Hearing What We Want, Not What Was Said

   One of the biggest causes of our ongoing extreme political divisiveness is that we "talk past each other," to use a cliche. By this, I mean that we don't actually listen to each other, but interpret all statements through our political biases. We respond to things that weren't said.

A simple example regards immigration. When a person says "I oppose illegal immigration," a political opponent may hear "I oppose all immigration," or even "I hate immigrants." This is a common reaction, when people suspect the worst of someone with a different opinion.

Similarly, when a person says "I want undocumented immigrants to have a legal status," a political opponent may hear "I want to let all illegals stay here," or even "give them all citizenship." This is also a common misinterpretation, because the legal status is not specified, in the statement.

While some people may actually believe what their opponents think they mean, none of the statements above expresses the ideas I said an opponent might interpret them as. It's important to remember that I wrote these example statements to be specific, and clear. People are quick to jump to conclusions, often from past experience. Nobody seems to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, anymore.

It gets more complicated when people stretch the meaning of words beyond credibility. This is becoming all too common, as the number of words subject to a biased interpretation grows. "Illegal aliens" has long been banned by left-leaning groups, but it's an accurate term, and shouldn't offend anyone.

I have biases. I assume that anyone proposing "comprehensive" immigration reform (or "comprehensive" legislation of any kind) wants to promote a complex, ill-defined law that will advance progressive interests, and prevent a clear legal definition of whatever issue it applies to. A progressive will see any law that clearly defines categories and penalties for immigration violations as "draconian, punitive," and definitely "racist." This is where we are.

Aside from the issues in passing actual legislation, perhaps those of us that post and comment, and otherwise debate political issues can make an effort to address what our opponents actually say, rather than some "straw man" argument that we imagine hearing. I need to take this advice as much as anyone else, so don't think I'm throwing stones from a glass house. At least I can try to frame my inferences as such, and address both the actual words, and what I consider them to mean.

While this issue affects people on both sides, I will have to revisit the progressive predilection to alter the meaning of common words, to suit partisan purposes. It's not new, but it directly feeds into the justification for misconstruing otherwise objectively true statements in a biased way. That will be for another time, because it's a pretty big can of worms.