April 5, 2013
How do you tie your shoes in the morning? Some of us do it the exact same way every day; sitting down, right foot first, starter loop with the left hand, centered over the tongue. Some of us have to rethink everything; which shoe is closest, do I need a double knot today, and is there any dried mud in the treads? I am a re-thinker. The point I want to make is that we humans often approach the same everyday things in completely different ways; furthermore, I think we are often unaware that others view and do things differently. The skills needed to understand why people tie their shoes differently may be the same needed to bridge the deepening divisions in today’s society.
We have discussed here before the need to look with strict construction at the Constitution; yet, even among strict construction adherents there are different understandings. For example, your comfort level with guns can have an effect on your understanding of the Second Amendment. If one grew up around guns and is comfortable through hunting, marksmanship, or military service; then, their view may be more similar to the founders. If however one is unfamiliar with the operation of a gun, or has bad memories associated with firearms, or even just the rational trepidation that comes from unfamiliarity with weapons; then, looking for a semantic “out”, find one in muskets or militias.
We see different views as to the appropriate level of government size between urban and rural America. To confirm this just think back to the county by county red/blue map in the last election. Most will admit a line where the state will be larger and more costly than freedom will allow; but, agreement as to where that line should be drawn is vastly different between city and farm. Rural America has the advantage of looking through the lens of self-sufficiency born of necessity. Fewer layers can bring the whole picture into view. Urban America has the constant reminder that living in close proximity to one another can be touchy at times and that many layers of rules and services have been established to address those issues as they came up. Too many layers to easily see the whole picture; but, memory alone reminds them that change itself can be very disruptive.
We see different and changing definitions for the words we use. I hesitate briefly to use this example as it can cause the intellectual blindness that I am urging you to guard against, but perhaps it will be the vehicle to make the point. Marriage can only be between men and women. If the word is coopted to mean something else, for whatever good intentions; then we will still need another word to describe marriage. When we change our words to blur distinctions rather than make them more specific, we create shibboleths and dog whistles that separate us when it seems unity would be the better end.
I urge us all, with unity in mind, to recognize where we view things differently. This will inevitably interject reason into the thought process, if only to satisfy the natural desire to find the intersection. In the process we may also come to understand ourselves better, and we may make better collective decisions.
The Coffee Committee