In times of political tension and division, we don’t have to look far (perhaps in the closest mirror?) to find an example of someone who assumes a rigid position on many things, and who views those who disagree as misguided, ignorant, wrong-headed, or worse. Couple this attitude with a polarized viewpoint, and the odds of a meaningful discussion of the issues become slim indeed.
What happens when a majority of people in a nation, or other political entity, learn to approach political questions in this manner? The result will be, depending on the number and relative power of those holding conflicting beliefs, either deadlock that produces continuous conflict without resolution, or dominance by a majority that tramples on the rights of the unfortunate minority. Over time, neither result is good for the nation or its citizens.
Americans, as well as people in some other countries, have witnessed nearly unprecedented divisiveness and polarization that seem to permeate nearly all political conversations (if vitriol and name-calling qualify as conversation). And most are ready to admit that, at least for those on the other side of the issues, such behavior is at best unhelpful, and at worst seriously detrimental.
Perhaps it is time that those of us who are convinced of the correctness of our own viewpoints take a step back and ask ourselves a couple of questions (don’t worry, I’m not even going to suggest that we consider the possibility that on some issues we might actually be wrong, and the idiots who disagree with us could be right). These two questions will be followed by an analogy that may help answer them:
1) Are my beliefs and the beliefs of my “opponents” really diametrically opposed? That is, do we believe the exact opposite from each other?
2) No matter what labels or emotion-laden expressions might be applied to our respective positions on an issue, is it reasonable to assume our views are as far apart as such labels and expressions suggest?
Mixers and Sliders
Virtually every event that uses electronic amplification and multiple microphones or other inputs also uses a mixer - sometimes called a soundboard – that controls the tone, balance, gain, etc. Typically, mixers use a sliding control to adjust the “fade” or relative volume of each input or channel. A modern mixer may control a few channels or, at considerable expense, dozens.
Now, for the analogy -- we won’t use the whole mixer, but just the fader control (the sliding bars at the bottom).
In the same way that an audio engineer assigns an input to each channel on a mixer, let each channel on a mixer represent a person’s position on a particular issue. Your opinion on an issue is one channel, and the dunce who disagrees with you is another channel. If a third person enters the conversation, we will need a third slider bar. Thus, a pair of adjacent slider bars represent your opinion next to someone else’s opinion on a single issue; to compare your opinion with two other people’s opinions, we use a set of three adjacent slider bars. For a different issue, we need another set of slider bars, for a third issue another set, etc.
Now, imagine assigning an issue to each set of slider bars, defining what the top and bottom numbers of the slider bar mean, and then each of you setting your slider at the number that seems to represent your opinion. If three people are involved, each sets one of three slider bars at a number that approximates their opinion on the issue being debated.
Most issues can be expressed in the form of questions. For example, “How much should corporations be controlled/regulated by the government?” Let’s say the scale of the slider bar goes from 0 to 10. For this question, a “0” would represent an opinion that there should be no regulation, a “10” represents total regulation (in other words, government ownership of corporations), and the numbers between are more middle-of-the-road opinions.
A second example might be, “Should abortion be legal?” In this case, a “0” would mean all abortions should be illegal, and a “10” means abortions should be totally legal, including throughout the pregnancy. Someone who opposes abortion but would accept it in some cases, for example, rape and incest only, might set their slider bar at “1” or “2”, while someone who opposes abortion only after the second trimester might set their slider bar at around “6” or “7” (the precise value is less important than the position compared to those of the others involved).
Any number of political or other issues can be dealt with using the sliding scale of the “Mixer Model” with “0” representing “no” or “not at all” and “10” representing “yes” or “totally.” Examples of questions that could be asked include:
- · To what extent should K-12 educational policy and curricula be controlled by the federal government?
- · To what degree should health care be funded by the federal government?
- · To what extent should the federal government aid citizens whose income falls below the poverty level?
- · To what extent should the country’s military depend on a volunteer force?
- · What proportion of Europe’s defense spending should be funded by the U.S.?
- · To what extent should race be considered in admittance to public universities and colleges?
- · To what extent do you agree with the proposal to implement a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border?
- · To what extent should the federal government fund education at public colleges or universities?
- · To what extent do you agree with substantially increasing corporate income tax rates?
Of course, these examples just scratch the surface, and only the political surface, of the vast array of issues to which the “Mixer Model” could be applied. Doing so is hardly a panacea, but may potentially result in at least these outcomes:
1) A realization that in many, if not most, instances our opinions are not the antithesis of the opinions held by those we view as having an “opposing” viewpoint (that is, on very few issues will the chosen settings of the ‘sliding bars’ reach “0” or “10” and we may have, at least to some extent, some common ground of agreement).
2) When we discuss the logic behind our “mixer settings” with those with whom we disagree, we and/or they may find reason to “adjust our settings” to partially close the gaps between them.
3) When we discuss the logic behind our “mixer settings’ we may well gain an understanding of why others hold the opinions they do, and may even (perhaps begrudgingly) accept their opinions as valid even if we do not agree.
4) A mutual appreciation for looking at issues in a new way and, as a result, strengthening of the relationships among those involved.
To repeat, this rather quirky method is certainly not a panacea. But if your initial reaction is to totally oppose the idea, then for the issue “To what extent do you support the use of the “Mixer Model” for issue discussion?” place your sliding bar at “0” and let the discussion begin. J
