NEW YORK — In the fall of 2013, I gave a TED talk on what I learned as a progressive, on-air talking head at Fox News, where I worked for two years before leaving and joining my current home, CNN. After all, one of the most frequent questions I was asked during my time at Fox was how I did it, how I was a fox in the henhouse – or a hen in the Fox house, if you will. Read more about it HERE
Hats off to House Speaker Paul Ryan for his strong plea for greater civility in our tumultuous electoral cycle. “Politics can be a battle of ideas, not insults,” he said in an upbeat speech to Congressional interns on March 23. “Ideas passionately expressed and put to the test, that’s what politics can be. All of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standard.” Of course, civility is only the first, although a necessary step, to achieving common ground. Civility encourages mutual respect and respect becomes an essential pathway to trust. Then deals can be made and compromises struck. But if mutual acrimony and insults rise to the point where negotiation is no longer possible, everybody loses.
At Common Ground Committee we share Representative Ryan’s optimism that political discourse can rise to higher level. Partisan bickering and gridlock should not be the norm. Our forums have shown that passionate yet civil debate where facts are valued and participants listen to each other are achievable and can lead to common ground. Read the full article here.
The following NYT op-ed piece by Arthur Brooks makes a compelling case that solutions to our most challenging problems must include key elements of opposing positions. Not just because rigid partisanship prevents fruitful discussion but because the solutions that will actually work intrinsically require key elements of philosophy and practice from all sides, not just one.
That notion is a principle we have held as a foundation of our work. While civility is required and sorely needed today, finding common ground is not about playing nice in the sandbox. It’s about being willing to accept that those you disagree with are likely to be bringing key elements to a problem’s solution to the table. Including those elements with yours is bound to yield a better solution than one forged solely from solely yours or theirs.
But, as Brooks points out, that’s the hard part. It shouldn’t be. What’s required is to shift our true motive from demonstrating we are right (and they are wrong) to actually solving the problem. How hard is that? Read the complete article here.
The intensity of the political noise caused by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia reminds us of the Spinal Tap amplifiers turned up to “11”. Painful to the ears. But amid that noise is the outpouring of respect and admiration from a host of people representing all bands of the political spectrum. To us no tribute to Scalia was as noteworthy as that paid to him by his SCOTUS colleague and ideological adversary, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In any debate, bringing light, not heat requires a willingness to listen to and respect the views of those who one might vehemently disagree with. In a relationship similar to but even deeper than that of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil Justices Ginsburg and Scalia not only respected and listened to each other but they were able to build a strong friendship that both clearly treasured. In this 2016 election year, they serve as a reminder that we can expect better not only from our leaders but also from ourselves in how we go about debating issues both public and personal.
As the election season kicks into high gear the overall tone is swinging even further into the attack zone. While unfortunate, that is natural in an election when candidates’ strategies are all about differentiation. However, those not up for election – and that includes most of us – don’t have to get caught up in the rancorous atmosphere that the competition for votes leaves in its wake.
This recent piece by Rich Karlgaard in Forbes takes a frank look at finding common ground at a personal, day-to-day level. It demonstrates what we believe to be fundamentally true – that we can find common ground on issues of national importance without compromising fundamental principles. The key is to resist the desire for a win-lose (where you win and the person who disagrees with you loses) and seek instead the points of agreement which is a win-win both in moving forward on an issue and in building and maintaining a good relationship that can facilitate future progress. It actually isn’t that difficult to do.
