The other day, a friend asked me to join a conversation group to discuss ” how to reach out” to those with opposing political views. I confess we are both liberals and those to whom we might reach out are radical conservatives – the far right. As the following cartoon satirically depicts, post-election, some liberals express a desire to “heal the divide” in our drastically polarized country. 

This aspiration sinks right down to the personal level where friends and families, neighbors, and co-workers hold opinions on opposite ends of the spectrum. Four years of the Trump presidency and the vitriol of the 2020 election have split apart some close relationships. Many, mostly liberals, believe it is time to mend our families, communities, and the country’s torn fabric.

The issue is not a burning one for me personally.  I do not know many ultra-conservatives, and I do not plan to plow into the company of Alt-right strangers waving an olive branch in my hand.  With the two to four I do know I have an amicable relationship, which does not include talking about our political views.

I have erected some barriers to protect myself from those whose political, social and economic views differ from and oppose my own. Frankly, many of them scare me.  I am afraid of everything from awkwardness to physical harm. But, I feel, given the opportunity in a setting that feels safe, it would be closed-minded and rude not to engage with those who differ. 

Why? On a microcosmic level, I acknowledge the interconnectedness and interdependence of us all.  I know we are more alike than different.  I know we all suffer; we all want to have enough, be happy, and be free. 

The Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn, nominated for the Noble Peace Prize by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., suggests an uncomplicated approach   He encourages responding to those we might consider enemies or opponents, because they have the potential to cause us harm, by listening deeply and compassionately:

 “When another person makes you suffer, it is because he suffers deeply within himself, and his suffering is spilling over. He does not need punishment; he needs help. That’s the message he is sending.”


“Deep listening is the kind of listening that can help relieve the suffering of another person. You can call it compassionate listening. You listen with only one purpose: to help him or her to empty his heart. Even if he says things that are full of wrong perceptions, full of bitterness, you are still capable of continuing to listen with compassion. Because you know that listening like that, you give that person a chance to suffer less.”

Listening deeply involves letting go of my need to be heard and of my preferred outcome. One must have no other agenda than listening to understand. Deep listening eschews judgment, labeling, denigration or mockery. The listener is patient, calm, open-hearted, receptive, and compassionate.

I do not deny this is a tall order, but I tell myself I must begin somewhere with someone.  If I do not, the healthy unity of differences, the tolerance and respect we desperately need in relationships, communities and nations will be an empty and vain hope.

21 thoughts on “Deep Listening

  1. thank you for sharing this post with me Moriah. I haven’t managed to subscribe to With All Due Respect despite trying. I feel the same as you do, and Thay’s quotes have been on my mind especially when I am standing at the Friday vigil with the Black Lives Matter cardboard sign which elicits many supportive honks from cars passing by but also angry, Trump flag waving pickup trucks that scream curses and rev up their motors to show their anger…. If I didn’t have both my arms up in the air to hold the sign high, so it could be seen by all cars at the intersection, I would wave kindly to those so angry at us because of our positive signs for peace and human caring. The quarantine and suffering due to the pandemic makes it difficult to be in contact with those Republicans and Conservatives who rant and rave many still without facemasks…. I can’t imagine what the teachers of their children must be going through with distance or in person learning, and how they broach even teaching the constitution that their parents don’t respect or observe (but which immigrants who have had to memorize and explain on the test to become citizens).

    On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:34 PM With All Due Respect wrote:

    > posted: ” The other day, a friend asked me to join a > conversation group to discuss ” how to reach out” to those with opposing > political views. I confess we are both liberals and those to whom we might > reach out are radical conservatives – the far right. As the fol” >


  2. Moriah, this opens up so, so much. I wish we were sitting across from each other in live conversation right now! I will try to be succinct here: I have a lifelong, sister-like friend who is quite far to the right. I’ve made it a practice to listen, and to ask questions over the years since her values shifted so drastically…however, I’ve never been comfortable sharing what and how *I* think, specifically. Nor does she ever ask directly. After an upsetting confrontation this summer about mask wearing, I did, recently, share my thoughts in a fairly blunt way. In a way that said, “I say this with no offense to anyone–simply in acknowledgement that we have different ideas and I’d like to share mine instead of hide them…” (I’ve had no response yet. We’ll see.) One thing I’ve done is gather a small group originally ‘designed’ to be a conversation about race. Not surprisingly, the politics you describe also comes up when talking about ‘hard conversations.’ We’ve recently started role playing (on Zoom)–where we each bring a difficult exchange we want to practice with a partner. Whoa. What a lens that is. I hate doing it, I’m terrible at it–AND, it’s critical for me. Because if I don’t practice, I’ll never speak up, I’ll never engage. For me, it’s not so much listening to the ‘other side’–I’ve done that, however uncomfortably (subsequent stomach pains). It’s the speaking up when it comes, for example, to a far right friend who does not believe in the BLM movement, who feels Trump is misunderstood, and who’s ‘tired of hearing about White Privilege. It doesn’t exist.’ (This is a chaplain in a Buffalo City Mission!) Sigh. I can’t *just* listen. One member of our group taught be the term ‘neutral curiosity.’ That came to mind immediately when I read your post. Showing up in hard conversations with neutral curiosity instead of knee-jerk judgement. An excellent term to keep top of mind. And hard! Enter…the role playing. And again, not fun–but so helpful. Even if you don’t have to manage the awkwardness yourself much (what a relief!), it could be a really effective way for you to support others in the group!


    1. Carolyn, the role-playing sounds like an excellent idea. I might suggest it to the Racial Justice group here. Good for you for speaking up with your conservative friend. I hope she will want to find out more about what you think and believe. Many very conservative people are, I think, like the fundamentalist Christian I was in my twenties. I wanted everything to fit into neat little boxes, be clear, black or white, and settled once and for all. As I aged, the complex shades of the world and the beings in it became so apparent that I had to abandon my comfortable and self-righteous little boxes, tolerate the discomfort and open my heart and mind. I’m still on that journey and deep listening is a goal, not where I have arrived. As SF said when I asked her to proof my post, “Well, it’s a perspective…”


  3. Hi Moriah, I’ve left comments here before in your EA posts. I came back to your site today to refresh myself on some of your EA wisdom and came across this post. If you wanted to engage in a thoughtful, written back and forth with someone who considers themself deeply conservative on most economic and social issues, I’d be happy to oblige. It’s easy to point out lowest common denominators on both sides (we both have them) and I find that most liberals are genuinely surprised to meet a thoughtful Trump supporter, which I’ve been told I am (though I’m not by any means rabid: I rate his Presidency a C+ overall). I wouldn’t support him again, but probably for different reasons that you might imagine, but I would be glad to articulate some thoughts for you if you think it might help you and/or your community better understand the Right. We don’t all bite! 🙂


    1. Ryan, I apologize for leaving you hanging with this comment. I did not see it until today, March 15, though it somehow got approved and presumably posted for others to see. Thank you for offering to dialogue. I am certainly open to hearing your political, social, and economic opinions. I have appreciated your previous comments on my EA series, which I am in the process of publishing as a small book. You have, indeed, been thoughtful in your reactions to my posts. So, to start, why do you rate Trump’s presidency as a C+ overall? Why would you not support him if he ran again? May I ask you to respond as succinctly as possible and I will reply in the same way. I look forward to hearing from you.


      1. I’d be happy to! First, I think it’s important to point out that I hold most politicians in the lowest regard, believing them to be inept, knaves, liars, and backstabbers. I suspect most conservatives would agree with me here. I’m deeply cynical having been lied to many times over important matters over the years while we have watched the country go from center-right to center-left over the last few generations. I mention this because a lot of the flak Trump took from the left was personality/character based. To many of us, we shrugged this off because we’ve trained ourselves to look past what a politician says to what he or she does. Acta non verba. Just a difference in orientation I’ve noticed when discussing Trump that I think it’s important to point out as we’re often evaluating from completely different perspectives.

        Secondly, let me briefly state why I supported him and why I wouldn’t support him again. There were 3 issues that led me to support Trump in 2016: non-interventionism (war fatigue), trade policy, and immigration policy. Everything else was noise to me. I also figured that after 16 years of what I viewed as inept leadership (Bush/Obama), it couldn’t get much worse with Trump who ostensibly had far more managerial/executive experience than either of these predecessors. (I will make a quick sidebar comment that I’m tired of people with zero executive experience but a great made-for-TV persona thinking they will have the chops to be President as the position is basically CEO of the nation. This includes people on the Right and Left.)

        Fast-forward 4 years and I see now that Trump, while he did some good things such as tax cuts, better trade deals, de-regulation, SCOTUS picks, no new foreign wars, and many other things (keep in mind I’m a traditional Republican, you probably think this list is horrible! 🙂 he ultimately was a terrible manager and did not rise to the challenge of healing the national divide. To me, this is one of POTUS’s chief responsibilities and he failed miserably. So while I’m sympathetic to some of his policy prescriptions, I got the experience to know that another term would not be a good thing for the country.

