Talking politics over a beer

I received a text, “Thirsty? We need to have a beer soon.” I replied, “I can’t tonight, I have an Optimist Club Meeting. How about next week.” His response, “We all need a little optimism, pick a day and time.” My retort was, “Monday, 6:30 PM, at a local watering hole.” The day and time rolled around and I met my neighbor for a beer. Dick and I served on our HOA Board together. He lives one street away in a similar looking reproduction of a Victorian house. His house is three shades pink, mine three shades of purple. We live in a unique colorful neighborhood. Over the years our conversations have been colorful as well.

At Christmas he invites me to his eggnog party. On Halloween I invite him to my costume party. I once had a HO train layout that I built and then grew tired of so I asked him if his son would want it. Dick and his son were soon over carrying out the 4×8 board of tracks out of my basement and over to his house. He grew up a Republican and became a Democrat. I was just the opposite. To say our conversations are vibrant is an understatement, yet over the years we have come to respect that we have different world views yet continue to battle our differences and philosophies over a pint of beer much like our Founders did.

Our recent tit-for-tat focused on words that the Founders debated in our founding documents and how they apply to today. Until recently, Dick worked in environmental remediation, so his understanding of the word “regulation” is based on his expertise on compliance, rules, and official requirements. As a businessman and a student of history my understanding of the word “regulation” is based on the root word “regular” from the colonial period as it was meant as “conforming to a rule or an established discipline.” This is important to understand since the phrase in the Constitution, “a well-regulated militia” includes the word “regulated” which was understood as well-ordered, or functioning as it should, or properly disciplined, not controlled by the heavy hand of government as is today’s understanding.

Dick questioned the necessity of relying on Samuel Johnson’s “A Dictionary of the English Language” a widely used reference during the Founding Era, which was accessible at the time the Constitution was drafted. My understanding is that the educated people at the time used this and other sources during that period leading up to the American Founding to understand the meaning of words. These included Giles Jacob’s “A New Law Dictionary” for legal meanings and William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Nathan Bailey’s “Universal Etymological English Dictionary.” Thomas Dyche and William Pardon’s dictionary, in addition to many other sources such as books and pamphlets of the time.

Our healthy debate on words, ideas, and the Founding was enjoyable since we both took the time to listen to one another, responding to the others’ point of view backed by stories, examples, and personal experiences that allowed our differences to be understood. There was some agreement on some things and disagreement on others, yet we each made our points. This was not a “more perfect” discussion, yet like our Founders, we hashed out our differences and went away friends, not hating each other because we have differences of opinion. This was the Founders hope in building a “more perfect union,” discussing our differences through talking and listening, not from authority and force.

We both could have benefited from using techniques to encourage further inquiry, such as asking, “why do you think that” or “can you share a source for your idea.” We could then offer our own sources, and after reviewing them together, we could discuss our findings. This would tone down some of our trying to top one another. Also, restating a comment and saying, “Did I hear what you said correctly” and repeat what you heard to help to clarify the other’s position.

Imagine if more people had the discipline to use their minds and their self-regulation to use words in a way that were non-incendiary. Imagine not using one’s smart phone during a conversation to prove a point but using thought, logic, and reason to make a moral argument. Today’s rhetoric is no different than our Founders’ time except a bit speedier with technology. The Colonial discussions were robust and often heated. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were friends and then became enemies until their waning years, then picked up their pens and wrote letters to make amends remembering what brought them together. Imagine doing that again.

Just as every grain of sand on a beach is unique, so are people’s views on significant matters, full of both differences and shared perspectives. The changing tide constantly adds new grains and removes others, refreshing the shoreline much like our evolving opinions and beliefs. As Americans, we need to wash away the nastiness we heap on each other and use our passionate and feisty discussions to find common ground. However, when we vehemently disagree, we should have the maturity to walk away from our differences without using violence or revenge.

I would agree with Dick. In a world full of anger and angry discord, we all need a little more discussion, a little more listening, and a little more optimism.