Action Steps
Devise a rational plan to confront a bully in your life.
Discuss responses to bullying with young people in your sphere of influence.
Examine your own behavior for bullying. If any behavior could come even close to being considered bullying, determine to stop the behavior for a month and see whether your life improves.
Based on this chapter, try to identify some media and/ or political bullies and discuss your findings with others.
RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT
So discuss the matter with them [your neighbors] privately. Don’t tell anyone else, or others may accuse you of gossip. Then you will never regain your good reputation.
PROVERBS 25:9-10
Recently I had an opportunity to seek funding for the Carson Scholars Fund from a very large and well-funded foundation. I explained that the purpose of the fund is to honor students from all backgrounds who achieve at the highest academic levels and also care about others, placing them on the same kind of pedestal upon which we place athletic superstars. By receiving recognition, money, a medal, the trophy, and an opportunity to attend an awards ceremony, the students frequently rise from nerd to symbol of excellence in the eyes of their peers, and they inspire other students to work toward academic and humanitarian excellence. The other part of the program concentrates on placing reading rooms all over the country to encourage the love of reading. Special emphasis is placed on Title I schools, where many students come from homes with no books and attend schools with no libraries and are unlikely to otherwise establish a love of reading. The extremely elevated high school dropout rate of these schools hurts not only the students but the well-being of the entire country, and we want to help.
I told the foundation staff that their support would allow us to dramatically increase the scope of the program, which is currently active in all fifty states. In response, the staff members were very complimentary about the program and the progress that had been made in a relatively short period of time, but they indicated that their priorities were more global and immediate in nature and would not be able to offer any financial assistance to Carson Scholars.
I feel that the most urgent need in our society is to develop the right kind of leaders for tomorrow, since they will have a tremendous impact not only on the United States but also the world. The foundation staff felt that there were too many problems needing immediate attention and that they could not focus on programs whose effect would be felt in the future. We parted ways cordially and with no hard feelings even though I was disappointed. We both had good intentions but different ideas about priorities. I believe this foundation is composed of good people who expend enormous energy and resources for the good of others and I will continue to have great respect for them regardless of their philosophical priorities.
Though today’s politicians would have you think otherwise, it is eminently possible to have substantial disagreements with others and remain friendly and cooperative. This is a lesson that must be quickly relearned by American society if we are to be successful going forward. People will always have different ideas about what is important, but those differences should not trump a cordial working relationship.
Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice
One of the biggest issues dividing Americans today is abortion. Pro-life groups feel that life begins at conception and is very precious and should be protected. They believe that a fetus is a living human being with certain natural rights including life and protection from cruelty. Recent scientific observations have led observers to conclude that a fetus can experience pain as early as ten weeks of gestation. This means that most abortion procedures produce extreme discomfort for the fetus before it dies, making abortion even more abhorrent to pro-life groups. Because of these convictions, some members of pro-life groups oppose abortion under all circumstances, while others believe abortion is wrong but are willing to tolerate abortion in the case of rape, incest, and/or risk to the mother’s life. It is important for the pro-choice groups to understand that the pro-life group is not being mean and obstinate, but truly believes that babies are being slaughtered by people who primarily care about their own convenience.
On the other hand, the pro-life group needs to understand that the pro-choice group does not really believe that the fetus is a real human being entitled to natural human rights. They are not necessarily being mean or selfish, but rather just have a different understanding of when life begins.
This is a difficult issue on which to reach compromise, but that should not mean the members of opposing sides demonize each other. I suspect that over the course of time, the age line for abortions will continue to shift depending on political winds and further scientific information regarding fetal existence. The important thing is for both sides to understand the reasoning that forms the foundation for the beliefs of the other side. It is only through attempted empathy that the two sides can work cordially together.
Welfare
Another contentious issue is whether welfare should be extended to able-bodied adults. In recent years the welfare rolls have rapidly expanded, dramatically adding to the national debt. Those who are in favor of welfare reform tend to claim that people on welfare are lazy and that those who want to continue supporting them are wasteful spendthrifts. Those on the other side tend to call their opponents hard-hearted skinflints who do not care about the poor. The reality is that none of this name-calling is necessary.
If those on each side of the issue would try to place themselves in the shoes of those with whom they disagree, much of the rancor would dissolve. If you suddenly fell on hard times, it is very likely that you would welcome public assistance, even for an extended period. If, as is true in many cases, you could live better on the welfare system than you could working a low-wage job, what would you do? Certainly if one has small children to care for, elderly parents, or a sick family member, it would make a lot more sense to stay home and accept the public assistance than to try to work. I certainly would not criticize someone who has made such a decision under these circumstances, and it is important for those who are not on public assistance to understand this kind of reasoning.
