Owen Brent-Levenstein ’27 (DCI Fellow)
As a kid I understood the difference between Democrats and Republicans as this: Republicans take from the poor to give to the rich, while Democrats take from the rich to give to the poor. With this dichotomy, the choice was obvious. One side was the moral choice, wanting what was best for the world, while the other side was greedy, wanting to keep as much for themselves and exploit others to do so.
However, my experience facilitating a discussion after the DCI Income and Wealth Disparities forum showed how this assumption about people’s morals was not true. 12-year-old me would think that anyone arguing against policies such as redistribution or higher minimum wage were greedy and unsympathetic. In listening to the wide array of arguments across the spectrum of political ideologies, it was clear that this was not the case.
Someone who worked with unions talked about how high minimum wages have incentivized automation, meaning even more people lost jobs. Another member talked about the fear of how higher taxes and inflation can end up devastating the lower and middle class. Whether I agreed with what they said or not, one thing was clear, these views came from a desire to create the best world and economy for the majority of people, a goal that lined up exactly with mine.
This helped show me that finding common end goals can help everyone be more receptive to the other side. The goal can be as specific as wanting higher wages for all and as vague as wanting a better world for the majority of people. When everyone can realize they are working towards the same result, it can bring the group closer together and can turn a heated argument into more of an intellectual disagreement.
When the group can establish a clear end goal, it naturally brings them together. It’s easy to see the other side in a malicious light when you feel like their opinion is so far from your own. It makes it even worse when you feel as if their value system is far different, and doubt whether their morals are in line with your own. Finding a common goal can quell a lot of these doubts and points of tension between groupmates, and in turn rally the group around solving the common goal. It transforms points of heavy contention into a group problem-solving effort, bringing a sense of comradery and commonality to the deliberation.
Finding a common end goal also turns the discussion from more of an emotionally charged event, towards an intellectual disagreement. The more we are able to see that both sides are morally fighting for similar goals, we can focus the discussion on the specifics of how to achieve those goals. This can lessen the emotions that come with the topic that is being deliberated and allow participants to focus more on the logic and reasoning behind the arguments.
Overall, finding a common end goal, no matter how vague it is, can bring the deliberating group together, and turn the deliberation from a tense argument to a constructive problem-solving exercise.
