« Puzzling Out the Social Security Problems | Main | For The Record »

November 23, 2004

Securing the Building

If you tell the Navy to secure a building, they will turn out the lights and lock the door.

If you tell the Army to secure a building, they will occupy it and forbid entry to those without a pass.

If you tell the Marines to secure a building, they will assault it with heavy fire, capture the building, fortify it, and call for an air strike.

If you tell the Air Force to secure a building, they will take out a three-year lease with option to buy.

Why am I telling you this? Because, as Fat Tony once observed, it's funny because it's true. Fans of Lewis Carroll may recall the infamous line: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less," spoken by Humpty Dumpty shortly before his tragic accident. Unfortunately, many of us tend to think like Humpty Dumpty: we throw a concept out there without making sure that our audience agrees with us regarding that concept. Indeed, the Army is so mindful of the need for a common understanding of language it has devoted an entire manual to explaining the difference between seizing, securing and clearing an objective, FM 101-5-1.

I've been enjoying (well, enduring) that problem all day in a discussion with someone from Angry Bear who goes by the handle PGL, which I believe stands for progressive liberal. You can see much of the debate in these posts and their respective comments sections. I'm not going to lay out our specific differences because I'm not confident enough that I understand where PGL is coming from to try and explain his argument. But I do know that PGL got decidedly upset (see also my own comments section here, where I am asked to 'get a clue') because I was (in his view) refusing to consider the redistributionist aspects of what I was advocating in trimming social security benefits. To which my initial (and probably subsequent) response was 'what?'

For quite some time, I simply couldn't understand where he was coming from. I was discussing using some combination of increased taxes and reduced benefits to preserve social security for the people who really need it. The issue of redistribution simply wasn't on my radar screen. Fortunately, I was eventually able to puzzle out at least some idea of where he was coming from, so we may yet be able to make progress. But we lost a lot of time talking past one another because we were working off a completely different set of assumptions.

This is quite common. How many Democrats are convinced that Republicans are actually evil, and that their goal is to ruin the planet for everyone while giving all the money in the world to the rich? C'mon, let's see those hands. Now, how many Republicans are convinced that Democrats are anti-American scum who are actually part of a transnationalist plot to subjugate the U.S. under UN auspices? You in the back, hold your hands high, please, so I can get a good count.

I exaggerate for effect, but anyone spending much time on sites devoted to either party quickly runs up against the assumption that the other side isn't just wrong, but evil. And once you've made that assumption, it would be wrong to even negotiate with the other side, because any compromise you make is taking the country one step closer to that evil. The enemy must be fought tooth and nail, because his goals are so heinous.

Now, if you do believe that, it's unlikely that I can convince you otherwise. But for those of us (please let us be a majority) that disagree with those on the other side without necessarily assuming they're evil, this offers some important lessons. We tend to assume the worst of those we're arguing with; that he's ignoring this critical point, or that he understands what we're saying but is being deliberately obtuse. So we end up getting frustrated, saying something nasty, and cutting off any opportunity for real dialogue.

Don't get me wrong. There are some areas where we're simply not going to agree. But there are also places where we can probably come to a consensus, if we're willing to put aside our prejudices and remember that not everyone sees the problem in the same light we do. Taking the time to understand how the other guy sees the issue, even if you ultimately disagree, can't be a bad thing.