On the other hand, if you had been on public assistance for a while and suddenly got off it because you got a low-paying job (or more than one to make ends meet), you probably wouldn’t be overly excited about being forced to support those who are less fortunate. If you are making a good salary, you may be happy to share with the less fortunate, or you might feel taken advantage of by a system that requires more of your resources to support ever-expanding government entitlements. Those on welfare should make an attempt to understand how these people feel as well.
Doctors Versus Patients
Another example of an issue on which we can respectfully disagree and still work together is tort reform. One of the real drivers of medical costs is the practice of defensive medicine. Many lawyers are happy to bring a lawsuit against a doctor or his practice knowing that they will receive 30 to 40 percent of the award. Eighty to 90 percent of neurosurgical malpractice cases are without merit but that matters little to these lawyers because the majority of cases are settled, since the doctor, the hospital, and the insurance company are not interested in being tied up in a court case for several months. Once the monetary demand drops to an acceptable level, they would rather pay the settlement and move on.
In order to protect themselves from lawsuits, many doctors order a lot of unnecessary tests and screenings so they can’t be accused of negligence, driving health care costs up. Doctors also purchase extremely expensive insurance to guard themselves against lawsuits, which further inflates what they charge patients. Worst of all, some of the best doctors have quit practicing after enduring unjustified lawsuits, further impoverishing our already broken health care system.
Those against tort reform argue that we need the lawsuits in order to police the medical industry. They feel that unscrupulous medical professionals would treat patients poor
ly without the threat of a lawsuit over their heads. Those on the other side of the argument would say that in countries where there is no medical malpractice crisis, the doctors have not abandoned common decency and caring about their patients. Both are reasonable positions, and if the opposing sides would disagree respectfully, they might be able to pass reform similar to that passed in California, which halted a substantial exodus of physicians from the state. Instead, every time tort reform has been introduced to Congress, certain senators have filibustered the issue to death instead of discussing the issue reasonably.
The Rich Versus the Poor
One of the biggest bones of contention in our nation revolves around the definition of fair taxation. According to some, fair taxation means taking progressively more from the rich and redistributing it to others after the government takes its “fair share.” Others argue that we should reward the wealthy with tax breaks, trusting that the wealth will “trickle down.” I believe there is a third way that becomes evident once you consider the viewpoints of both the rich and the poor.
I think if a poor person puts herself into the shoes of a rich person, she would feel largely responsible for the well-being of society because her profitable lifestyle has resulted in significant income to sustain the rest of society. If a rich person were put into the shoes of a poor person, he would likely already have a significantly developed work ethic and rather than complaining about having to contribute anything from his meager salary toward societal maintenance, he would be thinking about how to enhance his income and his life. Both would realize that the rich and the poor all have rights and responsibilities in society.
Considering the views of both the rich and the poor, I would argue that fair taxation means that everyone contributes according to their ability, or in other words, proportionately. I like the idea of proportionality because that was put forth in the Bible in the concept of tithing. All taxpayers were required to give 10 percent of their increase. If they had no increase they had to give nothing, and if they had an extralarge increase, they still only had to provide 10 percent of their increase. This system recognized that the wealthy were not above the law—no tax breaks and no political clout for having given a larger amount. It also recognized that the poor were not “below” the law—as dignified human beings, they had responsibilities to give, even if just a little.
If our society used this system, a Wall Street mogul who made $10 billion would be required to give $1 billion and a Harlem schoolteacher who made $50,000 would be required to give $5,000. Even though one would give hundreds of times more than the other, they would both have one vote and the same rights and responsibilities before our government. This fits with the American idea that everybody contributes to the overall good of society with the talents he or she brings to the table, no matter how much money each has. Schoolteachers offer much in terms of training the next generation, whereas billionaires offer much in terms of providing resources to maintain infrastructure and so on that benefit everyone.
Not everyone agrees with this plan. Some feel that it is fair for those with incomes under a certain dollar amount not to pay any federal tax. They say that these people are too poor and it would be a great burden to require them to contribute to the common pot. While I appreciate their compassion, serious problems arise when a person who pays nothing has the right to vote and determine what other people are paying. It does not make sense for me to vote on how much you should give if I don’t have to give anything. In fact, in such a situation it is likely that I would be more than willing to vote to raise your taxes while I simply reap the benefits.
