The Politics of Dialogue

"Political Dialogue"

Anderzej Dudzinski

In the wake of Tuesday's election, the initial signs of what's coming next in Washington are mixed and uncertain.  The raise a couple of important questions.  Will the liberals headed to or headed back to D.C. learn a modicum of moderation and not over-interpret their "mandate," which doesn't seem to be a mandate to be liberal fundamentalists?  Will esp. the tea party radicals learn the true art of politics, namely compromise for the sake of the common good?  There are some sound bites coming out of House Republicans that suggest that "seeking common ground" is now possible.  There are others that seem to be saying, "We won, too, which means our mandate to resist compromise in all forms has been reaffirmed by our constituents."

In religious circles, there is n important spiritual discipline called "dialogue."  Dialogue is an exercise in listening before speaking that seeks deeper understanding of the dialogue partner's faith.  It is a spiritual exercise in peacemaking.  Dialogue requires humility and respect.  It also requires a critical mind and heart, which listen critically to one's own words as well the words of the partner.  Dialogue is the true opposite of debate.  Dialogue is thus not a search for common ground per se.  It is only a search for deeper understanding that balances self-interest with other-interest where debate is a clash of two opposing self-interests.  In debate, one listens to discover the weaknesses of one's opponent.  In dialogue, one listens to discover oneself in the spirituality of another.  In dialogue, we are always the student first and maybe a modest teacher later—maybe.  Dialogue is not give and take; it is give and receive.

That being said, the crucial question for the Congress of the United States from this day forward is whether or not it can discover a politics of dialogue.  Can it, at least, move slightly in that direction?  Can esp. the tea party fundamentalists discover the essential dialogical truths of politics that the common good trumps ideological purity and that compromise is a good thing when practiced with integrity and a concern for that common good?  Those are dialogical values.  They are also good politics.  Good politics requires some degree of humility and a modicum of willingness to listen, really seriously listen to the way one's political opponent loves America and wants to serve the nation.  Modest liberals, moderates, and conservatives come equipped with dialogical attitudes—or, at least, there is a decent chance they come so equipped.  Fundamentalists of all stripes do not.  In the Congress today, the scale is tipped heavily toward right-wing fundamentalists who worship at the feet of ideological purity.  In their purity, they show open disdain for the practice of good politics and and their opponents.  The gridlock in Washington will be broken only to the extent that these fundamentalists learn at least a little of the spiritual discipline of dialogue.  Amen.