Contact
Subscribe
Oct 28, 2009 
I just had a beer, two to be honest, with a colleague and the drinking club to which he belongs. The drinking club is a group of a dozen or so like minded people that meet every few week to discuss politics and the state of current affairs. Think, updated Salons for us common folk and you have the general concept. I was expecting story telling and verbal bantering but was very surprised when I walked into a conversational hornet nest.
The topic of discussion was the current state of health care in America and the proposals for universal coverage. To put the differences out there clearly; the entire group believes in the idea of universal single payer coverage; I do not. There is no need to rehash the pros and cons here as there are myriad opinions on the topic and I claim no complete knowledge. I only have an opinion based on my knowledge and experience.
Where the conversation shook me is how I was marginalized and labeled for my opinion. The central thesis of the group belief is there is a RIGHT to health care equal to the right of “pursuit of happiness”. Moreover, the group believes the moral standing is with that RIGHT. Furthermore, those who hold that belief possess superior moral fiber than those who disagree. The entirety of the conversation was using rhetoric traps and words games to try to convince me the I was wrong. I believe that there is no profit in trying to prove another person wrong.
Proving a person wrong only provides a false sense of superiority because someone has won and someone had lost. True change only comes from sharing a point of view from a place of compassion. Sharing through compassion is an act of being vulnerable. Kindly communicating the motivations, knowledge, and experiences that have shaped a point of view. There is never a winner, EVER, when ideas clash without compassion. Without compassion ideas become vulcanized to withstand even greater heat in the future, thus the gulf widens and common ground becomes as rare as ice cubes in a volcano.
The ultimate moment tonight was when I realized that the gulf was too wide. Nobody was willing the be compassionate of another persons opinions (me included). At that point I said my good-byes. I had had a wonderful verbal sparring match. I had never lost my temper or became disrespectful. I shook each had in turn saying with genuine belief, “Thanks, it was a pleasure to meet you.” At which point I was shunned. Of the six people left, two refused my hand, two met it with obligation, and two met it with good will.
My final question is: How can a person maintain the moral high ground and refuse to have compassion or even consideration for differing opinions?
1 Comment 
health care, opinion