        The interesting part to me is that policywise, he governed as a moderate or even liberal Republican. But ultimately, his distasteful approach and his inability to lead and manage cost him reelection (along with a whole host of other things I’m oversimplifying for the purpose of brevity). The buck stops at the top and I would be lacking in integrity if I refused to acknowledge his failings.

        Let me say one more thing here. I’m continually astounded by the lack of nuance in discussion and the seeming inability of people to hold two truths that bear no relation to one another (Donald Trump is a terrible person AND Donald Trump did some good things as POTUS) in mind at the same time from BOTH sides of the aisle. As you know, having served in an EA role, performance evals are a mixture of good and bad and very rarely is someone a pure saint or a pure sinner. We’re all broken, enormously complex, and deserving of grace from one another.

        I could keep going but I’ll stop there and see if can make a fruitful exchange out of all this.

        P.S. I can’t wait to see your EA book.


      2. Thank you, Ryan. I appreciate your directness and clarity as well as your identification of one of your underlying assumptions (e.g., that you hold most politicians in the lowest regard, believing them to be inept, knaves, liars, and backstabbers.) On the assumption that you and I will have a fruitful exchange, may I suggest some ground rules for this dialogue? 1) Whenever we are aware of our underlying assumptions we will state them.2) We will each ask the other one genuinely curious question about his or her views in each post. 3) We will acknowledge things that we agree on. 4) We will not feel compelled to respond to every point the other makes. And lastly, we agree that we are starting from a basis of respect for one another. What do you say?

        I agree that Trump is neither a good manager/chief executive nor capable of healing the national divide. And I agree that both of those are crucial skills for a president at this time. I too am very disturbed by the lack of nuance in political discussions and the painting of parties and individuals as all bad or all good. I feel, among other things, that this insults my intelligence as a voter and a citizen. However, I do find it frustrating that Republicans most often “seem” to put aside their personal convictions to vote as a unified block, and that Democrats fail to do so when it is most crucial for the liberal agenda.

        Some of my underlying assumptions are:
        * the poor are not necessarily poor because they are bad, lazy, stupid, or dishonest
        * black lives do matter, all lives matter
        * systemic racism has fostered the inhumane treatment of people of color in America since the early colonists arrived here and though some progress has been made to address this, not nearly enough has been accomplished
        * socialism is not essentially evil (all bad)
        * intellectuals do not necessarily hold those with less education in contempt
        * immigrants and asylum-seekers as a group are not ruining American society or the economy
        * combatting climate change is of supreme importance for the survival of all living beings
        Those are not all of my underlying assumptions but they’re a start. Do we agree on any of them?

        Please tell me what you believe is good about Trump’s trade, immigration and deregulation policies. I think I have asked you at least two questions on which I am genuinely curious to hear your views.

        Please don’t think, if I do not respond as quickly as you do, that I am not interested in pursuing this dialogue. I am very interested in this experiment – can a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican have a civil, respectful, and fruitful dialogue. I look forward to your response.

        P.S. I’ll let you know when the EA book is published.


      3. Yes, Moriah, I can certainly agree to your terms and I look forward to this exchange as it will force me to clarify some long held assumptions and learn more about your beliefs. I can guarantee you that it will be civil, at least, for my own part :). I would like to propose one more ground rule and that is we provide ample time to respond to each other’s posts. I have had some very busy weeks and sadly have not had time to collect my thoughts on this and write a response. Thank you and I look forward to this!


  4. Moriah, here we go!

    First, a confession. I laughed out loud when I read your sentence about how liberals fail to vote as a unified block as I would say the same thing about the (worthless) GOP. Remember John McCain’s famous thumbdown to ending the Obamacare debate? There’s just one example, I could provide plenty more!

    OK, now for the fun. Let me address your assumptions one-by-one and then I will state some of my own for you to respond. I can’t do colors so I will respond after a hard return. I tried doing capital letters but it looked like I was yelling at you so I quickly abandoned that approach.

    “the poor are not necessarily poor because they are bad, lazy, stupid, or dishonest.”
    100% agree.

    “black lives do matter, all lives matter”
    100% agree.

    “systemic racism has fostered the inhumane treatment of people of color in America since the early colonists arrived here and though some progress has been made to address this, not nearly enough has been accomplished.”
    I would of course agree that mistreatment of any person on the basis of skin color is wrong, but I feel like systemic racism has a lot of meaning that I don’t understand yet. Can you unpack that term for me?

