Thought experiment #1
Imagine a baseball stadium. Fill it with twenty thousand Americans. Demand that Democrats wear blue and Republicans wear red. Have someone on a podium at second base give a speech about immigration, for example.
Fights soon break out.
Rewind.
The same twenty thousand people. Let them dress however they want. Instead of the guy giving the speech, you put two baseball teams there. It is immediately a different energy. Team One’s fans will include both liberals and conservatives, suddenly united in a common cause. Ditto team two. There will certainly be disagreements, but because we have been taught about acceptable discourse around baseball games, they will usually be relatively benign.
Questions for discussion:
Regarding the first example:
Who gave the order to wear red or blue?
Who dragged that stage there?
Who chose the topic? And from which list?
Is it possible that “politics” has come to mean the percussive discussion of a short list of pre-approved topics (immigration, abortion, cancel culture, etc.), with these topics somehow provided by (say ) certain distant powers? , which have also provided a rigid framework within which to discuss them, a framework designed not to solve anything, but to ensure continued disagreement, for the purpose of agitation. Agitation is, let’s face it, a big problem. money maker?
Thought experiment #2
Place four Democrats and four Republicans around a charming local conference table somewhere in the heart of the country. (Put one of those golden American maples out the window, and every now and then an autumn leaf will fall off.) They’re a city council. Their subject is potholes. There are $5,000 worth of potholes in the city, but the city only has $3,000 in its budget for pothole repairs.
Those eight people are trying to solve a specific problem. Which potholes can remain unfilled? Well, which ones are the biggest? Shouldn’t we take care of that for the hospital? These three, on that road on the edge of town, where no one ever goes, will have to wait.
The discussion is not theoretical, but practical. (By the way, what is the left’s opinion on potholes, or the MAGA view?) This is problem solvingsomething we Americans are good at (or at least think we are). Most people, on both sides, know a pragmatic solution when they see one, especially if they’ve worked on the problem and have some idea of the costs, choices, and sacrifices required to solve it.
What can arise among this group of people is something called affection.
We, the Pothole Eight, will have endured the wars together. We will enjoy spotting together. the laughable criticism of our work from the misinformed population. Maybe then we will be a little proud of what we have achieved. Sometimes, while driving, I see a big new pothole and call Murray, my friend on the council, who may be a Republican, but honestly I don’t care. I just want to tell him about that big hole in the road.
Questions for discussion:
What or who makes us hate each other so much?
Could it be that one of the reasons we feel sick right now is that our natural desire to love each other is being thwarted by distant, profit-based forces?
Thought experiment #3
Imagine you are about to get into a political argument with a close friend or family member. You are on opposite sides of the left-right divide. You’ve had this discussion before.
Many times.
Questions for discussion:
Don’t you think it would be easier if you each just brought a small TV and left it on in the kitchen, tuned to your respective network, while you went out into the garden together and talked about something you have any original knowledge? Once you get there and talk like that, won’t it be nice to feel your pre-formed ‘political’ shield fall away? And won’t it be discouraging and alarming if, as soon as one of you makes a mistake and utters a stinging word or phrase (for example, “immigrant” or “Trump” or “politically correct” or “eating cats and dogs”), you fall back into your canned ‘political’ jargon, like actors suddenly aware that the scripts you’ve been given must be respected at all costs?
In that moment, as you stand there like Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em robots, beating each other up with someone else’s lines, and often looking a little sad and even ashamed, who is speaking through you?
Thought experiment #4
Imagine a simple, pastoral pastor of ours, walking around with his club in his hand and smelling the flowers.
That caveman’s ability to construct opinions based on mental projection is what allows him to survive. This also applies to us.
But we get much more information than he does, information of a special kind, information that is powerful and constructed far away by people with agendas. It is delivered invisibly, in a way that gives us a deep sense of connection. It’s addictive. It’s overwhelming. It flows without intervention into the brain, essentially the same brain that Mr. Flower Snuffle walked around with, and like a stomach designed for nuts and fruit that is suddenly confronted with a TripleFlame Macaroni & Lard Burger, that brain starts to have digestive problems. , but give it a try anyway.
Questions for discussion: