'Your friend on the other side'
My reflections on hopeful, helpful words for our politically divided times.
A first this week: I listened “live” to oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.
En route to my office, the car radio on, I flipped across a few stations before landing on Chicago’s National Public Radio affiliate, WBEZ. Justices were peppering Solicitor General D. John Sauer with questions on the Trump administration’s position that “there is no such thing as birthright citizenship,” as Nina Totenberg put it.
Plenty of brilliant jurisprudent inquiry in the roughly 30 minutes that I listened, but the words that resonated with me were from Justice Neil Gorsuch, and they transcend the legal arena:
“Your friend on the other side...”
Gorsuch was referring to an attorney representing the other side of the litigation. Certainly, he wasn’t being literal. Although it’s possible Sauer’s counterpart is a friend, Gorsuch was invoking a genteel phrase to set a tone of mutual respect. (We have Chief Justice John Roberts to thank for this—check out this 2014 ABA Journal article.)
To compete, to differ in one’s views does not have to mean we are “at odds” with another.
After all, it’s common practice for people to be highly competitive with one another, without resorting to vilification or demonization. How often do we experience firsthand or observe intense competition on some playing field, in some sphere of life, and when that competition is over, those who were all but at each other’s throats are now exchanging high-fives or even embracing?
Having “friends on the other side” isn’t just a euphemism or a quaint, outdated notion. It’s a reality for just about everybody. I hedge with “just about,” because I realize some surely have “written off” or become estranged from people who hold a differing view on which candidate and which political party represents the best path for our country.
Having been a political independent for most of my life, voting on both sides of the aisle and pretty centrist on balance, I have long found President Trump deplorable on numerous fronts. And I am profoundly disappointed in and distressed by so many of his reckless and self-serving actions since he returned to the Oval Office, as well as the feckless enabling by elected Republicans and the feeble response, generally, by elected Democrats.
At the same time, I have friends and relatives who have voted for Trump. They did so for any variety of reasons; for some, it was a slam-dunk decision while for others, it was a close call.
I haven’t polled anyone personally about this, but some might have deep regret about returning Trump to office; others may be perfectly at peace. Either way, they’re still my friends and they’re still my relatives.
I refuse to fall under the influence of the relatively small proportion of society who preach a gospel of incivility, nastiness and demonization. Instead, in my own imperfect way, I will aim for the hopeful, helpful path: to regard those in my life who view things differently not as opponents or enemies, but as friends on the other side.
How about you?
The competitive athletic opponents is not the appropriate metaphor. Why? Because the athletes still share the same “world” view, whereas todays political adversaries do not. Whether you play for the 49ers or the Chiefs your world view is the same: the field is 100 yards long. The goal is to get the ball into the other guy’s end zone. You can do this by passing or running the ball. There are other niceties but the bottom line is all adversaries agree to the rules of the game: their “world view is the same. They agree to the “game.” They “treasure” and value the “game”. They do not intend to tear up the field or destroy the NFL. That is clearly not so in present day American politics where one side believes in virtual open borders, and the other not; where one side thinks there are 72 genders and the other the long held teaching of two; where one side believes men can give birth; where on side believes DEI stands for “Didnot Earn It” and the other side thinks it is foundational for societal fairness and progress; where one side thinks western civilization is the root of white supremacy and evil and the other thinks western civilization is the height of human endeavor and accomplishment; where one side sees Israel as a Zionist oppressor and the other sees Israel as an exemplar of western democratic ideals; where one side sees skin color as foundational to virtually all human endeavor and identity; the other totally discounts skin color as even relevant; where one side sees the US Constitution as the greatest political document in recorded history, creating the greatest Republic in history, the other sees an old piece of parchment whose words were composed by wealthy slave owning land owners whose major interest was the preservation of slavery. I could go on but I am sure you get the message.
I am older than you and lived thru the Civil Rights and Viet-Nam era: the issue was largely those on the “outs”, wanted “in”, as promised by our foundational document. Despite the civil unrest, they wanted a piece of the American myth, the American dream, a piece of the action so to speak. They were largely not interested in destroying the game board or burning down the house (although cities did burn and there were exceptions like the weathermen). Today, it seems that vast members of our “elite” – largely on the left and almost totally affiliated with the Democratic Party - do want to destroy the game board or burn down the house. After all, Mahmoud Khalil – regardless of what one thinks of his immigration dilemma – freely admitted he belonged to a group dedicated to the total destruction of western civilization which rather than resulting in censure seemed to do the reverse.
That then, Matt, is the difference between the two competitive athletic opponents in the arena giving it all they got – in fact knocking the snot out of one another - and at the end, regardless of outcome, embracing. There will be no such embracing in present day American politics or culture. .
I know not really the point, but from the first, I have not been able to stand Gorsuch and have found him an extreme phony. I found Amy Coney Barrett something of an intellectual at her hearing, and have not been disappointed. Does Gorsuch's genteel routine cost him anything? Or give anyone else anything real? It seems easy enough on him to me. Meanwhile, all I see is someone who generally takes bad positions on the Court, and made up reasons for not taking any positions at all during his hearing.