Home About PCP What's New Upcoming Workshops Services We Offer Projects Stories/Forums Support PCP Contact Us Resources Alumni Network Site Search
			Complete List of Questions related to "Talking with the Enemy" Questions for Those Who Have Not Yet Read Talking with the Enemy 1. Now that is clear who will be president for the next four years, what do you most want people who voted for another candidate to understand about what the outcome of this election means to you personally? What do you most want to understand about people who voted differently than you? 2. Are there ways that your values and perspectives have been painfully stereotyped by the "other side," particularly during this most recent campaign?  If so, what is it about who you are and what you care about that makes those stereotypes especially painful or enraging? 3. Did you avoid discussing the 2004 election with a family member or friend? Why? What were you afraid would happen? What may have been lost as a result? What was gained? What steps would you need to take in order to enter another political conversation with this person more hopefully than fearfully? 4. Can you think of a time when you had a constructive conversation about a political or social issue with someone who thinks very differently than you? What made it possible for the conversation to be a positive one? 5. If you could have a conversation with anyone who has a different political viewpoint from yours, whom would you choose?  What would you like to learn about that person? What would you want that person to understand about you? What would it take - from you, from the other person, from the setting of conversation - for the conversation to be constructive? 6. What questions are likely to stimulate constructive "red/blue" conversations that would be of interest to you? 7. In what ways, if any, do you think polarizing conduct in the political arena hurts or helps the democratic process in the US? 8. In what ways do (or don't) your habits of talking to or about those who have radically different views from yours match your wishes about how they would engage you and your views? 9. Have you ever been in a situation where a shared understanding of necessity allowed you to work with people with whom you strongly disagreed on other important matters? What did your shared sense of necessity allow you to do? 10. What are your major fears about what lies ahead? What gives you most hope? 11. If you were to overhear political opponents talking animatedly about the "common ground" for America, what do you hope they would be discussing? What "common ground" do you think representatives of the political parties could "occupy together" to our collective benefit? 12. If a "Let's Heal America" movement were to gather momentum, what ingredients might make it effective? Under what circumstances might you want to include yourself in such a movement? Where might you start? What life experiences would you draw on? What support would you want from those who share your views? From those who voted for a different candidate for president? Intro: Questions after Reading Across the Red-blue Divide by Daniel Yankelovich 1. Have you ever participated in an informal conversation about politics like the dinner table exchange described in the first paragraph? What role did you play? How did the conversation affect your relationships with those involved? The relationships between others? If the conversation had a happy ending, what helped it get there? 2. The author worries that current levels of "gridlock" in US society are "dysfunctional"? Do you share this concern? Why? 3. Have you experienced a conflict where important goals or values were jeopardized or lost because of the bitter and angry ways different views were dealt with? What was lost? What lessons did you draw from this experience? 4. What comes to your mind when you hear the word "compromise"? Have you been involved in making a "compromise" that those involved viewed as valuable? What about the circumstances, the process, or the outcome made it so? 5. Do you share the author's view that "fiercely embracing one side and contemptuously dismissing the other...is a formula for losing the war on terror"? Why? 6. The author asserts that polarization prevents us from "reaching truths we desperately need for our future safety and survival." If you agree, what do you think some of those "truths" are? How do you think we can best reach for them? 7. What questions do you think this nation most needs to ponder at this time? The author nominates a cluster of questions that begins with "Who is our real enemy in the war on terror?" What do you think of his choices? Are these good questions? What makes them so? Would you nominate others for broad national discussion? How would you answer his questions? How might the soundness of your responses be enriched by a serious examination of alternative views? 8. How do you distinguish between "dialogue" and "advocacy"? Do you agree with the author that dialogue is more effective in resolving "gridlock"? Why? What role can you play in resolving gridlock either through dialogue or advocacy? 9. In the author's view, "each partial framing of an issue, taken alone, sheds and imperfect light on the larger picture." Can you think of an example from your personal life (with friends, family, co-workers) in which people who had competing partial frames joined in searching for a "more perfect light"? How did this shift occur? What was gained? What does this experience suggest about what is needed to shed "more perfect light" on an important public issue? 