Intelligent, well-meaning people often pull in opposite directions

By David McElroy · July 28, 2012

One of the persistent myths of modern civic life is that well-meaning people can always work out disagreements if they’ll just sit down and talk about things. There’s this odd notion that as long as we have free speech, there’s a “marketplace of ideas” and the best ideas will win through high-minded discussion among intelligent people.

That’s sheer fantasy. It’s not how the real world works and it never will be.

The idea seems to be that intelligent, rational, well-meaning people are naturally going to gravitate to the same answers, because … well … there’s obviously one right way, if we’ll just be smart enough to find it. That’s an idiotic idea, and it leads people to be angry with one another and think other people are stupid. We all think our ideas are obviously right, so if other people don’t agree with us, they’re clearly stupid or dishonest. Right?

I’m reminded of this again because of a flood of people here on the site from the Christian Left who ran across an article I wrote recently about them. Starting Friday night, thousands of people were suddenly reading that article from a couple of weeks ago and it was suddenly hit by dozens of comments, some polite, some angry, some disparaging, but all vehemently disagreeing. A few people with views more similar to mine responded, but there wasn’t any real dialogue. I was writing at the time and didn’t have time to try to engage, so I mostly observed. It was interesting. (You might want to take a look at the article and especially the comments as context for the rest of what I have to say.)

According to all the high-minded theories, those folks and the people who agree with me should be able to work out our disagreements about these basic ideas. That’s not going to happen, though, and I’m not terribly concerned about trying. It’s not because I like having people angry with me or disagreeing with me. It’s simply that different people are always going to have different values, assumptions and experiences, so they’re going to come to different conclusions, no matter how honest and intelligent they are.

When you further factor in human nature, you see that it’s almost impossible for people to honestly understand each other. There are few things as terrifying to most human beings as a new idea that challenges what they already believe. That’s why they usually react in anger and indignation rather than curiosity when they encounter challenging ideas they’re not familiar with. This tendency might create an odd form of stability, but it makes positive change very difficult.

Then layer on top of that the relative impossibility of properly communicating an abstract message through all the filters of the two human minds involved, as I wrote about a couple of months ago. (And you might remember that someone badly misunderstood what I said in that article and his misunderstanding came out when he tried to refute it.)

It’s sometimes true that the people we try to have conversations with are idiots. It’s sometimes true that the people who disagree with us have bad intentions or they’re being dishonest. But more often than not, their intentions are good and they’re doing their best to communicate with us, just as we are with them. In our frustration with their seeming lack of their ability to understand us (and agree, of course), we attack them and call them names. And both sides believe they’re the ones being fair, smart and honest.

The people who wrote comments about my article last night seemed (for the most part) like well-meaning, intelligent people who were outraged at someone holding a view so contrary to what they’re sure is true. As I read what they wrote, though, it’s clear that they don’t understand my position or the underlying philosophy of my position. Some were honestly trying to understand. Others were intellectually lazy and simply tried to lump me in with some other group they disagreed with. But while I realize that they don’t understand me, I also realize that they also believe that I don’t understand them.

And this brings me to the real point. We have the notion in this country that there is one true way — a “one size that fits all.” It’s not true and it’s never been true. The problem with these United States is that they’re not united and aren’t going to be. We’re a collection of people with growing intellectual, cultural and spiritual differences. The old civic myth that says we can be united and all live under the same set of rules has always been silly, but it’s getting sillier every day.

We are going to disagree about the way society should be structured. There’s no reason for us to all be forced to live under the same basic rules. The more we learn about each other, the more it’s obvious that we radically disagree on core issues. At one time, most differences between people were regional. With the growth of communication technology, the people who are united by certain beliefs are spread out — and the fissures are growing as we try to live among each other as a result.

It’s time for us to quit pretending that there is a “one size fits all” way that we all have to live. If some people want to live under a socialist regime, they should have the power to establish cities or enclaves for people to voluntarily live under their rules. If others want some kind of theocracy, that should be their business. If others want a strictly free market system, they should be able to establish their cities or enclaves. These places should be able to compete for customers, and people can vote with their feet about what rules they prefer to live under.

In the same way that the feudal system and various others have died in history, I believe we’re very near the end of the nation-state as we know it today. What replaces it will be great for some people and lousy for other people, depending on the choices they make now — in the years or decades before the restructuring takes place. Economies are going to collapse and civil societies will break apart. What replaces it shouldn’t be monolithic. It should offer individuals and groups the chance to set up their own cities with their own rules.

