UNEXPECTED PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS
I normally restrict my comments to matters of science, technology and the Bible, but today I want to depart from that by addressing the recent US Presidential election. I'm doing this because the election outcome highlights the problem not simply of political division, but that those on each side seem incapable of appreciating the perspectives of those on the other side. This is truly unfortunate. Let me offer two examples, one that shows how conservatives often fail to appreciate the perspective of liberals and progressives, and one that shows how liberals and progressives fail to appreciate the perspective of conservatives.
Let's start with an example of how conservatives fail to appreciate the perspective of liberals and progressives. Donald Trump, the incoming US President, ran on the slogan "Make America Great Again". This idea clearly appealed to a large percentage of his base of voters, many of whom feel that the United States has gone off course and is no longer the pre-eminent country it once was. Many liberals and progressives are troubled by the slogan. What makes the slogan troubling for many was captured in a recent interview I heard on National Public Radio. The interview was of a group of voters in Pennsylvania, some Democratic and some Republican, some white and some non-white. The blacks who were interviewed said the problem with the slogan is the word "Again". They said that while many white Americans might wish to go back to what they remember America was in the past, for the blacks, that might mean going back to Jim Crow laws, as well as a much less hospitable America. Women, gays, and other minorities surely would say the same. Hearing that, one of the white women present said, "I never considered that before." Obviously, a different perspective.
Now let's consider the same thing from the other side of the political divide. Many people are troubled by the fact that Trump won the election but lost the popular vote. The reason Trump was elected was because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College allocates votes to each state and the District of Columbia based upon the number of Senators and Congressmen that the state has. Thus, the Electoral College has 538 votes, representing 100 Senators, 435 members of the US House of Representatives, and 3 votes for the District Columbia (as though the latter had 2 Senators and 1 Congressman). To win the election, one must get 270 of the Electoral College votes. Thus, while Clinton won the popular vote, Trump earned more than 270 Electoral College votes. He accomplished this because while Clinton won large majorities in a relatively few states, a significant majority of the 50 states actually voted for Trump. For many people, this outcome was unfair, because "the will of the people" is not being respected.
There is, however, a different perspective about the Electoral College. Richard Posner, a distinguished appeals court judge and economist, has written a defense of the Electoral College (see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html.) Among the benefits of the Electoral College is that it provides protections to minorities, as well as assures that smaller states have an important voice. It has been argued that if the Electoral College were abolished, national elections would be decided mainly on the heavily populated coasts of the country, with little or no voice for the middle of the country. Moreover, it's been argued that this system ensures a bigger voice for minorities, including blacks and Hispanics. Liberals and Progressives are very concerned to protect the rights of minorities, so if anyone should appreciate the Electoral College, it should be them, yet in this case they seem to be complaining the loudest of how "unfair" it is.
I bring this up because it is an excellent example of the problem of we all seem to face: we're focused on our own particular viewpoints; we tend to surround ourselves only with those of the same, or very similar viewpoints; we fail to appreciate the perspective of others from different backgrounds and viewpoints; but if we'll take time to listen, we can each learn something valuable from those on the opposite side. In the case of the white voter cited above, it was the surprising realization that "Make America Great Again" might have some unexpected baggage, particularly for minorities; and in the case of the Electoral College, it was that those concerned about protecting minorities might actually want to embrace the Electoral College.
My book, The Unexpected Perspective, describes reasons why Christians might want to reconsider their opposition to Darwin because Darwin provides some unexpected benefits to Christians. That becomes possible only if one is willing to listen to the other side. Likewise, wherever you might be on the political spectrum, I encourage you to consider some of the views of your political opponents, then consider the possibility that your political opponents might have some useful insight from which you can benefit.
I'm not simply asking others to do this, I'm trying to do it myself. One of the issues about which I am passionate is free trade. You might say that I never met a free trade agreement I didn't like. But I've now come to realize that unabashed support may not be a good idea; maybe those who are opposed to free trade have something worthwhile to say, and maybe they'll even have some ideas that I'll find very appealing, if only I take time to listen to what they have to say. The question for every one of us is, are we willing to step out of our personal "belief bubbles", take time to listen to what someone on the other side has to say, then seek to understand how and why those ideas ought to be given some serious consideration.