    “socialism is not essentially evil (all bad)”
    100% agree, though I do think that the public needs to revisit our definition of this word. It used to mean state-ownership of the means of production which has a very 19th century flavor to it and not at all what most people mean when they use it nowadays. In my speech, I have come to identify socialism as wealth transfers, which I generally dislike greatly. How would you define socialism for our age?

    “intellectuals do not necessarily hold those with less education in contempt”
    100% agree, people hold contempt for others no matter their pedigree.

    “immigrants and asylum-seekers as a group are not ruining American society or the economy”
    100% agree.

    “combatting climate change is of supreme importance for the survival of all living beings”
    Insufficient information to agree or disagree. I’m admittedly skeptical of this one, but of course open to the evidence and where it leads. What leads you to believe the situation is so dire? And what, if anything, would falsify this belief for you?

    I will get to your questions of me in a follow-up post as I want to spent some time articulating why I favor less immigration and regulation.

    But I did assemble a list of underlying assumptions that I thought you might wish to respond to in the same fashion that I did to yours:

    *In general, problems should be dealt with at the lowest level of authority competent enough to deal with the problem at hand. You don’t move a pebble with an excavator, you save it for the boulders. This is also known as the principle of subsidiarity.
    *Most political ideas are not bad in themselves, just bad in their application. I often tell people the following to help them understand what I mean by this: at the federal level, I’m libertarian, at the state level I’m a Republican, at the county level I’m a moderate, at the neighborhood level I’m a Democrat, and at the household level I’m a socialist. My overarching problem with the modern Democrat party is they want national solutions to just about everything. Which is also bad because…
    *Government programs, once installed, rarely change at their core. This is why I tend to favor smaller, local interventions because if there is anything we know is that govt can’t anticipate all the problems and if we locate a solution in it, it DOES NOT do a good job adapting. Too much bureaucracy and red tape!
    *If you want to truly understand something, first follow the money. Most news media that American consume is designed for clicks and ratings, not delivery of hard-hitting news that may be unpleasant for their respective customer bases to hear. Please understand I’m not discriminating against the Left here, the Right does it too.
    *Too big to fail is too big to exist. The reasons conservatives are rightly concerned with concentration of power in government (diminishing of freedoms and the individual) apply equally to mega-corporations. It’s time for conservatives to stop worshiping at the altar of capitalism and start wielding some antitrust hammers!

    I fear this might be too long to be easily digested, so I’ll pause here and await your commentary!


    1. As you say, now for the fun!

      Regarding McCain’s, Murkowski’s, and Collin’s tanking of the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act without replacing it, well, those were the good old days. McCain knew he was dying and had nothing to lose, so he was emboldened to vote his conscience. But Collins and Murkowski had a great deal to lose and still acted on principle. Collins, at least, became much more risk-averse as the Trump/McConnell era rolled on. Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme court is a case in point. But your point is taken. I guess I tend to notice, and find far more annoying, Democratic defections from party-line votes than Republican ones.

      I was encouraged by how many times you wrote 100% agree next to my underlying assumptions. You confirmed my belief that we human beings have more and more essential things in common than our differences; we just tend to focus on the differences and then rank one another as “better” or “worse” accordingly. Keeping in mind that we agree on many things makes it easier and safer to talk about our disagreements.

      I certainly don’t have the expertise to unpack systemic racism for you. When I use that term, I mean that society has been organized systematically through customs, beliefs, and laws. Our system and its institutions judge, discriminate against, and abuse individuals because of their physical characteristics and ancestral lineage. I am a relative newcomer to understanding a tiny bit about systemic racism. I’m currently reading “Caste” by Isabel Wilkerson. She relates systemic racism in the US to India’s caste system and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. It’s a horrific and enlightening book.

      Regarding socialism, I can see that you will teach me not to be sloppy in my use of words. I looked up “socialism,” and, of course, you are right; in its classic sense, it involves state ownership of the means of production and wealth transfers. I meant “democratic socialism.” I can’t improve on this description of it from a Time Magazine Article:
      “American politicians today who are associated with democratic socialism generally favor New Deal-style programs, believing that government is a force for good in people’s lives and that a large European-style welfare state can exist in a capitalist society. They generally support ideas such as labor reform and pro-union policies, tuition-free public universities and trade schools, universal healthcare, federal jobs programs, fair taxation that closes loopholes that the wealthiest citizens have found, and using taxes on the rich and corporations to pay for social welfare programs.” [What Is Democratic Socialism? How It Differs From Communism | Time]

      I probably would have voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2020 democratic primary if he had been 25 years younger. In my mind, the common good depends not on the survival and triumph of the fittest, most robust, most intelligent, or most affluent, but on everyone having enough (not too much or too little) and the stronger helping and sharing with the weaker. I would not object to being called a “bleeding heart” liberal.