Intelligent and well-meaning people are going to disagree. There’s nothing wrong with that. We need to quit pretending that we all have to come to the same conclusion. We need to be satisfied to let each other go our own ways instead of trying to force others to agree with us.

I don’t care what you believe or how you choose to live — just as long as you don’t try to force others to live under your rules. I won’t force you to live as I choose. Please don’t try to force me to live under your rules.

Note: The bicycle at the top of this article is a piece of art called “Irreconcilable Differences,” by Leonardo Giles Fleur. It’s part of an exhibition showing right now at the Santa Cruz (Calif.) Museum of Art and History.

Share on Social Networks

Tyler Barnes will never be a basketball star. He probably peaked as a star high school player in Louisville, Ky. But for the last four years, he’s been a walk-on player for the University of Alabama. He’s a chemical engineering major with lots of academic honors who rides the bench because he loves being part of a team. He sometimes gets into games with a minute or two to go, but only if Alabama has a big lead. This Saturday, it was senior day for Alabama basketball, so it was his last chance to play in Coleman Coliseum. Alabama Coach Nate Oats says that one of the team starter’s came to him an hour before the game started — and fellow senior Alex Reese asked Oats if Barnes could start in his place for this one game. Even though the game was huge for Alabama, which is ranked No. 6 in the country and trying to wrap up an SEC title, Oats agreed. Barnes started and played the first three minutes, grabbing what was only the fourth rebound of his career and missing his only shot. Barnes has a great future as an engineer, but you’ll never again hear from him as a basketball player. For three shining minutes Saturday, though, he was a starter for a top-10 college basketball team — and his parents were in the stands from Kentucky to see it. There’s a lot of ugliness in college basketball right now, but this story makes me happy.

It was five years ago tonight when Lucy first rode in the car with me. She was on her way to her “forever home” with me that night, but she didn’t know it, so she was terrified. It was a much happier and braver girl who took a ride in the car tonight so we could go through a drive-through window and order a hamburger for her — to celebrate five years with me. She had a great time. If she could remember five years ago tonight, she would be proud of how far she’s come, too. If you’d like to know more about Lucy’s journey from scared dog to brave queen of the household, here’s something I wrote after her first year with me. I’m hoping this girl will have many more happy years with me.

I’ve never been attracted to skinny women. There’s nothing wrong with someone who’s naturally thin, but it’s never been my preference. What has shocked me, though, is the judgment I’ve heard from women all through my life — about themselves and others — about who’s “fat.” I concluded long ago that most women in our culture have been brainwashed to believe that skinny is attractive — and that anything other than skinny is ugly. I first assumed that I was the oddball — for preferring women with bigger and heavier bodies — but I’m coming to the conclusion that most men naturally feel this way to one extent or another. I just ran across new research by a couple of Northwestern University psychology professors that shows that women seriously overestimate how much a straight man will be attracted to a skinny woman. In a perfect world, we would all be at a healthy weight, but when it comes to attractiveness, too heavy is more attractive than skinny. At least to me — and to a lot of men, too.

Years ago, I heard a question that seemed very insightful at the time. You’ve probably heard it, too. What would you do if you knew you couldn’t fail? The question is intended to help you uncover things you really want to do, but which you’re afraid to try — for fear of failure. In an interview today, I heard the great marketing guru Seth Godin give a different point of view. He said the better question is to ask what you would do even if you knew it would fail. That struck me as far more insightful than the original version. We ought to be doing what we know is right, not what will maximize our success or praise from others. There are some battles that are worth fighting even if you believe you’re doomed to failure. Those battles are often for love or important ideas or our children. Some things are simply worth fighting for — and the truth is that you might win anyway. Do the right thing. Take the chance.

The more I understand about myself, about human nature and about the nature of reality, the more I realize I’m a radical by the standards of both Modernism and Postmodernism. Seeing the things which I’m stumbling toward makes me an enemy of many of the core ideas upon which contemporary culture is built. It exposes the culture as a monstrous lie — like a dangerous infection that’s slowly destroying what human were created to be. My “inner observer” has always known that truth was found in the ideas of the Enlightenment, but I’m slowly finding words to explain what has merely been instinct until now. The Enlightenment was humanity’s great leap forward, but shallow and arrogant thinkers for the next two centuries threw away the fruits of that achievement. We can’t go forward as a species until we go back to correct this intellectual and spiritual error — and part of that is acknowledging that our collective attempts to do away with our Creator will always fail.

Related Posts