I climbed into the cab of a friendly trucker so I wouldn't run out of gas keeping my car warm. He's from Israel. He lives in Florida with his wife, who is from Germany. He owns his rig and he hauls for one company, although he can switch to another any time he likes. He drives 10 hours a day, and is away from home four or five days a week. I asked him how he can handle driving that much. He shrugged and said he's gotten used to it and he likes seeing different places and meeting people. But he also said he's thinking about making a change while he's still young, because trucking is a hard life: bad food, not enough time at home or exercise or good sleep. We talked about travel, Obama and the Republican Congress and the economy, our lives, and trucks (his Freightliner gets 6 miles to the gallon and has a 300-gallon tank. A fill-up costs $700).
As it happened, he and I agreed on, or were intrigued by, nearly all we talked about. But hanging out with him got me to thinking, for the 100th time, of something I have long found to be true. Beneath the opinions and the politics, about which our big village of humans needs to struggle and argue if we care about living together, there is this: when we are willing to see and honor the indestructible goodness at the heart of most people we encounter (including ourselves), we are then freer to challenge what we see as the bad ideas and bad behavior of those people (including our ourselves). In one good swoop, we validate someone at the deepest level and thereby strengthen our authority to challenge things they say or do.
One of the traps of today's hate-mongering discourse, with its casual references to gunning down the opposition (e.g., "We come unarmed – This time"), is that it jumps to the assassin's assumption that people with "bad" ideas are "bad" people. It brings violence into the equation, whether through conceptual or physically literal annihilation of an opponent's personhood. In so doing, it guarantees that it will influence no one but existing converts, because none of us will listen to, or take seriously, anyone who sums up our personhood as "bad" because they detest our ideas.
But when we take the other tack and recognize the innate goodness of everyone's personhood (or most people's personhood, anyway), we gain more authority to criticize or even passionately condemn some of their opinions and actions precisely because we expect better of the innate goodness of their personhood. Their inner excuses about our not truly seeing them are then rendered false. So are our own excuses about not being truly seen -- when we or others subject us to the same blend of soulful validation and stern challenge. It creates at least the possibility of truly honest debate. If American discourse has a prayer of evolving toward democracy, this has to be a part of it. Of course, preventing corporations from essentially hiring our government and shaping our mass-media speech would also help.
It's kind of nice what you have time to reflect on when you're lucky enough to be caught in a snowstorm.