10. The author cites the importance of conceding the merits of the other side, "even if it pains us to do so." When have you taken such pains in your personal or professional life? Was it worth it? Why? 11. What questions does this article raise for you? If Daniel Yankelovich were here, what question would you ask him to deepen your understanding of his views? Article 1: Questions after Reading 9/11 Commission Brings Heat, But Also Light by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton 1. The authors suggest that the "trivial" process of getting to know one another as people played an important role in the Commission's success. Does this conclusion surprise you? If so, why? If not, what experiences have you had or do you know about that would lead you to expect the authors' finding? 2. Can you think of a time when you were surprised by the barrier-reducing effect of "getting to know each other as people"? What was the situation? The barrier? The surprise? 3. Have you ever worked closely with someone you knew had a very different "partisan affiliation"? What did you know about the person as an individual? Did this personal knowledge affect your ability to work well together despite your political differences? If so, how? 4. Have you ever been in a situation where a shared understanding of necessity allowed you to work with people with whom you strongly disagreed on other important matters? What did your shared sense of necessity allow you to do? 5. What stops you from taking steps to get to know people who voted for another presidential candidate? If you were to reach out to someone who voted differently than you did, what are you either afraid or hopeful that you might learn? How might you and they benefit from your outreach? 6. The authors write about the importance of an appreciative attitude. What would you like others to appreciate about your political commitments? What might you appreciate about the commitments of someone with whom you strongly disagree about the outcome of the 2004 election? 7. The authors suggest that plenty of time is needed when talking about contentious issues. Are there strained relationships and contentious conversations in your present life that might benefit from more time to talk? How could you make time for more spacious exchanges? 8. What did your find most courageous about the way the authors handled their responsibilities? 9. In the authors' view, members of the 9/11 Commission were motivated to work together effectively by their shared sense of the  "gravity" of the situation and their shared wish not to let down the victums of 9/11 or the nation. What interest may people across the political spectrum have in working together to address one of the pressing issues of our time? How could someone-you, perhaps-find this out? 10. The Commission departed from the usual way of doing business in a number of ways. What do these departures suggest about how other groups or institutions might deal with grave and divisive matters more effectively? 11. What does the example of the 9/11 Commission suggest about ways that you (or others in your circle of influence) could help detoxify the "poisonous partisan atmosphere" of our times? 12. What questions does this article raise for you? If Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton were here, what question would you ask them to deepen your understanding of their views and the work of the 9/11 Commission? Article 2: Questions after Reading Bush-contempt, Kerry-scorn: Is It 'Hate Thought'? by Gary Alan Fine 1. Have you felt what the author calls "political loathing" toward someone who ran for public office? What experiences, values, or beliefs underlie this loathing? What effect might your hatred have had on your relationships with others? On how you view yourself? 2. "When was the last time you had a vigorous, abhorrence-free conversation with someone you regarded as on the  "other side" of the partisan divide? What inner and outer barriers did you have to surmount even to participate in that conversation? What did you appreciate or value about the experience? 3. The author mentions political gridlock and more difficult political transitions as two negative consequences of a "politics of passion" that translates "policy difference into claims of extremism." Do you share these views? Why? Do other consequences concern you? 4. When have you been captured by what the author views as  "the illusion of great or evil men that ignores the flawed humanity of each of us, politician or voter"?  What makes, or might make, it possible for you to believe that a political leader with whom you passionately disagree and/or have loathed is acting with good intentions? 5. Can you describe a time in your life when you discovered something distressingly "bad' about someone you idealized or something surprisingly "good" about someone you detested? What did you do with this realization? 6. How much of what you believe to be true about public figures comes from first-hand knowledge and how much from "parasocial interaction"?  Where do your "parasocial" beliefs come from? 7. The author suggests that our "media-saturated society" gives us an emotional connection with public figures that exceeds what we actually know about them. How is this true for you? Are you aware of times when you had doubts or uncertainties about your opinions of a public person? What makes it hard for you to acknowledge the limits of your knowledge? 