taking the time to listen (without bias)

Everywhere I look, I keep hearing people with conflicting economical and social philosophies raging against each other.  Those who are integral to our law making processes speak in political sound bites that spark divisiveness against every day American citizens.  Those who choose to listen, mainly pick a side in the "battle" (usually based upon personal experiences) and stay there.  "These people," by choosing to remain glued to one side, are only able to understand the concerns and ideas of that one side.

It amazes me that I'll hear remarks from someone who claims to be a "Conservative" (with a capital "C") will complain that "those northern Latte Liberals" are being unjust in their motives and continue to call them names berating them for their "ignorance" and "racism."  Then I hear from "Liberals" that those "ignorant," "uneducated" Conservatives (who, I'm guessing are all in the "Slow South" because, God forbid, any Conservative would migrate north of the Mason-Dixon line) are saying that all Liberals or Progressives are "evil Marxists" who want to take away their gun and property rights and bring Socialism to the U.S. and portraying President Obama as our Socialist Leader.  

Unfortunately, we cannot seem to get past our own victimization in order to see that we're also the ones victimizing others as well.

Recently, I posted a comment on a Facebook post in agreement to the published article with hesitation towards methods to use in order to convey the correct messages based upon facts.  Within moments I was "attacked" by a handful of people who later realized that we were all on the same page.  Although, one was kind enough to apologize for her unwarranted response, it really made me realize that we have all become so defensive in our beliefs and convictions that we're looking for arguments where, if we were to actually stop and listen to one another and tried to comprehend each others' concerns, none would exist.

a different perspective

Recently, I attended a meeting for a small non-profit organization.  During this meeting, we discussed the subsequent year's budget.  We were informed, of which many of us were not aware, that this organization contributes a significant dollar amount annually to another non-profit with whom many members were affiliated.  Due to the current economy, it was getting increasingly difficult to come up with this set dollar amount, and that if we didn't take steps to continue the fund, we could see our costs, as members and customers, increase.

The moment that really stood out for me was when someone asked what specifically did this set amount cover and if we, as customers, could review an itemized statement before making any final decisions.  The speaker and other leaders present were unable to answer this question.  The money was spent on whatever the recipient thought was best for the organization and its customers.

It was interesting to see the reactions of others in attendance when this person questioned the budgeted amount.  Some looked annoyed - it was late and they just wanted to go home.  Some perked up and were interested in the answer as well.  Some were not in the least bit concerned.  After all, they trusted this organization and it's leaders to do what was best for its members.

These reactions really got me thinking: are we are often too trusting of those who have fiscal authority?  After all, this amount has been in the budget for years, we've been paying it all this time, why question it now?

What if we were to actually see line item statements detailing each transaction on behalf of its members?  Would we find areas where we feel that our contributions (our money) are being wasted?  Would we find areas where we feel we could contribute more funding, thereby willing to sacrifice our already-stretched earnings for the greater good?

Perhaps, for many, it's easier to put our faith and trust into those we've elected to positions of fiscal authority and not question motives or require proof that our contributions were being spent efficiently and effectively.  Our small contributions and nickle-and-dime purchases here and there in addition to our annual fees seem insignificant when spread out over a period of time.  What's a few dollars here and there? 

If we were to choose to remain content in our ignorance, and when costs slowly begin to increase, do we have the right to put all the blame onto those we've entrusted with our collective fund?

If this was our personal fund, how would we behave then?  What steps would we take to eliminate waste?  How would we budget our current assets?  How would we take steps to save for our future and for those of future generations?  Are we spending our money on necessary purchases?  Do these purchases really enrich our lives, make us better people, make us more educated; or are we finding ourselves deeper indebted to others, continually struggling to not get any more in the red than we already are?

Now take this scenario that's isolated to one small organization, one single household, and magnify it to millions of individuals, households, local/state governments, federal governments across just this country alone.  Sometimes all it takes for change to occur is to gain a different perspective.

irony of independent thought

Are we as a nation, a people, truly capable of independent thought?  Upon childhood, we are instilled with the fear of authority.  First and foremost, we must obey, never questioning those who have our best interests at heart.  As we progress, this pattern of submissive behavior, for many, seems to stick.  It becomes easier to endure life within the safe confines of the mediocre, of being a follower rather than taking initiative to become a leader of others, let alone a leader of our individual thoughts and actions. 

Those who are aggressive enough to assert their voice, belie their critical thought which are subconsciously (for some; however, deliberate for many others) portrayed through actions.  We expose our true intentions, feelings, criticisms in ways that penalize true independent thought, yet at the same time we label those who share our own opinions as "free thinkers."

How can the human race evolve to the next intellectual or social plateaus if we refuse to engage ourselves in empathy (towards others; not always thinking of ourselves as being the victim of prejudice conduct)?  How can we engage in empathy if we willingly close our minds to change, being content with complacency in the conventional?  How can we move forward if we choose to ignore and degrade "rantings" of "lunatics"?

In this sense, we become agents in fostering hostilities, bitterness, anger.  By making fun of people, calling them names, marginalizing opinions that differ from our own, even if they appear, to us, to boarder on the absurd and ignorant, we are making the choice to stifle the legitimate, concerned voices of others.

Perhaps, there are individuals who are unwilling to go beyond the boundaries, the restrictions, that they have placed upon themselves.  Inhibiting themselves from true self-expression, admonishing themselves for taking the risk of deviating from those ideals in which they believe, in which they can have total and complete control.  These ideals have become their norm, a comfort zone, if you will.  Something that can be defined, manipulated, understood.  The way to deal with these people (ah, yes, again... these people... because we are the open-minded ones, aren't we?) is not through admonition or ridicule, but through reason, logic, and proof.  To do otherwise is to enrage, to fan the flames of doubt and fear.

We don't always have to agree with everything we hear, but we should always be willing to listen without the interference of bias.  To ask questions for clarification.  To attempt to be civil in conversation and debate.  Who knows, we may actually learn something that could radically revolutionize our naiveté.