      Climate change—I believe the situation is dire because science proves it is. The polar ice caps are melting. Bird, animal, fish, and insect species are disappearing. The sea level is rising, and weather events (wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes) are becoming more frequent and severe. It is April 10 in Mid Coast, Maine, and it was 70 degrees today! I believe human activity has caused these changes. In our drive to make more money, have more possessions, eat more, do everything in excess, we have ignored our interconnectedness and our interdependence with the natural world. We have been self-centered and unbalanced.

      What would falsify this belief for me? A change in scientific findings showing that the climate disasters I mention above are reversing themselves, however gradually, without any change in human behavior to mitigate these effects. What would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat to future generations of those who inhabit the earth?

      “In general, we should deal with problems at the lowest level of authority competent enough to deal with the issue at hand.” In principle, I would agree. I would go first to a co-worker whom I felt had mistreated me to seek redress, and only later to her boss if we could not come to some mutual agreement. I agree that if a problem can be solved locally, to the benefit of all parties, that’s undoubtedly the place to start. But I feel there might be a trap in this kind of thinking. While liberal Massachusetts might enact laws to protect its LGBTQ citizens from discrimination, conservative Alabama can pass laws that endanger the human rights of its LGBTQ population. Both states see themselves as solving a problem, each with an opposite solution. In complex moral and ethical issues, the narrower local interests may not be capable of a larger and fairer viewpoint.

      “Most political ideas are not bad in themselves, just bad in their application. I often tell people the following to help them understand what I mean by this: at the federal level, I’m libertarian, at the state level, I’m a Republican, at the county level, I’m a moderate, at the neighborhood level, I’m a Democrat, and at the household level I’m a socialist.” I love this description of you! It just proves how complex we all are and how nuanced our approaches to life.

      Yes, the government does have a difficult time adapting programs to meet developing needs. Yes, there is way too much red tape in virtually every government program. The little person (the one who can’t afford expensive lawyers to figure out the loopholes) is disadvantaged in this situation. Adaptiveness, nimbleness, open-mindedness—I’d like to see far more of these at all government and institutional levels and in interpersonal interactions.

      First, follow the money? I don’t know about first, but yes, by all means, follow the money. I agree about the media, left and right. Too big to fail is too big to exist? If you are talking about banks and corporations, I agree. I don’t see a dangerous concentration of power in “the government.” However, I have observed an alarmingly perilous concentration of power in President Trump, Vladimir Putin, and other autocrats or autocratic-leaning leaders. What diminished freedoms of the individual are you concerned about? I would like to hear your views on this in detail and am hoping that we can dedicate one whole exchange of comments to this topic.

      I can’t think of a single freedom that I value that would be diminished by a government of strong, ethical, compassionate representatives elected by and accountable to the entire population. I am not an idealist. I know we are all wounded, bounded by our conditioned perspectives, and subject to misperceptions. I am a reductionist, I suppose. I reduce all issues and decisions to what is true, kind, generous, hopeful, and life-giving.

      May I ask what your business affiliation is? What is your position in it? And how do your experiences there influence your views on immigration policy and less regulation? Each of these issues would also lend itself to a single topic exchange, in my view.

      Back to you, Ryan. No hurry. I took plenty long to respond to your last post.


      1. Yes, I am! Very much so. I’m deeply sorry for how long it has taken me to reply. I could bore you with my excuses but in the interest of brevity let me just state that I’ve had to become quite hands-on at the office due to some staffing changes and have been suffering fatigue from seasonal allergies. I will start co compose a reply right now, but don’t know if I can finish it tonight before I need to get home to family. If not, it will be this week, I promise!

        P.S. I see that your EA book is out. I will be purchasing a copy this week!


  5. Moriah, one reason I’ve been reluctant to commit to a reply is a fear for how long-winded my response might become and in what direction we ought to go from here. We could delve deeply into each of the topics we’ve brought to the forefront and I’ve been a bit anxious that whatever I shake my stick at will give an inadequate presentation of a conservative point of view. For this reason, I generally prefer verbal to written correspondence. But this is the format, so off we go to another round!

