Lincoln or Douglas?

 

 

The year was 1858 and the topic at hand was slavery – specifically the question of whether new states entering the United States would allow it or not. 

The topic was hotly debated in a variety of forums, but one of the most interesting of these was a series of seven debates between two of the men who would vie for the 1860 presidency.  Stephen Douglas was the candidate of the Democratic party, while Abraham Lincoln would eventually be the candidate of the newly formed Republican party.  

Stephen Douglas was of the mind that the status quo should continue, leaving the problem for another generation.  On the other hand, Lincoln, while in favor of abolition, wasn’t exactly progressive by today’s standards.  He didn’t think African Americans and whites should marry and thought the best option was to send former slaves back to Africa.

What is interesting to me is that these series of debates took three hours each.  The initial speaker was given 60 minutes to share his perspective on the subject.  This was followed by the second speaker, who was given 90 minutes to share his perspective and rebut what the first speaker said, and finally, 30 minutes was given to the first speaker to come back and clarify points further. 

Thousands of people turned out to listen to these.  I suppose attention spans were different back then, the latest iPhone hadn’t quite made it to the western frontier, and Wi-Fi was extremely slow in most parts of rural Illinois in the late 1850s.  People simply had less to do and so were willing to listen to long form debate.

It saddens me, because much of debate these days takes the form of one side setting up straw men that they can knock down, while the other side shouts soundbites.  This seems to have climaxed with the onset of memes on social media.

A meme is typically a pithy quote or pointed statement about a particular subject, posted over a silly picture (often gleaned from some movie or TV show).  They are often humorous (at least to one side of a debate).  They may take aim at conservatives or liberals, atheists or Christians, home schoolers or college graduates.  The problem is that, because of its brevity, a meme tells absolutely nothing about the subject and only reveals a bit of the heart of the person posting the meme.

It is no wonder that blogs have died and that they have been replaced by a mixture of video, memes, and click bait articles that share weird trivial facts about things you don't really care about.  Long form essays are a thing of the past.

I suppose the thing that saddens me most is the lack of ability to listen.  A conversation (even on Facebook) is not a war.  One of my favorite verses is in James 1 and says, "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath."  (James 1:19) We should listen to understand, not simply to identify weak areas in our opponent's armor that we can target with heat seeking missiles.  

I suppose I am just getting old, but I wish that we lived in a time when intelligent people could go out and sit quietly and listen to intelligent speakers share well thought out, if differing views on a subject.  The problem of today is not that we have too few opinions, or that we can't find sound bites and memes to support those opinions.  Rather, people have lost any desire to listen and understand the perspective of others around them who hold different views.

When Solomon had a dream in which God offered to give him anything he desired, Solomon asked for an "understanding heart."  I wonder how many of us would ask for the same and how many would rather ask for the ability to sway people to our opinion.

If we could only listen more and share just a little less, maybe, just maybe our society would be less polarized.  Even more than that, if this were to happen, it is possible that people who do not understand the love of God would see that love manifested in the lives of the people who claim to serve Him.