Our political world is filled with issues that provoke visceral reactions. Bring up gay marriage, immigration reform, gun control, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, welfare assistance, war, foreign aid, abortion and any number of other issues and you will trigger some of the most emotionally charged reactions.

 

In observing such responses, both in myself and in others, I am often reminded of when King Lear muses on human nature after his daughter Regan has betrayed him. He asks himself: “Is there any cause in nature that makes these hard hearts?” He imagines “anatomizing” Regan to find out “what breeds about her heart.”

 

This is the father whose own cruelty led to his downfall. Earlier, Lear’s blind pride caused him to exile the one daughter who truly loved him. Now he is musing on the existence of hard hearts! The irony of the scene encourages us to engage in the same self-reflection Lear is ultimately led to in the play: Were we to “anatomize” ourselves, what would we find breeding about our own hearts?

 

Each of us has a demon within that yearns for intolerance, pleads for absolutism, begs us to translate our moral positions into a hatred for those who disagree. It is a mistake to think this demon exists only in the illiberal individual, the one who seeks to restrict the freedom to live differently. The demon exists in the liberal too, the individual who shows such vehement intolerance for the intolerant. We can see this in how self-indulgent it feels to express our deep hatred for abhorrent opinions. We more often do it for self-affirmation, not to change another’s views.

 

But perhaps this liberal hostility is justified. After all, if intolerance is unacceptable, why not publicly treat it with the abhorrence it deserves?

 

There is a case to be made for showing intolerance for what we regard to be deeply prejudiced ideas. A battering ram of protest has, previously, forced the hand of history and ushered in progressive reforms, like with the civil rights movement. Such instances make the case for a vibrant level of activism. But we should also keep in mind that attempts to put prejudicial views through electric shock therapy do not always have the best effects and can even further alienate those whose views we wish to change.

 

In such cases, particularly in person-to-person interactions, it is the person who listens to the narrative of another and shows a genuine sympathy for where she is coming from who has a chance to get through. Such interactions offer a mutually sympathetic atmosphere in which a person can express her inner thoughts and motivations, a chance to genuinely test those attitudes and have her failings exposed.

 

This theory that I am advancing – call it the “taming-the-demon-within prescription” – is undermined by the example of Barack Obama’s presidency. President Obama came into office with what seemed like such an earnest intention to bring disagreeing people together. We saw it in his speech to the world’s Muslims in Cairo; we saw it in his speech on abortion at the University of Notre Dame’s commencement; we saw it in his Nobel Peace Prize speech in Oslo on the possibilities for a just war in pursuance of peace.

 

Yet how ineffective he seems to have been thus far! His way of moderation only seems to have isolated him from Democrats while making next to no progress in softening the animosity toward him from fervent Republicans. The problem with Barack Obama’s approach seems in part to be that he is attempting it at the macro level, delivering a single man’s message to groups of people stewing within their cohorts of strong views. For one man to speak sympathetically to festering wells of animosity in the hopes of coming to some mutual understanding is a forlorn quest. He cannot do it alone.

 

More of us need to be in this with him, from Congress to individuals. As a society, we have to work on listening to the narratives of others, understanding what has led them to their views. This applies as much to Democrats listening to the narratives of those who are prejudiced against, say, gay people as to Republicans (at least the war hawks) listening to the narratives of those who are sympathetic to, say, terrorists. We should listen not because these views are acceptable, but rather because we want to understand and improve them.

 

This call for a cultural shift in which we reel in our inner demons sounds a bit idealistic (even to its writer!). It reminds me of David Cameron in his opening speech as British Prime Minister this week in which he called for a culture of responsibility where government initiatives taking care of the poorest would be replaced by the support of individuals, families and communities. It was a heavy dose of wishful thinking.

 

Changing a culture is tough work. But when we consider that the bitter disputes dividing our society will not go away while we maintain the status quo, we are given good reason to be hopeful. When a wishful answer is the only answer, it is the answer worth striving for.

 

Has your inner demon got you down? Send Aysha your comments at [email protected].