If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. -Matthew 18:15-16
Premises:
1. Our political discourse is broken
2. High amounts of stress decrease human beings' ability to make good decisions
3. People still have really good political discussions around kitchen tables and campfires.
Hypothesis: Cohesive communities are necessary for productive discussions.
A small town in midwest America is heating up. This time it's about a proposed housing development. Some want the foreign investment to clean up the toxic vacant lot that the high-rise, high-priced condos, apartments, and shops will occupy. This will grow the tax base and help provide much-needed services to the disadvantaged. Some do not want the foreign investment because it will raise the cost of living, forcing people out of their homes. Insults and accusations fly freely across hearings, townhall meetings, and Facebook.
Why do these conflicts so frequently devolve into bickering unproductive blather? Snowflakes. We've all heard of them; right-wing snowflakes, left-wing snowflakes, presidential snowflakes. Each snowflake is different. We've also heard of flight-or-fight responses: the involuntary physiological reaction that occurs in response to an attack or threat perceived to be harmful. Now let's put one and one together.
People abhor political disagreement when issues are framed as existential threats. The left sees undocumented immigrants, people of color, and the poor threatened by rightwing policies. The right speaks about the loss of Western civilization, freedom, and prosperity. These are not unreasonable fears, but they are destroying our ability to engage in reasoned, productive debate. How do we remove fear from our disagreements?
Step into the danger. Consider the opening verse above, Mt 18:15; the early Christians lived in tight communities where they had everything in common, and they still experienced interpersonal conflict. The passage sets out a clear series of steps to deal with these problems.
Next time you see someone's terrible post on Facebook, I suggest you send a private message instead of a comment. The genius here is that you're giving the person an out: they can repent of any wrongdoing without exposing themselves to shame. This reduces the element of fear, making their acceptance of your correction more likely.
The passage goes on: if the person doesn't recognize their wrongdoing, invite them and one or two others for a discussion, maybe over coffee or dinner. This might escalate the disagreement, but allows other parties' perspectives to help resolve the conflict. Don't choose your own allies for this discussion, choose people who are as impartial and wise as possible and who have a relationship with both you and your opponent.
This process can be very difficult. We might lose friends and hurt people's feelings, and our feelings might be hurt. However, people are doing this all over the world all the time. This is the work of building communities and resolving problems.
Comments, thoughts, and critiques are welcome, thanks for reading.
-Edit