By Steven Thayn
I want to start with a question. The Founding Fathers, in 1787, kept newspaper reporters out of the Constitutional Convention so they could have open debate and, later, still be able to change their minds. This allowed them to consider all human options and, when their ideas did not resolve everyone’s concerns, they could turn to hopes of being led by Providence to receive inspired answers. The process of being open with one another invites the wisdom of Providence to enter the discussion, but it requires that we have open debate. The brainstorming phase is where all ideas are on the table, even the bad ones.
The question is, “How can we recreate this sense of honest, give-and-take discussion in our day?” What do you think?
My son, Derrick, thought this was a really good question. First, he pointed out that not everyone wants an honest, give-and-take debate. He noted that many people just want power so they pretend to be sincere; but are not willing to change their opinion. Then, he said something very insightful. Creating discord and division is their business model. They get more mileage out of talking about problems than solving them. They don’t want solutions; it would destroy their influence. Even though they may have correctly identified the problem; living in the problem is like being eternally stuck on second base without being able to cross home plate and score a run.
Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of American limited government and is generated in the flames of honest disagreement, where good ideas rise to the top to be implemented. Regular passionate debate is good for America; however, not all passionate debate is equal. Healthy debate includes the desire to understand the other person’s concerns where questions are asked for clarification and the issue is discussed. Unhealthy debate is when predetermined conclusions are defended and accusations and name calling are employed where people are attacked.
There is another level above free speech which our Founding Fathers reached during the Constitutional Convention when they sought for divine inspiration. Stephen Covey called this win-win solutions and is only crafted by actively listening to all parties involved, understanding their underlying interests, and collaboratively brainstorming creative options that try to address everyone’s needs, resulting in an outcome where all parties feel heard and have input believing they gained something beneficial from the negotiation; this requires open communication and a focus on finding common ground.
The opposite of win-win is tyranny that demand obedience without debate. Notice that North Korea, China, and the old Soviet Union all have or had secret police. Why? To limit debate and limit the introduction of new ideas. Tyrants fear free speech. Free speech allows the hand of Providence to enter and supplement man’s wisdom.
The legacy media has, historically, limited debate. They pre-concluded that more government is the answer. They don’t need conservative thought which says less government is the answer. In fact, contention is their business model because they make more money from division than from unity; from problems, than solutions. Big government grows in an environment of discord. When all is well, it does not sell. They don’t want solutions. They thrive in contention and chaos. It is their money maker.
Legacy media, by not allowing thoughtful debate, has short-circuited the process whereby win-win ideas are born. Legacy media has pushed America toward tyranny when it tries to silence conservative thought. How can there be “active” listening if conservatives are not allowed a seat at the table.
Luckily, modern inventions like the internet have been undermining the legacy media’s monopoly on information. Recently, Elon Musk recognized limiting debate is not good for society. His purchase of Twitter changed the American political landscape forever giving conservatives a powerful platform to get out their views. One of the greatest free speech developments since the printing press.
Other conservative platforms have also arisen in the last decade which has further weakened the power of the legacy media. However, all is not well. Many of the new conservative voices have embraced the destructive tactics of the legacy media. Many conservatives, rather that debating limited government solutions have adopted legacy media’s business model – controversy and division. These confrontational tactics undermine honest, open debate. It does not matter if the left or the right silences debate, it still harmful. Lack of honest debate does not allow a good idea to emerge depriving the people of a better win-win solution. Stopping debate engenders animosity and if there is only one opinion allowed, then there is only chief. It becomes us v. them.
A useful tool special interest groups make for voters are scorecards usually created after a legislative session. However, a scorecard can be used as a tool of intimidation which hampers free speech if the scorecard is made before debate and before votes are taken without consulting the author of the bill. This preemptive support or opposition to bills tends to discourage open and honest debate. This is not unity thru debate, this is preemptive action to limit debate which is at the heart of tyranny.
A growing political practice is attacking the individual rather than debating ideas, issues, and policies. I can no long sit idly by and let this destructive practice continue without stating my objection. Personal attacks retard our progress as a nation.
Jesus Christ said in His day, in describing the Pharisees and could be applied to the politics of personal destruction in our day. Matt. 23:3 “So do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice”. (Not KJV)
Christ did not argue with what the Pharisees said, He had an issue with what they did. I support the principles conservatives proclaim; I disagree with intimidation and lack of respect the people with contrary opinions. Arguing against a policy and destroying it with logic is fair game. Destroying the person is not.
Don’t support those groups that engage in attacks against people. The future of our country depends upon it. Just like Smokey Bear’s political cousin said, “Only you can prevent personal political attacks.”
Here in Idaho, the Idaho Freedom Foundation uses its scorecard as a tool of intimidation which hampers free speech by not allowing open and honest debate. The IFF comes up with it ranking on a bill and then goes to individual legislators telling them how to vote or else. This is not unity thru debate, this is unity before debate which is at the heart of tyranny.
About Steven Thayn
Steven Thayn is a father, grandfather, former Idaho state legislator, and former chairman of the District 14 Republicans. Thayn is the author of numerous books on education, poverty, healthcare, and natural law.
