Divisive Issues and Divisive People-Know the difference

DIVISIVE adj. DIVISIVELY adv. DIVISIVENESS noun:

“Tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people.” -Marion Webster

“Creating dissension or discord.”-American Heritage Dictionary

Remember your grammar. Adjectives modify things, and adverbs modify actions. So when you say, something is “divisive,” you must ask ‘what?” When you say someone acted “divisively”, you must ask who and how?

I exchanged some correspondence recently with someone you may know. I was pretty critical, to the extent that this person considered my criticism hateful. Strong criticisms can feel that way to the one being criticized, but that is not the same thing as knowing criticism is motivated by nothing but hate. It’s easy to call someone hateful, just like it’s easy to call someone racist. It works because no one can prove a negative. Some people forget that, and some hope you do.

He did say one thing in this brief exchange that I want to share. He said he hears from plenty of people who say they are “sick to death of the divisiveness.” I believe it, but what exactly does that mean?

Is he talking about unresolved differences of opinion over an important issue to almost everyone, or a person motivated by nothing but divisiveness? Some issues are divisive on their own, and some people are divisive because division and disunity are somehow beneficial to their self-interests. Such an accusation levied against a person is a dispersion on their motives and morals, and most would agree, a person whose self-interests are served by division and strife over unity and peace is not a good person.

When differences of opinion remain unresolved when the issues are important, are we obligated to “go along to get along” so as not to be seen as divisive people? Are these differences to be resolved on the basis of who is most unwilling to give up their point of view, or to those who have insider’s control of the true and accurate information, or to those who successfully work hardest to suppress alternative views to their own? Is that anyone’s idea of how lasting peace is obtained?

In the image I’ve posted, I presume the fire being breathed from the opposing mouths are the flames of emotion, not the quiet whispers of the truth that come from curiosity and humility, careful investigation, and solid reasoning. The “match-people” at risk of ignition represents the dangers of destructive forms of discourse, such as currently exist surrounding the recent Warren Settlement.

There is nothing more divisive than the negative emotions we direct towards others. The expression of negative judgment of others is in itself divisive. But being silent in the face of controversy is not helpful either. Sometimes, in order to be truthful, you must be willing to risk offending others. Simply conceding the floor in a debate does not help resolve differences. That may look like peace to some, but it looks like tyranny and oppression to others. Peace gained by oppression is not sustainable, and the pressure cooker of division and disunity gather steam over time. This is why controversy should be resolved quickly and fairly before the division grows. The worst of all approaches is to let things fester and build until they explode. That will be unpredictable, messy, and some will likely be hurt.

This all came up because the subject of this correspondence had to do with our respective roles in the public debate over the consequences of the Warren settlement, and whether it is a net good or bad for this town. Is continuing the debate serving the larger community interest, or is it better to jump on the bandwagon as a way to reduce community division?

If you believe in debate and open discussion, you probably understand the best way to resolve differences is to approach them with humility, good faith, and a willingness to defend your position against those who disagree with you while remaining open to good arguments against your own views. Our entire democratic theory of self-government is founded upon the principle that an informed public makes the best decisions about their own government and their own future. People willing to listen and even participate in this discussion are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, provided they have all the information available and apply themselves in rational, analytical thought. This is illustrated by our faith injuries to render just verdicts in important criminal matters, but they can only do so in a fair and structured set of procedures and evidence. No one would trust a jury that had been denied material facts in a case.

The first step in resolving differences is to acknowledge that differences exist. One way to deny that is to simply refuse to acknowledge a controversy is worthy of discussion, and thereby simply dismiss the people promoting opposing views as selfish, inhumane, immoral, irrelevant, or divisive. Then you can feel justified in turning your back on dissention, betting the opposition will fade away with time. This is so common a tactic that it has a Latin name: Ad hominem; attacking the person, not the ideas. This approach does not lead to long-term harmony.

Another way to resolve controversy is to simply surrender to and appease your opponents. Peace through appeasement is unstable, because appeasement is often understood as weakness, and thus demands continue to mount until they become intolerable. Anyone who has been bullied knows this.

Another approach to “peace and unity” is oppression. History is full of examples of oppressing ideas by silencing people. The most dangerous people are those who are factual and persuasive. Withhold or distort the facts, or discredit the person, and you win. Those with power are tempted and often do use their position to suppress people and ideas, but to eliminate dissension in this way rarely eliminates division or ushers in lasting peace.

On the other hand, there is no denying demagoguery exists, or that some people are willing to follow the lead of others on faith or belief. But that is not to say people are too stupid to make up their own minds, given the chance. One way to make one person look smart and another stupid is to give one person access to secret information. Ignorance can be made to look like stupidity, so ignorance is a friend to the propagandist and tyrant. Insiders are always many steps ahead of outsiders.

Talking is how we think, and we can’t learn if we can’t think. By talking we are thinking, and by thinking we are learning, not just about we think ourselves, but when we talk to others, we learn what they think, and this is how we figure out what’s what. This is how we learn what is common and what is not. You cannot solve problems without thinking, so we had better talk and learn. Talking and learning are some of the most elegant and important acts of human cooperation. Cooperation is the main reason we’ve survived this long. It’s that important.

We know that optimal solutions to any problem can only come from cooperation. Any group of people is smarter than any one individual, especially when they are engaged in open discussion and vigorous debate. The value of cooperation is most simply illustrated by game theory’s Prisoner’s Dilemma. Acting only in self-interest produces sub-optimal solutions. Balancing self-interest with the interest of others produces optimal outcomes for everyone involved. In a community in which cooperation is low, where people are divided and constantly bickering, pursuing only their individual self-interests, chaos grows. Growing peace and prosperity is not watered by chaos.

