Monday, September 24, 2012

Can we still be friends . . . even if one of us votes for Romney and the other for Obama?

A couple of days ago I saw some photos of the presidential candidates and their families and wondered, "What does an Obama supporter think when looking at a photo of Mitt Romney playing with his grandchildren or of Ann Romney serving in a soup kitchen? What does a Romney supporter think when looking at a photo of Michelle Obama playing with a child or of Barack Obama embracing a serviceman?"  I suspect that many have a hard time restraining their hateful feelings, even when the photos are apparently candid and politically neutral.  And even if the feelings are not hateful, the response may be cynical, more concerned about how the photos are functioning as pieces in a political chess game than about appreciating them as images of real human beings living their lives.


Well, it may be too much to hope that people can have positive or even respectful feelings toward both of the major candidates--by which I mean the Republican and Democratic ones.  (My apologies to the Green or Libertarian party supporters who would like me to give their candidates equal time.)  But perhaps it's within the realm of possibility to hope that friends who support different candidates can still be friends after the elections are over.

What leaves me a bit uncertain even as I begin is that there are those who think the election of one or the other of the candidates will be a disaster of virtually cosmic proportions--that the election of Romney or Obama will mean the triumph of evil over good and will threaten the very existence of our nation and of any kind of world worth living in.  I admire the passion of such people, but sincerely believe they are not fully in touch with reality.  My own best thinking, coupled with the attitudes of people whose wisdom and inspiration I trust, leads me to believe we can look forward to the future with confidence and hope no matter which candidate is elected.  The sort of fearful and heated imagination that links the election of a particular candidate to an imminent disaster on a massive scale betrays a distorted sense of the true nature of things and incapacitates a person for the real work of engagement with others in finding solutions to problems.  (I have tried to avoid actually using the word "crazy.")

For the rest of you, I want to make my argument for why you can still respect and even continue to like and enjoy your friends who favor the other candidate.  My purpose here is not to argue that one candidate is better than the other.  (I make my case for my own view on that matter elsewhere.)  Here I just want to argue that a reasonable person of goodwill can end up favoring either of the major candidates.

I have had some personal association with one of the candidates and have followed both closely for a number of years, trying to assess both their personal characters and their political positions.  In my considered opinion, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are decent, reasonable, intelligent men of goodwill.  They are both good fathers and faithful husbands (and we've had passable presidents who have been neither).  Both have leadership skills, energy, commitment, and a desire to accomplish positive things.  Both, of course, have significant flaws, but not flaws greater than we can reasonably expect in candidates for president.  And honestly, I think we could have done far worse--there are others who have shown interest in the presidency who are far less capable and admirable than the two most of us will be choosing between.

Obama's and Romney's positions and proposals are at different points on the political spectrum, but neither is truly extreme, and I'm relatively confident that in the real life workings of national life, their proposals will moderate further as they seek the enlist the support of the American people.  In addition, anything they do will be influenced not only by public opinion but by the competing authority of the legislative and judicial branches.  Assuming that some degree of cooperation can be established between the president and Congress, any legislation that comes into being will need to be acceptable to both.

To be more specific: Both candidates know that the federal debt is a pressing problem, and both think they have a plan for dealing with it.  Both support the view that the nation must be militarily strong, though they differ on some details of how that strength can be best maintained.  Both want to protect American interests abroad and encourage the positive aspirations of people around the world.  Both want to encourage prosperity at home.  Both favor individual responsibility and creativity, while also acknowledging the need for some kind of safety net for those truly in need.  Neither is proposing radical changes to our economic or political systems.  Though the differences in their approaches are certainly significant, these differences are relatively minor when viewed from a broad perspective of historical and global understanding.  And reasonable arguments can be made for both candidates' approaches.

So I guess what I'm proposing is that we try to lower the temperature, get in a frame of mind where we can actually consider the candidates' positions fairly and intelligently, and do our best to assess for ourselves who we think has the best approach and will do the best job.  We can share our views and make our arguments and perhaps even listen, with a desire for understanding, to the views and arguments of others.  But we don't need to descend into a frenzied state of contention and vilification or into a hardened state of cynicism and contempt.

We can respect the decisions of our friends, even when they differ from our own.  And we can remain friends not only after the election is over, but even during the season leading up to it.

