It’s hard to talk about people’s lack of solid conversation skills without addressing the political and social juggernaut that our country (and our world) is enveloped in. This topic can hardly be addressed in blog post (boy it would be awesome if it could though right?) but it seemed a good thing to start off our blogging relationship.

I should probably note as this is my first political post that not to indoctrinate you with my political beliefs; but to offer ideas, and thoughts that may exist between the often implacable opposites that govern these ideas (just as my first blog post suggests; see a good beginning). My goal is to encourage discourse…but my ego never turns down an opportunity to be stroked…lol (you’ll get used to my twisted sense of humor).

I think before we get to any particular topic, we must first acknowledge that which allows a conversation to occur in its most fruitful possible way. 1). Both parties must agree to listen intently to the other side, and if possible, do so without actively generating a rebuttal while listening. It’s difficult to not consider a response, but to truly listen, one can only do thing at a time. It’s like I tell my middle school students…one cannot speak and listen at a time. And when they don’t believe me, they do what they do best….prove my point about 4 seconds later. I would also recommend something I learned in debate; take a pad of paper, and while listening to the other party, the listener can simply write down salient points, so that upon the opportunity for response/rebuttal, one can work from those notes. 2). It’s important for both parties to remember that there are usually two or more sides to any issue, and the truth almost always lies in between. This type of thinking only applies to these type of opinion-based conversations (my example below will make this more clear). 3). Finally, both parties must agree that the hallmark of the human resolution is the compromise (and I work for a church so I know about what I speak).

Let’s take an example. A few years back, there was a football player named Colin Kaepernick (he’s still around, but his career seems finished). He made the news because he began kneeling during the National Anthem before football games as a response to the racial issues in this country, and specifically how he viewed the police targeting people of color. His actions led to others following his lead, and national attention that divided this country nearly in two. It got to the point where local restaurants were refusing to air NFL games, people were boycotting certain games, and even our dear national chief executive got himself involved.

On one hand, you had those who supported Kaepernick’s efforts…that he was using his position as a national celebrity athlete to bring awareness to a very real problem in our society and that he could not in good conscience salute a flag of an America that tolerated such injustice. On the other hand you had many folks who felt his actions were unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worse, because it slandered the flag of the greatest country on earth…a country where many patriotic Americans have given their lives to defend and protect. There was also the group that felt that while he was bringing awareness to a very real problem in this country, his stage for such things was inappropriate. Perhaps he could use his celebrity status to host rallies, and forums for conversations. There were those who felt that those who were arguing against Kaepernick’s actions were so imbued by their white privilege that they could not see how they were part of the problem. Then there were those who felt that our law enforcement are the best in the world, and that they were often targeted by gangsters, whom they felt had an overwhelming chance of being people of color. And there were even more sides, opinions and sub-groups to grow out of this and it ended up splintering the country more and more. As the ire grew, the listening diminished and things became bitter. Just read the post online. The posts are vicious, they are nasty, and worst of all, they accomplished very little.

So what can the resolution be? Well, to work towards that, one must remember that there’s a modicum of truth to every side of the argument because perceptions are often rooted in at least a little bit of truth. Stereotypes are built that way too. For example, its true that there is an overwhelming amount of racial bias in our justice system, and its affected communities of color all over our country. That racial bias has sadly translated at times into unfair policies by certain agencies of law enforcement that have led to some ugly scenes, and even more insidious than that, is a criminal justice system where there are instances where different degrees of punishment for the same crime are given to different people based upon their color. Drug enforcement is another example because the mandatory minimum are also skewed against people of color.

However, it is also equally true that there are many instances where there are honest, respectful law enforcement agencies out there who have only ever striven to protect and respect the communities they serve and furthermore, have taken opportunities to strengthen their relationships with those communities. Unfortunately, the media hardly ever shares these type stories in any sort of regularity or in any sort of volume; you only hear the negative stories. There are also significant efforts in law enforcement agencies to change their practices and procedures to be the best they can be and often you don’t hear about those either. Its like when the government thwarts terrorist threats…successes are private, failures are public. It’s also true that criminal behavior is not restricted to people based upon any criteria; criminals are criminals. There’s no association between higher crime and skin color sex or anything else. Economics can be a factor, but that’s a conversation for another blog post.

It is also very true that members of our military, past, present and future, should be lauded for their patriotism. They put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms and countless scores have given their lives for that very cause. We owe them at the least our gratitude and at the most our undying respect. Those of us who have not served should thank a serviceperson, every opportunity that we can. That also includes law enforcement. Our country should also be respected, because what unites is is so much more than divides us, and as the great democratic experiment of history, we’ve accomplish far more than most other countries have.

Here’s the catch of this whole thing. Both sides have validity. Not absolute truth…but elements of truth, and hyperbole based upon perception and experience. So therefore, I say they should have a conversation. Sit down both groups, and listen to each other. And come to a compromise of ideas. Because, in the greatest country on the planet, and in the 21st Century, it should (and I content it is) possible to arrive at a compromise where the country and military can still be respected everywhere, and a criminal justice can be adopted that’s fair to all people. One should not exist at the expense of the other…and it shouldn’t have too. But it must start with an honest, respectful conversation. Brownell out.