The Tartan

By Brett Czarniak

I love my mom. Believe me when I say that, despite our differences, there is nothing in this world that could change that. That’s not to say, however, that we don’t have a huge point of difference. One really huge difference.

Like many Americans, I’m sure, the rhinoceros in the room, the sole strain on the relationship that my mom and I have, is the rigidity of our polarized political opinions. To be honest, it’s completely reflective of the current social fabric of the American political landscape: an inability to have respectful discourse. Each of us is bound to our opinions and unfortunately, we have both felt the need to be passionate and outspoken when, somewhere in the back of our minds, we both know no one is pulling the rope to their side. It’s all futile word vomit.

There became two avenues about a few years ago when the divergence (again in correspondence with heightened general polarization) of our views grew bigger and bigger, which were simply: (1) Make no conversation altogether out of fear that the conversation will end in bitterness or grudges or people being made quite upset. (2) Have the conversation and end up there. It’s not always that extreme, but it never ends positively. This used to, and still does, bog me down quite a lot. It felt like a weight trailing me around everywhere. Does this not make you sad? Isn’t this a sad situation?

A dear friend of mine and I had talked into an early morning this past summer about how, as a 2008 Yale psychology study demonstrated, one of the most significant signs of intelligence is open-mindedness to both new experiences — and most importantly, new ideas. The friend in question had said that, surprisingly contrary to trends of liberalization on college campuses, she had found herself to be much more moderate when it came to key political issues. She found herself making concessions.

This friend was the absolute last person I expected to say this. She had been staunchly liberal (perhaps even more leftist at times in the past), spearheaded our high school’s feminist club, had always been outspoken and very well read on key issues in government, and even once referred to herself as socialist. Was this really the person who was telling me that they now felt themselves politically independent and were re- registering as such?

Then she said something that really should go without saying, but that I needed to hear: “Being open-minded to open-mindedness is the catalyst for everything.” In retrospect, it’s honestly more comical than novel, but at the time, this felt like a reckoning. I felt enlightened at that moment. This was coming off a fight I had with my mom that warranted some time out of the house, too. I went home that night and walked by my mom watching Fox News and asked myself, “Do I really want to keep doing this?” If we both convince ourselves of one ultimate set of truths, the exercise in non-listening and belittling will continue in perpetuity. I simply didn’t want it to be like that anymore. I was getting tired of temporary fallouts and door slamming, games of he-said she-said, and overall unhealthy, non- productive encounters.

I asked myself: Where does it go south? For starters, you have to understand that arguments from both sides exist in what I would consider to be separate languages, two opposing political dialects. Think of the times you hear the words “insurrection” or “aliens,” among other things. At those specific points, things begin to deteriorate quickly, so I told myself step one would be not to use “bullet point” buzzwords from the desks of CNN or Fox. If I could find a way to keep the language neutral, I might be able to keep the conversation tame.

I would ask you to consider something else as well. At the point of hearing these words, everyone is guilty. Depending on which side you agree with, at the mention of Jan. 6 or of pouring-in migrants, it seems as though protective synapses fire like crazy and all other words after that point are rendered meaningless. Not only do you have to attempt to use different vocabulary, but you must also be prepared to swallow the words and keep talking. Ask yourself (and I use this example as a liberal that examined this question more closely): What do I know about the border crisis, and can I learn more to better understand where my conversation partner is coming from? The key point of contention between me and my mother in these miniature yelling sessions was that, more than disagreeing, there was an impossibility, borne out of unwillingness, of tapping into the other end.

That was when, dear reader, my thought experiment, and by thought experiment I mean exposure experiment, began. Perhaps if my friend, who is one of the most intelligent people I know, could have their views shifted by being open to others, I could do the same. As a solid left-leaning person, I subjected (for commentary, not really for current events), podcasts, and opinion pieces for one week. My mom did the same, but obviously went the other way. I completely submerged myself in their talking points, and it became more clear why the issues they prioritized were at the top of their list.

What was all at once apparent was that I would have to learn to turn off the immediate impulses in my mind that yearned for rejection. It’s hard, truly. You have to fight it. For every moment there was something I disagreed with, I had to allow myself to take it in and consider the implications. I wasn’t able to do this every time, but I gave it a solid effort. We all have to begin, however, by acknowledging that we have preconceived notions and beliefs on particular topics that hinder us. We should all admit that.

What I also found important, if you want to partake in a similar experiment, is that you should not gaslight yourself on values and truths that you hold as fundamental. There is a way to healthily go about this. If you were to disregard everything that Trump has said on the basis that your preconceived opinion would get in the way, then you’d be obscuring some of the objective material that can be taken from his speeches and conferences. In my situation, I came into conflict when it came to Trump for this exact reason. You have to remind yourself that some things do not have to be reinterpreted.

So where did this leave me? I felt a shift on the issue of third trimester abortion. I felt a shift on (albeit many accounts are conflated) issues of immigration. I felt a shift in my thoughts surrounding the conflict in Gaza. All of this is to say that, while my mind has ultimately not changed, I am now better at discussing my views, as I don’t feel the need to instinctively oppose anything that the person opposite might have to say.

The same day that my mom and I began to have a conversation where I conceded more because of this new, more comprehensive understanding of the rhetoric that she engages with, the conversation ended in civility. She even conceded a few things as well, and I was so happy.

I hate to make a sappy analogy, but here we are. I was with a friend at a paint store the week following, helping him pick out a new color for his room on the same day. We were going through all of the greens, and he took one off the keychain that he liked. Then a little bit later, he found a different green, the green he would end up going with. Before he made this decision, however, he put the green next to the other shade at least four or five times to see what they looked like in comparison.

With a state as divisive as the current state of our country, try genuinely and wholeheartedly to put aside what you hold to be the absolute, and look at the other shade. You might be shocked to find that in the right circumstance, you like the other shade more. Both shades can also be good. The best part about at least giving it a shot is that if you don’t like it, at least you have it as a reference point to strengthen the fact that the shade you do like is better.

To my mom, I’m glad that we did this. If others could follow suit, I think we’d all be in a better spot. I think we’re finally getting somewhere.