The Nutcase Across The Street
Reflections On American Politics
More Alike Than You Think
I have for years wondered whether my disagreements with others were truly as deep as they seemed. I have, on occasion, been able to continue a debate long enough to realize that I was arguing semantics. It seems that there are many words that mean different things to different people, especially in the realms of politics, philosophy, and religion. This makes things very confusing.
I tend to think of myself as a capitalist. That is, I believe that so long as I’m not hurting anyone, it is nobody’s business but mine (and especially not the government’s) what I do with my own stuff. To me, communism is when the government goes through my bank account, takes whatever they want, and spends it how they choose. In a democracy, the government is made up of our fellow citizens. Would you let them go through your bank account? Would you let me go through your bank account? This is communism.
Imagine my surprise when one of my coworkers mentioned she was a communist. Luckily, I had enough rapport with her that we were able to debate without arguing. After listening a while, I realized she wasn’t talking about the same thing. While I speak in the language of state policy and economic systems, she speaks in the language of cultural values and attitudes. To me, capitalism is about freedom, independence, and individuality. To her, capitalism is about materialism, selfishness, greed, mindless competition, division, and callousness. To me, communism is tyranny and theft. To her, it is when people respect and care for each other. It is generosity and unity. In those terms, I’m a communist too. To my relief, she has no plans to overthrow the government.
I suspect that if we actually took the time to listen to each other’s concerns, we would find we have a lot in common. Liberal, moderate, libertarian, and conservative mean nothing. We are all individuals. Below, I have compiled a list of some other words taken in different ways by different people.
Capitalism: To many people, capitalism is the economic system wherein one is free to buy, sell, save, invest, and otherwise enjoy all one’s assets, free from interference from the government, organized crime, or anybody else. By differences in education, talent, drive, and pure luck, some people may do better than others. Some of the better off may choose to be generous. Some of the better off may choose to be callous. All types are accepted, and no one can decide for another how much to give – or in what form. Even local communes are free to exist in a capitalist society. It is all about freedom. Capitalism is represented by those who made it big starting from scratch, like Steve Jobs and Henry Ford.
To many other people, capitalism is the competitive drive to outdo everybody else at all costs, including fraud, theft, stock market manipulation, slander, libel, intimidation, collusion, destroying the natural world, and compromising safety. The ultimate goal is to make more money. Anyone that doesn’t play along is subjugated. Capitalism is represented by those who sacrificed ethics to serve money, like Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay. Before you debate capitalism, make sure you are debating about the same thing.
Communism: To many people, communism is the economic system wherein every aspect of life is regulated, implicitly or explicitly, by the state. Without the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, one is instead enticed to work by the threat of force. The bureaucracy creates one-size-fits-all standards to treat everyone, not as individuals with different needs and talents, but as expendable automatons to serve the collective. Communism is represented by harsh tyrannies such as North Korea and the Former Soviet Union.
To many other people, communism is the state in which many hunter-gatherer groups live, sharing the common bounties of the band or tribe. Everyone has value, and so everyone is cared for. Knowing that they will be taken care of by the others in times of trouble, every member is more than happy to help the group when they can. Communism is represented by loving families, some churches, and hippie communes. Before you debate communism, make sure you are debating about the same thing.
Fairness: To some people, fairness is when everyone is equally free from government interference, able to succeed or fail afterwards. To other people, fairness is when people are also equally free from prejudicial discrimination, able to succeed or fail on merit. To other people, fairness is when everyone is given the same level of education, able to succeed or fail based on their level of determination. To still others, fairness is only when everyone succeeds or fails equally together. Some people see the lottery as fair, because everyone that participates has an equal chance of winning, even though only one person actually wins. Others think of the lottery as fair because it is voluntary. Others think of it as unfair, because not everyone wins. Others think of the lottery as unfair because the amount won is not proportional to the number of tickets bought by that individual.
Some people think of fair more in terms of making sure those who do wrong are punished. Some people think of fair more in terms of making sure those who do right are rewarded. To them, it is unfair to not be rewarded for doing well. Finally, some think of fair more in terms of making sure those who do wrong are not rewarded and those who do right are not punished. The next time you hear somebody describe a situation as fair or unfair, consider this paragraph.
