I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening) - Book Review

 "Unity is diversity embraced, protected, and maintained by an infinitely generous love." -Richard Rohr, Unity in Diversity

I just finished reading (or more accurately, listening to) "I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening)" by Sarah Holland and Beth Silvers on having difficult political conversations using a framework of shared values and grace. The authors tell of their story of coming from very different political backgrounds ("Sarah from the left" and "Beth from the right") and working out how to have the kind of difficult conversations that most of us often try to avoid. They also have a political podcast called "Pantsuit Politics" that addresses major political issues from their different perspectives.

Taking Off Our Political Jersey

The first important concept from this book was taking off our political jersey to encourage meaningful dialogue.  We often see politics much the way we see sports. Our political arguments are more about scoring points for our team than trying to learn from another's perspective. News around political debates focuses almost entirely on who "won" the debate rather than the ideas and platforms presented. Even the word "debate" brings the focus to opposing arguments and positions rather than the sharing of new ideas and solutions. Political discussions on Facebook tend to be reduced to memes that grossly misrepresent and demonize "the other side."  Our political viewpoints are often an important part of our identities and so we take opposition to our political views very personally.

But what if we were able to take off our team's "political jersey" to truly engage in meaningful discussion beyond the sound-bytes and quick Google searches for news articles confirming our own biases? Could it be possible that there is merit in learning from those whose life experiences and background has led them to think about an issue differently than our own?  I think we all inherently see the value in such discussions in the hypothetical, but in practice, it is very difficult to turn off the instincts to defend our team. "We've made political tribalism a substitute for curiosity and learning about the issues themselves." But what if, as this book suggests, we could strive to approach more conversations from the viewpoint of a "curious explorer" and less from the viewpoint of the "dedicated disciple"?  

Common Values   

The second main discussion topic in the book that I found insightful centered around finding common values.  Political discussions tend to over simplify issues and focus on opposing viewpoints rather than commonalities. Certainly not all viewpoints are compatible with each other, but if we look beyond the party talking points, there are often common values that we can agree on regardless of our distinct political or religious ideologies. 

Sarah and Beth use the example of universal healthcare.  There are legitimate concerns from all sides of this issue.  There are concerns from the political right of government overreach and explosive costs and concerns from the left that people may be left uninsured and without access to life-saving healthcare.  There are issues of bureaucratic red-tape, potentials for delay in medical treatments and the role of multi-billion dollar insurance companies.  These are not issues that will be or can be solved overnight or resolved in a single Facebook discussion.  But perhaps the discussions can become more fruitful if we dig in a little deeper and try to find common ground.  For Sarah and Beth, that common ground on healthcare was the basic belief that all individuals should have access to quality and affordable health care regardless of economic status.  Recognizing upfront the shared values fosters a better and more informed discussion around the issues - even if it does not ultimately lead to a consensus on the best way to accomplish our shared goals.

With the topic of abortions, philosophical discussions on when human life begins may never be fully settled through arguments, whether from science or scripture. And so, discussions around the sanctity of human life and whether and to what extent women's health and autonomy should be dictated by the government will remain heated.  But perhaps rather than focusing the discussion entirely on the legality of abortions, we could still have fruitful discussions on a common goal we can agree on such as preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Buckets of Grace

"Whatever the source of our individual values, politics should take a backseat to the care we demonstrate for one another." 

"Grace helps us make difficult conversations less difficult by tapping into the larger shared mystery of human experience."

Perhaps my favorite topic of the book was grace. Much of the focus of the book is on the Christian values the two women share, and a significant portion of the book focuses on the concept of extending grace towards ourselves and others.  And as a friend of mine likes to put it, not just a few drops of grace, but "buckets of grace."  Our viewpoints around politics and religion are so intricately personal and tied to our identities that we often see opposing viewpoints as direct attacks on our team and perhaps even personal attacks on our moral integrity.  As a result, we often act poorly in our responses and then wish we could have said or done things differently.  We all have and will continue to make mistakes in our interactions with others - to err is human.

Views also change over time, so we need to extend grace towards our former selves at times.  As a BYU student shortly after returning from my LDS mission, I aggressively posted on Facebook and participated in school-sponsored call centers to voters advocating in favor "Prop 8," the California proposition that opposed marriage equality for same-sex couples.  Looking back with the benefit of additional experience interacting with some amazing same-sex couples and learning more about the issue, my views have completely changed on this issue and I find myself harshly critical of my previous positions and advocacy.  But ultimately, if I could go back in time, knowing only what I did then, with the same cultural background, having the exact same cumulative life experiences to that point, I don't know that I would have or could have done differently.  So, I have to extend grace to my former self. I also have to extend grace to my current self when I repeatedly demonstrate that I am still terrible at having these difficult conversations. I have made and will continue to make many mistakes.  That's okay.

Similarly, while I may adamantly disagree with others on various topics, I can extend "buckets of grace" towards them - realizing that if I had their same exact lived experiences, I would likely see things exactly as they do.  This is not to say that others are merely ignorant or lacking in life experiences that put me on a moral high ground - but rather that if I could truly and honestly walk a mile in their shoes and catch a glimpse of their lived experiences, my perspective may change drastically.  I firmly believe that no one consciously chooses their beliefs, but we can choose to open ourselves up to both sharing our own experiences and learning from others' experiences and perspectives. When others make statements I find offensive or harmful or in poor taste, I can choose to extend grace and assume the best intentions.

I love the principle taught by Dr. Wayne Dyer that represents an ideal I strive toward in my public and private discourse: "when given the choice between being right and being kind, choose kind." Proving our point should never become more important than our relationships with others.

Concluding Thoughts

As I've alluded to, I am not very good at having grace-filled conversations around challenging topics such as politics (or religion, but that's a topic for another day).  And quite honestly, when it comes to a lot of political discussions, I often do not even have a deep understanding of the underlying facts beyond the party talking points.  I would like to commit myself to being better at this - to studying out the issues better, seeking out opposing viewpoints and perspectives, and being open to changing my mind as I continue to learn from others.  I strongly believe that we need a diversity of perspectives at the table for these difficult discussions if we expect to make meaningful progress.  We can strive for unity through open, grace-filled conversations rather than uniformity through coercion and fear.

As Richard Rohr so eloquently stated, "unity is diversity embraced, protected and maintained by an infinitely generous love."