Disagree, but engage: That’s civility

Robert Fersh, former director of SFCG USA and co-director of the US Muslim engagement project wrote a great article on civility for the Baltimore Sun last week.  Disagree, but engage emphasized the idea that thoughtful, respectful and conflicting points of view often produce creative solutions in challenging situations; suggesting that for civility to really break out in America, people must first be willing to talk to one another.  Common ground is rare on issues like gun control and abortion.  However, by creating new understandings, cooperation can unfold which the article illustrates through two SFCG initiatives:

There is ample precedent for such work. In the 1990s, Search for Common Ground organized the Network for Life and Choice at a time of deep division over abortion. There had been killings at abortion clinics. It was understood there would be no agreement on the fundamental issue of abortion. Yet, people with sharply differing views found they could work together on teenage pregnancy prevention, foster care and adoption. In the process, temperatures cooled. People understood that their “adversaries” could be people of decency and compassion whose life experiences led them to honest disagreement on this highly charged issue.

The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice aims to transform the dynamics of the abortion conflict, not settle or resolve the core conflict. The idea is to promote a level of trust between adversaries so that they can gain a deeper understanding of the conflict and motivations and coexist peacefully.  This network also locate common ground where parties can act together when it serves their mutual interests on such issues as preventing teen pregnancy.

These processes are most successful when participants have strong, informed opinions and can make a difference if they reach agreement. This was the case in the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, where 34 diverse American leaders joined in an influential consensus report in 2008 to show a way forward for the United States in its relations with Muslim majority countries. The group included a former Clinton administration secretary of state, former Republican members of Congress, high-ranking former officials of the George W. Bush administration, 11 Muslim-American leaders, a former director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, clergy of differing faiths, and others. Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, said: “This report provides clear-headed ideas and analysis that the American public and bipartisan leaders can get behind in working to improve U.S.-Muslim relations. The process by which the group reached consensus is a good model for dialogue for the tough issues our country faces.”

The U.S.-Muslim Engagement project works to build consensus on a comprehensive approach to improving U.S.-Muslim relations.  The group addresses tensions, misunderstandings, distrust and hostilities.  The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project has produced a new strategy that better meets the long-term national security interests of the U.S., by addressing the sources of tension between the U.S. and Muslims in key countries and regions.  In 2008, the group released a report and launched an intensive education campaign to influence the views and actions of the Obama Administration, Congress, opinion leaders, think tanks, interest groups and the public at large.

Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, said: “This report provides clear-headed ideas and analysis that the American public and bipartisan leaders can get behind in working to improve U.S.-Muslim relations. The process by which the group reached consensus is a good model for dialogue for the tough issues our country faces.”

What other issues would you work on with “adversaries” to serve your mutual interests?