When Conversation Ends

April 12 marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of our Civil War. On this day in 1861, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, a military installation flying the flag of the United States in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, a state that was the first to secede from the Union. The bombardment lasted until April 14, when the fort surrendered. It was the first victory for the Confederate army and the beginning of the most devastating conflict this continent has ever know.

The war between the states would involve over 10,000 battles -- the largest and most deadly being three days at Gettysburg, resulting in 46,000 - 51,000 casualties -- and would last nearly four years, ending on April 9, 1865. Casualties for the war totaled nearly 1,030,000, representing roughly 3% of the population. Approximately 620,000 were killed. The Civil War accounted for nearly as many deaths as in all American-fought wars combined.

On April 14, 1865, a final casualty was recorded: President Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, a Southern sympathizer, and died the following day.

For those who fear that this will be a detailed history lesson with midterm and final to follow, let me put your mind at ease. This is not about the Civil War (though I'm still considering the idea of a final, so do pay close attention). Nor is it about the horror of war or a discussion of the causes of the Civil War. (Regardless of what you read, don't look beyond the obvious: Slavery.) Nor is this week's blog about the debate regarding the relative power of a centralized national government versus decentralized state governments. No, as compelling as these topics might be, we'll leave them for another time.

Instead, we'll consider what happens when people on two sides of an emotional issue stop talking. More specifically, we'll explore something even more debilitating: The deliberate, calculated and, sadly, increasingly successful attempt to prevent debate about our most pressing issues. This diabolical effort to inhibit meaningful dialogue is, in our opinion, creating a civil war of an entirely different, but no less dangerous sort. (Hello Sarah Palin. Hello Michele Bachmann. Hello and good-bye, Glenn Beck.)

Attempts to short-circuit debate

When conversation ends, bad things nearly always result. Not always in war, involving death and destruction -- like the one we're commemorating this week -- but in the creation of significant, powerful barriers between people. Barriers that, in turn, promote ignorance and hostility and segment entire populations. And all too often, especially of late, it appears that these barriers are being erected for the sole purpose of fermenting a dangerous division in our society, not unlike that which led to our civil war.

Of what do I speak? I'm glad you asked.

Let's begin with the highly emotional inference -- promoted by high-ranking Republicans and many in the Tea Party -- that President Obama was not born in this country and is not Christian. When was the last time a sitting president's nationality was questioned? When was the last time his religion was questioned? When was the last time this country had an African American president? Think there's any relationship between these questions? (Think four questions -- now five -- in a row is excessive?) Of course there's a relationship. Questioning the president's birthplace is a deliberate attempt to undermine his credibility, to promote anger, to rouse opposition. To suggest also that he is Muslim is designed specifically to alienate and undermine even further. This is all done to prevent Obama from being part of the discussion about the direction of this country. To create factions. To divide. Racist tactics have that effect.

That Obama's birthplace was ever questioned in the first place is amazing. That his birthplace is still a topic is more amazing. That House Speaker John Boehner can say, in regards to Obama's birthplace, "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think. The American people have the right to think what they want." is beyond amazing. That Boehner -- and many others -- can get away with it is simply astounding.

But consider this: In a recent poll reported in the Los Angeles Times (February 16, 2011), 51% of likely Republican primary voters believe that Obama was born outside the United States. More than 80% of the likely voters with a favorable impression of Sarah Palin do not believe the president is a citizen. Think the numbers for supports of Michele Bachmann are even more skewed, given her vitriol? Probably.

By the way, Winston Churchill once described fanatics as those who "can't change their mind and won't change the subject." Seems apt, no?

Let's consider another example of an emotional topic with insufficient discussion, one dividing us: Global warming. The scientific data is overwhelming and indicates two clear, incontrovertible truths:

1. Global warming is real and is happening.
2. Humans are to blame.

For a great many, though, overlooking science is an option. A steadfast belief that global warming is a cause célèbre of the Leftist tree-huggers, as some would describe them, is preventing us from discussing this serious issue productively. And while we avoid the debate in this country -- especially the options we have to slow the effects of global warming -- the planet's climate continues to change. (Interested in a very good read? Try Mark Hertsgaard's Hot.) Such is the impact of electing to ignore data and, in the process, inhibiting dialogue.

A more emotional example of data being ignored and dialogue prevented: Evolution. Try to have a conversation about evolution and you'll likely find yourself on one side of a huge wall, regardless of your religious views. You'll also find yourself labeled and assigned, unfairly, to an undesirable segment of the population: Those who do not believe, those who do not care, those who do not feel. All unfair and all designed to eliminate a good, healthy conversation about our origins.

Yet another example of a deliberate method to curtail if not fully prevent discussion is seen in the workplace in the form of the oft-heard and innovation-killing mantra, "But we've always done it this way." What a conversation stopper! What a motivation squelcher! What a terrific way to prevent growth! And, without doubt, a brilliant way to create factions -- those who defend the tried and true versus those who seek to create new traditions -- and doom an organization to long-term mediocrity. (Ah, but this is can be remedied and we can help.)

Our message: Beware those who would prevent discussion. Identify those who alienate, create factions, and work to divide us, for they are, without doubt, suppressors of freedom. Open, honest dialogue is our raison d'être, our guiding principle, our core value. Question the motives of those who would undermine the conversation, for their heart is dark and mind suspect. We are one people with many viewpoints. And should our ability to debate be taken from us by others within this land, have fear for our future as the end of conversation inevitably leads to bad things. Keep this squarely in mind as we remember the war that was fought on this continent 150 years ago.

* * * * * *

That said, let's hope you were paying close attention.

The Final Exam

1. On what fort did the Confederacy fire, marking the beginning of the Civil War?

A. Fort Sutter
B. Fort Night
C. Fort Sumter
D. Fort Lauderdale
E. Fort Knox

2. On what day did the Civil War end?

A. April 9, 1965
B. April 9, 1856
C. April 9, 1865
D. April 9, 1855
E. April 9, 1857

3. Which state was the first to secede from the Union?

A. New York
B. Virginia
C. Tennessee
D. Georgia
E. South Carolina

4. What was the primary difference in belief between the northern and southern states that led to the Civil War?

A. Slavery
B. Slavery
C. Slavery
D. Slavery
E. All of the above

5. At the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, on January 1, 1863, approximately how many slaves existed in both the North (yes, there were slaves in the north, even in New York) and South?

A. 4,000,000
B. I didn't know this was going to be on the test
C. This is unfair to ask since you didn't cover this in your blog
D. Hard to know, but I bet a lot
E. Damn. I should have watched Ken Burn's brilliant documentary The Civil War

Scroll down for answers.



















1. C, 2. C, 3. E, 4. E, 5, A (but do seek out Burns' The Civil War)

See you next week.