Harmonic dissonance

Rachel Ammons is a singer-songwriter and the most apolitical person in the universe. It surprised me to see the reaction for an opinion she wrote extolling the virtues of getting along.

Her premise was it was impossible to simply ignore – throw away half the population because they disagreed over politics; that nothing would be left but agreeable, consenting voices. There would be nothing to learn in an echo chamber.

We have become so dismissive of opinions running counter to our own that the conversation has stopped. Logic and reason has been replaced with movements. Individuals are afraid to speak because the blowback is immediate and intense. I have personal experience to support this.

Last week, I said to a group of people that I thought women should decide what was best for women. In my opinion, it makes more sense than me – or any other man — dictating the ground rules for being a woman. It would be the same as a cat telling a dog that barking wasn’t allowed.

The disagreement to that notion was immediate. Three of the people, after arguing that gender should not play a role in gender issues, grew so exasperated they couldn’t change my mind, they gave up and promised to pray for me – a sardonic “Bless your heart” kind of thing.

How did we get to this point? When did we lose the ability to freely discuss things? When did fear take over and shut us up? Whatever happened to the days when Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan could occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum but like each other?

I’m no fan of President Trump but I certainly don’t mind anyone voting for him. I understand the motivation; the disgust with the status quo. But my empathy puts me on shaky ground. My progressive friends think I’ve sold out. The conservative ones can’t accept I’m not all in. The two sides agree on only one point: They cannot trust the middle. In their minds, you have to choose a side.

Rachel comes to mind because of her talent. She understands harmonic resonance – how notes can push against each other to create equilibrium. She knows politics doesn’t have to be discordant.

I’m an accidental journalist. I went to art school. My acceptance of different opinions may lie in an understanding of color – how you use green to paint a shadow on red even though it doesn’t sound right. You can’t make a shadow by putting more red on an apple. It just gets more red.

I like to think everything works like music or paintings. Think about it this way: Those divisive opinions exist for valid reasons. They sit, seemingly, in wild opposition. If nobody does anything, they’ll continue to exists with singular value. But, if the two sides listened openly and intently, they’d create something whole – a three-dimensional thing with shadows and resonance. And because of the singular values of color or, in Rachel’s case, notes, they wouldn’t even have to agree to become whole. All that’s required is accepting some things exists in complimentary opposition. In other words, the dog would know he’s a dog because the cat’s around.