Living in the Echo Chamber

 First it was the election; now it’s the gun control “debate,” mostly everyone preaching to their own particular choir. I have, for the most part, restrained myself from commenting in response, certainly from responding angrily or sarcastically. More than one post or picture with either some founder’s quote out of context or just plain wrong information has generated a draft reply, only to be erased because I have zero hope of it changing an opinion.

One FB-friend even posted something along the line of, “If you’re in favor of gun control, please unfriend me now. Thank you.” I toyed with acceding to that request or at least suggesting that if he wanted to delete my name from his list I was okay with that and that he wouldn’t be the first. I know that I was deleted by at least one former student because she didn’t want to hear a contrary point of view.

While those on the wrong side of an issue (which is to say, of course, not my side) have about as much chance of changing my mind as I have of influencing theirs, I haven’t yet deleted any FB-friends simply because their point of view is misguided, although those who insist on pounding their drums day and night do give me a headache and try my patience. Incessant postings about the supreme importance of the 2^nd Amendment, the inherent evil of President Obama, the monopoly of conservatives on patriotism, etc., are not convincing, but increasingly annoying as they multiply. I get you have strong feelings (so do I, by the way); I don’t need hourly or even daily reminders.

Still, were I to keep on my FB-friends list only those who agree with my thinking (or who have [or express] no opinions at all), I’d be limiting myself to only those ideas with which I’m already comfortable. That would be a lot like Governor Romney, who heard only the news he wanted, primarily from the Fox Echo Chamber and advisors with a vested interest in making him feel like a winner. It was why he didn’t have a concession speech written, why he was stunned to lose, despite mounting evidence in the last weeks of the campaign that he had no chance. It was why even one of the Fox babes asked Karl Rove if his “facts” were just what he wanted to believe, and why we were treated to the comic opera of the trip to the Fox data room to question the numbers geeks who were calling states for Obama.

So I’m resisting (at least so far) the temptation to live in an echo chamber of my own design, of pretending that mine is the only opinion of value. The benefit of that? Occasionally (okay, rarely) I will have a calm, rational discussion that, while not changing any minds, will at least convince me that there does exist a middle ground, room for compromise, albeit a narrow isthmus between the raging oceans of righteousness. Our country was established by patriots who recognized that people of good will have differing points of view and that the welfare of the country, indeed, the existence of the country, depended on finding common ground, not vilifying those with a different world view.

My hope (and, I admit, it’s a rather forlorn hope) is that those who use the statements of the Founding Fathers as “proof” of their point of view will remember that it was the spirit of compromise that was the key, overarching theme that united the founders and created the country, not some entrenched position (e.g., the necessity of the Bill of Rights—in today’s political climate, we couldn’t even get that passed). 

But, in the words of that great philosopher of Sesame Street, Grover, “Where there is life there is hope.” I hope he's right!