these steps as unfair, too cumbersome, and unconstitutional, again showing the similarities of their positions in many ways. But just as I know an abortion screening process would seem insulting and unnecessary to many pro-choice people, I have to concede that the gun rights folks would also be making concessions on access to guns. It’s precisely that kind of give-and-take which all of our discussions on weighty issues currently lack. We’ve become so accustomed to volume, anger, intractability, and ridicule rather than nuance, reason, empathy, and cooperation that we have a hard time seeing anything other than clinging to our “ideals” while refusing to consider any other alternative.

Back when I was teaching freshman English, we would often work with the concepts of “Idealism vs. Pragmatism” and how each had its place in our personal morality. (Atticus Finch’s seemingly futile defense of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird was often the springboard from which these discussions would launch.) But these “last century” discussions (I taught 1979-2012) tended to focus on the 20th century’s lack of idealism in a pragmatic, technologically advanced world—climate change action, voting rights steps, women’s rights laws, and anti-bigotry advances for racial minorities and gays were only partially being enacted then due to pragmatic compromises that wound up with only half a loaf of what had been proposed. That half, though, sounds awfully filling when you look at the onslaught of extreme Supreme Court rulings this past session, which have lurched the country towards a conservative Eden, “idealistic” at its racist, misogynistic, environmentally destructive, gun-loving, money-worshipping (Will Citizens United never be overturned?) core.

Yet, I was heartened by the efforts of U.S. Senators who managed to compromise their positions enough to get some federal legislation on guns passed recently. That many on each side see the new legislation as weak doesn’t discount the truism we in my teachers’ union would often trot out after completing contract negotiations: “If both sides are somewhat unhappy with the deal, then it is probably reasonable.” You can’t argue the facts—no matter how small a piece you get of something, that small piece is still immeasurably larger than the nothing you would have had otherwise. And that tiny gun agreement can only result in more communication coming from both ends of the spectrum, which can lead to further points of agreement and—probably most importantly and necessary for the short term—less anger directed toward the “other side” as we focus on areas of common interest. Maybe we can even come to recognize those with whom we disagree have no evil intent and are just human beings like us.

Facing the challenges of getting along with each other certainly seems like a fool’s errand at the moment: Pessimists tell us how awful things are compared to yesterday, optimists point out how awful things are compared to how they could be, and then they both post misleading, awful things about each other on Twitter. There are so many aspects of our modern lives which call out for moderation and gradual adaptation, but we can’t seem to avoid falling for seductive habits which lead us to excess and extremes, whether they be opioids or political tribalism or Instagram. Ultimately, we can only pledge our own efforts to assist with improving things: To moderate our extremist tendencies; To look past the rhetorical excesses of those with whom we disagree; To seek areas of possible compromise, no matter how small; and To hunt for a place where we can all co-exist comfortably, regardless of how gradual initial progress towards that goal seems to everyone.

And that pledge can’t be conditional on the other side’s promising to do likewise. Sure, not much can get done if those with whom I disagree won’t budge from their cherished ideals, but I can’t control what everybody else does. I do realize the irony of coming to that fatalistic conclusion several thousand words into a two-part essay where I started out suggesting that there was a solution to our communication breakdown. Ultimately, rock’n’roll (as written by David Lowery and performed by the band Cracker in the brilliant song, “Teen Angst”) sums up our final reality much more succinctly than I have been able to:

“I don't know what the world may need,

But I'm sure as hell that it starts with me.

And that's a wisdom I've laughed at.”

Maybe it’s time we all stopped laughing.