RESPECTFUL CONFLICT NEEDS TO BE ENCOURAGED

Why don’t we all get along and cooperate; find common ground; seek peace among ourselves and in the world?  The short answer is because humankind is made up of multiple cultures with multiple world views within each culture.  China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran (among others) have taught us that modernization does not equal westernization.  The European Union has taught us that westernization does not equal one federal polity. One federal polity, the United States, is based on the principle that pluralism, not one majority consensus, is the foundation of democracy.

Conflict is defined as: “an incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles or interests”.  It exists in all human endeavors.  It can be ignored, as we often do, or accepted and managed in a respectful manner so as to avoid resentment and potentially violence.  It is time to give conflict its due and to develop responsible methods to address it.  Several examples may help illustrate my point.

Example one:  The American Mideast and South Asian Muslim communities believe that our military presence and use of drones is killing innocent civilians in their homelands and needs to stop.  These otherwise loyal Americans are not encouraged to develop public forums to discuss these beliefs which are in fundamental conflict with ongoing foreign policy.  Frustration is internalized within families and places of worship. Outside radical influences fan the flames among young Muslims.

Example two:  Western ranchers believe that federal regulations over land and water use are too restrictive and make it difficult for them to make a living.  Rather than form a vocal interest group, they keep a low profile until federal laws are enforced, when the conflict turns violent.

Example three:  Tea party republicans and progressive democrats decide that the established two party system is incapable of addressing issues that must be resolved in order to move the country forward.  The traditional party conflict resolution apparatus is ignored on both sides and extreme political positions are supported as a protest to the status quo.

In my first two examples, the absence of respectful conflict resolution has resulted in the radicalization of a few Americans who view terrorism and/or armed conflict as the only alternative. The question to American Muslims and ranchers should not be: “what actions are you taking to avoid violence?” The question to all Americans should be: “what actions are we collectively taking as a democratic country to understand and vet the issues in conflict and to resolve them?”

In my third example, the inability of the long standing establishment to employ respectful conflict resolution has resulted in a major attack on the two party system that forms the basis of our democratic constitutional republic.  Non action and failure to even discuss differences by the competing establishment elites has lead to its rejection by a majority of Americans.  Again, the need to be “right” needs to be replaced by the need to “understand” and to respectfully address the party in conflict.

I believe that respectful conflict is not only possible, but has been proven to work in America.  Recently, the Black Lives Matter and United We Dream initiatives have been very effective in the African American and Latino communities. Because of these forums to raise grievances and present rational opinions, violent acts are avoided.  While Muslims and ranchers are much smaller minorities, organizing, lobbying and debate can still be effective in framing issues for a larger audience.  The alternative is unaddressed anger, which is no alternative at all. 

In examining the American political conflict that has now gravitated to the fringes, there is plenty of organization, but not enough compromise.  Respectful conflict always has the goal of developing ultimate solutions that carefully consider conflicting positions and that discourage rigid ideologies.  Once it is discovered that extreme politics muck up the machinery of government worse than moderate politics, respectful conflict may return to the halls of Congress.  However, there is no reason to wait and moderate influences should be passing compromise legislation, even in this election year.

Conflict needs to be recognized and respectful conflict needs to be encouraged.  Ignoring conflict until there is a crisis and then calling for peace and good will in the aftermath of violence accomplishes nothing. Permitting political frustration to boil over until it leads to the support of extreme positions is not an answer.

Once American Muslims and western ranchers (among other minorities in conflict) receive a full and respectful airing of their concerns, as pluralism is intended to work, reason replaces emotion and anger as the motivating factor.  Once moderate legislators recapture the law making process we move forward with something for everyone rather than nothing for no one.

The featured quote in the June 21 Observer Reporter captures my point exactly:  “He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.” William Drummond, Scottish writer (1585-1649).  Conflict is inevitable.  Bigotry and ignorance are not.

 Let us agree to disagree and make conflicts transparent for all to view. Citizens can then openly participate and form opinions on a level and respectful playing field.  The alternatives have not worked and never will.