Probing political polarization: There’s a third way, and it has an Easter tie-in

I posed a favorite question to the thoughtful, civic-minded person next to me at a meal: What podcasts are you listening to?

I should say quickly that my York meal mate was a politically knowledgeable liberal — respected in the community — who no doubt would accept the compliment of being open minded.

We talked about New York Times podcaster Ezra Klein and how he is a thoughtful liberal, willing to say “I take your point” if in disagreement with his guests. And his interviewees aren’t always Democrats or liberals, as is common with many such political podcasts, progressive or conservative. For example, he recently hosted Russell Moore, a Southern Baptist minister and editor of Christianity Today, an evangelical source for news and commentary.

We talked about how The New York Times’ “The Daily” does a good job of explaining the issues, although (my point to him) you need to be aware about the podcast’s underlying liberalism and sift through that.

Then I asked my meal mate what conservative or moderate shows were on his podcast playlist.

He paused, as if the idea of listening to a podcast outside his camp was new to him.

He listened as I told him about some options: the work of Ross Douthat, conservative voice for several years on The New York Times’ podcast “The Argument.” The voices on National Review’s “The Editors” podcast probe the left and don’t hesitate to poke at and criticize positions to their right.

David French, then of “The Dispatch Podcast” and The Atlantic and now a columnist with The New York Times, and others on that podcast’s roster provide reporting and commentary “informed by conservative principles.”

Indeed, there are options, I said, for him to understand the full political terrain and to combat polarization. My meal mate considered these ideas, and the day took us on to the next thing.

I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation, and I know this person would be willing to do so. Maybe it will become clear to my friend that it’s a bit inconsistent in contending to be open minded on the one hand and digest only partisan stuff on the other.

There’s an Easter tie-in that we’ll get to soon, but for now, I’ll say that it is right to have a political discussion at Easter.

Jesus’ death came at the hand of a highly political Roman governor who constantly calculated the political mood as part of his charge to keep the peace in the empire’s hinterlands.

More: In this time of bridge-building, a call for more community mediators

Third-way thinking

Recently, French and Myers, joined by Curtis Chang of the “Good Faith” podcast, sat on a Trinity Forum-sponsored panel at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Trinity Forum was co-founded by Oxford-trained sociologist/theologian Os Guinness, who helped popularize third-way thinking, which seeks solutions on political and religious issues amid polarized alternatives.

This makes those who hold to this view hard to categorize as left or right, Democrat or Republican or somewhere in between. I believe the three Christian panelists at the forum were somewhere on the conservative-to-moderate spectrum. And I am more certain that they’re third-way thinkers.

A theme for the evening was to try to get the audience to think outside of their own political camps and to explore what held their allegiance.

French talked about how Americans, as shown by Bill Bishop in his best-seller “The Big Sort,” are congregating into communities of like-minded people. This brings in the “Law of Group Polarization” popularized by legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein. It basically says that when people of like mind gather, they become more extreme over time.

People increasingly are finding community with like-minded people and thereby are gaining the reward of kinship that comes when you have your thinking reinforced. And then comes an inevitable step for many in which politics, their political opponents and allegiance to political leaders consume their identity.

As the panel wrestled with its topic, “Toward a Better Christian Politics,” I thought of ideas gleaned from a podcast as expressed by British philosopher John Stuart Mill in an 1859 piece “On Liberty.” Here are my takeaways:

We should be willing to listen to other views because, among other things, we simply could be wrong. And you really can’t be certain about your ideas unless they’re vigorously tested by someone who thinks differently. Someone who you agree with but plays the devil’s advocate cannot respond with the passion and authenticity of a person with different ideas.

Also, opposing ideas might have elements that are true and thus could be helpful in formulating solutions in a community and beyond.

You don’t have to look to some British philosopher to find an example of someone who understood the ideas of those he debated face to face. The Apostle Paul in Acts 17 in the Bible, in discoursing with the “men of Athens” on Mars Hill, quoted their philosophers back to them. He knew their arguments better than they did.

And the spread of early Christianity in the hostile Roman empire came, in part, because followers of Jesus chose a third way, aiding the victims of the plagues in cities rather than shelter in place or flee to country estates. These Christians found their identity in Jesus, the master healer.

The idea of third-way thinking — this notion that reasonable solutions are often found apart from the poles — extend past politics and Christians.

You might know third-way thinkers in York County – Christians and non-Christians who problem solve in this way expressed by Guinness in his 1973 book “The Dust of Death”: “How often in the contemporary discussion a sensitive modern man knows that he cannot accept either of the polarised alternatives offered to him. In Christianity, however, there can be a Third Way, a true middle ground which has a basis, is never compromise and is far from silent.”

Think about whether you’d find elements of this thinking in discussions with your friends. Or whether your friends all think pretty much the same as you. If it’s the latter, that might help explain our national polarization.

Space between the poles

Perhaps it would be useful to give ideas that bring forth elements of third-way thinking and could combat the Law of Group Polarization:

- If you feel you must get commentary from CNN or MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, split your viewing between them. One problem with cable news is that they get their ratings via “nutpicking,” a term popularized by David French. This is the practice of showcasing the nuttiest members of a group as indicative of the entire group.

- Consider whether your voice in talking with people in person is different from what you say on social media.

You might know of a grandfatherly neighbor or co-worker who is most helpful during the day but becomes a cynical and political keyboard warrior on Facebook at night.

- We are what we read, as the saying goes, or the podcasts we choose. So are we reading widely or are we affixed to a pole?

A recent biography of retired New York City Presbyterian minister Tim Keller points out that he read The Village Voice and The Wall Street Journal (conservative opinion page), The New York Times and First Things (conservative journal), The Nation and the Weekly Standard, Wired and The New Yorker.

Visitors to Keller’s popular network of congregations gave it a try but couldn’t pigeonhole his church, biographer Colin Hansen wrote about this evangelical Christian steeped in the writings of theologians of the Protestant Reformation.

“When Keller quoted Shakespeare and the Village Voice (in his sermons),” Hansen wrote, “liberals thought he was one of them. Then he’d confuse them with an explanation of the Cross that would hearten any conservative evangelical.”

Tying in Easter

This is Easter when Christians observe the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. They believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humans and arose on the third day. Because he lived after death, there’s the promise that those who believe in these things — the gospel — will, too.

At the National Press Club, the panelists raised questions about whether some Christians have substituted their identity with Jesus for that of a political party, high-level politicians or the quest for power. Some Christians might have lost sight of loving their enemies, the power of persuasion or, most importantly, the Cross.

In questioning the panel, moderator and Trinity Forum President Cherie Harder asked: “What has happened where even in people of faith the political is crowding out the spiritual and theological as the primary sources of self-identity and even meaning making?”

This is Easter, so this challenge about Christian allegiance in Jesus is timely.

But these points about identity extend to all people.

Non-Christians also should consider whether their identities are similarly saturated by politics, whether they’ve lost civility and whether they’re immersed in a power play.

When it comes to polarization in the public square, all parties must consider whether they’re pridefully using power to press their point and humbly consider that they might be wrong.

Or partly wrong.

Or whether the other side might have good things to say.

Or there might be another solution altogether — a third way.

Jim McClure is a retired editor of the York Daily Record and has authored or co-authored nine books on York County history. Reach him at jimmcclure21@outlook.com.

This article originally appeared on York Daily Record: Probing political polarization with an Easter tie-in: Jim McClure