Today, I will hit a recurring theme on the Change Well blog – the importance of civility, kindness, and active listening on wellness. I don’t want to sound too hyperbolic, but I believe these traits are critical to the soul of this great nation. The only way to continue to grow is to listen with an open mind to the things you don’t know about yourself and others. It would be best if you seized on the commonalities to convince yourself to do so and not discount what someone different says, discern the reasons for the differences, and diplomatically discuss. Is this naïve? Maybe. Is it always doable? No. But you have to try to improve your wellness and that of others.
I have to admit I have not always been diplomatic in my discussions. At times, my colleagues feared discussing certain topics with me because they knew they would raise my ire. My friends and foes had a name for it. Instead of The Wrath of Kahn (of Star Trek fame), they called it The Wrath of Don. But I learned as I got older that yelling and being obstinate gets you nothing but high blood pressure, coursing cortisol through your veins, and closed minds toward you and your ideas. This realization led me on a journey of personal growth and transformation, inspiring me to change my approach to disagreements.
How do you disagree without being disagreeable and listen without losing yourself and your moral rudder? Sometimes, you must stand your ground, but knowing when and how is critical. It is not a science but an art and is the essence of being human. To understand how to be diplomatic when you disagree, let’s look at real-life examples of people who model this behavior and the lessons they taught.
1 Look for commonalities.
One of the best examples of two people who rarely agreed but were good friends and respected each other’s intellect was Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsberg. They found a shared love for opera, cooking, and growing up in New York, which brought them together. They both deeply loved the Constitution, even though it was from different viewpoints. Scalia was conservative to the bone and was the master of dissent, while Justice Ginsberg anchored the liberal side of the court. They often vacationed together based on their mutual shared interests.
However, in the court, they rarely saw eye to eye but had enough respect for the other to share their dissent, often to improve the argument of the other. Justice Scalia once said of Justice Ginsburg in a 2013 interview: “She has done more to shape the law in this field than any other justice on this court,” Later, he said, “She will take a lawyer who is making a ridiculous argument and just shake him like a dog with a bone.” Ginsberg had no less respect for Scalia. Upon hearing of his death, she said of Justice Scalia, drawing from their shared love of Opera: “Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed occasionally, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation.
When you draw on commonalities and listen to others with respect, you will inevitably strengthen your position and may find a way to find common ground. And if you don’t find common ground, the differences will be made clear without rancor or vitriol.
2. You can argue but should never quarrel.
One of my favorite authors is GK Chesterton. The king of paradoxes and the champion of orthodoxy. He wrote in his autobiography concerning debates with his brother that ‘they often argued, but never quarreled.’ By this, he meant he debated his point of disagreement on what he considered fact, but never in animosity or hostility. Indeed, Chesterton often argued with those he differed with (Huxley, Wells, and others) but on ideals, not graciously, attacking the idea and not the person. He also took the time to understand the arguments of his opponents thoroughly and always tried to gain some common ground with an opponent. In this way, he reminded me of my professor, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, whose rules of civility I follow today and discussed previously. This emphasis on respect in disagreement is crucial for maintaining healthy relationships and fostering understanding. Read the previous blog here
1. Know the other side’s view at least as well as they do
2. Seek first commonalities and build on them to establish a relationship
3. Then and only then, civilly and with respect, explain any differing viewpoints
Follow these rules and always seek to argue but not quarrel with those you disagree with. When you quarrel on emotion instead of arguing from a reasoned viewpoint, you cut off any path to finding common ground.
3. You Have to Stand for Something, or You Will Fall for Anything.
This last point sounds paradoxical in comparison to the other two points. But there is a point when you must stand your ground and agree to disagree. As I said earlier, knowing when to stand your ground is an art, not a science.
Here is a simple, straightforward example. You have a friend who cannot break free from addiction. They argue with you to look the other way again, and they can turn it around. In this case, you need to stand your ground and not enable them because it will hurt you and them.
But most cases are not this clear-cut. I do not have a perfect prescription for when to stop discussing and make a decision, but I have an imperfect one. Here are the three questions to consider when making a decision to disagree and go a different way.
1. Have I, with an open ear, actively listened to the opposite view? In answering this question, you must honestly consider if you turned a tin ear to the other person’s point of view and only listened to the counterarguments in your heart.
2. Now that I understand the point of view, are other supporting factors not yet considered? In other words, have I taken the time to consider the other’s argument further beyond their talking points? Sometimes, you may have new insights that have appeared during the discussion.
3. Is the differences between us something worth fighting for? If I agree with the person, even if not the best approach, does it cause harm to me or others, now and in the future? This question is the most difficult of the three.
To close, being civil and kind while actively listening is not easy, but it is necessary if we are seeking a way to better ourselves and this country. I hope this discussion, in light of recent events, such as the attempted shooting of a President and the rancor on both sides, helps you discern the viewpoint of others. I want to leave you with a poem I wrote two years ago on July 4th.
I love this country,
more and more,
From the Rockies’ peak,
To Grand Canyon’s floor!
I love this country,
Yes, it’s true!
Whether in a Red state,
Or one that’s Blue.
Watch West Side Story,
Or Hamilton.
Let’s pull together,
And act as one.
March the streets,
Have your say,
But let’s come together,
At the end of the day,
And love this country!
Love it, true,
And wave it proudly,
The Red, White and Blue.