An addendum: One factor that makes this sort of peaceable approach difficult for some is that some ultimate values are at stake, the sort often tied to religious beliefs and commitments.  For those who share my religious affiliation, I'll be creating an additional post explaining how I believe we can differ politically, even when we share--or are pretty sure we share--the same faith and moral values.  Stay tuned . . .

16 comments:

dramatic sporano said...

Beautifully stated! If only we could lower the temperature. It makes me so sad when tempers flare over politics. We risk precious things over soundbites sometimes.

artemisandollie said...

I think this a lovely sentiment. It doesn't always come naturally to me but I work hard at it. Also, my friend George made that bowl on the Obama's table- lovely to see it!

Bruce Young said...

About the bowl: Cool! Do you mind telling me George's last name? I'm just curious.

[Morgan] said...

Lower the temperature. Good way to put it. And, actually listen? Respect? What a concept.

I loved this. And I'm a moderate. (Albeit a skeptical one).

artemisandollie said...

Sure! Peterson and his shop is called Circlefactory. We dated briefly a millenia ago- he offered to make me a bowl- I was too embarrassed to take him up on it. Go ahead- ask me if I regret that...

Bruce Young said...

Morgan: I think most of us re really moderate at heart, except when we get our dander up.
And "aremisandollie": Thanks for the information on the bowl (and I bet you do regret not having a bowl to match the Obama's).

Bruce Young said...

Sorry, that's "artemisandollie" with a "t." My fingers slipped. I don't have many occasions to write the word "artemis," let alone "artemisandollie."

artemisandollie said...

ha! artemis and ollie are my cat and dog, respectively. my name is sara and i'm a longtime admirer of your wife! aramis is also a lovely name- "my name is aram" is one of my favorite books of all time and aram was a heavy contender in the last round of baby naming.

Bruce Young said...

Good to meet you (virtually), Sara. I'm also a longtime admirer of my wife.

klcof said...

Thank you, Thank you and Thank you! I have struggled with how to express these exact thoughts to those around me. I also have been a long term admirer of Margaret, and now her thoughtful husband as well. Can't wait for your next post.

Erin said...

Professor Young, your excellent teaching lives on! As an alumna of one of your Shakespeare courses (in 2004, I believe, and an alumna of your wife Margaret's creative writing courses as well), I was pleased to see this link on Facebook. (All hail social media--sometimes!) And I will add my emphatic support to your thoughts. Above any enthusiasm for either candidate's victory, I am enthusiastic about the end of this particular election cycle! Civility has long been waning, but this round it seems nearly dead, and it blows my mind to see it--as you said, neither candidate is so wild that the world will end if either wins. One does not represent evil, nor the other all virtue and good. And the people voting "for the other guy"? Well, they're my friends, neighbors, mail deliverers, fellow dog-walkers, etc. It's been extraordinarily silly this election, and it's even sillier that most people think it's not.

There was another blog post I recently read (and of course I can't find the link right now) that stated similar things--that the "terrible person" voting for "the other guy" might be me. Or your friend. Or your sister. Someone's mom. Someone's daughter. Good reality check.

Keep up the good work!

pijohnso said...

I would like to be more moderate but find it difficult when the right has gone so far right. I never expected to see Bircher-type opinions become so mainstream. I was also frustrated by the previous Republican presidency. I expect the president to be able to at least read a complex sentence with reasonable expression.

Bruce Young said...

Here's an idea: If the center seems to have shifted too far one direction, don't feel compelled to accept it as the center. You can be a "moderate" in your own terms.

Of course, that's easier said than done, especially if you're exposed to lots of other people's craziness. But I think the best response is to keep yourself sane and not overreact to the craziness. I believe most people recognize--and many crave--sensible words and generous, respectful attitudes.

Evan said...

With all due respect, this would have seemed more sensible four years ago. Now it seems platitudinous and in some ways detached from reality. There's no doubt that both men have admirable qualities, and that both men sincerely love their children; however, I know many admirable folks that love their kids but with whom I wouldn't entrust the simplest of tasks. This seems like a plea for people to avoid ad hominem (a worthwhile post) but then needlessly conflates that with the notion that everyone's plans are ok, or perhaps neither are so bad. People should be harshly critical of plans, even to the point of loathing if warranted. The trouble is people also seem to demonize the plan while ignoring how similar their preferred candidate's plan is. This is a different sort of bad logic altogether, and I wish it would have been handled more distinctly.

