This column is part of a series of Sunday Viewpoints by Michigan residents about Michigan issues. To participate send your 500-600 word column to firstname.lastname@example.org
By Richard Kamischke
Remember the last time you were challenged to have a serious, in-depth discussion with someone from the other end of the political spectrum? Wait, wait, don’t tell me how it ended; I’ll tell you. I predict nothing happened.
There are two paths to this sad ending. In the first case, you chose not to join the discussion because they never end well — a lesson learned long ago. Knowing there is more to be gained by speaking to a lamp post, you saved your breath, made an excuse and walked away to do something productive. In the second case, you took the challenge. During the course of the discussion, each of you spoke at length, showed great commitment, exasperation, anguish and finally despair. Each of you was utterly unmoved by the other’s words and so nothing changed, nothing happened. Things got a little tense there at the end, but then you both recomposed yourselves and promised to do this again sometime. “No hard feelings, I hope,” was the last thing you ever said to this person.
If you are a reflective person, you may have wondered what happened that day. You made perfect sense, provided several examples, and showed how your position was virtuous while the other side was nothing less than illogical and possibly immoral. For the next few days, you reworked the discussion in your head and thought of several things that you should have said. A few times, when you were alone, you practiced your arguments out loud. The only possible conclusion was that the other person just didn’t get it, couldn’t see the obvious, wasn’t living in the real world.
Notice that this analysis didn’t pick a side. You can be either a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative, from the right or left. It doesn’t matter because the flight-or-fight instinct is strong in all of us. For those who chose flight, the goal is peace through avoidance. For those who chose fight, the goal is victory. You might settle for a draw, but losing is not in the cards.
Imagine a third scenario where learning is the goal. What would that look like? There is a group of us that would like to find out. Starting Feb. 21 from 7-8:45 p.m. and continuing each third Tuesday of the month at Grand Haven’s Loutit District Library, the West Michigan Civil Conversation Project will host community conversations designed to encourage all citizens to come together to engage in a civil conversation. The project is sponsored by the League of Women Voters, the Loutit District Library and supported by other community organizations.
The purpose of this project is not to get everyone to agree; it isn’t even to find common ground. It is to understand why others have different views and why they place such importance on them. If more than that happens, so much the better. Those who come will sit in small groups and discuss a topic announced in advance of the meeting. Within the group, everyone will be given a chance to speak, or not, as they choose. The content of the conversation will be completely in the hands of each small group; however, there may be a few exploratory questions that accompany the topic that the group is asked to answer first.
If you would like to sit with fellow citizens and engage in a worthwhile conversation about topics important to your life, or if you just want to prove to yourself that people are able to engage in civil conversations despite our contentious environment, then take part in this opportunity. E pluribus Unum — out of many, one — is a little hard to achieve when we can’t talk to one another.
Richard Kamischke is a consultant living in Grand Haven who works primarily with automotive product development teams in North America. His Ph.D. dissertation investigated small problem-solving groups working in ambiguous environments. His passion for better public conversations stems from a lifelong study of how we decide what is true and false and how easy it is to misinterpret “the facts.”