Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
Please consider the following quote by Mathias Risse of Harvard University:
“Surely, political debate about what America should be, and which kind of economic system it should have, must count among the most basic themes in democratic discourse.”
Add to this, if you will, that the very first amendment declares that U.S citizens have, as a basic right, freedom of speech.
There is something so basic about the value of free exchanges of views that we hardly ever question it. If we are moved to question it, there are research studies that document that such exchanges are the mechanism by which better solutions are found and better decisions are made. Providing readers here with a formal review of the literature discussing these studies is too lengthy a process for our current purposes. It will suffice for today, I think, if I merely encourage you to imagine yourself seeking justice for yourself in a court of law that provides only the prosecutor getting to make the case against you, without your having any opportunity to present your side. Such an image, it seems to me, provides more than enough intuitive understanding that hearing both sides of an issue is crucial for increasing the chance of arriving at just decisions.
Something Appears To Have Changed
Since Donald Trump has been reelected to the U.S. presidency, I have been hearing more and more from friends, family members, and neighbors about an increase in the number of people who are being unfriended because they have expressed their contrary political views. Thus, opportunities for lively exchanges of different views that had been a regular part of our democracy appear to have diminished.
When I use the term, “unfriending,” I am not referring to how the term is used on Facebook. Rather than referring to this type of internet relationships, I am referring to the ending of what I view as real life, actual in-person relationships. Here are a couple of examples: One guy I know, told me about two of his cousins with whom he has always been close since they were children. A few months after Trump’s reelection, he and his cousins had a conversation expressing different political views. Ever since, these two family members have been refusing to talk to him. When he has made his usual seasonal calls to wish them happy holiday and to catch up with family doings, they now hang up on him. Another person has told me about how, after a brief discussion with a neighbor regarding Trump’s healthcare policy, this neighbor has now begun to turn a cold shoulder to her whenever they pass one another.
In an effort to avoid unfriending, but also leading to a diminishing of exchanges between people with different views, I’ve been seeing more and more folks only willing to discuss political issues when they are among others they know are in agreement with them. These talks are enjoyed for the support that one gets from likeminded folks. If they are with people with whom they disagree regarding their positions, they avoid the discomfort of hearing contrary opinions by insisting they will not engage in discussing political topics.
If we add to this, the current media programming situation in which people can tune into shows that solely express opinions that completely agree with them, we can see why more and more in our society have been losing out on the value that comes from hearing a variety of opinions.
Can We Improve This Situation?
It can be argued that the reason for the changed situation is because Trump has been modeling insulting, disrespectful behavior. Among the insults that I have heard Trump use are “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals.” I observed him on national TV calling Senator Lindsey Graham “a stiff,” Governor Rick Perry “stupid,” and numerous other political opponents, idiots.” He has denigrated federal judges who ruled against his efforts as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve for not lowering interest rates.
However, whenever Mr. Trump insults his opponents, many voters are apt to defend him by saying he isn’t doing anything much different than all the other politicians. Meanwhile, I’ve heard Trump, when criticized for his insulting style, defend himself by declaring that no one has been more maligned than he. And he can certainly point to instances in which he has indeed been maligned.
That said, permit me to suggest that in an effort to change the current situation in which our fellow citizens are less likely to share their differing political concerns, we leave this maligning issue behind. I just don’t think it likely to lead to anything productive. Instead, I would like you to consider some suggestions I have personally found helpful.
When a political issue comes up, I say I think the topic is very interesting. Then I encourage the person who first brought up the topic to express his or her opinion. I then give the person an opportunity to fully express it, without my throwing out any insults, or displaying behavior that could in anyway be viewed as disrespectful. I listen without expressing anger and will only interrupt to briefly ask for some clarification of what was said. People value being listened to, and I seek to provide this value.
