Posted on Feb 22, 2016
How do ideological opponents remain in close personal relationships with their foes?
6.55K
42
42
7
7
0
Wouldn't it be valuable to know how to maintain close relationships with those who oppose you? Those who hold dear those things you fight against? Look at Justices Ginsburg and Scalia, one on the Left and the other on the Right, frequently locked in intense ideological battles, and yet the closest of friends. Then we have the example of Ronald Reagan who as President was able to maintain a productive working relationship with then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill despite the ideological abyss that separated them.
Would that I could emulate their success. Wouldn't you like to achieve it. I'll admit that I haven't. I lead with my chin into every squabble. How about you?
Would that I could emulate their success. Wouldn't you like to achieve it. I'll admit that I haven't. I lead with my chin into every squabble. How about you?
Politics
Relationships
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
5
5
0
I enjoy being around people who agree with my viewpoints. That being said, we rarely learn anything from these interactions beyond the benign. These two you show are not only on different ends of the political spectrum, but they are also intellectuals who love debate. They love to argue. Not in a mean and angry kind of way, but in the original idea of the argument where two people have intelligent, logical debate on a topic. They may not agree, but the presence of an opponent makes you better. You have to enjoy argument over meaningful things. You must embrace your sparring partner as the person who shapes you into something useful and more intelligent. People who surround themselves with like minded people rarely grow the way these two have.
(5)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden
COL (Join to see) Some people are born to debate and dispute. My elder son at age 3, loved to argue with his mother. Now in his 50s, he remains ready to vocally dispute anything!
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
MSgt Mike Mikulski, exactly. Iron sharpens iron. As long as it is professional, the best friend you can have is someone who is opposite you on a majority of significant issues. They make you better and you can have an meaningful discussion about topics. You might not sway each other to see the other side, but you will both be better for the conversation.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CSM Charles Hayden - I too seemed to have been born a devil's advocate. I'd take the opposing side on any topic. For me, it was a way of learning, if nothing else, how far could I challenge someone before "they lost it". As I say that I have to smile because one Sunday when I was a young man, the father of a friend challenged me on about three different topics. After I failed to demurr on each he asked me "What's the matter?" It was totally out of character for me.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Isn't this what it is all about? Being able to have a civil discourse when we disagree.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - Having read other comments on the thread and your reply I sense this is a political difference between you and someone close. I have the same difference within my family. I will still have the conversations although many of my other family members ask me why, but I feel that you become better grounded in what you believe if your thoughts are challenged although there may be some concessions that you learn to make. I will end with although I don't agree with my family member politically and they do not agree with me I have never let it come between us with respect to our family, and I never will.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
LTC (Join to see) CPT Jack Durish I think the first step in an honest conversation has to be learning to disagree without shutting out. It is actually listening to the opposing viewpoint, then offering constructive counter arguments that are based on rational data as opposed to "Yo Mama!"
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
PO3 Steven Sherrill - I believe that it was Dr. Richard Rogers who long ago wrote about "creative arguing". He offered that when engaged in an argument, you must repeat the point of view of your opponent in your own words to their satisfaction before countering with your own. This would assure your opponent that you were actually listening and understood them which would help open them to your point of view. That always seemed reasonable to me.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
CPT Jack Durish - Makes sense. You cannot begin to argue for or against an ideal, until you understand the ideal. To fully understand, you have to at the very least acknowledge alternative viewpoints.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
first of all .... they are not foes toward each other. (this should be enough to explain) but I will keep go.
As American grow apart, people can no longer allow different opinion to exit ... and therefore ... the American experiment ... die.
As American grow apart, people can no longer allow different opinion to exit ... and therefore ... the American experiment ... die.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google