8. Have you been on the receiving end of hatred because of your political affiliation? What stands out about that experience? What do you wish those who disagree with you could understand about your candidate's beliefs, values, and worldviews? About you as a person? What do you imagine those who disagree with you wish you understood about them? 9. Do you share the author's concerns about how young people may have been affected by the climate of political loathing? Why? What do you hope the young people in your life have learned about how to interact (and how not to interact) with those with whom they disagree? 10. What were you taught about people who were elected to public office? What attitudes do you want to instill in the next generation? Why? 11. What questions does this article raise for you? If Gary Alan Fine were here, what question would you ask him to deepen your understanding of his views? Article 3: Questions after Reading A Political Odd Couple's Advice on Finding Common Ground by Eugene Provenzo and Jack Thompson 1. How does the story of the authors' relationship strike you? Were you surprised? Puzzled? Inspired? Unmoved? Disapproving? Why? Have you ever experienced a valued or collaborative relationship that grew despite passionate differences about other matters? 2. What do you make of the authors' assertion that no one person can ever have complete or absolute answers?  Why do you think this way?  How do your views influence the way you talk to people with whom you disagree? 3. If you were to overhear political opponents talking animatedly about the "common ground" for America, what do you hope they would be discussing? What "common ground" do you think representatives of the political parties could "occupy together" to our collective benefit? 4. The authors' relationship was enriched by learning about each others' heroes. What might others learn about you and your aspirations by understanding who your heroes are and why you admire them? What difference might it make if someone you view as a political opponent recognized and deeply understood your choices? If you understood his or hers? 5. How have you demonized or been demonized by people who voted differently than you in the 2004 national election? How did the experience of being demonized affect you? What do you wish that those who disagreed with you could have understood about your candidate's character, beliefs, values, and worldviews? About yours? What do your answers to these questions suggest about what you may misunderstand about those you demonize? 6. Do you share the authors' view that the political spectrum is a myth? Why? What would be lost if the spectrum metaphor were abandoned? Gained? What metaphor would you nominate to replace it? Why? 7. What do you think are the hallmarks of "healthy discourse"? 8. In conversing with an opponent, what potential benefits (might) make it worth becoming open to the "potential of being persuaded" by what you learn? 9. In what ways do you fit the picture the authors draw of people who get information from a narrow range of media and surround themselves with likeminded individuals? What would it take for you to talk more than you do now with people outside your  "ideological clique" or expose yourself to more diverse sources of information? 10. The authors end by challenging you to transform your concern about what is happening in American society into efforts to  "engage yourself in dialogues and discussions with people who are fundamentally different from you - or at least appear to be." What would you need to take up their challenge? 11. What questions does this article raise for you? If Eugene Provenzo and Jack Thompson were here, what question would you ask them to deepen your understanding of their views? Article 4: Questions after Reading At Heart of Good Political Discussion: the Idea by Carla Seaquist 1. What aspect of "the French way of conversation" do you find especially appealing? Why do you think that? 2. The author recommends that we develop the "habit of self critique" by asking ourselves  "why do I think what I do?" and examining the inner logic of our ideas. When have you done this? What was the value of doing so? Do you experience resistance to taking a self-critical look at one or more of your current political views? If so, what is the source of this resistance? 3. If you were to subject your views about one current political issue to a French-style self-critique, which one would you pick and why? Have you ever asked someone whose political views make no sense to you why they think that way? If so, what happened? If not, how do you think they might respond? 4. Can you think of a situation in which it is likely to be constructive for you to suppress your instinctive response in favor of  "That's interesting. Why do you think that?" 5. The author invites us to make a distinction between an idea and the person who has expressed the idea. In what areas of your life do you make this distinction? What makes it hard for you to make this distinction when it comes to politics? 6. What stereotypes stand in the way of your presuming the patriotism and intelligence of those who think differently from you about the major policy choices facing this country? What stereotypes may others hold of you that keep them from viewing you as intelligent and patriotic? 7. The author mentions three questions she thinks we need to address: what constitutes "strong" leadership?  What is the US role in the world?  And how can we prevent terrorism? Can you imagine addressing one or more of these questions with at least one person who would answer them very differently from you? What makes you hesitate about participating in such a conversation? What makes you interested in participating? What external barriers would you have to overcome to have such a conversation? 