How do you talk to people like this? [View All]

[markpkessinger]

Okay, so I spent New Years Eve and Day with some family members. For the most part, it was a pleasant visit, with the exception of the point on New Years Eve, after we had all had plenty to drink, when the discussion turned to various political matters.

Let's see, it started with the horrors of the "War on Christmas," how terrible it was that Relative A was no longer "allowed" to say "Merry Christmas" or make reference to a "Christmas Tree." I pointed out to Relative A that nobody has outlawed the greeting, "Merry Christmas" or references to "Christmas Trees"; it's just that many government institutions have now begun doing something many businesses have been doing for 40 years: opting for a more culturally sensitive greeting such as "Happy Holidays" so as not to offend their non-Christian customers/constituents. I tried to turn the question around. I asked Relative A: "Is it really asking so much, it is really such an imposition, to ask Christians, who alone among the nation's religions enjoy, by virtue of their overwhelming cultural dominance, having one of their religious holidays designated a national holiday?" I pointed out that FOX News trots out this tired old saw every year and tries to make a big deal of it. Relative A didn't get what I was saying, pointing out that the local public school had insisted that its decorative tree was a "holiday tree." I responded that, yes, as a government institution serving all the nation's religions, it was fully appropriate for the school to ask its students and teachers to observe such a protocol. That doesn't mean the phrase "Christmas Tree" or "Merry Christmas" has been outlawed in any respect whatsoever. Relative A, however, insisted that the right of Christians to obnoxiously display their cultural dominance was underwritten by the fact that "Christmas is a national holiday." Relative A then went on to proclaim that this country was "founded on Christian principles" (a particularly ironic argument coming from someone who hasn't seen the inside of a Church in 40 years!). I pointed out to her that the pilgrims did not set out to found a country, but rather to found a colony where they would be as free to persecute other faiths as Anglicans had been free to persecute them in England. I pointed out that 150 odd years later, when the country was actually founded, the founders had witnessed many of the problems that come from an established Church, and sought, instead, to found a secular state. And back and forth it went.

Relative A's spouse, Relative B, then launched into the evils of health care reform, claiming that the new law was nothing more than a giveaway to private insurance companies. I tried to point out that many on the left agree to a certain extent, and would much preferred to have seen a robust public option or, better yet, a system of universal health care, but that these were given away by a (somewhat naive) President in an attempt to secure some votes from the other side. (I reminded Relative B that when Hillary tried to talk about universal health care in the 90s, the GOP totally derided her as a "socialist." I also mentioned that it wasn't like the GOP was offering anything realistic by way of an alternative.)

Then the conversation turned to France's banning of burqas, and how this country "needed" to do the same. Why? Because Relative A really "resents it whenever (she has) to encounter a Muslim woman whose face (she) cannot see." I pointed out that we either have freedom of religion or we don't.

Finally, Relative B launched into a tirade about how "Global Warming" is a "crock of shit." This from a man who is employed in a highly skilled, science-based technical industry. And back and forth the discussion proceeded, becoming more and more heated until, wisely Relative C jumped in to suggest that we needed a new conversation topic.

Mind you, if I'd not had a few drinks, I probably would have managed to avoid the entire conversation rather than allowing myself to get drawn into it. But I was left with a very disconcerting thought: if one cannot even have a rational discussion with a close family member, if one cannot agree with such family member even on a set of basic, underlying facts pertinent to the discussion at hand, what possible hope do we, as a country, ever have of having any kind of constructive discussion on issues of national importance? Other than avoiding the discussion -- which, while an attractive option, is hardly a solution -- how does one begin to engage in rational conversation with folks, like these relatives, who are so driven by raw emotionalism?

I found it all rather depressing.