Last week, I wrote about how a lack of understanding has led a large number of us to write off an entire generation of young people as budding Marxists. I did my best to offer a critique of that conventional wisdom and call for a deeper understanding of what motivates that impulse as well as a better approach to engaging and changing their minds.
At the same time I was publishing those two pieces, Trump-supporting conservative Dinesh D'Souza was ripping Trump-opposing conservative David French in what I can only describe as a bizarre, uncomfortable video. D'Souza found it preposterous that French believes loud voices on the left and right use hyperbole and misrepresentation to fan the flames of division within the country; people on the Right come away believing those on the Left are irredeemable and vice versa.
What struck me as strange about D'Souza's video was that he seemed to, by engaging in name-calling and hyperbole himself, inadvertently offer an explicit example of what French had posited in the first place, all while supposedly arguing against it.
From my perspective, David French is short-sighted about some things, and I think in a well-intentioned effort to mend political divisions, has at times demonstrated an unacceptable willingness to compromise on non-negotiable conservative values. But his call to see the humanity in our ideological opponents, and to seek to understand rather than superficially assail their position, is not one of them.
If anyone wanted proof of how desperately we need such a development, last week brought two prime examples of how far off we are from understanding what each other actually believe. First, 1619 Project founder and activist Nikole Hannah Jones shared her thoughts on what she wishes "school choice conservatives" would advocate.
How a writer with as many resources at her disposal as Jones can fail to know that is precisely what nearly all school choice advocates desire is a testament to how thick the walls of our ideological echo chambers can become. Even in the replies to her tweet, she castigated a writer who was repeatedly saying that he agreed with her because she found his replies disingenuous.
Then came left-wing writer Julie Ioffe who tried to explain to pro-life conservatives what they should embrace if they want to win over pro-abortion liberals.
Not only does nearly every pro-life American already believe that, but many, including former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, advocate allowing child allowance money to flow as part of a tax credit program during pregnancy. Assuming she's not gaslighting, which I don't think she is, how is Ioffe so blissfully unaware of this reality?
Remember, these are high-profile journalists who are paid to comprehend our political divisions and expound upon them. If they are this clueless about their opposition, how much more is the average American?
I'm honestly not sure there could be better evidence for why we need to turn off the partisan hysterics peddled by talking heads who apparently believe their jobs depend on us despising one another, and instead start talking to one another. It's confirmation to our consciences that we need to log off Twitter and invest more than just 280 characters engaging those who have a different opinion.
During a previously perilous moment in American history, a lankly lawyer named Abraham Lincoln cautioned his fellow citizens not to discount the humanity of their opponents, even on an issue as seminal as slavery.
"Only a small percentage [of the people] are natural tyrants," he said. "That percentage is no larger in the slave states than in the free. The great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies."
As you might recall, America chose not embrace Lincoln's counsel and ended up in a civil war just a few short years later. Let's hope this generation of Americans will make a wiser choice.
