COMMUNICATION DOESN’T ALWAYS SOLVE PROBLEMS

A recent Facebook post

Well - sitting in a room together having civil, unemotional conversations sounds good, but can easily end up like this.

This week Bill Maher and Rob Reiner had a disagreement about how the right and left can have productive conversations. Reiner thinks that prior to talking, facts should be established. Maher’s opinion is to just start talking. Reiner is wrong because the two sides will inevitably argue about whose facts are real.

I was reminded of another late-night conversation many years ago, between Johnny Carson and Troy Donahue.

Troy who?

I was half asleep when Johnny Carson introduced Donahue, a former heartthrob who had been out of the public eye for many years. Donahue was something of an Adonis, tall, blonde and about as handsome as one could be. When he emerged on Carson’s show, there was an audible gasp from the audience. Donahue had a radical new image. He was now a hippie, complete with tattered genes, headband, beard, beads and long hair.

He also had a new philosophy that went something like this: “If we could just sit down and talk with each other, and learn our brother’s point of view, then we could solve our problems and live in peace. Red, white, yellow, black or (inevitably) purple, we can all learn to get along.”

The audience applauded these noble sentiments. I sighed and turned off the TV.

Cliché City.

It sounds good but has as many holes as Donahue’s genes. Understanding the other’s point of view does not guarantee we’ll sympathize with it. On the contrary, when we learn that the other person really believes all that nonsense, then understanding only serves to increase our mutual contempt. If you sat down with your “brother” Hitler, and he told you that the Germans were a master race, and they intended to systematically torture and exterminate six million Jews, would you think that Adolf was a good guy because you now understood his point of view?

Dialoguing problems doesn’t always work because individuals, groups, societies and cultures operate on different psychological wavelengths. If our minds are not in tune, then talking will not lead to understanding but to misunderstanding.

In the late eighties, speaking with Soviet journalists, columnist William Safire concluded, “We do not even live on the same planet…Our data bases did not even touch.” Our premises about life are miles apart. As a result, Safire wrote, mutual understanding widens the gulf between us. The Secretary of Defense at the time, Caspar Weinberger, urged wariness with the Soviets. “We must take care not to assume that other nations think and act as we do.”

Exactly.

Donald Trump made a similar mistake when he attempted to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. He thought he could intimidate Zelenski, cozy up to Putin and go on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump learned that making assumptions about the other person’s attitudes, culture, goals, personality and history do not necessarily jibe with his. When negotiating with a foreign adversary, the President should first consult the foremost expert on the history of the country and the psychology of the person across the table. Bluster and intimidation might work in a business deal, but not likely with a conscienceless mass murder like Putin.

Psychologist, M. Scott Peck wrote that people have, “vastly different views as to the nature of reality, yet each one believes his or her own view to be…correct.” He cites a study that found the basic assumptions of the Soviets and Americans were worlds apart, yet neither side was aware of the gap. Each thought the other was “either crazy or deliberately evil.”

If our feelings about history, justice, freedom, economics, morality, family, work, religion, history and government come from widely divergent mind-sets and experiences, then “mutual understanding” will only tend to widen the gulf between us.

EXAMPLES

• Relations with the American Indians of the last century were sometimes based on misunderstanding. A native American who was not present at a treaty signing was not bound by it. The chiefs signed treaties only for themselves, not for the tribe. Whites, of course, had a completely different view.

• When Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at Yalta as World War II wound down, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would allow free elections in Eastern Europe if given hegemony over the territory. Stalin agreed but had no intention of doing so. Roosevelt went ahead with it. After all, Stalin gave his word.

Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, reported on studies that show, “from earliest ages through adulthood, boys and girls created different worlds which men and women go on living in…We try to talk to each other honestly, but it seems at times that we are speaking different languages.”

During his presidency, Bill Clinton called for a national dialogue on race. “I want to lead the American people in a great and unprecedented conversation about race…We can build the first multiracial civilization in history, but only if we have a certain largeness of spirit where we respect our honest differences...” However, understanding differences does not necessarily lead to respect. Racial problems have been on the table since the Brown decision in 1954, seventy years ago. We are still fighting that war.

When O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman, African Americans cheered joyously in the streets while whites sat in stunned silence. The psychological, cultural and historical abyss between races was starkly apparent.

Four nights ago, Jimmy Kimmel returned from his four-day suspension for an obvious lie when he claimed, “the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” Kimmel didn’t apologize. Political commentator, Mark Halperin, wrote, late night applause for Jimmy Kimmel’s teary non-apology proves the Left really is living in an alternate universe.

Utopians like Troy Donahue oversimplify. People and nations are motivated by a multiplicity of powerful and deeply held underpinnings: imprinting, upbringing, education levels, values, political realities, traditions, religions and tribal identities. To presuppose like-mindedness and easy solutions through rap sessions is to be almost criminally naïve. Reiner is entrenched deeply on the left, Maher is – dare I say – transitioning rightward over the middle. Maybe in a year or two he’ll have a coming out party.

SUBSTACK SIDEBAR

Two months ago, I connected with a guy- call him Mel - with whom I spent nine summers in Camp Birchwood. We both thoroughly enjoyed the conversations and reminiscences about our common experience. There is only one other person – my sister – with whom I can talk to about a time and place that looms large in my memory and my life. However – when he started reading my Substack essays, he grew silent, then disappeared. I suspect he disagreed with my political opinions. But so what? Who cares? I loved talking about camp and our childhoods and all the people we knew. A few days ago, he suddenly appeared and forwarded a sixteen-paragraph essay written by someone else. Here are the opening words.

For a long time, I labored under the illusion that Republicans – once confronted with the true scope of Trump’s authoritarian ambitions and the depth of his betrayal – would come to their senses. I imagined a reckoning. I expected disillusionment. What I failed to grasp was that while I became disillusioned, they did not.

My mistake stemmed from a misplaced faith in rationality. I underestimated the degree to which the MAGA movement had metastasized into something more than politics: a cult, a brand, an identity.

It goes on and on.

This is a powerful example of differing mind-sets unable to understand each other. Mel’s friend is absolutely convinced his assessment of the right is correct. He’s thought about it, read about it, analyzed it, and discussed it with Mel and other like-minded people. He keeps up on the news; he can see the obvious truth. Any rational person “confronted with the facts could see it.” But MAGA people are not rational. They are blind. Unable to recognize an obvious truth.

There is no way that Mel and I (and his friend) are going to agree on much. I could counter every one of his arguments, but what would be the point? He actually believes that once people on the right hear the indisputable truth of his assertions, a light bulb would go one in their heads, and all would be clear. It doesn’t work that way. He can’t imagine that faced with the truth, MAGA people would come to their senses.

I used to feel the same way the other side but long gave up that misconception.

Problems need to be dealt with – from marital spats to international crises. Talking with the promise of compromise and solution is always an option, but we must be realistic: communication doesn’t always solve problems.