8. What questions does this article raise for you? If Carla Seaquist were here, what question would you ask her to deepen your understanding of her views? Article 5: Questions after Reading Nasty Politics? Puhleez! Get a Historic Grip. by William Schambra 1. In the author's view, the 2004 campaigns were no more than "ordinarily nasty." Do you think the "nastiness" surrounding our last national election was greater, less, or about the same as in previous ones? 2. What effects do you think the "nastiness" had on the public, the political process, or the outcome of the election? On you? If these effects concern you, does the author's analysis of US political history reduce some of your concerns about current levels of incivility in the political and civic arena? If it does, why? If not, why not? 3. What are your assumptions and beliefs about what it is realistic to expect of  "the everyday person" when it comes to public life? How are your views on this subject about this similar to and different from those of the author? What provides the foundation of your views? 4. In your view, what are some of the institutions, leaders, groups, processes, practices, traditions, values, forces, etc. that are promoting "some semblance of the common good" at this point in our history? 5. This article raises the question of how our social status colors our perceptions of and concerns about incivility. How do you think your socio-economic position in US society may color the nature and degree of your concern about levels of current public incivility? Do you think you are more or less concerned than most people? What is at the heart of your concern or lack of concern? 6. The author asserts that "only in the eyes of certain elites is our politics today more than ordinarily nasty." Who do you think are the "certain elites" that the author refers to? 7. If you are part of an "elite," do you know people unlikely to fit the author's definition of those who are concerned about the current levels of incivility? Who are they and what is the source of their concern? 8. Do you agree that "deliberative democrats" and others who express concern about the quality of political life invariably propose reforms that augment their influence? Why? 9. What questions does this article raise for you? If William Schambra were here, what question would you ask him to deepen your understanding of his views? Article 6: Questions after Reading We Need Higher Quality Outrage by Deborah Tannen 1. Do you tend to avoid or lean into "heated" political discussions? What about them alienates or attracts you? Can you think of a hot political discussion that led you to think about an issue in a new way?  What allowed you to shift your thinking? 2. The author mentions two benefits of heated political discussions: they ask us "to articulate-and therefore examine-the logic of our views" and they expose us to the views of those with whom we disagree. What benefits have you experienced from such discussions? 3. Did you avoid discussing the 2004 election with a family member or friend? What prompted you to hold back? What may have been lost as a result? What was gained? What commitments would you need to make and what steps would you need to take in order to enter a conversation about politics with this person with more hope than apprehension? 4. The author distinguishes between "agonistic shouting" and "constructive or genuine opposition." What stands out for you as the most important distinction between the two? How do you tell them apart? 5. Have you ever talked about a public issue with people whose views differ strongly from yours and found that the conversation became passionate but not "agonistic"? What did you or the others involved do (or refrain from doing) that helped the conversation develop the way it did? What did you value about the experience? What does this experience suggest about how to avoid "agonism" in talking with people who voted for another candidate? 6. The author advocates more focus on the merits of a policy and less on the motives of those who propose or support it. She asserts that we cannot know the latter. Do you think this is an important distinction? A desirable shift in emphasis? Why? 7. In what circumstances, if any, do you believe that "opposition is the best, if not the only path to truth"? Why? What other ways of truth seeking do you experience or value? In what circumstances is each alternative way most effective? 8. To what extent do you share the author's view of the downsides of "single-minded devotion" to "balance" in journalism? How else might journalists provide balance without creating "the illusion of equivalence"? 9. The author suggests that when challenges are "monumental" we need "passionate outrage." What does "passionate outrage" mean to you? When have you experienced it? Witnessed its expression? In what situations has "passionate outrage" inspired effective actions? Actions that were ineffective or counterproductive? Under what conditions, if any, could actions animated by "passionate outrage" make a constructive difference at this time in our nation's history? 10. What questions does this article raise for you? If Deborah Tannen were here, what question would you ask her to deepen your understanding of her views? Article 7: Questions after Reading Humanity Is Not Red or Blue by Brown Campbell 1. Did you avoid discussing the 2004 election with a family member or friend? Why? What purposes or values guided your avoidance? What were you afraid would happen? What may have been lost by holding back? What was gained? 