Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

At heart of good political discussion: the idea

A year of living verbally with a French roommate's insistent 'whys' suggests how polarized Americans could fill their divide with light

(Page 2 of 2)



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

But for 35 years, our friendship has proved knowing and warm, because it began with - and is maintained by - those crucial words: "That's interesting. Why do you think that?"

Respectful of thought and thinker, the French way is complexity made pleasurable, fun - in a word, it's so inviting.

We polarized Americans might adopt it to our benefit - and so might our politicians. Because, think about it: When was the last time your polar opposite asked the evolution of your thought and, fair's fair, when did the reverse occur? (Time's up.) "That's interesting," focusing on the idea, is far more inviting than the conversation-stopping "That's stupid," which focuses on the person, i.e., idiot.

Who knows, that "idiot" might pose a good counterargument.

To find out, let's assume each other's patriotism and intelligence, drop the idiotic name-calling and the meaningless labels - what does "latte-drinking liberal" or "right-wing wacko" mean, except lazy thinking? - and ask the scary but key question, "Why do you think that?" (If only our Vietnam veterans, wounded again in the swift-boat "war," could ask one another this question.)

In turn we need to ask ourselves: Why do I think what I do? Are my opinions received unexamined - from family, peers, political party, the media, the Internet, because "it's cool"? Because of fear? Or do I examine them, rigorously, from premise to conclusion? Doing so, we'd acquire the habit of self-critique (fine French word) - a habit the entire world needs to learn.

Were we to reach a neutral place, beyond blue-red, we'd engage better the questions of this election and could reexamine our post-9/11 premises: What constitutes "strong" leadership? What is our role in the world - domination or cooperation? How do we combat terrorism - by muscle, preemptive war, diplomacy?

"Debated" in our present polarized state, however, these matters - vital to our survival - have become inflamed.

The importance of rationally engaging policy and premises in a time of fear is clear enough.

What's also at issue is how we relate to each other - countryman to countryman - and to the world, including notably France. In defense of our old ally I'll note: Antipathy toward the French "surrender monkeys," taken to its logical conclusion, is a killing idea.

America, the 9/11 commission states, is in a war of ideas with Islamic extremism. We're also in a nasty war of ideas with ourselves.

In these struggles we Americans, a people compelled more by energy than logic, could learn from the French, a people compelled by ideas - and history.

Because: To avert tragedy, we need every clear-thinking American head. And the idea we need to address is the greater good.

What do you think?

Carla Seaquist, a playwright, is author of 'The Washington-Sarajevo Talks' and the new play 'Prodigal.'

Page: Previous Page 1 | 2

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions