Across The Blue-Red Divide: How To Start A Conversation
By Daniel Yankelovich
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1015/p10s02-coop.html
-
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?
-
The author worries that current levels of "gridlock" in US society are "dysfunctional"? Do you share this concern? Why?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
|
|
|
Home
Resources
