Nation Can Reconcile with Open, Spirited, and Honest Dialogue

It is a sign of the confusing times in which we live that a well-known atheist has made the most compelling appeal for peace and love in the Christmas season.

In a recent episode of "Real Time," (HBO) comedian Bill Maher asked: "Can we please not let politics f**k up the holidays?"

Do I hear an "Amen!"?

We're living in an era of unprecedented polarization, in which every issue: abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, the Mideast, the definition of marriage, and even the definition of a man and a woman, have become a battlefield of irreconcilable ideologies and explosive rhetoric.

Families, communities, and the nation itself are divided.

Simple dinners are now political minefields, friendships dissolve over social media posts, and even Christmas risks being hijacked by the rancor of elections.

Is there a way out?

As a conservative, it’s easy to gloat about elections and feel hopeful about "pressing on to victory."

Yet, the tide can turn quickly.

The truth is no one even knows what "victory" looks like.

Let's ask ourselves, "Will life forever be a raging war of red against blue, all of us yelling past one another, families at each other’s throats?"

There must be a longtime strategy to extricate ourselves from this quagmire.

One thing is for sure: we can't make the contentiousness go away via ordinary political compromises. Indeed, there can be no easy compromises when first principles differ so radically.

Is abortion the killing of an innocent child, or is it a fundamental right?

Is marriage a holy covenant between a man and a woman, or are definitions of gender, love, and family determined solely by individuals or . . . the state?

Little room for consensus here.

The only possible starting point for fruitful dialogue is to adopt the baseline premise that each side in the culture war is motivated by sincerely held good intentions, not malice.

Each side believes it is advocating for society’s good and that the opposing side is causing harm.

Can we at least admit that?

What is not helpful is to impugn uncharitable motives to the other side.

I’m not talking here about tolerating positions perceived as "evil."

Evil must be always fought.

But while fighting a perceived evil, we must avoid attributing evil motives to our adversaries.

That distinction is critical.

This means accepting these 12 propositions about the majority of Americans — not necessarily movement leaders or political figures — but ordinary people:

1. Those who voted for President-Elect Trump are not fascists.
2. Those who voted for Trump or Harris are not "insane" or "cult members."
3. Those who are pro-life do not hate women.
4. Those who are pro-abortion rights don't believe abortion kills babies — at least not the same kind of babies that coo in carriages.
5. Those who are anti-LGBTQ+ don't hate gays or are homophobic.
6. Those who are LGBTQ+ advocates do not believe they are harming children or destroying families.
7. Those who are "anti-Woke" are not racist or bigoted.
8. Those who embrace the "Woke" agenda are not trying to incite divisiveness or consciously eliminate the right to free speech.
9. Those in favor of stricter border control are not selfish or unconcerned about humanity.
10. Those against deporting illegal immigrants do not hate America.
11. Those who favor tax-cuts do not want the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer.
12. Those who favor government assistance programs are not secretly trying to impose socialism.

These statements don't claim which side is right or wrong.

They don't address the substance of beliefs or take away the urgency of fighting for them.

Rather, they concern what each side does not believe, striving to eliminate malicious intent from discourse. Only on this basis — the presumption of good intentions — can productive dialogue begin.

What would such dialogue look like?

Our nation is at a historical crossroads reminiscent of the mid-19th century, grappling with the moral and legal quagmire of slavery.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 exemplified public discourse, delving into slavery and states' rights.

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Today, we need new series of "Lincoln-Douglas Debates" — a program of public, televised, town-hall-style discussions.

In the digital era, such discussions could be much more powerful and effective than those of the 19th century.

Of course, no one supposes such debates will resolve our problems, just as Lincoln-Douglas debates didn’t resolve slavery.

This is not some naïve, Rodney King-style appeal for all of us to simply "get along."

This is an attempt to inch our way towards a clearer understanding of the true majority opinion. And once we start moving — even slightly — no one can predict where we might end up.

The key is to eradicate bias from these debates.

Structured public discussions with agreed-upon formats, questions, and absolutely impartial moderators could allow each side to present its case fairly.

Only this might help us move beyond bias-driven media narratives.

Even if such efforts fail, there is no other way forward.

As Christmas approaches, let’s heed Bill Maher’s advice not to let politics overshadow the holiday spirit.

Let’s also embrace the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, as he expressed it, during his second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865. 

"With malice toward none and charity for all," let’s strive for an open, spirited, and honest public dialogue before all hope of reconciliation is lost.

Anthony DeStefano is the author of 30 books, including his latest for children, "Christmas in Heaven." Read his reports. More Here.