When the person has clearly finished, I thank the person, summarize what was said, and add that what was said was very helpful to me. I then again thank the person. Then I say, “I’ve heard a different position and I would love to describe it and then get your reaction to it.” I have found that when expressed this way, most will let me proceed. As I describe the different opinion, I use no insults or any tone of voice that might suggest I am maligning the position the other party had expressed. I then ask respectfully for the reaction of the person who had been listening to me, and again I respectfully listen. If I see the person responds angrily, I don’t express return anger. When the person completes the reply, I again summarize what was said using a soft friendly voice and leave the exchange at that. If the person had responded civilly, I would be open to further expand the discussion. Otherwise, I leave the discussion with the hope that in due time both of us will further think about what was said.
This respectful exchange typically works very well for me, and I continue our relationship on friendly terms.
In situations in which people say they don’t want to discuss political issues, I gently encourage them to at least give me a try. I explain that I realize political discussions can get heated and lead to bad feelings, but, with me, they will find me listening respectfully and discuss the issues civilly. I also explain the value that comes from hearing diverse political views. If this leads to an agreement to go ahead with such a discussion, and the person with whom I am having a discussion starts to get heated, I encourage that we return to a civil style. If that doesn’t work, I let the person finish the point that is being made, without my returning the anger, and then suggest we take some time to calm down.
Well, there are my thoughts and suggestions for dealing with this type of situation. I surely encourage readers to express their views regarding this, even if they are contrary to my own.
My Best,
Jeff
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we examine a conflict witnessed by millions that involves U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan at a U.S. House Coronavirus Hearing angrily questioning infectious disease expert Dr. Fauci. It can be viewed on YouTube 
Briefly, Congressman Jordan desired to defend the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of Americans. In his view, interfering with his desire are a set of recommendations developed by the CDC that Dr. Fauci has given voice to as part of the job the current president has hired him to do. Jordan appears to believe Dr. Fauci is guilty of promoting recommendations that interfere with liberty and the Constitution. At the same time, Dr. Fauci desires to do his job without facing personal attacks and a style of questioning that he referred to as ranting.
At first, Dr. Fauci is reluctant to describe the objective measure, explaining it depends on a variety of ever changing conditions, such as the percentage of people who will agree to be vaccinated, how resistant new emerging variants of the virus will be to the available vaccines, and other factors that can sprout up. But, after making clear that any estimate that he gives must be viewed as very tentative, Dr. Fauci finally provides his best guess–when the number of daily infections drop to 10,000 a day, which may very well be reached by early to mid summer if the vast majority of people are vaccinated.
You said that when Texas ended their lockdown, ended their mandates, this was inexplicable and this would, quote, “lead to a surge in cases.” But Texas is at the bottom of the 50 states. But all of the states at the top are lockdown states. So, that guess didn’t look too good. What explains why Texas is so darn low as compared to the rest of the states. Lockdown states have a much higher rate than the state of Texas which over a month ago said that we’re not going to have all these lockdowns and all of these mandates that you say we have to have a lockdown.
Jordan: Dr. Fauci, when is the time? When, in your written statement you say, “Now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing, and avoiding congregating settings. When is the time? When do Americans get their freedom back? 
Dr. Fauci: When we get the levels of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high threat.
Jordan: What measure. I mean, are we just going to continue forever. When do we get to the point? What measure, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedom back? 
Jordan, his voice has become louder: You don’t think that American liberties have been threatened the past year, Dr Fauci? They’ve been assaulted, their liberties have.
At this point, Jordan again interrupts in the middle of Dr. Fauci’s sentence and begins to list examples of Americans loss of liberty, and among them, he says, “The governor of our third largest state meets with physicians and that video is censored because it dared to disagree with Dr. Fauci, so I just want to know when Americans are going to get their liberties back.”
Dr. Fauci: My answers are consistent with [cross talk] may I answer the question please. My recommendations are not a personal recommendation. They are based on the CDC guidance and which are underscored by…
Dr. Fauci: Right now we have about sixty thousand infections a day, which is a very large risk for a surge. We’re not talking about liberties, we’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. That’s what we are talking about.
