Political party arguments need larger framework

Damon Weaver is an energetic, charismatic 10-year-old journalist from Florida who has interviewed many high profile people including Joe Biden, Oprah Winfrey, Dwayne Wade and others. He was recently interviewed on Larry King Live. Each time he is interviewed, he mentions his ultimate goal: to interview President Barack Obama.

As I listened to Weaver’s interview with Larry King, and his intent to interview the president, I reflected on how the 2008 presidential election affected the way I see the political landscape.

Like many, this election was the first time I dug deep into differing political platforms. As I considered my views, and why I have those views, I began thinking more critically.

I asked questions I’ve never asked before, like, “Is there one political platform that works best during all times, or do some platforms work better during different times than others?”

I questioned whether two competing views could hold equal validity.

I wondered, “What makes a Democrat, what makes a Republican?” If I agree with Democrats on many things, but disagree on abortion and same sex marriage, does that mean I’m resigned to voting along Republican Party lines?

The exercise was valuable. I changed the way I think and talk about political issues.

Many political conversations turn heated when each party feels compelled to “win” for fear of appearing bested in the war of words. When the debate intensifies, people often begin defending views they wouldn’t otherwise defend.

This type of debate is a frequent occurrence in all spheres of society. It happens in private conversations, in the press between pundits or opposing politicians, and I’ve seen it at The Arbiter among opinion writers.

So much information and understanding will be gained if people will realize other views can be valid without invalidating their own.

Researching the validity of other views has produced important personal results. In some cases, I’ve changed my mind about the subject after seeing the validity of the opposing argument. In other cases, I’ve become more convinced of my current views and am better able to defend them.

On the other hand, failure to conduct open-minded research only creates proficiency in regurgitating others’ opinions. As a result, they forever fail to know why they hold the views they do.

I am excited to see the Obama presidency unfold. I disagree with many of his policies and methods for job creation, economic stimulus and so on. But as I thought about our differences, I considered that while I have my opinions for good government, my opinions might not be what are needed in this country, in this economy, at this time.

We all stand to benefit by acknowledging the intelligence of those who disagree with us and say a little more often, “I see what you’re saying. I disagree with you, but I see what you’re saying."

DANNY EDVALSON
Arbiter Journalist

Related Posts:

1. The Boise Tea Party
2. The new face of the Republican Party
3. Think Before You Speak
4. Political ads dance around the issues
5. Throw a political party (without the mascots)