Born-Again Christian: Some people think of a born-again Christian as one who converts later in life, as opposed to one raised in a Christian household. Other people think of a born-again Christian as a member of a specific sect – usually Charismatic or Pentecostal. Finally, many people speak of “born-again” in the same way the bible does. To become a Christian, one must accept Jesus into their heart, accept that they have been forgiven for their sins, and hence become “spiritually” reborn. To them, a born-again Christian is a redundant term. The next time a candidate for political office is described as a born-again Christian, don’t assume you know what this means. They are not all alike.
Marriage: To many people, a marriage is a special type of loving relationship and partnership between two people. It does not include parent-child relationships, standard friendships, or business partnerships. However, it may be comprised of any two people regardless of sex, and it is possible to be married to more than one person at the same time.
To other people, marriage is an even more special relationship and partnership that is monogamous, permanent (till death), and inherently heterosexual. One partner fills the husband role (male) and the other fills the wife role (female). To those who have experienced romantic love, they know first-hand of its inherently monogamous, permanent, and heterosexual nature. To think of it otherwise is nonsensical and an insult to their deepest feelings.
If you are of the first group, understand that most people are never going to call your relationship by the same name as theirs. Different types of things deserve different names – to avoid confusion. Remember, unless you have experienced romantic, heterosexual love, you won’t be in a position to know of its fundamentally distinct nature.
If you are of the second group, the next time you hear of homosexuality activists pushing for your state to recognize “gay marriage”, understand that they don’t mean it the same way you do. They aren’t trying to undermine the family or make a mockery of your love and institutions; they don’t know any better.
If any debate in this country could use more dialogue and tolerance, it is this one. Holding signs that say, “God hates fags,” is hardly fostering respect and understanding any more than homosexuals that flaunt their sexuality in public. For the record, I support civil unions. I believe that if you aren’t married you should be able to officially designate a partner to handle your finances, share your accounts, file your taxes with, buy insurance with, and visit you in the hospital. Straights should be able to get civil unions too. What you may or may not do or have done in the bedroom is absolutely none of my business – and frankly, I don’t want it to be. Keep it to yourself. Understand, though, that this is not marriage by the definition I grew up with.
Faith: Listening to self-described atheists, one gets the picture that faith is when one stubbornly clings to old, sometimes ridiculous ideas indefinitely when they are contradicted by evidence. Obviously, this is the type of faith we could do with less of. It is synonymous with close-mindedness and delusion. On the other hand, the faithful describe faith as synonymous with trust. No one will deny that trust may sometimes be misplaced, but most will argue that without trust there is nothing. When we drive over a bridge, we put our trust in the skill of the engineers, and the fact that since the bridge held the last time we drove over it, it will most likely do so again. When we deposit money in the bank, we trust that we can retrieve it later. When we buy food at the store, we trust it is not contaminated with botulism. Trust may sometimes be tested by new reports, but in a healthy, trusting relationship, one does not withdraw immediately, but instead weighs the evidence carefully on both sides for a time and waits to see if more reports arise that refute the first report. Those who continually change their minds are unstable and don’t get very far with anything. By this second definition, faith is not opposed to reason, but is complimentary to it.
Remember, the next time you meet people who rigidly stick with their religious beliefs, don’t criticize them for having faith; they may know something you don’t, you may know something they don’t, or possibly both. Remember, the next time you find people that believe in evolutionary theory despite your most eloquent arguments against it, they aren’t going to change their minds overnight. Proper faith in evolutionary theory dictates that one should be slow and careful to examine the totality of the evidence before giving up such a lifelong belief. Remember, the next time you meet lifelong Democrats, pointing out a single ridiculous comment by Nancy Pelosi will not convince them to switch. Remember, the next time you meet lifelong Republicans, pointing out one misstatement by Dick Cheney will not convince them to switch. This is faith. Everyone has faith in something. The next time one is accused of being faithless or faithful, ask what it means.
Liar: A liar is one who spreads lies (false statements). This is the definition used by some claiming President G. W. Bush lied about there being WMDs in Iraq. However, to most, a liar is not one who merely repeats lies, but one who creates lies and so spreads them purposefully. At least some of those calling Bush a liar will admit he didn’t know any better (14). The fact that they willingly admit that Bush might have actually believed what he said while still calling him a liar proves that they are not merely involved in a smear campaign. Clearly, this is a different definition that has caused much confusion and needless animosity.
Racists: To some, racists are not merely those who harbor hate for or prejudicial beliefs about members of various races, but those that also have the power to act on those beliefs. Racism is more about behavior than thoughts. Speaking not of individuals, but of races, American whites are racist, while American Blacks are not – because whites tend to have more power in America however you measure it. So racism is a large-scale, sociological phenomenon, and not something that happens at the personal level between individuals.
