Free to disagree

The most profitable class I took in college was debate.

That year the topic debated in every college across the country was whether passive restraint systems should be mandatory or optional on all new cars.

That might seem to be a simple case to make depending on which side of the argument one personally fell, however, my debate partner and I had to be prepared to defend either side of the question. In one round we might be called upon to defend our position of making passive restraint systems mandatory, while in round two we were expected to promote with equal vigor the customer’s freedom to choose whether or not to add the expense of passive restraint systems to the cost of a car.

From this exercise I learned the importance of critical thinking and that there are two or more sides to every topic. My partner and I learned it well because we never lost a debate!

With the ever-increasing influence of people from other cultures pouring across our borders and the waning of a truly Christian worldview on the part of our citizens, in today’s America we find the chasm between our beliefs and those of our neighbors widening all the time. And with growing intensity we see those divisions becoming more and more hostile. We humans are good at erecting walls between “us” and “them,” however, there is an obvious spiritual darkness ultimately engineering these divisions between groups and factions.

Sadly, the breakdown of traditional societal structures such as the nuclear family and the influence of the church has contributed greatly to this increasing Balkanization within our culture. I recently read an article that discussed the dynamics seen in emotionally arrested people. An example was given of a twelve-year-old child whose parents divorced.

As an emotional defense system the youngster shuts down emotionally and remains that age from an emotional standpoint. (It’s said that 98 percent of personal conflict stems from unresolved conflict occurring before age 11.) The article went on to say emotionally arrested persons display three consistent behaviors: They doubt the truth (meaning they easily believe lies), they fear knowledge (“I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with facts”) and, as a result, they have an inability to handle conflict (or disagreements).

In politics, business and family life conflict is inevitable.

Differing ideas, values and convictions will lead to a clash of those competing ideas. This is nowhere more true than in the legislative arena because it deals in ideas, and where hopefully the best idea becomes law through the process of debate.

However, that process easily breaks down when, instead of debating ideas, the battle becomes a personal one centered on emotions.

Instead of having a dispassionate discussion about competing ideas, today we are seeing personal (ad hominem) attacks through phone calls, emails, letters and conversations. The verbal attacks, name calling, and distortions of the truth are attempts to shut down anyone who has ideas other than their own. As noted above, an “inability to handle conflict” can be a telltale sign of emotionally arrested behavior. As the Greek philosopher Socrates said, “When the debate is over slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

Meanwhile, an emotionally healthy adult is one who can tolerate disagreement and disapproval from other adults without responding with personal attacks. That person’s security remains intact, and fears are kept at bay. Ironically, the most vehement of these attacks come from those who consider themselves intellectually and morally superior or more spiritually enlightened than their opponents. They throw their fiery darts of accusation with skill and deadly accuracy.

In the battleground of ideas, it is imperative to have “ears to hear,” a mind to understand and the ability to distinguish cold hard facts from feelings. As Thomas Sowell said, “It’s not that Johnny can’t read. It’s not that Johnny can’t think. It’s that Johnny confuses thinking with feeling!”

Some of my closest friends in the legislature do not vote as I do. However, I am grateful that we are able to put the differences in our ideas aside and maintain our relationships. This is important in all our lives! In visiting about this idea, one of my fellow legislators (who is younger than my sons) said he often repeats the phrase, “No ego amigo” (No agenda my friend). It helps him remember to keep emotions intact, prioritize relationships, stay focused on issues and not take things personally. What a great reminder!

The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is intended for those who disagree, not just for those who are attempting to impose their ideas on others. However, whether through exerting influence on social media companies or government agencies attempting to intimidate those with opposing beliefs, we are increasingly seeing outright censorship of the free exchange of opposing ideas. In fact, our most recent Supreme Court Justice, Kentanji Brown Jackson recently stated, “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways...” In doing so she appeared to suggest that freedom of speech is only as free as the government decides it to be.

This is dangerous and goes against the time-honored model of presenting competing ideas for better legislation.

Furthermore, it is a slippery slope leading to a totalitarian government. It is also the modus operandi seen in cults. Using emotional manipulation and outright force upon others and taking away their freedom to express themselves is wrong.

Our form of government works best for everyone when laws are forged in an arena of competing ideas, where emotion and personal agendas are put aside and where objective truth and human flourishing are seen as the highest objectives. Let’s hope and pray that will be our standard going forward.

Loren Lippincott represents Legislative District 34 in the Nebraska State Senate. Read his column in the Nance County Journal.