Why Political Conversations Feel So Hopeless Political life in the United States is increasingly marked by interparty animus, including tendencies toward dehumanization. Partisans can seem to prefer distance to dialogue and moral judgment to intellectual engagement. Such unproductive habits steadily erode both the willingness to engage politically and the capacity to consider ideas that conflict with one's own. It's easy to assume that political conversations are hopeless because nothing you say is likely to change anyone's mind.
In 1968, just months before his assassination, Martin Luther King Jr. looked out at burning American cities and gave an assessment of what he was really seeing. "In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard," he said. King wasn't excusing violence. He was diagnosing the problem as something even deeper than disagreement over politics or values. Beneath the unrest, he saw the pain of people who had been speaking for a very long time, and who felt that no one in power was listening.
As our world becomes increasingly clogged with human noise, we must listen to what animals are saying to us. Even the smallest creature, you'll find when you take time to listen, is a somebody with something to say. Key questions include: What are animals saying, how much are we missing, and how can we be better listeners? Nonhuman animals of all varieties must live and thrive in an increasingly human-dominated world.
What happens when a group of people gather in a room and really listen to each other? That may sound like an ordinary enough act, and as you walk into the James Earl Jones Theater, you might find yourself deceived by David Zinn's 1970s basic gym basement of a set, or by Susannah Flood's hand-holding introductory address to the audience-fear not a long running time, she says, standing in for the playwright Bess Wohl, all those six-hour plays are by men who didn't have children.