by Jeff Brooks

Created on: January 21, 2008

Democracy cannot survive in an environment in which people do not engage in honest dialog about the issues facing them. To the extent that political correctness impedes open communication, it damages the continued execution of public policy through democratic means.

We must be able to discuss our differences as well as our similarities; our likes and our dislikes. We must do this tact and understanding, in a constructive way. Venting a long bigoted, prejudicial list of things one hates is of no use to anyone, but not saying anything on grounds that it may offend doesn't help much either.

Religion, politics and race, for example, are subjects often avoided. These can certainly be emotionally charged, polarizing topics. The easiest way to end a conversation is to introduce one of them into it. This is unfortunate. It seems to be our nature to associate our beliefs and opinions with our personality. While there is a definite link between them, they are not, or should not be, treated as one and the same.

It is easy to feel that because someone has a particular dislike for something we believe that they will find it a flaw in our personality to know that we believe that thing. These subjects fall into the category of don't ask, don't tell. It's just easier that way. The problem is that without introducing one another to our various beliefs and opinions there is no shared belief or opinion. Democracy hinges on a public consensus on community related issues. We must know one another well enough to consider what is best for all. A bit Utopian perhaps, but better to err on this side than the other.

Great progress has been made in the last decades to root out prejudice and bigotry. There is still plenty to be done, of course. Laws have been passed and are generally obeyed. But laws do not change hearts and minds, only public action. Discussion of our personal views with family, friends, neighbors and colleagues is the only way to change hearts and minds. What is not clear from the start is who's will change, ours or theirs.

The trivium, of classical education is grammar, logic and rhetoric. It's function is to teach the use of language in everyday life. Young people were trained first in the mechanics of language, then how to analyze gathered information and finally to teach or persuade others in what they had concluded. There is a great deal about life in the ancient and medieval world that is best left there. But our modern attitude toward active communication could do with a lesson from the past.

To be heard we must speak. To speak we must listen. It is in the listening that we may find our own hearts and minds changed. Democracy cannot be tyranny of the majority. It must be agreed upon policy in the common interest. Any use of phony language and pretended sentiment serves only to hamper the unnatural and often uncomfortable process of working things out civilly. Democracy is neither natural nor easy. It's continued existence depends on great effort on all of our parts.

Learn more about this author, Jeff Brooks.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.