Other people make no distinction between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on cultural behaviors. Since there exist practices accepted in some cultures that are hated most everywhere else, this makes most people at least somewhat racist by this definition.
Rights: The word “rights” is used in different ways depending on the context. It can mean guarantees made by the state, such as a right to an attorney and due process. There is another way the word is used also. It can also mean those things that are no one else’s business to regulate (not even the government’s), such as the right to peaceably assemble, the right to bear arms, and the right to free speech. Some call these God-given rights.
Conservatives and liberals conceptualize God-given rights very differently. Liberals recognize that more freedom to some means less to others and they must balance these rights against each other. There are trade-offs. So while they recognize a right of association of the employer to fire anybody for any reason, they also recognize the right of the employee to a job. After weighing the pros and cons, they decide which right to support. Rights, therefore, are anything that would be good for somebody.
Though it may be a surprise to liberals, conservatives are also keenly aware of these trade-offs, but they only label those things as “rights” that survive the cost-benefit analysis. To conservatives, there is no “right” to a job, because the right of association takes precedence. Liberals label first and do the math after. Conservatives do the math first and label after.
To a conservative, a “right” to health care is utter nonsense. Unlike free speech, which only requires that one be allowed to speak without interference and doesn’t require anything of anyone else (It doesn’t even require that others listen), health care requires work on the part of health care providers, and usually somebody has to pay for materials. A “right to health care” is akin to a “right to have slaves” or a “right to violate others’ rights,” which would make all God-given rights meaningless.
It is the conservative conceptualization I grew up with and I thought for years that liberals were literally insane and might need to be locked up before they hurt anyone. It was only in 2010 that I found a liberal blogger who was able to explain all this to me. Liberals need to do a better job of explaining what they mean by the term “rights.” Better yet, use a different term entirely – such as “interests”.
With all these different definitions, it is no wonder we can’t get along. If we stopped for a moment to discuss what we meant, might we discover we actually agree? Even if we don’t agree, having a firmer understanding of the other person’s interests will make it much easier to negotiate a compromise. For a long time, I’ve thought of inviting people I knew one at a time to sit down with me for coffee and explain how they came to believe what they believe. I wanted to understand people better. I wanted to know where they got their information, and what influences they had growing up and developing their beliefs, instincts, and biases. I thought that not only might we get along better, but that I would know better how to present my own ideas so that others would understand them. I also thought that my experiences could inspire and guide others how to undertake similar projects.
I think this is the only way out of our current mess. Our opponents don’t listen to us because we don’t listen to them. Meanwhile, the political class pits us against each other to win elections and continue taking advantage of all of us – and we just blame each other! It’s time to start working together instead.
In my family and workplace, people are very free with political opinions. Since people seem to love to talk about themselves so much, I was surprised when few agreed to talk to me and even fewer had the patience to finish. In the beginning, there were even some misunderstandings over the aims of my project. One woman thought it was a sort of test to see how informed she was on current affairs. I scaled back my project somewhat, streamlining it to include a simple conversation of one, single issue and some follow-up questions on how they first became exposed to some of the underlying, component concepts. I wanted to explore not only the avenues through which the surface beliefs spread (such as accusations of racism), but how people come to deem one group as a reliable source of information, and another the enemy. I wanted to understand differences I had observed in how evidence is approached and the fundamental axiomatic assumptions upon which all other thinking is based. Still, I was frustrated.
One man talked in circles with me. Every time I thought progress was made explaining how my natural aversion to open homosexuality was in no way “pre-judging” those who identify themselves as homosexuals of having any other stereotypical characteristics, he continued to state that my position was prejudiced. I asked what it was that made it sound that way, but he would not identify anything.
One woman I found could be convinced of anything. She only repeats what she hears. She is a Republican because her husband is, but the social programs she supports put her to the economic left of some Democrats. By the end of our session, I had easily convinced her that price controls constituted an invasion of privacy, caused economic harm, and were related to communistic thinking. I never was able to find out where she gets a lot of her ideas.
Finally, I started a blog at TheUnderstandingProject.com where I explained to the best of my ability what the different political schools of thought were. Still, I had more questions than answers. I visited other blogs I could find and asked questions and pointed things out. I’ve learned a lot, but I’m unsure if any have learned from me. Still, if it works for you, I encourage you to try reaching out and asking questions. Visit my blog and share your stories. Start your own blog. Most of all, lend this book to someone you know – or buy one as a Christmas present (I make more money the latter way – hint, hint).
