False Absolutes

Why "friendly" conversations never reach far enough to provide effective agreements.

We insert into our discussions symbolic phrases to provide reassurance to the people with whom we are speaking. They are reminders that we are united in basic beliefs and attitudes—reminders that we are on the same side, fundamentally allies even when we differ on tactics.

I’m thinking of phrases like: “China is our enemy.” “Nations have the right to defend themselves.” “God bless the United States.” “Socialism doesn’t work.” “Iran must not get a nuclear bomb.” “The national debt is too high.” “We must protect our children.” “All politicians are (or do) ….” “The voters decided that our government should ….”

In order to be at the table, to be seen as a “friend,” to have our insights viewed as a legitimate part of the discussion, we double down on such reassurances.

We should not dismiss these “word games” as unimportant. But, we should see them in two ways. Beyond providing mutual comfort, they subtly curate the conversation. They almost always assert boundaries. They are implicit absolutes.

That we have difficulties in resolving conflicts is well understood. I believe that many of the sources of these difficulties are hidden in plain sight. They are the phrases we use to provide the reassurances that initially structure the argument.

Establishing good vibes with each other can lead to false agreement and consequent bad policy. Serious discussion must involve ideas with sharp cutting edges. It is often these unrecognized boundaries that limit the possibility of “breakthrough” ideas.

Common “truth” is what often creates gridlock in our search for agreement. Why?

Simply put, they are broad vague abstract concepts that exclude essential insights from being discussed. They are closed doors. I admit that it seems helpful to begin a serious conversation with some acknowledgment of agreement. “Starting from ….” But it often means that we finish with more or less the same agreement, dressed up in fancy phrases. We need all the pieces of the puzzle on the table. And all should be subject to question, and doubt.

I see this flaw over and over again in the interviews conducted on news shows. The interviewer veers away from the key question that needs to be asked, seems not to sense the moment of potential clarity, fails to probe a critical underlying assumption.

Admittedly, that is sometimes what the “bosses” have dictated, or that the audience seems to want. Many interviewers are over their head in these interviews and don’t listen to the answers they are given. Rather than form relevant follow-up questions, they hurry on to the next topic scripted on their script.

As a teacher I would assign such interviews and ask students to consider where the opportunity was lost, to discover what was not asked or said.

I don’t think we pause and consider, in these days of brutal intellectual conflict, how far we’ve gone in placing off-limits the very ideas that we need to move past our gridlocks.

I listened last night to news shows and news interviews and was able to count many such “claims,” of what I might call innocence. This is a more important limitation to serious conversation than I think we realize. Listen for them. Things like: “this is a constant threat.” What do you mean by threat? What does “constant” mean to you? Forever? “It’s a matter of life and death.” Whose life and whose death and for what reasons, and what the H is a “matter?” Maybe such phrases have become so commonplace that they have no real meaning. I think they do “matter." A lot!

Sure, there are real potholes on every road. And we need some signage to indicate the danger. You can still drive the road. To get to where we want to go, we need to drive these roads. I wish these limitless warnings were treated like profanities were in the old days of broadcasting.

Our democratic and partisan conversations will always fail at critical moments when we retreat to “safe” ideas and call them agreements.

.