Talking Past Each Other

Recently I had a conversation with a friend about the presidential race. We come from different perspectives. She grew up in the 60s and is a long-time Democractic activist. I grew up in the 70s and am more conservative. I respect the fact that she continues to ask me to vote for liberal, pro-choice candidates even though she knows that I will probably say no. However, a recent conversation that we had shows how difficult it is for persons with different perspectives to have a meaningful conversation.

First, she politely asked if I planned to watch the Democratic Convention. I politely said no, but didn't explain why. The reason was that with trying to balance my childrens' school activities, soccer practice and work, it is unlikely that I will be watching television again until November. However, my unexplained answer could be taken as apathy or disrespect.

Next, she asked me if I planned to vote for Barack Obama. When I said no, she pressed her case. She told me that she had been hearing lots of negative things about John McCain. However, I hear a constant stream of negative information about Barack Obama, most of which I filter out.

After that, she told me that the Childrens' Defense Fund had given John McCain its lowest ranking. I don't know what a Childrens' Defense Fund is or what positions it advocates. As a result, the intended message--that John McCain doesn't care about children--was received by me as--some liberal advocacy group is unhappy with John McCain. Without a context, the information was not very useful.

Finally, she told me that John McCain had graduated fourth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, while Barack Obama had been editor of the Harvard Law Review. The intended message was that John McCain was a slacker who got by on his family connections, while Barack Obama had earned his position through merit. However, there was some context that my friend didn't have. I had very good grades in college and a high LSAT score. I was offered admission to every law school I applied to, except for Harvard Law School. Therefore, I tend to see Harvard Law School as a bastion of Eastern elitism rather than a meritocracy. (Please don't tell any of my friends who went to Harvard). On top of that, despite an excellent law school education and good grades, the most formative years of my legal education were when I was practicing during my 30s and 40s. As a result, the fact that John McCain barely skated by when he was 21 years old doesn't mean much to me. (Especially since the same could be said about John Kerry and Al Gore as well).

At this point, we ended the conversation. Our brief exchange didn't change my mind. As a matter of fact, we really didn't communicate that much as all. What seemed blatantly obvious to my friend struck me as largely irrelevant. If two people start from the assumption that George W. Bush is the worst president in history and that John McCain is just like him, then a discussion of Sen. McCain's flaws might seem very persuasive. (Personally, I think James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were worse). However, making the same argument to someone who respects Sen. McCain's integrity and independence will come off as partisan and shrill. What would have been more interesting would have been to find something positive about Sen. Obama which would appeal to someone right of center. For example, how would Sen. Obama be good for small business? How will Sen. Obama reach out to people of faith? What will Sen. Obama do to reduce gas prices?

I hope that my friend doesn't think that I am picking on her here. However, the failure of two intelligent people to communicate with each other has gotten me thinking.