I tend to think of myself as a capitalist. That is, I believe that so long as I’m not hurting anyone, it is nobody’s business but mine (and especially not the government’s) what I do with my own stuff. To me, communism is when the government goes through my bank account, takes whatever they want, and spends it how they choose. In a democracy, the government is made up of our fellow citizens. Would you let them go through your bank account? Would you let me go through your bank account? This is communism.
Imagine my surprise when one of my coworkers mentioned she was a communist. Luckily, I had enough rapport with her that we were able to debate without arguing. After listening a while, I realized she wasn’t talking about the same thing. While I speak in the language of state policy and economic systems, she speaks in the language of cultural values and attitudes. To me, capitalism is about freedom, independence, and individuality. To her, capitalism is about materialism, selfishness, greed, mindless competition, division, and callousness. To me, communism is tyranny and theft. To her, it is when people respect and care for each other. It is generosity and unity. In those terms, I’m a communist too. To my relief, she has no plans to overthrow the government.
I suspect that if we actually took the time to listen to each other’s concerns, we would find we have a lot in common. Liberal, moderate, libertarian, and conservative mean nothing. We are all individuals. Below, I have compiled a list of some other words taken in different ways by different people.
Capitalism: To many people, capitalism is the economic system wherein one is free to buy, sell, save, invest, and otherwise enjoy all one’s assets, free from interference from the government, organized crime, or anybody else. By differences in education, talent, drive, and pure luck, some people may do better than others. Some of the better off may choose to be generous. Some of the better off may choose to be callous. All types are accepted, and no one can decide for another how much to give – or in what form. Even local communes are free to exist in a capitalist society. It is all about freedom. Capitalism is represented by those who made it big starting from scratch, like Steve Jobs and Henry Ford.
To many other people, capitalism is the competitive drive to outdo everybody else at all costs, including fraud, theft, stock market manipulation, slander, libel, intimidation, collusion, destroying the natural world, and compromising safety. The ultimate goal is to make more money. Anyone that doesn’t play along is subjugated. Capitalism is represented by those who sacrificed ethics to serve money, like Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay. Before you debate capitalism, make sure you are debating about the same thing.
Communism: To many people, communism is the economic system wherein every aspect of life is regulated, implicitly or explicitly, by the state. Without the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, one is instead enticed to work by the threat of force. The bureaucracy creates one-size-fits-all standards to treat everyone, not as individuals with different needs and talents, but as expendable automatons to serve the collective. Communism is represented by harsh tyrannies such as North Korea and the Former Soviet Union.
To many other people, communism is the state in which many hunter-gatherer groups live, sharing the common bounties of the band or tribe. Everyone has value, and so everyone is cared for. Knowing that they will be taken care of by the others in times of trouble, every member is more than happy to help the group when they can. Communism is represented by loving families, some churches, and hippie communes. Before you debate communism, make sure you are debating about the same thing.
Fairness: To some people, fairness is when everyone is equally free from government interference, able to succeed or fail afterwards. To other people, fairness is when people are also equally free from prejudicial discrimination, able to succeed or fail on merit. To other people, fairness is when everyone is given the same level of education, able to succeed or fail based on their level of determination. To still others, fairness is only when everyone succeeds or fails equally together. Some people see the lottery as fair, because everyone that participates has an equal chance of winning, even though only one person actually wins. Others think of the lottery as fair because it is voluntary. Others think of it as unfair, because not everyone wins. Others think of the lottery as unfair because the amount won is not proportional to the number of tickets bought by that individual.
Some people think of fair more in terms of making sure those who do wrong are punished. Some people think of fair more in terms of making sure those who do right are rewarded. To them, it is unfair to not be rewarded for doing well. Finally, some think of fair more in terms of making sure those who do wrong are not rewarded and those who do right are not punished. The next time you hear somebody describe a situation as fair or unfair, consider this paragraph.
Born-Again Christian: Some people think of a born-again Christian as one who converts later in life, as opposed to one raised in a Christian household. Other people think of a born-again Christian as a member of a specific sect – usually Charismatic or Pentecostal. Finally, many people speak of “born-again” in the same way the bible does. To become a Christian, one must accept Jesus into their heart, accept that they have been forgiven for their sins, and hence become “spiritually” reborn. To them, a born-again Christian is a redundant term. The next time a candidate for political office is described as a born-again Christian, don’t assume you know what this means. They are not all alike.