    Lest I forget to answer your questions, let me answer them upfront:
    1) I am a CEO of small business in the insurance industry in California. We have about 20 employees and I’ve worked in the business for 19 years. My father started the company in 1972 and retired in 2011 when I took over.
    2) Re: the immigration issue, this is one of those topics that requires a more detailed and lengthy explanation (there is a reason it’s such a policy pit and has been for years) because it is very easy to perceive those opposed to mass immigration as simple nativists (which I am not; my father is Mexican American and suffered from prejudice for most of his life and I have great sympathy for the plight of people coming here to better their lives), but I hold that the primary purpose of any government is the welfare of its own citizens. And I fail to see how our current immigration policy does this. I believe we should have more of a merit-based approach, while allowing for a certain number of refugees, etc.

    Just got a call from my wife and I need to run to soccer practice (I thought it was cancelled tonight). To be continued!


  6. 2) Regulatory concerns. Let me start by stating what should be obvious. No right-thinking conservative is opposed to regulations. We are merely opposed to regulations which are ill-conceived, inefficient, redundant, and so forth. Sadly, it seems Washington (and most state governments for that matter) has a way of making simple things difficult and vice-versa. Take Obamacare for example. While I disagreed with its chief aims (national in scope guaranteed issue insurance, individual mandate), these would have been rather simple to legislate. A couple of sentences and presto. Instead we got hundreds (thousands?) of pages. I think there is a better way in this case and in most cases. The problem is that our legislators are not very smart or creative people and, by and large, just do what they are told by their donors.

    Now, onto some of your points.

    Systemic racism. First of all, this is a very big claim that the Left is making. And because it’s such a big claim, is requires big evidence to substantiate. 100 years ago, I think we could all point to this, particularly in the South. But with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I do not see where racism exists as a matter of law anymore. Can you point out to me some laws which substantiate systemic racism?

    Or perhaps you would say that systemic racism isn’t a matter of law? It’s a matter of prejudices so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche that we can only point to the outcomes this produces. OK. Maybe? Again, can you point out some examples for me that substantiate this?

    Finally, my observation is that the Left uses this term in a way that doesn’t further dialogue. If you want to work with the other side on some real issues, you don’t start off by telling people they are blind to their own racism. My guess is that this is intentional and it’s simply a tool to incite their base (we do it too, so I’m not being partial here).

    New Deal Socialism. You might be surprised that I agree with your vision of a benevolent society, but I disagree that the only way to attain that is through government action and forced transfers of wealth. Too many specifics mentioned here, so let me sidestep this a bit and talk about why while some of these ideas may have some merit, I don’t think they are matters for the federal government to pursue.

    Here’s my basic belief: The history of mankind shows that power tends to concentrate and, once concentrated, rarely recedes. The Founders recognized this and attempted to put limits on the size and scope of government because too often people with too much power misuse it (e.g., body count from Communism and Fascism in the 20th century).

    So, a diffusion of authority is a very good thing in my view, which is why I’m a big fan of Federalism properly conceived: let states handle most of the problems and restrict the federal to a certain number of things (foreign affairs, war, immigration, trade, currency, etc). This also allows experimentation with ideas that isn’t possible when the federal govt gets involved and imposes one-size-fits-all solutions.

    Now, I do agree that the income gap is a huge problem, but I don’t think taxing the wealthy and giving it away to others through various social programs is a really great solution. More on this at some other time as this would require more brainpower than I have at the ready. 🙂

    Climate change. I don’t know on this one. Most of the “consensus” revolves around guesses and assumptions that could lead to dire outcomes based on seriously complicated models. One variable off, and the whole prediction changes. I do agree that climate is changing of course (who wouldn’t?); the question I have is what percentage of that change is caused by us and further what can we do to minimize this while ensuring we don’t throw a whole bunch of people into poverty.

    But let me spare you my own uncertainty around this and propose something new that might help us work together on this. I think most people dislike pollution, want cleaner energy, uncontaminated rivers, forests, and lakes, etc. So, we’re aligned on the outcome, right? If so, then let’s talk about how we can do less of the thing we don’t like together while not hating each other for attempted murder (of our lives or our fortunes). What is going to bear more fruit? The Left may have to sacrifice a bit of its ambitious aims, but you’ll bring us further along than if you didn’t, and we’ll get more done than if we didn’t. Who knows what we could achieve if we approached it from this angle instead? I have long wondered why the Right has not seized the mantle of environmentalism.

    Incidentally, I agree wholeheartedly with your critique of consumerism.

    OK, last point I’ll make before I depart for today. I’m going to make a statement that will jar you. Donald Trump is the logical consequence of modern liberalism. For as liberalism seeks to delegate more and more authority to the federal government, we will start to look less and less to ourselves, our communities, our institutions, and our states, and more and more for “strongmen” type leaders to solve all our problems. The Presidency used to be a pretty modest role. No more. Just as moths are attracted to lights, so are the worst personas attracted to the Presidency these days.

