The Florida School Shooting

This week . . . the floodgates of polarization around the issue of guns opened by the Florida school shooting blasted open even wider. And in the course, the dangers of polarization became even clearer. Resolving the disagreements inherent in a free society depends on trusting that your opponent means what he/she says. One of the key techniques of polarization is to undermine that trust—to suggest that the other side is being disingenuous, that it doesn’t mean what it says, that it is really about “something else,” that it has hidden, ulterior motives. Certainly that is the core stance of the NRA which opposes gun control proposals largely because they are accused of being part of the “real agenda” of banning guns altogether: The “slippery slope” argument. Just as it is the stance of some on the anti-gun side to dismiss the arguments of their opponents as “really” wanting to just cling to their guns out of fear and ignorance. So neither side actually listens to and weighs what the other is saying, but simply fires back at what they believe the other side “really means.” Would banning “assault rifles” actually save lives? Would it really be a first step in undermining the second amendment? What would it mean exactly? What about raising the age to buy rifles? Or arming teachers? Or limiting cartridge capacity? Increasing background checks? Repealing—or reinterpreting— the second amendment? Polarization means that each of these ideas triggers more eye-rolling, outrage and accusation than the serious discourse and deliberation they deserve. The safety of our children. The limit on citizens vs. government for the capacity for use of deadly violence. The right to defend oneself. The right to not live in fear. The balance between loss of innocent life and preservation of individual rights…between rights and safety. These are deeply serious issues that define the exact parameters, shape and tenor of a free society. Passionate but responsible debate is critical to making these fine, nuanced, fundamental decisions. Polarization— often, of course, used not to win arguments but to cynically gain donations, members or votes—reduces these vital issues to spitballs. Preserving a free society demands better than that.When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are a few of the week’s many polarizing headlines about this issue, from the left and right: