Excellent article. Jordan and myself do not disagree about everything. Actually, not nearly. As an addendum, it might be pointed out that to the extent that religious values matter in such cases -as a sort of gold standard in making decisions-- here is an example of where a Baha'i principle has real worth, Granted that I have serious issues with X number of Baha'i teachings, but not in this instance, or not much difference. The principle of "consultation" is supposed to guide all Baha'i deliberations. A premium is placed on willingness to be open at all times in group discussions to change one's mind if facts ( or logic ) make it clear that a previous position is not for the best. While Baha'is vote on just about all questions pertaining to faith ( not the validity of scriptures or the like, but about practical matters ) since the religion is democratic by design, the ideal is always to achieve consensus, so that everyone is in agreement and united front comes about and the community moves together in carrying out actions. A decision may be reversed if things do not work out, say a year or more afterward, but any agreed upon course of action starts out with maximum community support. I once knew a member of the NSA ( National Spiritual,Assembly, sort of the Baha'i "Supreme Court " ), and he told me that the objective of all NSA members is to be willing, if facts warrant, to end up in favor of the viewpoint of the opposition, when all is said, if the opposition has the better case to make. I am not convinced this is always the best form of decision making , there would seem to be a number of classes of exceptions to the rule, but essentially this is a good idea. And, of course, it is one reason why I was attracted to RC back in the late 90s, before even hearing about Centroids, since RC is de facto approximately the same in outlook. Well, by no means always, but on a regular basis. BTW, Baha'i "consultation" historically is based on the Muslim principle of "shura," a term that more-or-less translates as consultation. It seems to have been incorporated into Islam from previous tribal societies where elders and others would meet when their community needed to decide on issues. So, while there is no democracy in orthodox Islam, not at the state level, at the tribal level there is an equivalent which, at that, goes further and can be taken as an improvement. To be sure, there are other analogies to the process, even in American politics. Think about the party conventions. True, some conventions end in acrimony and bad feelings which result in splits in the party, but the ideal is always bringing warring factions together in unity. Most conventions end with united fronts, after all. You also see a form of this in some churches, maybe most Evangelical groups, since it is customary for Christian believers to want to end with harmony in their ranks, not discord. Thus the value of prayerful discussion when finalizing decisions in many congregations. Still, there is value in Baha'i explicitness, the value placed on changing one's mind when the "other side" has the best arguments to make. It is an overt value which I personally, even if my Baha'i years are long ago in the past, still regard highly . And maybe as a political essential. About the health care plan of the administration, personally there are aspects of it that I simply cannot stand, even if, OTOH, parts are "just what the doctor ordered." Therefore, yes, we need strong debate. But too many of the town hall meetings have been little more than shouting matches. This has been disillusioning. The point of the article is very well taken. Billy ============================================ Changing our minds about important issues By Rudy Ruiz, Special to CNN SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) -- As people shout over each other and tune out diverging views in town hall meetings, the health care debate is proving to be symptomatic of a major ailment threatening our nation: A contagious culture of closed-mindedness threatens to suffocate our progress as a society. Why has it become so difficult to even consider changing our minds about important issues? Here's my diagnosis. Increasingly, the willingness to change one's position on political issues has been misread as a mark of weakness rather than a product of attentive listening and careful deliberation. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the successful branding of _John Kerry_ (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/John_Kerry) as a flip-flopper doomed his bid. Fear of "flip-flopper syndrome" is apparently catching like the flu, because today politicians are not alone in their determination to adhere to partisan positions despite the changing needs of our nation. Nearly everyone's so reluctant to appear wishy-washy that they stand firm even when the evidence is against their views. Three factors exacerbate this paralysis by lack of analysis: labels, lifestyles and listening. First, the labels ascribed to many potential policy tools render sensible options taboo, loading what could be rational, economic or social measures with moral baggage. This narrows our choices, hemming in policy makers. Any proposal including the words "government-run" elicits cries of "socialism" and "communism." Any argument invoking the words "God" or "moral" sparks accusations of "right-wing extremism," "fascism," or "Bible-thumping." Instead of listening to each other's ideas, we spot the warning label and run the other way. Second, our lifestyles favor knee-jerk reactions. The way we think, work and live in the Digital Age demands we quickly categorize information without investing time into rich interaction, research and understanding. We're hesitant to ask questions because we don't have time to listen to the long, complicated answers that might follow. And we lack the time to fact-check competing claims. In our haste, it's easier to echo our party's position than drill down, questioning whether party leaders are motivated by our best interests or the best interests of their biggest contributors. Third, we tend to listen only to like-minded opinions as media fragmentation encourages us to filter out varying perspectives. If you're a liberal, you avoid FOX News. If you're a conservative you revile MSNBC. The dynamic is even more pronounced online, where a niche media source can be found for any outlook. This silences the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and deliberation that might lead to reformulating positions, forging sustainable compromises, and developing consensus crucial to moving our nation forward on complex issues. So how can we overcome this challenge, starting with the _health care_ (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Health_Care_Policy) debate? How do we open our minds to the possibility that we could actually learn from somebody else? Here's my prescription. For starters, we should eschew the notion that changing our minds is a character flaw. To the contrary, experts believe it's a manifestation of higher intelligence. Renowned psychologist Stuart Sutherland wrote in "Irrationality," his seminal 1992 book: "The willingness to change one's mind in the light of new evidence is a sign of rationality not weakness." To further free our minds, we should aggressively treat the three Ls: Let's lose the labels: from "flip-flopper" to "commie," from "fear-monger" to "right-wing nut job." Trash the diatribe; mull the ideas. Let's engage in some constructive lifestyle management, slowing down to ponder -- and make independent decisions -- as enlightened people. We cannot allow the _technological_ (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Technology) evolution to rob us of the intellectual strides of the American Revolution. We must value the art of listening, reflection, comparative analysis, and civil discourse if we're to make the most of our democracy. In the process, we should signal to leaders that we're willing to expand our horizons beyond party lines. Maybe they'll get in front of our parade, collaborating for a change. Let's request a second opinion and listen to each other. Switch channels. Visit different Web sites. Read a newspaper, while we can still find one. How about stepping into a town hall with an open mind, prepared to converse with people hailing from diverse circumstances? A range of perspectives enriches our viewpoint, empowering us to craft nuanced responses to complex situations. Ultimately, we must stop thinking that the only thing to think is what we've thought all along. As we learn more about multifaceted matters, our positions should evolve accordingly. Let's accept that it's OK to change your minds. In the end, opening our minds can only enhance the prognosis for our most cherished patient: America. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rudy Ruiz.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