2. What purposes and values might move you to talk about politics with this friend or family member in the future? What commitments would you (and the friend or family member) need to make before you could approach a conversation about politics with more hope than fear? 3. If you are involved in a congregation or faith community, how was it affected by the polarizing climate surrounding the 2004 election? Were efforts made to limit the negative impacts of events in the political sphere within the faith community? If some steps were effective, what may have made them so? 4. What do you think about the author's assertion that "avoidance of a potentially divisive issue is always counter-productive"? What personal experiences inform your answer? 5. The Parents' Circle is testimony to the power of reaching across extreme conflict and great trauma. How do you imagine that members of this group have been able to accomplish what they have? What piece of advice might a member of the Circle offer citizens of the US at this moment in our history? 6. The author challenges us to discover "how conflict and civility can exist in the same space." What experiences have you had with spaces in which people could conflict in civil ways? What do you already know about how to build and maintain such spaces? What do you want to learn more about? 7. What assumptions make it hard for you to acknowledge the humanity of some or all of those on the other political "side"? What steps could you take to move beyond the labels and stereotypes that currently color your view of others - for better or worse? What may be the cost to you and others of not doing so? 8. The author underlines the importance of separating what political adversaries say from who they are. Do you accept this distinction? Why? Do you share her view that it is an important one to make? Why? What, if anything, makes it challenging for you to honor this distinction in practice? 9. Imagine that one of your neighbors openly espouses views and actions you deeply oppose on moral or political grounds and has symbols of her/his views on display. It's Halloween and you are taking your children out to trick-or-treat. Would you encourage your children to ring that neighbor's doorbell? Why or why not? 10. The author's final words urge readers "always to reserve for yourself the possibility that you might just be wrong." How hard is this for you to do? In personal or professional arguments? Political or moral ones? What makes it hard? What tends to make it easier? 11. What questions does this article raise for you? If Brown Campbell were here, what question would you ask her to deepen your understanding of her views? Article 8: Questions after Reading How to Break the Argument Habit by Laura Chasin 1. "The odds are that we all have contributed to polarization." How does this statement apply to you? Can you recall a time when you spawned or were drawn into a polarization in any area of your life? What was the situation? The issue? How did you add fuel to the fire? What were the effects on those involved? Useful, harmless, or harmful? 2. When have you been on the receiving end of polarizing communication practices? What were the situations? How were you treated? How did you respond? 3. The author states that many of us have been using polarizing speech for so long that we are no longer aware of doing it. If you stop to think, can you identify a type of polarizing speech that has become habitual to you? Has anyone ever made you aware of negative unintended consequences of your speaking that way? If so, what was the situation? What was the impact of the feedback on you? 4. How do you respond to the author's encouragement to have constructive conversations with those who are "ideologically different" from you? If it would feel "unnatural" or "out of the question," what past experiences or feared results may contribute to your response? 5. The author mentions a number of reasons people were attracted to particpate in Public Conversations Project dialogues. What would your reasons be to participate in a dialogue at this time with someone who is "ideologically different" from you? 6. The author uses the metaphor of  "the public square" and suggests that polarizing speech is "polluting" its "atmosphere." Do you think the atmosphere of the public square is being polluted? If so, by what? What is the impact of breathing this air on you and those you care about? If you are aware of harmful public health effects, can you think of one step you or others might take to help clear the air? 7. "It is possible to disagree without demonizing others...and to continue disagreeing about some issues while working together on others. Most of us recognize this in some areas of our lives." Is this true for you? In which area(s) of your life? How do you account for your ability to collaborate on some issues while simultaneously disagreeing strongly about others? 8. What surprises you about the dialogue experience of the Boston area prochoice and prolife leaders? What do you make of its "paradoxical effect" on the participants? Have you had a similar experience? If so, what did you learn from it? 9. When have you resisted the temptation to communicate in polarizing ways because another value or purpose was more important to you? What was that value or purpose? What did you do? How did others respond to your behaving this way? 10. "The author urges everyone to "fight for technicolor."  What do you understand her to mean? Has our polarizing political culture drained some color out your views of other people and other people's view of you? What are specific ways you might "stand up for the multicolored reality of yourself and others"? 11. Hope is a precious commodity." What are the sources of your hope for the US and the world at this moment in history? 