Dr. Fauci: Well, you just said people can’t assemble in their own homes. They can. That’s a CDC recommendation. [after some crosstalk Dr. Fauci continues] You are going to see a gradual, from, right now we are at an unacceptable high level, regardless of who you are. We’re going to see, as more and more people are vaccinated and we get over three million people a day, you are going to see the level of infection go down and down, and gradually there will be more flexibility to doing the things you are talking about. 
Dr. Fauci: You are asking for a number. If I have a number, it would have to be my best estimate, and that would be that when the number of infections a day are well below ten thousand a day. At that point, there would be a gradual pulling back of a number of the restrictions you are talking about, particularly when people are vaccinated more and more because a combination of, if you are vaccinated you are protecting yourself for sure, and the more people who get vaccinated in the community, the lower the number of infections will be.
Dr. Fauci: You’re ranting again.
Let’s begin with Congressman Jordan. Most of his questions were relevant and initially he doesn’t sound particularly belligerent. In my opinion, he could have done better throughout by asking his questions in a warm and friendly manner. When Dr. Fauci made a few comments that Jordan objected to, rather than utilizing the conflict resolution skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable, he instead angrily raises his voice and repeatedly interrupts Dr. Fauci in mid-sentence. What would disagreeing without being disagreeable have looked like in their exchange? I think by empathetically providing statements from time to time that indicated he knows Dr. Fauci has been the bearer of bad news throughout the pandemic and that’s a rough situation to be in, could have helped to traverse some of the roughest terrain of this conflict.
Now, let’s turn to critiquing Dr. Fauci’s handling of the conflict. With the exception of three brief moments, I think he kept his tone of voice in a matter of fact manner that was fitting for this occasion. Where he faltered on this score will be discussed shortly.
swered the questions posed to him in a manner that struck me as fair given the number of factors in steady flux. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, occurred by not taking advantage of making a connection with Jordan on their shared values.
I share with you the love of liberty and freedom, Congressman Jordan, and well recognize the enormous frustrations that have been ongoing during this pandemic. The restrictions about family gatherings have been awfully hard, numerous people who have a business ended up with devastating losses, people have lost their job, and on and on, all of this has been terribly difficult to deal with emotionally as well as financially. And yet, according to the best scientific data we have available, if we did nothing to try to decrease the spread hundreds of thousands of more people would have died, and hospital personnel would have been even more overwhelmed than they had become at the height of the U.S. experience with this pandemic. 
In its preamble it states its purpose is, and I quote, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 
Now we are engaged in providing a common defense to battle this pandemic, a battle that has led to the deaths in one year of nearly twice the total number of deaths that occurred during the four years of World War II. Sacrifices are being made. I’m not happy about them, but I was hired by the president to provide my recommendations based on science and a vetting process involving experts at the CDC, to decrease the spread of the virus. Consistent with our Constitution, it is up to our elected officials to decide which recommendations to make mandatory. Citizens have the right to file a suit in court if they believe their rights are being violated. 
If Dr. Fauci would have made these types of connections with Jordan’s values, it may very well have taken the wind out of Jordan’s sails, tempering his ire.
In conflict resolution we often teach people to make “I” statements rather than insisting on an opinion. Thus, Dr. Fauci might have done better if instead of saying, “No, you are. That is exactly what you are doing,” he said pleasantly, “Well, although you don’t view it as a personal thing, I’m experiencing it as exactly that. To be clear, I did not advocate that the video be censored, and I fully support freedom of speech.”
I get why Dr. Fauci was exasperated at this point. He believed he had provided the best answer available, but I do think Jordan was in his rights to ask for a more specific guess. Dr. Fauci eventually did provide more specifics that came when Jordan made this request.
Dr. Fauci’s frustration with Jordan’s interruptions and his angry tone of voice is understandable. And though ranting may have been an accurate description, most people would view Dr. Fauci’s comment as an insult. Insulting someone in the middle of a conflict just leads to more trouble than it is worth. I think Dr. Fauci would have been better off just saying something like, “Congressman Jordan, I am having a hard time dealing with your tone and frequent interruptions. I understand you have strong feelings about this, as I certainly do. Maybe we need a break so I can deal with how I’m feeling.”