    That’s all for now!


    1. Ryan, yes, it is quite a burden and responsibility to attempt an adequate presentation of a conservative (or liberal) viewpoint, and I am a bit daunted by this as well. But let’s cut ourselves some slack. We both know there is a wide range of views on both sides of the spectrum. For the purpose of “deep listening,” I am interested in the opinions that you hold and why. And you have helped my understanding enormously by sharing a few personal details—your business background and your father’s Mexican American heritage. While I don’t want to jump to any erroneous conclusions from this scant information, it does open up possibilities for understanding. I know that complicated regulations are particularly burdensome and costly for small businesses. I imagine that your father (was he a first-generation immigrant?) has worked extremely hard his whole life to make better opportunities and a better future for his family, struggling against prejudice and other challenges—self-reliant, independent, and responsible. Such a family background has inevitably influenced your values and political views.

      I am an immigrant myself, from Nova Scotia, Canada. I got my green card in my late 20s when I was a nun in an Episcopal convent in Chicago, and I became a citizen in the 1990s. My parents are from working-class backgrounds—farming, lumbering, marine livelihoods. I grew up in a very rural area. Almost all of my family still lives in rural Nova Scotia, and most are politically conservative. I remember my parents being frustrated that they and their ancestors worked extremely hard while the “welfare” recipients in our community lived on government handouts. They saw this as unfair. In many ways, I am a product of this background.

      If we all tried to understand one another’s heritage, life experiences, and core beliefs, we could better understand each other’s political views. We would see our human similarities and be less afraid of those who seem to differ from us.

      Regarding regulations, immigration policy, and many of the other issues on which we may disagree, I suspect you may be better informed about the details of these issues than I am. My overall impressions are influenced by news programs (mostly NPR and MSNBC), reading, and discussions with my friends. I have not done in-depth research. My professional background is in higher education (accused of being a liberal enclave), and I live in a relatively liberal part of the country (my choice.) Just to be upfront about all this.

      Yes, I am sure that all regulations are more complex than they need to be, resulting from the need to compromise, cover one’s collective butt, and anticipate every eventuality. I believe good quality affordable healthcare is a human right. The Affordable Care Act was an attempt at moving toward such healthcare. It had/has its faults, needs revision, and I am open to something much better, but not to going back to the health insurance industry before ACA. I’d be interested in what you would suggest as a replacement for ACA.

      My frustration at the moment, on this and every policy front, is that virtually all Republicans are determined not to work with any Democrats on moving forward any legislation at all on anything. It seems that their only goals are blocking everything, regaining control of the House and the Senate, and self-enrichment. I know that viewpoint is painting you all with much too broad a brush. Go ahead, paint us with one too! How do you see it? Your comments about how we might work together on preserving and protecting the environment show a willingness to work toward crafting and accepting compromise, an approach I don’t see embraced by many Republicans. Still, one I appreciate more as I grow older.

      Systemic Racism. I am not labeling conservatives as racists, and I am sorry if you feel that liberals, in general, have labeled conservatives as racist. We have a hard enough time knowing what is in our hearts and minds and certainly can’t assume what is in another’s. I can’t, at the moment, point to any laws that enshrine systemic racism, but here are two examples of what I view as our American “system” fostering a racist attitude. [ From Caste, by Isabel Wilkerson] “In America, news outlets feed audiences a diet of inner-city crime and poverty so out of proportion to the numbers that they distort perceptions of African-Americans as a whole. Little more than one in five African Americans, 22 percent, are poor, and they make up just over a quarter of poor people in America, at 27 percent. But a 2017 study by Travis Dixon at the University of Illinois found that African Americans account for 59 percent of the poor people depicted in the news. White families make up two-thirds of America’s poor, at 66 percent, but account for only 17 percent of poor people depicted in the news…A political scientist at Yale, Martin Gilens, found in a 1994 study that 55 percent of Americans believed that all poor people in America were black. Thus, a majority have come to see black as a synonym for poor, a stigmatizing distortion in a country that glorifies affluence. Like poverty, crime, too, receives coverage out of proportion to the numbers. Crimes involving a black suspect and a white victim make up 42 percent of crimes reported on television news even though crimes with white victims and black suspects make up a minority of crimes, at 10 percent, according to the Sentencing Project, an advocate for criminal justice reform.”