12. What questions does this article raise for you? If Laura Chasin were here, what question would you ask her to deepen your understanding of his views? Conclusion: Questions after Reading The Art of Political Listening 1. Did "the red-blue split" reach into your home office or social circle? If it did, how were relationships there affected? The "climate"? You? Were measures taken to combat potentially negative consequences? If so, what was effective? 2. The author notes that "a terrorist strike threw the nation into a solidarity of the heart" and asks how Americans can be so bitterly divided three years later. Can you think of a metaphor that captures what you felt like after 9/11 and another that captures how you felt after the 2004 election? How do you understand the shift (if one occurred)? What shifts do we need to foster now? 3. When it comes to bridging political gulfs, "half the battle is willingness to accept that the other guy's motives are good." Using the author's metaphor, how close are you to winning this half of the battle as far as the "other guys" involved in the 2004 elections are concerned? What assumptions may stand in the way of your making further progress? How could you reality test your assumptions and convictions about who "they" are? 4. The author of this piece suggests that everyone "have a doughnut with a neighbor of the opposite political stripe and try, just try, to identify common goals on public issues, without rancor."  How could you make that happen for your and your neighbors? What stops you? If you already are doing this, how would you describe the challenges and rewards to a first-timer? 5. If doughnuts are not your style, what other steps might you take to "welcome the other side" into "one big tent of conversation"? 6. What questions does this article raise for you? If the writer of this editorial were here, what question would you ask him or her to deepen your understanding of his or her views? Questions for Those Who Read the Entire Series 1. How did your experience of reading this series touch or affect you? Were there particular articles that especially "spoke" to you? Why? Which of the many ideas related to "talking with the enemy" presented in this series, struck you as especially fresh or promising? Which might you apply in your life? Which might you commend to your Senator or Congressperson? 2. When was the last time you had a vigorous, respectful, extended conversation with someone whose political views are very different from your own? What, if anything, might you have done differently if you had read "Talking with the Enemy" in advance? 3. If you have not had such a conversation, what stops you from having one now? If you were to reach out to someone who voted differently than you did, how might you put what you learned from this series into practice? 4. What questions are likely to stimulate a "red/blue" conversation that would be of interest to you? 5. Has reading this series, increased, decreased, and/or changed the quality of your concern about the nasty and polarizing nature of so much public conversation about political issues and leaders? 6. Has this series given you ideas about how to make the best of the next four years? In your view, what are the major challenges that need to be addressed? What untapped resources might help us address them? What yet-to-be-formed coalitions might play a leadership role? 7. If a "Let's Heal America" movement were to gather momentum, what ingredients might make it effective? Under what circumstances might you want to include yourself in such a movement? Where might you start? What life experiences would you draw on? What support would you want from those who share your views? From those who voted for a different candidate for president? 8. Would you commend this series to someone else? Why? What additional resources might help you make the most practical use of what you learned from this series? 9. If you were asked to contribute to a sequel to "Talking with the Enemy", what would you say and why? Download these questions as a pdf. Christian Science Monitor Series: Explore the full Christian Science Monitor series, along with questions to inspire constructive conversation and personal reflection. Across the Red-blue Divide Intro, by Daniel Yankelovich. Questions about this article. 9/11 Commission Brings Heat, But Also Light Part 1 of 8, by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton Questions about this article. Bush-contempt, Kerry-scorn: Is It 'Hate Thought'? Part 2 of 8, by Gary Alan Fine Questions about this article. A Political Odd Couple's Advice on Finding Common Ground Part 3 of 8, by Eugene F. Provenzo Jr. and Jack Thompson Questions about this article. At Heart of Good Political Discussion: the Idea Part 4 of 8, by Carla Seaquist Questions about this article. Nasty Politics? Puhleez! Get a Historic Grip. Part 5 of 8, by William Schambra Questions about this article. We Need Higher Quality Outrage Part 6 of 8, by Deborah Tannen Questions about this article. Humanity Is Not Red or Blue Part 7 of 8, by Joan Brown Campbell Questions about this article. How to Break the Argument Habit Part 8 of 8, by Laura Chasin Questions about this article. The Monitor's View: The Art of Political Listening Questions about this article. Do you have a story to tell about a breakthrough you've had in a politically polarized situation? The Christian Science Monitor is interested in your ideas, as an opinion essay or as simple feedback, which can be sent to its "Talking With the Enemy" series at talking@csps.com. If you have feedback on PCP's questions or other resources, please let us know! Simply email info@publicconversations.org.
	Public Conversations Project  | info@publicconversations.org 46 Kondazian Street, Watertown, MA 02472