Have you ever thought about the gifts you receive from the world, human and otherwise? For example, I am writing this blog in Clarinda, Iowa’s Lied Library, sitting in a comfortable chair, toasting in front of a warm fire, and listening to children read to the library staff. How many people and things did it take to produce this building and all that it contains? After I finish this little essay, I will get into my car and travel a few blocks to Clarinda’s recycling containers to drop off glass, plastic, and paper.

I could spend hours listing all responsible for this library, my car and those recycling containers. Imagine counting all the meals your mother and/or father prepared for you. Consider the little courtesies you receive each day. This morning on the way to the library I and my car met another person and her car at exactly the same moment at an an intersection on the Clarinda square. We looked at each other, she smiled, and motioned for me to go forward. I returned her smile and nudged my car through the intersection, feeling just a little better than I had a moment before.

Prompted by her kindness, I looked for an opportunity to do something for someone else. Walking into the library I made a point of smiling and greeting the first person I saw so that I could bestow a gift. Have you ever thought about the gifts to others and the world that you provide each day? That smile and greeting was a gift, as is, I suppose, this blog. Take a few minutes today and compare the gifts you receive with the gifts you provide. If you are like me, the former will outnumber the latter, by a lot. This is good for me to know and, in and of itself, helps me be more grateful than I might otherwise be. The world gives me a lot more than I give it.

Just this moment I look over to my right and see the library’s Omaha World Herald on the table next to me. Oops, I finished reading it about 30 minutes ago and have not yet returned it to the shelf. I know there are others waiting for this paper because I wait for it everyday I am in this comfortable place. Have you ever asked yourself, what trouble do I cause others everyday? Oh, boy. A very uncomfortable question, isn’t it? I started asking myself this question about two years ago and I would say it has changed my life. Not in the sense that I no longer cause trouble for others. Of course I do, day-in and day-out, but if I had a trouble-meter attached to me I think the daily trouble numbers would be trending down.

Two years ago I was introduced to a Japanese self-reflection discipline called Naikan. An excellent book introducing Naikan is Naikan: Gratitude, Grace and the Japanese Art of Self-Reflection by Gregg Krech. The Naikan approach focuses on the three questions I have listed here: 1. What gifts have I received from others? 2. What gifts have I given to others? & 3. What trouble have I caused others?

Occasional reflection on these questions has been a humbling experience for me and also leads me to be more more grateful for the seen and unseen world that props me up each and every day.

How often have you been in a ‘cat and dog’ conversation? You come away feeling hopeless or despondent or a failure. In our current political moment, this happens too often to too many of us. One personal example still haunts me.

Dick and I had just introduced ourselves at a dinner event and after a bit of friendly small talk, Dick said ‘I have been reading The Case for Trump by Victor Davis Hanson.’ Without a moment’s hesitation, I replied ‘I don’t think I could read such a book.’ Recognizing almost (but not quite) immediately my mistake, I tried to recover by saying nice things about the author who I was familiar with but the damage had been done. The conversational energy was gone. It was my fault and I knew it.

Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay in How to Have Impossible Conversations have written a book full of helpful insights about how to have “conversations that take place across a seemingly unbridgeable gulf of disagreement in ideas, beliefs, morals, politics and worldviews.” Their book is full of hope and built upon the idea that anyone can learn the skills necessary to make impossible conversations possible and productive.

The book is divided by skill level, from beginner through master. In a future blog that can be found on paulmuses.com, I will describe some intermediate and advanced skills that can help you both think more carefully about your own perspectives and sow doubt in the thinking of your conversational partner. In this blog I will report on several fundamental skills – political discussions 101 – that once mastered should give you the confidence needed to enter difficult conversations.

Why engage in political conversation? When Dick mentioned The Case for Trump, I, without thinking, slotted him as an adversary and the ‘case for Trump’ something I was sure needed not to be understood but rebutted. Boghossian and Lindsay suggest a better way to think about political conversation is as a partnership, with the goal understanding and not winning. Here is an imaginative reconstruction of how the conversation with Dick might have gone, with partnership and understanding replacing adversary and winning.

