A first step in rebuilding common ground

So, three kids are in an adjacent room and you hear a crash. You go in the room and see a vase broken on the floor. You ask what happened:

Child 1: “The dog knocked it from the table. Terrible dog.” 

You look and confirm that the dog is outside. “Fake news” starts early. You ask again:

Child 2: “We were playing and then the vase fell over, but I didn’t do it as I wasn’t closest to the table.”

You ask again:

Child 3: “We were running in the room and someone tripped me and made me knock the vase over.”

Each child reported the same event differently, but when pieced together you can get a pretty complete report of what really happened.

We benefit from seeing an event through multiple lenses.

It’s human nature to gravitate towards that which reinforces or doesn’t challenge our existing views. This appears to be the case in our media consumption.  (In psychology this is called the selective exposure theory.)

According to Pew Research Center Studies:

At this point, we don’t expect to even agree on the basic facts.

Pew Research Center – Basic facts are in dispute

This isn’t surprising, as we don’t start from the same place.

Trump supporters relied heavily on Fox for their election news and information.  No single source was as pronounced among Clinton supporters, but this is perhaps due to the perception that there are more liberal leaning news options.) (Pew Research Center – Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their Main Source for Election News)

And we have tended to think that our own news sources are more trustworthy than others.

Press Widely Criticized, But Trusted More than Other Information Sources

The path to rebuilding common ground starts with some understanding of other sides of an issue. But where to start?

While this diagram from Imgur may not be perfect (the center may be more liberal than is shown here), but it’s a good place to start. Try to:

  • Focus on reading and sharing from sites that are more centered
  • Venture out of your safety zone
  • Remember that understanding something doesn’t require that you agree with it

It may not be pleasant, but we need to make the effort.

My two cents:

  • I am not a fan of ANY cable TV news. In order to fill a 24-hours news cycle, the headlines are hyperbolic and views too often vitriolic. And too often we are watching the news while doing other things, and can’t give the attention that the topics require.
  • Try reading instead. You control what you read, when you read it and you can more easily compare multiple sources.
  • You may want to start introduce new sources slowly and not venture into the comments section until you are very ready.
  • While social media is good for entertainment, it isn’t ideal for gaining an understanding of an topic. Use sparingly.

Sources

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/201402/selective-exposure-calling-inconvenient-news-irrelevant

http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/18/trump-clinton-voters-divided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/pj_2017-01-18_election-news-sources_0-01/

http://www.people-press.org/2016/10/14/in-presidential-contest-voters-say-basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-in-dispute/

http://www.people-press.org/2011/09/22/press-widely-criticized-but-trusted-more-than-other-institutions/

 

It’s time we reclaim our common ground

We are responsible for making our political system more functional

Our physical world has two poles (north and south) that are bitter and cold. The vast majority of humanity lives much closer to the equator, in a much more productive climate.

Our political world feels very similar. The current system is set up to force us away from our common, productive ground and into hostile extremes.  We won’t survive such a move and need to do all we can to regain our common ground.

It is up to us, the people, to:

  • Reach out to others who may not share our POV
  • Focus on listening to them with compassion, not judgment (I’ll admit, this one challenges me at times)
  • Have conversations grounded in verifiable facts (If you can’t agree on what is true, either work together to uncover the facts or move on)
  • Admit when you don’t know something, or are wrong
  • Politely agree to disagree when necessary.
  • Don’t focus on changing someone’s view. Enhanced understanding is a valuable outcome
  • Hold politicians from BOTH parties to the same standards. What is un/acceptable for one party should be un/acceptable for all

A broad variety of perspectives in our nation should be our greatest strength, not our most easily exploited weakness.

Reclaiming our common ground won’t be easy, but it is very necessary.

Not sure where to start?

I’ll be posting a variety of views that are honest and heartfelt, not confrontational and angry.

For today, check out the CNN segment Trump gives America’s ‘poorest white town’ hope.

How and why to say NO to Stephen Bannon’s latest power grab

Should we be alarmed by the appointment of Stephen Bannon (Trump’s chief strategist) to a membership role in the National Security Council (NSC) Principal Committee?

Heck yes! Please call The Senate Committee on Homeland Security at 202-224-4751 (It’s an answering machine. Leave your name, number and a brief message) or email them (https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/contact) to register your position.

I used some of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s message and tweaked it a bit.

“I very strongly believe that the demotion of key members of the NSC Participial Committee and the inclusion of an individual whose primary responsibility is political in nature is highly detrimental to the strength of our great nation. I am also very concerned about the individual’s role in crafting the executive order behind these changes. Partisan politics have no place in our national security.”

Not convinced? Keep reading.

What is the NSC?

This is how the Trump administration defines the NSC and their role. (you will have to cut and paste the link https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc, as my direct link was mysteriously severed). 

Ah, let’s go back to the archived Obama Administration site. There we see: (bolding and italics mine)

  • “The National Security Council (NSC) is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials.”
  • “Since its inception under President Truman, the Council’s function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies.”
  • “The Council also serves as the President’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting.”

As with most Trump moves that have garnered opposition, the objections are two-fold.

The more readily grasped objections are that Bannon has little relevant experience and is a not seen to be a very good person overall.

But the objections aren’t just specific to Bannon. Someone, perhaps Bannon,  also included in the EO the demotion of several of the most influential members of the committee, giving Bannon even more influence. More specifically the OE “someone” crafted:

  • Removed two key members, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence, and said that they would be invited “issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.” (which should be pretty much every time, but is now at the White House’s discretion)
    • The Director of National Intelligence is responsible for starting off discussions with an intelligence briefing, but Trump has made it clear how little he values intelligence
    • The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff used to be a key adviser to the president and others on the military consequences
  • Diminished the role of the national Security Advisor, who would normally be the one to work with the President on NSC matters.

This is not OK

 

Thanks for moving forward with me

Sources

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc

 obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/nsc/.

msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bannons-white-house-role-draws-sharp-criticisms-reason

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-danger-of-steve-bannon-on-the-national-security-council/2017

cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/susan-rice-steve-bannon/

www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-trump-national-security-council-an-analysis/514910/

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-not-fully-briefed-on-bannon-nsc-order-report

www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136829586/what-does-the-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-do

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-not-fully-briefed-on-bannon-nsc-order-report.html