Marriage: To many people, a marriage is a special type of loving relationship and partnership between two people. It does not include parent-child relationships, standard friendships, or business partnerships. However, it may be comprised of any two people regardless of sex, and it is possible to be married to more than one person at the same time.
To other people, marriage is an even more special relationship and partnership that is monogamous, permanent (till death), and inherently heterosexual. One partner fills the husband role (male) and the other fills the wife role (female). To those who have experienced romantic love, they know first-hand of its inherently monogamous, permanent, and heterosexual nature. To think of it otherwise is nonsensical and an insult to their deepest feelings.
If you are of the first group, understand that most people are never going to call your relationship by the same name as theirs. Different types of things deserve different names – to avoid confusion. Remember, unless you have experienced romantic, heterosexual love, you won’t be in a position to know of its fundamentally distinct nature.
If you are of the second group, the next time you hear of homosexuality activists pushing for your state to recognize “gay marriage”, understand that they don’t mean it the same way you do. They aren’t trying to undermine the family or make a mockery of your love and institutions; they don’t know any better.
If any debate in this country could use more dialogue and tolerance, it is this one. Holding signs that say, “God hates fags,” is hardly fostering respect and understanding any more than homosexuals that flaunt their sexuality in public. For the record, I support civil unions. I believe that if you aren’t married you should be able to officially designate a partner to handle your finances, share your accounts, file your taxes with, buy insurance with, and visit you in the hospital. Straights should be able to get civil unions too. What you may or may not do or have done in the bedroom is absolutely none of my business – and frankly, I don’t want it to be. Keep it to yourself. Understand, though, that this is not marriage by the definition I grew up with.
Faith: Listening to self-described atheists, one gets the picture that faith is when one stubbornly clings to old, sometimes ridiculous ideas indefinitely when they are contradicted by evidence. Obviously, this is the type of faith we could do with less of. It is synonymous with close-mindedness and delusion. On the other hand, the faithful describe faith as synonymous with trust. No one will deny that trust may sometimes be misplaced, but most will argue that without trust there is nothing. When we drive over a bridge, we put our trust in the skill of the engineers, and the fact that since the bridge held the last time we drove over it, it will most likely do so again. When we deposit money in the bank, we trust that we can retrieve it later. When we buy food at the store, we trust it is not contaminated with botulism. Trust may sometimes be tested by new reports, but in a healthy, trusting relationship, one does not withdraw immediately, but instead weighs the evidence carefully on both sides for a time and waits to see if more reports arise that refute the first report. Those who continually change their minds are unstable and don’t get very far with anything. By this second definition, faith is not opposed to reason, but is complimentary to it.
Remember, the next time you meet people who rigidly stick with their religious beliefs, don’t criticize them for having faith; they may know something you don’t, you may know something they don’t, or possibly both. Remember, the next time you find people that believe in evolutionary theory despite your most eloquent arguments against it, they aren’t going to change their minds overnight. Proper faith in evolutionary theory dictates that one should be slow and careful to examine the totality of the evidence before giving up such a lifelong belief. Remember, the next time you meet lifelong Democrats, pointing out a single ridiculous comment by Nancy Pelosi will not convince them to switch. Remember, the next time you meet lifelong Republicans, pointing out one misstatement by Dick Cheney will not convince them to switch. This is faith. Everyone has faith in something. The next time one is accused of being faithless or faithful, ask what it means.
Liar: A liar is one who spreads lies (false statements). This is the definition used by some claiming President G. W. Bush lied about there being WMDs in Iraq. However, to most, a liar is not one who merely repeats lies, but one who creates lies and so spreads them purposefully. At least some of those calling Bush a liar will admit he didn’t know any better (14). The fact that they willingly admit that Bush might have actually believed what he said while still calling him a liar proves that they are not merely involved in a smear campaign. Clearly, this is a different definition that has caused much confusion and needless animosity.
Racists: To some, racists are not merely those who harbor hate for or prejudicial beliefs about members of various races, but those that also have the power to act on those beliefs. Racism is more about behavior than thoughts. Speaking not of individuals, but of races, American whites are racist, while American Blacks are not – because whites tend to have more power in America however you measure it. So racism is a large-scale, sociological phenomenon, and not something that happens at the personal level between individuals.