Dick: ‘I have been reading Victor Davis Hanson’s The Case for Trump’. Paul: ‘That’s interesting. What is the case for Trump?’ Dick: [Describes the case for Trump] Paul: ‘What do you think about the case Hanson makes?’

If the initial conversation had continued down this path, perhaps Dick and I could have increased each other’s understanding of the other’s point of view or even begun to doubt our own. As it was, my adversarial and must win approach stopped the conversation before it could begin.

Reframing political conversations as partnerships working toward better understanding is a game changer for me. Boghassian and Lindsay put it this way, “approach every conversation with an awareness that your partner understands problems in a way that you don’t currently understand.” Adding to this wisdom, the authors remind us that Aristotle said the mark of an educated mind is understanding a position without accepting it.

The picture below is of a Pete Buttigieg house conversation event my partner Rebecca Wiese and I hosted last Sunday. You see about half the people in attendance. Look closely, at how intently people are listening. There were democrats (progressives and moderates), Republicans, and independents all paying close attention to what others were saying. Boghassian and Lindsay on listening, “if you do not listen, you cannot understand. And if you cannot understand, there is no conversation.”

How does one listen? You pause and wait, and then pause and wait again and again. Do it enough, pause and wait, and you develop the habit of listening and with listening, understanding.

Partnership, understanding, and listening and not adversary, winning and talking, can these and other fundamentals be the keys to engaging with those who see the world differently than we do?

Imagine listening more and being listened to more. Imagine understanding more and being understood better. Imagine seeing your political opponent as having a necessary truth, to fill in the half-truth you have.

In the world you have just imagined, all that is lost is your (and my) current fear or refusal to have what we wrongly believe are impossible conversations.

There is something that is lost in the current climate of not having these difficult conversations. It makes changing minds harder. If you think the ideas people have influence the actions they take, then giving up on influencing these ideas is giving up on one tool to change the world. How to change minds through conversations is the subject of my next blog.

I discovered this Jefferson quote from a book I am reading, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay.

Yesterday, a delightful memory filled FaceTime talk with old friends. A week ago an edgy chat with a new friend. Last month, a comfortable lunch confab with a brother. Three conversations where all acknowledged the dangers of talking about what Jefferson called “differences of opinion in politics,” before moving on to other things. I’ll bet you have had similar experiences, with friends and family, who disagree with you about politics.

I have strong political opinions, biases if you will. My old & new friends and my brother have as well, their own biases, and they all identify with the ‘other’ American political party. Interestingly, I would bet if those three were put in a room and told to talk about President Trump very quickly differences would surface and they might have to stop talking lest ruin the chance of losing a new found friend.

Some of my Sanders and Warren Facebook friends have lost patience with my Buttigieg-based counter points to their posts. No de-friending yet but I have taken the hint and backed off.

I am tempted to blame Mr. Trump for deepening and intensifying our tribal and intra-tribal differences so much so as to affect our friendships. I know, I know, some who will read this post will say Mr. Obama was equally at fault! A fair point and some truth to both assertions.

The Political Scientist in me would make three general points about politics. One, politics is all about working out our real differences in a peaceful way. Differences and conflict, in other words, are why we have politics. Two, politics is about different world views, influenced by different moral perspectives. Three, my political identity – and the political identity of my friends and brother – is naturally energized by the opposing political groups.

I think what frustrates many of us is that we lose sight of these points and think politics ought to remedy our differences or that as a mature democracy, at this political business for 200+ years, we should somehow have come together as one people. This misunderstanding of politics, at a personal level, means that I believe you should see the world as I do and you believe the same. We mistakenly idolize a false political god, unity.

Friendship is about commonalities; politics is about differences. You and I are made up of multiples, with a part of each of us in need of friends, and a part in need of politics, a way of working out our public differences.

America’s polarized politics gives us a chance to reflect upon the wondrous complexity of each of us, personally and politically.