...is certainly a strategy for disarming a potentially hostile encounter, but I would recommend care in how you frame the questions. Notice that all of the questions in Jason's example are of the simple yes/no type, and only one of the four includes the word "you." I would recommend asking more open-ended questions while avoiding questions that include the word "why" since such questions can be seen as confrontational. "How" or "what" questions might be more effective. Using Jason's examples, I'll try to show what I mean:

"Would the involvement of mediators in Iraq help our troops effectively diffuse violent disputes between factions?"

How do you think we can help our troops effectively diffuse violent disputes between factions in Iraq?

"Is the absence of basic human necessities a contributing factor to violent behavior?"

What are the factors that contribute to violen behavior between humans? What might be the relationship between the absence of basic human necessities and violence?

"Do you think our behavior seems fundamentalist and extremist to them?"

How do you think they interpret our behavior?

"Does scaling back our civil liberties mean victory to those who 'hate our freedoms'?"

How do you think those who "hate our freedoms" will interpret the scaling back of our civil liberties?

After the open-ended questions above, a reflection (mirroring, paraphrase) might be a good idea - a process that can be repeated until the person agrees that you "get it." THEN try the classic NVC frame for making requests: "Would you be willing to hear what I think?" and follow your explanation by asking for that same reflection, mirror, or paraphrase.

Since the person has already been heard and understood, (you understood!) (s)he can then give your views 100% of her/his attention since (s)he dosn't have to spend any attention formulating a rebuttal. That can be the next step. There are two lessons here: First, connection comes before information - establishing or repairing the relationship is more important than "winning" a concession. And second, SLOW DOWN so that the rational mind can have a chance before the emotional mind hijacks the dialogue.

Editor, propeace.net

Steve, John and everyone, there is plenty of room on this soapbox for all.

"Somebody is always pointing a finger, it seems, saying 'He,' 'She,' or 'They' are the enemies of America. In truth, the enemy of America is that pointed finger." (Marianne Williamson, Healing the Soul of America)

One way we can modify our language to invite others to share in our ideas is to frame them as questions. This allows others to consider our ideas while signaling that we are open to theirs. For example, what if you approached a war supporter with questions like this:

"Would the involvement of mediators in Iraq help our troops effectively diffuse violent disputes between factions?"

"Is the absence of basic human necessities a contributing factor to violent behavior?"

"Do you think our behavior seems fundamentalist and extremist to them?"

"Does scaling back our civil liberties mean victory to those who 'hate our freedoms'?"

These kinds of questions have to be asked with an openness to hearing the answer. As Steve says, active listening is important. It's not important that the answer is in accord with your beliefs. By asking such questions you have communicated your beliefs already and invited the other person to consider them.

With humility we can find a place where we are genuinely curious to hear the answers to such questions, not as an amusement, but in the knowing that we really don't know it all and are not nearly as smart as we think.

But we are smart enough if we all put our heads together....

I wholeheartedly concur with stereoman -- the mutual respect he describes is central to the American (Voltairian) tradition of respecting others' rights to disagree, and the failure of that mutual respect in modern America is a product of the increasing partisan name-calling prevalent in our media (presented as news), and of the increasing alienation of Americans, a product of the industrialization of our society, which has transformed us from "citizens" to "consumers". This mutual tolerance and respect is crucial not only between those who are politically polarized, but religiously also -- many in the secular world are becoming openly hostile to people of faith (especially the Christian faith, thanks to George W. Bush and his neo-con charlatans), and many Christians are dismissing Muslims and others as sub-human, a pre-condition for the dehumanizing hatred which leads to crusades and war. In fact, the war in Iraq meets precisely the Christian definition of Crusade, and should properly be called the "Iraq Crusade". The elements for a crusade are: holy cause (God bless America); belief in divine guidance and aid (e.g., that George W. Bush was chosen by God to lead America through these difficult times); godly crusaders and ungodly enemies (the war on terror -- "they" are "evil", and America is "good"); and unsparing prosecution ("this war will not end in our lifetimes"; the "unsparing" employment of torture).

These are the Christian arguments I employ in my new book, which I reference here not so much to sell books but for the reason that I wrote the book -- to educate American Christians (and non-Christians) as to how the Bush administration and the neo-conservatives have manipulated the Christian faith and the Religious Right to further ungodly, Machiavellian policies. Jesus does not condone crusades and the hatred necessary to conduct them: America is no longer on God's side, Armageddon or no. It is travesty that Christ has been strapped to the mast of more failed American foreign policy, employed in a twisted manipulation to garner support for unholy policies of war and torture, and to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It is a dark time for America, and the nation has yet to even recognize its shame.

Stereoman is dead on -- we must rehumanize, not dehumanize, and this goes especially for Americans' callous and ignorant views of peoples of other nations, all of whom are God's beloved children. And thank you for listening to my perspectives, in that very spirit -- I pray that I may employ the same respect for others (it is often easier said than done, especially with propaganda-dining neo-cons).

Hey Jason, make a space for me, let me share this soapbox with you!

I think this polarization is the single most destructive element of the current political climate, and has the potential of destroying our country more certainly than any other problem we have. It stands in the way of our making decisions as a nation, forcing us to factionalize every detail of policy, so that there is nothing left for us to identify as "what it means to be American".

Fortunately, there are steps we can each take, individually and collectively, to address this problem, and since many of us peaceniks have gone through at least some type of sensitivity training, and engaged in some political activism, we already have the requisite skills to do so.

On the personal level, we can actively seek dialogue with Conservatives. In our daily interactions we can strike up conversations with store clerks, maintenance people, bank tellers, clients, anyone at all. No need to worry about an argument breaking out, because the first thing to do is listen. Listen actively, repeat back to the person what you understand them to be saying, and accept it. You've learned something in the process, something you might never have gotten from all the provocational screeds you read online, or hear from strident Talking Heads. You've learned what a Conservative thinks.

At some point, when he/she is ready, you will be questioned in return, and have an opportunity to state your own case. You may not change the other person's mind, but in fact that's not the point. The point is to change their perception from "oh that's what all those Libruls think" to "oh that's what my friend so-and-so thinks". Even more important than convincing the other that you are right, is to convince them that people who think like you are human. That's ultimately what is needed to bridge the Great Divide.

As Jason says, we must learn to embrace our inner Conservative or Librul . . . or middle-of-the-roader. In other words, embrace our inner human.

On the wider, more public level, you can address this problem by confronting it directly. When you read or hear of some such divisive tripe, speak your truth to it. If you get a mass email full of hate, reply to all recipients that such demagoguery is destructive, and offer a better way. Support candidates who speak the truth without rancor. Write letters to the editor or to elected officials that counter rabble-rousing rhetoric with the plain truth.

As Rainbow Brain wrote the other day, what will ultimately replace Mutually Assured Destruction is Mutually Assured Trust. It is up to us, as peacemakers, to spread the seeds of trust amongst the brambles and rocks, and help this trust take hold.

Steve

=========

Our lives begin to end the moment that we become silent about things that matter. (Martin Luther King Jr.)