Other people make no distinction between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on cultural behaviors. Since there exist practices accepted in some cultures that are hated most everywhere else, this makes most people at least somewhat racist by this definition.
Rights: The word “rights” is used in different ways depending on the context. It can mean guarantees made by the state, such as a right to an attorney and due process. There is another way the word is used also. It can also mean those things that are no one else’s business to regulate (not even the government’s), such as the right to peaceably assemble, the right to bear arms, and the right to free speech. Some call these God-given rights.
Conservatives and liberals conceptualize God-given rights very differently. Liberals recognize that more freedom to some means less to others and they must balance these rights against each other. There are trade-offs. So while they recognize a right of association of the employer to fire anybody for any reason, they also recognize the right of the employee to a job. After weighing the pros and cons, they decide which right to support. Rights, therefore, are anything that would be good for somebody.
Though it may be a surprise to liberals, conservatives are also keenly aware of these trade-offs, but they only label those things as “rights” that survive the cost-benefit analysis. To conservatives, there is no “right” to a job, because the right of association takes precedence. Liberals label first and do the math after. Conservatives do the math first and label after.
To a conservative, a “right” to health care is utter nonsense. Unlike free speech, which only requires that one be allowed to speak without interference and doesn’t require anything of anyone else (It doesn’t even require that others listen), health care requires work on the part of health care providers, and usually somebody has to pay for materials. A “right to health care” is akin to a “right to have slaves” or a “right to violate others’ rights,” which would make all God-given rights meaningless.
It is the conservative conceptualization I grew up with and I thought for years that liberals were literally insane and might need to be locked up before they hurt anyone. It was only in 2010 that I found a liberal blogger who was able to explain all this to me. Liberals need to do a better job of explaining what they mean by the term “rights.” Better yet, use a different term entirely – such as “interests”.
With all these different definitions, it is no wonder we can’t get along. If we stopped for a moment to discuss what we meant, might we discover we actually agree? Even if we don’t agree, having a firmer understanding of the other person’s interests will make it much easier to negotiate a compromise. For a long time, I’ve thought of inviting people I knew one at a time to sit down with me for coffee and explain how they came to believe what they believe. I wanted to understand people better. I wanted to know where they got their information, and what influences they had growing up and developing their beliefs, instincts, and biases. I thought that not only might we get along better, but that I would know better how to present my own ideas so that others would understand them. I also thought that my experiences could inspire and guide others how to undertake similar projects.
I think this is the only way out of our current mess. Our opponents don’t listen to us because we don’t listen to them. Meanwhile, the political class pits us against each other to win elections and continue taking advantage of all of us – and we just blame each other! It’s time to start working together instead.
In my family and workplace, people are very free with political opinions. Since people seem to love to talk about themselves so much, I was surprised when few agreed to talk to me and even fewer had the patience to finish. In the beginning, there were even some misunderstandings over the aims of my project. One woman thought it was a sort of test to see how informed she was on current affairs. I scaled back my project somewhat, streamlining it to include a simple conversation of one, single issue and some follow-up questions on how they first became exposed to some of the underlying, component concepts. I wanted to explore not only the avenues through which the surface beliefs spread (such as accusations of racism), but how people come to deem one group as a reliable source of information, and another the enemy. I wanted to understand differences I had observed in how evidence is approached and the fundamental axiomatic assumptions upon which all other thinking is based. Still, I was frustrated.
One man talked in circles with me. Every time I thought progress was made explaining how my natural aversion to open homosexuality was in no way “pre-judging” those who identify themselves as homosexuals of having any other stereotypical characteristics, he continued to state that my position was prejudiced. I asked what it was that made it sound that way, but he would not identify anything.
One woman I found could be convinced of anything. She only repeats what she hears. She is a Republican because her husband is, but the social programs she supports put her to the economic left of some Democrats. By the end of our session, I had easily convinced her that price controls constituted an invasion of privacy, caused economic harm, and were related to communistic thinking. I never was able to find out where she gets a lot of her ideas.
Finally, I started a blog at TheUnderstandingProject.com where I explained to the best of my ability what the different political schools of thought were. Still, I had more questions than answers. I visited other blogs I could find and asked questions and pointed things out. I’ve learned a lot, but I’m unsure if any have learned from me. Still, if it works for you, I encourage you to try reaching out and asking questions. Visit my blog and share your stories. Start your own blog. Most of all, lend this book to someone you know – or buy one as a Christmas present (I make more money the latter way – hint, hint).