Nuance is a trait that often, I believe, is lost amongst much of political debate. It encompasses the ideas that people can, and actually do, believe completely contradictory claims to be true, and it is very difficult to show him/her that this is the case. I think the loss of nuance is pertinent in many different areas of politics, but in this diary I want to zero in on the always hot-button topic of abortion as my example.
George Tiller's assassination definitely exemplifies the loss of nuance on the abortion debate. This, however, is not the direction I intend to take the diary. I want to look forward and for nuance by using President Obama's recent speech, and Andrew Sullivan's recent series from all sides as a guide.
**As a note: My official stance on abortion is that women most definitely have the right to choose. It should be a protected freedom for ALL women in ALL states. However, I think abortions should be limited as best as possible through means of education and affordable/available contraception. Regarding late-term abortions: The obvious exceptions of an unviable fetus and risk to the mother need to be protected.
Ok, now back to nuance. I think Obama's recent speech at Notre Dame regarding abortion fully embodied the need to tone down rhetoric and engage in an honest debate regarding abortion. The following is just a few clips of the whole speech, but it does show a willingness to engage the other side while holding true to principle.
Often nuance is characterized as a weakness. "Why give a single inch to the other side, they are simply wrong?" some might cry. While I agree, I don't believe this is productive. Especially an issue as emotional as this. We need to be able to listen to the other sides' (yes, intentionally outside the "s", there are more than 2 sides here) cases so that we are able to present our case(s) to them. I honestly believe that our stories will win out. On almost every social issue the stories of freedom win: civil rights, gay rights (yes, in the process, but it's coming), and all of the other unjustices the Progressive movement has managed to overturn.
To show this, I want to turn to the honest and open look at abortion that Andrew Sullivan has delved into shorthly after the death of Dr. Tiller. After reading the differing view points, I can't imagine that a rational discussion wouldn't bring a moajority of people closer towards our side of the debate; definitely enough to hold a strong majority on the side of protecting choice with a goal of reducing abortion.
First, I'll highlight just one section from a Sullivan reader that highlights that our case is on (yeah, my opinion) the correct side of this debate. (a brief round-up of many posts can be found here, there are more)
Our hearts ache with sadness and no words can describe how much we miss him and how deeply we love him. He will always be close to our hearts, mind, body and soul. And if it was not for the Kansas doctor, giving us a little help, we are not sure what we would be writing … Death and life are the same mysteries.
Yes, I believe it is a heart-wrenching decision to make, but notice how the Doctor in Kansas (Tiller) "help"ed them. These distinctions need to be made; there are cases where measures that seem drastic to some need to be taken.
Next, I'll highlight an example that is seemingly uninformed. It is easy to be snide to such a close-minded belief, but is it productive?
Hers was the type of "convenience" abortion that I'd like to see made rare. There have been thousands of women who have become pregnant without planning for it. They may not have felt capable of raising a child but bore them anyway, and found themselves more than capable of child-rearing.
Sullivan's posted dissent from another reader easily refutes this on the side of choice.
To carry or terminate a pregnancy is clearly a choice, and the political argument is over who is allowed to make the choice: the individual woman, who will choose to abort or not,...So if the woman is to decide, we shouldn't hold up this agony of indecision as a requirement. Trying to do so leads to odious measures such as waiting periods, or forcing women to look at sonograms or bloody pictures.
However, this refutation isn't likely to hold any stock with somebody that believes abortion is morally abhorrent because their religion tells them so. Telling someone that their religion is wrong is generally a non starter for any enlightened discussion. Rather, look for the nuance, reframe the debate by making them acknowledge that not everybody believes in their God (not all will, but you weren't convincing them anyway). Maybe, everybody shouldn't be held to these ideals. Turn towards issues related tangentially to abortion. "Doesn't it make sense to look for leaders that want to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies? Statistics show that improved education and an increased access to contraception helps greatly in this matter."
Nuance is something that needs to be harnassed by us as a tool in political dialogue. It helps us find common ground with those that oppose us so we can start to nudge them over to our side. Yes, the Republicans in Washington and those on the radio/Fox News waves make it difficult to practice nuance with their toe the line rhetoric, but not the entire nation of non-Democrats believes this. Bash their rhetoric down. I'm all for it! However, when talking to an Independent (even a misinformed one) try to engage, find the nuance and framing to show them the world through a different and more progressive lens. It is surprising how many will go for it, and many more are left with something to ponder.
Not exactly sure how long I will be able to stay with this diary, so apologies if it feels like a hit and run. Just some stuff I've been meaning to write down for awhile.