      And, policing and police departments. Events over decades, not just recently, show that people of color are disproportionately targets of violence by police officers. That makes me wonder about the whole culture, philosophy, and practice of policing—the backgrounds of people who choose to join police forces, their motivations, their training, their supervision, the standards to which they are held. The police “system” is so embedded in our society, that the way it treats black and brown people appears to me to be an example of systemic racism.

      New Deal Socialism does not boil down to taxing the rich and redistributing wealth by giving it away to the poor, in my view. New Deal Socialism, in my opinion, boils down to an understanding that we are all interdependent—that I can’t be well, happy, safe, and at peace until everyone is. Therefore, if I could be willing to live with just enough (not more or less than I need), everyone could have enough. Enough food, enough education, healthcare, clothing, shelter, creative opportunity…We are not all born equal. Some of us are born privileged, some underprivileged. I believe it serves society as a whole well if the strong are willing to help the weak, the rich to help the poor. And yet, we find it hard to share because we are afraid of not having enough, of being unsafe. Why is this?

      Climate Change. Again, I am sorry you feel beaten over the head by liberals who accuse “conservatives” of destroying our climate. I don’t think the science on this (our role in climate change) consists of “guesses and assumptions.” I believe it consists of careful, thorough research. But regardless, I agree this could be an area of mutual interest on which we could compromise and cooperate. The sense of urgency that many feel doesn’t lend itself to slow compromise, though, and so, perhaps we should all step back and consider whether “urgency” is the enemy of action in this case. I’m all for doing what we agree on and collecting more evidence.

      Your jarring final point about Trump being the logical consequence of modern liberalism is an interesting theory, and I will consider it. For me, Trump and his base represent fierce independence and individualism, self-reliance, contempt for those different from themselves, a kind of “frontierism,” a take-matters-into-one’s-own-hands” spirit. [Frontierism is defined as one extreme of a political axis regarding the issue of how much support government (or society) should provide to individuals.]

      When I think about this, I’m reminded of the principle of Yin/Yang. [In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.] The positive creates and includes the negative; the seed of one thing exists within its opposite. The Yin/Yang symbol represents balance and inclusion. It sees light and dark, good and evil not as enemies but as existing in an inseparable relationship. The tension between a strong central federal government and more diffuse local governance is inherent in our political system, like the tension between the good of the community and the individual’s interest. I don’t think our problems will be solved by opting for one or the other or fluctuating between the two. A humble, intelligent, compassionate, and creative strongman type leader at whatever level of government will have an entirely different effect from a proud, ignorant, self-centered, and rigid one.

      I agree we cannot legislate a benevolent society. I believe it is a matter of personal transformation—cumulative individual changes of heart aggregating in social change.

      As we further explain our perspectives, our comments will get longer and more complex, and I fear we will give up on this dialogue because it is simply more effort than we can sustain along with everything else in our lives. (It seems you have young children!) Dialogue, listening, and understanding require enormous time and effort, don’t they! Disagreement and disrespect are simpler and easier sometimes. In our conversation, I am sensing respect, openness, a desire to acknowledge agreement when we can, and a willingness to find things we could work together on if called upon to do so. And a sense of humor! So important to an attitude of humility about ourselves and our place in the world.

      I believe we absolutely agree on the need for change leading to a fairer and healthier society.


  7. What a beautiful, thoughtful reply. I don’t want to give up the ship just quite yet as, given the parameters you wisely established (viz., expressing opinions as articulately as we can and not expecting to land any haymakers) because you make so many good points that I wish to respond in kind. So, if you are willing, perhaps we just continue doing this as time permits. Consider it akin to the long-lost practice of having a pen-pal 🙂 I will compose some thoughts as I’m excited about the many areas of agreement and the ostensible willingness to compromise. I’m afraid this is the biggest thing missing in our current discourse, neither side wants to give an inch. Btw, I’m probably just as frustrated with the Republicans as you are, but for different reasons, but keep in mind the Democrats did the same thing while the Republicans were in power. It’s just Washington’s MO these days and I don’t have the patience to get an abacus out and figure out which side does it more. It’s a problem and one that we have to resolve if we’re to unify as a country (my overarching desire as this point) or continue to fragment and disintegrate. Thank you very much for the time you put into this! More to come soon.

    P.S. Yes, four kids under the age of 10, two dogs, 20 chickens, 10 acres, and a few properties to manage. All in a day’s work. 🙂


    1. Oh my goodness! Do take your time replying, you’ve got a lot on your plate. I was going to suggest that going forward, perhaps after your response to my most recent comment, we might try focusing on one topic per exchange. Maybe list the things we would like to discuss and then choose where to begin. So, shorter and more focused comments. Let me know what you think.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s