That being said, I feel compelled to note that regarding the incumbent's "plan" to fix the debt problem, well, I'll just let Erskine Bowles do that. Sometimes the best critique comes from your own side in rare moments of candor. Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/video-erskine-bowles-says-ryan-budget-sensible-honest-serious/

No, I'm still of the mindset that these two men are radically different in two ways: their personal histories, and their view of America's role in the world. While their policies may not seem far apart, this is because of the moderating effects of the separation of powers you duly note. However, there remains the possibility (that i view as near-certainty) that one path leads uphill while the other heads downhill. It's the degree of that conviction that really separates most people on this election. I don't think people are at all misguided if they view this moment as a uniquely meaningful inflection point. To some we can't stop moving toward the European socialist model, to others we have to stop (we'd be better off if committed partisans would admit this). The rest seem unconvinced that either is happening, and I think "the rest" aren't paying attention. To quote Mr. Obama, "elections have consequences."

Bruce Young said...

Evan, you nicely note that the choices we make are consequential. Also, as I think you've rightly guessed, my aim here was to lower the temperature a bit and encourage people to discuss issues without having the process get distorted by excessive emotion and personal antagonism. As you also suggest, that doesn't mean we shouldn't argue our points. (I recommend Tom Griffith's BYU forum address for advice on how we should do that arguing: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2069 .)

I disagree about the appropriateness of "loathing" even when that is directed toward "plans": "Loathing" certainly seems an excessively strong response to (for instance) a plan to raise some tax rates slightly while still keeping them lower than they were in recent memory--or (to take another example) a plan to increase military spending beyond what the Pentagon deems necessary ("Pentagon" here includes generals who say, no, we are not lying or just responding to political pressure). Even if directed toward something more extreme--like what? instituting single-payer universal helth care? or turning Medicare into a voucher program?--I don't think "loathing" is helpful. It's an emotion that damages mental clarity and reasonable judgment.

(A brief explanatory interruption: I teach all sorts of things in a two-semester world lit class, including "The Communist Manifesto." Even there, where some of Marx's ideas seem to me terribly wrong and where his tone is sometimes destructively negative--I believe I would do a disservice to my students if I approached the text with "loathing." Approaching the text fairly and dispassionately--seeing both the truths and the errors in it, both the admirable moral indignation and the reprehensible arrogance and harshness--is, I believe, going to help us all more both in our judgments about the text and in our judgments about life than will yielding to negative emotions, which will almost certainly lead us to oversimplify and, perhaps, "throw out the baby with the bath water.")

On the debt: It probably would have been good if both sides had accepted the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Given that that didn't happen, we have some sense of the approach each candidate would take (assuming Congress will let them). I'm certain some sort of reasonable case can be made for both candidates' approaches, and I've heard creditable economists speak in favor of each. I won't tip my hand here and say which plan seems best to me.

(continued in next comment)

Bruce Young said...

(comment continued)

I will respond, though, to the claim that the two candidates are "radically different" in "their personal histories, and their view of America's role in the world." I would say they are distinctly different; I think "radically different" is an overstatement--but words are imprecise, and we shouldn't quibble over them too much. I know a good deal about the personal histories, personalities, and views of both candidates. I don't see anything more radically different in their personal histories than I do in the histories of many good people I know. (I could begin to clarify what I mean by suggesting that all of us could benefit from attending a 12-step program, which in many ways corresponds to the plan of redemption put into action. I worry most about those who are sure they don't need any help of that sort.) In terms of their personalities--which give some sense of their personal characters--I repeat that I believe both to be good men. If I had to judge, I'd say I find one of them more genuine, empathetic, and thoughtful, and more nuanced in his thinking, than the other (and I believe those are all good qualities). And as for their view of America's role in the world: yes, their views are somewhat different. And I strongly prefer the view of one of the candidates and consider it far more reasonable, practical, and in harmony with my religious beliefs than the professed view of the other. But I'll save my thoughts on that issue for another blog post.

One more thing: In my opinion, the phrase "European socialism" is what they call a "canard." It is not accurate or illuminating; and it inhibits thought by easy labeling, partly because it already contains the judgment that ought to be made by careful attention to detail and arguing of pros and cons. I react as I do to that sort of phrase partly because it's the sort of thing I hear in religious disputes, including attacks on my own faith. I don't think such phrases are any more helpful when it comes to politics.