Unfortunately, redistributionism is a very good strategy for cultivating the favor of large blocks of voters. Under this system, voters will always be loyal to that politician who promises to keep taxes low or nonexistent while taking from the “evil rich” to support the government. Voters with lower incomes will always have the incentive to vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, and that system would result in a smaller and smaller tax base supporting an increasingly large financial burden.
As soon as you introduce a graduated income tax as opposed to a proportional income tax, you also introduce your own biases. Although it sounds magnanimous to say the rich should bear virtually all of the tax burden and the poor should not have their lives complicated by paying any taxes, this is actually quite demeaning to the poor and is basically saying to them, “You poor little thing, don’t you worry because I will take care of you since you can’t take care of yourself.” Robbing people of dignity by making them feel like freeloaders is not compassionate, but it can be quite effective in assuaging the guilt of some of the economically well-off individuals in our society.
Not only is this kind of taxation both divisive and unsustainable, it is especially offensive to individuals like me who have worked extremely hard throughout life to achieve success and who give away enormous amounts of money to benefit others. This system unfairly assumes that people like me are only greedy and uncaring. Wealthy people in the United States have created more charitable organizations and been more philanthropic than any other group in the world. We should celebrate their achievements rather than envy them.
Sure, some wealthy people are selfish because they are human beings subject to the same imperfections as everyone else. Fortunately, even these people have to give back to society; they need house cleaners, pilots, gardeners, chauffeurs, cooks, and a host of other people to maintain their lifestyle. Even if they don’t have a charitable bone in their body, they still provide employment for others. We are more likely to get such individuals to begin thinking of others if we treat them fairly rather than if we demonize them, just as the poor are more likely to want compromise if we don’t assume they are all lazy and undeserving of help.
The Importance of Humility and a Listening Ear
There are many more contentious issues that divide the American people, but all of them should be subjected to open civil discussions in which each side tries to look at the issue from the perspective of the other. This can only be done if each party is willing to exhibit some humility. That means being willing to let someone else be right sometimes and being willing to listen.
I was recently on a national talk show in which I represented one side of a particular argument and a congresswoman represented the other side. She was so intent on demonstrating the superiority of her position that she repeatedly rudely interrupted while I was speaking without even realizing that we were largely in agreement. I can certainly identify with this attitude, because I held an extreme version of it as an adolescent in Detroit. I arrogantly thought that I knew more than others and I frequently would not even entertain their views. I often found myself in trouble, because I would become angry and react in a violent or other aggressive manner, in one case almost killing a classmate with a knife.
I had been minding my own business when a classmate came along and began to ridicule me. I had a large camping knife in my hand and without thinking, I lunged at him, plunging the knife into his abdomen. He backed off, certain that he had been mortally wounded before discovering that the knife blade had struck a large metal belt buckle under his clothing and broken. He fled in terror but I was even more terrified when realizing that I had almost killed someone. That incident led me to prayerfully consider my plight and to ask for God’s guidance and help. I came to understand that very day that I was always angry because I was selfish. I felt that someone was always infringing on my rights, getting in my space, messing with my things, disregarding my positions, and so on, which offended me, leading to inappropriate behavior. Through wisdom provided by God it dawned on me that I should step outside of the center of the circle so that everything wasn’t always about me. I learned to consider the viewpoint of others and it dramatically altered my behavior. Most people who know me today cannot believe that I was ever plagued by a violent temper. Proverbs 16:32 says, “It is better to be patient than powerful; it is better to have self-control than to conquer a
city.” Anyone can act irrationally, but it takes a wise and truly strong individual to remain controlled, logical, and willing to truly hear what the other person is saying.
Strategies for Cordial Disagreement
Compromise is most likely when both parties respect each other no matter how much they disagree. In stressful situations where you need a consensus, respect sometimes means saying nothing and refraining from name-calling even when irritated. By doing so, you not only manifest respect for others but for yourself as well. The best way to respond to distracting personal attacks is to practice bringing the conversation back to the issue at hand. Never fall into the trap of engaging in personal attacks while letting the topic of conversation slip into the background. Doing so allows your opponent to escape the need to explain her position. If she has a good argument, she would be eager to pursue it rather than trying to change the subject to you and your character.
When seeking respectful dialogue, another good tactic is to focus on the big picture and de-emphasize small details. I liken the silly arguments that some people engage in to a passenger ship that is about to go over Niagara Falls while the passengers and crew are arguing about the barnacles on the side of the ship. They continue a discourse that could have some value down the road, but they fail to adjust the course of the ship and everyone perishes, rendering the barnacle issue completely irrelevant. Don’t lose sight of the issue at hand.
One Nation Page 10