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 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 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 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.
