In this time of great polarization, where Republicans and Democrats mutually despise each other, I thought of a way for Liberals and Conservatives to reach across the aisle to each other.
I call it the Anti-Confirmation Bias Book Club. Liberals deliberately seek out reading suggestions from conservatives, and conservatives will do the same from liberals. If you want to join this club, you will commit to reading at least one book that disagrees with you a month and then writing at a paragraph or two about your thoughts on the material. Did you change your mind about anything, or moderate your stance in any way?
I like the idea generically but it kind of requires that a person identify either as a Liberal or a Conservative. If forced to choose, I’d identify as a Liberal because of how I’ve voted most often, but I have plenty of ire for liberals (and leftists, progressives, social activists, revolutionaries, marginalized peoples pursuing social justice, etc) and some of their brain-dead reductionisticically simplistic ways of seeing the world, not just for the folks on the other side.
Any way to get beyond the political binary on this?
A more nuanced approach could involve the Political Compass Test, that has 4 Quadrants: Authoritarian Left, Authoritarian Right, Libertarian Left, Libertarian Right. Individuals can take the test, find out what quadrant they are in, and will make it their mission to read authors belonging to the other 3 quadrants.
It’s been a long time since I’ve taken the test, but I’m somewhere in the Libertarian Left.
Me too, but even there I’m only mildly “left” while radically “libertarian” and would get crossways with someone who was emphatically “left” and only marginally “libertarian”.
If I had to suggest one book for those in the two Right Quadrants, it would be “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger” by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.
The problem is that I cannot commit to reading something that lies to me and all the conservative writing I am aware of seems to lie constantly. Yes, some conservatives have fallen off the bandwagon (David Frum, David Brooks, Ross Doutat) and don’t lie, but they haven’t explained why they used to swallow all the conservative BS before Trump came along. I do always read what they write incidentally, but I don’t think that fulfills the proposed mandate.
I feel the same way, but nonetheless I think Blalron’s proposal has merit as long as good books are nominated which everybody would benefit from reading, and everyone agrees each month to take on a book that is challenging to them personally. Some that I would nominate.
I think it’s a good idea. A book a month may be a bit much if folks are busy though. For the Democrats among us I’d recommend Thomas Sowell’s “Knowledge and Decisions.”
Is this about Democrats vs. Republicans, or liberals vs. conservatives?
I ask because in the age of Trumpism, the two pairs don’t seem to have much in common. Hillary was a much stronger supporter of conservative economics than Trump is, for instance. I don’t need convincing about traditional conservative economics: I already agree. It’s Trumponomics that I’d like to see defended.