The often-repeated caveat that one should avoid talking about politics and religion has never been more appropriate than in the age of division in which we live. We all have our own judgements, opinions and prejudices that color the way we think. Because this is true, conversation with those who do not share our predilections can be very challenging. The result is that we avoid talking politics and religion; and we are poorer as a result. A recent conversation with an intelligent young lawyer confirmed my suspicion. We ignored conventional wisdom, talked about politics and I learned a great deal.
If we avoid challenging conversations, we remain locked in our own worlds. If we only listen to news and podcasts that confirm our political and religious leanings, we never grow. The divisions that are blossoming in our body politic only get deeper and wider. Cultivating a capacity to listen without interrupting may be one of the solutions to this quandary.
My lawyer friend and I had one of these conversations that was both educational and enjoyable. I am not sure for whom he cast his ballot in the last presidential election, but he was clearly making the case that we should all support the incoming administration. I assumed that he presumed that he knew for whom I had voted. His assumption was correct.
As we talked, in true lawyerly fashioned, he cajoled and persuaded me that supporting the success of the new Republican administration was and is the right thing to do. It was like a Socratic dialogue between Thrasymachus and Socrates. At the end of the dialogue, there is, apparently, only one way to see things. The experience of agreeing with the proposition that I needed to root for the success of our new leaders left me feeling very uncomfortable and unsettled.
As I pondered this enigma, I came to a different place. I re-engaged my good friend and reviewed our previous conversation. I retracted what I had previously agreed to and explained my new position. As a Catholic and a priest, I thoroughly endorse Catholic Social teaching. This means that all immigrants need to be treated with dignity and respect. Adequate health care needs to be regarded as a right and not a privilege. Helping the rich get richer while exploding the national debt has severe negative consequences for the poor. So far, the goals set forth by the incoming administration seem contrary to Catholic Social teaching. So, I guess I do not support the incoming administration. I hope they fail in their draconian plans for our nation.
Needless to say, we should all support our government leaders if they set about improving the lives of all Americans. However, If they want to invade Greenland, storm the Panama Canal and pressure Canada to surrender its independence, then quite clearly, many of us will find ourselves on the side of those who hope these initiatives fail.
Prescinding from this kind of debate, it is important to note that debate and real dialogue are two different things. It is sometimes easy to win debates. Debating is good for the intellect and stimulating to the soul. In contrast, dialogue involves a whole different approach to political discourse. The focus of dialogue is not to win debating points but rather to enter into the thought processes and reasoning of people with whom we interact. Maybe the people of Greenland and Panama are interested in having a conversation about their futures. Who knows? True dialogue is the only way that contentious issues can be explored. It is also the only way that common ground can be discovered.
We all look at the world through the prism of values. Honesty, respect for the truth, compassion, generosity and empathy for the poor and disadvantaged provide a foundation on which to build a democracy. Unless these are shared values, common ground will always be elusive. When these values are missing, the best we can hope for is disagreement without being disagreeable.
Msgr. Garrity is a Senior Priest of the Archdiocese of Boston and former pastor of St. Mary’s Parish and School, Lynn.