Where cooperation is high, both peace and prosperity prevail. This is the concept of “Social Darwinism.” Communities that cooperate outcompete those who do not. When divisiveness is prevalent, we don’t like it, nor should we. It is dangerous. The question is what to do about it when it exists? Kumbaya alone doesn’t cut it.

The founding principles of Americanism stress the importance of informed voters, who are owed a duty by the government through guarantees of free speech and a free press. Neither of those liberties means much if speech or press is not free and open to all points of view. Restrictions to the free flow of information and suppressing the expression of opposing ideas defeats cooperation. The tools of these restrictions are censorship, unchallenged propaganda, and one-sided reporting. Add to this toolbox the techniques of what we know as “Cancel Culture”, and the oppression of certain ideas and people become institutionalized. That is divisive. That leads to chaos. Chaos brings more suffering than necessary.

As the saying goes, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” If you find that the chaos around you is growing, something is clearly not working. Humans are wired to turn chaos into order. If we are not doing that, we won’t survive very long. Simple but true.

I do accept one premise of my correspondent, we are a divided community, and the most divisive issue at this moment is the Warren v. Chico settlement. Why? We had better ask ourselves that question before we make any judgments about the people on one side of this controversy or the other.

Here is my take.

From the moment this case was filed, the entire conversation and process were sequestered from public view, much less participation. Even though we had certain signs, certain indications, which some of us followed closely, we had no official or reliable information about what our representative local government was up to. That alone is a fundamental breach of duty, and of law. The Brown Act, if you want to talk about the “spirit of the law” is that every action, every debate, and every vote by elected officials that CAN be done in the view of the public, should be.

That was not the case here, and in my opinion, the public was misinformed, even lied to about the court compelling them to remain mostly secretive in their actions and deliberations. I think it was done specifically to avoid accountability to the public, many of whom might disagree, or even protest. That would slow down the process, create informed debate, and no tyrant has time to waste on public review. In this way, breaching the trust of voters is justified as the most expedient means to the end of settlement at nearly any cost.

That may sound harsh, and it is. One of the greatest disservices to the public trust has been the choice this City Council has made to sequester their actions and deliberations until it was impossible for the voters to do anything about it. There is now no opportunity for participation, much less to reverse the commitments they have made for you and future city councils.

There is no precedent for this approach to local government in Chico, or anywhere else that I’m aware of. Never have millions of public dollars been committed over such a long period of years, have city land and other resources have been allocated entirely behind closed doors.

There was a time when such back-room deals were villainized. They were villainized by everyone except those who benefited in one way or another. Look around. Those now celebrating his settlement are the beneficiaries. The rest of us are not, or at least we don’t believe we are, and for good reason. If the entire cost of this trade was based on the guarantee of pristine parks and waterways, there is ample reason to doubt it can be delivered.

When I was working to elect our current council members, this is not the kind of outcome I expected. The strongest emotion I feel now is one of betrayal. The most painful betrayals in life are those at the hands of friends and loved ones. That is where I am, and I know I am not alone. I am speaking now on behalf of those who feel betrayed.

The question is not whether we are divided, we are. The question is what we can do about it now. Here is where I believe we must begin the healing process.

1. There must be a full accounting of what has happened and who is responsible. We are entitled to know that. Any council member refusing this obligation should resign. Today.

2. City staff, including the City Attorney, and the City Manager must be reviewed in light of what we learn and what we know about how and why the public was excluded entirely from their own local government. Shallow, indefensible platitudes are not going to cut it. Everyone who participated in this must be subject to interrogation and full disclosure. We cannot simply accept the word of the City Attorney on this. That reliance is largely responsible for this situation we now find ourselves in. If any are unwilling to do so voluntarily, they must be compelled to do so by all legal means available.

3. Those who serve as council members or City staff, and those who are celebrating the Warren settlement have been adequately represented throughout this process. Those who disagree or feel the information they need to decide for themselves has been denied them, have NOT been adequately represented. Chico Stewards and their attorneys attempted to bring that representation into this case, but that effort was denied. In actual fact and for whatever reasons, attempts to participate in this process have been actively opposed and defeated by those responsible for completing this settlement in secrecy. These excluded citizens and their numbers are substantial, are entitled to redress their grievances based on full disclosure of the facts and the truth, either voluntarily or by involuntary legal compulsion.

This community can never hope to unify around a common good so long as this disclosure and debate is suppressed, subverted, or denied. Otherwise, how can the “good” be accepted as common? In the absence of full disclosure, division can only intensify. No person or group of persons can prevent that from happening. It is a God-given right to know everything about what elected representatives have done, are doing, or claim to be doing on our behalf. That simple principle of self-governance has been trampled upon by this City Government. We deserve to hold those responsible to account.

Now hear me and hear me clearly. I do not know everything about what happened, but I know some things, and it does not look good. No one has been following this situation more closely than me. But I am an outsider, like you. I only know what I am told, or what I can discover despite the ongoing secrecy, and that, my friends, is how the subjects of tyranny feel.

I feel we have been and are being manipulated, misinformed, and handled through secrecy and subversion. The proper way to feel is respected, informed, and valued. No community can be unified when those sentiments are not prevalent.

The solution is simple: sunshine. You don’t have to be a genius to know that no relationship can survive where communication and transparency are absent. In our city government, it is absent.

The best thing that the architects of the settlement could do for their community is to subject themselves to examination and disclosure, or resign, and let someone else try to clean up this mess.

Unity is something that is earned and hard-won. It is not something that can be achieved by spin, manipulation of the facts, or any of the various forms of oppressing the right of citizens to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

This is my opinion. It is up to each of you to decide if my motives are to divide rather than unify. I’m prepared to live with that either way.