It's not a national conversation about reconciliation. It's millions of individual conversations between people who form a network, who stand together, who exchange. It's not a one-time vote; it's an everyday attitude. It's not a lofty idealism of being at peace with yourself. It's not being complacent, asking someone, "You really believe that?" about a myriad of headlines, quotes, accusations. Fact-checking has been dismissed. There's no point; Fact and Truth are now considered mutable words. We can work to come back to facts and we should uphold the sources we know are factual. But to make an immediate difference, we need to find another way.
We now find ourselves having conversations about factual statements the same we have uneducated conversations about drug interactions. Today, I took an ibuprofen for a headache; my co-worker says actually what I need is aspirin.
"Ibuprofen is an anti-inflammatory," she tells me. She's probably right, it's not what I need for my headache.
"Can I take an aspirin right after taking ibuprofen?" I ask her.
"Sure."
So I do. Even though I have this vague recollection of staggering different kinds of medicine from a previous experience after surgery, I don't call my doctor's office. I ask the woman without the medical degree who is handing me a remedy, completely comfortable with the conflicting knowledge that the drug is both powerful enough to cure my headache and also not worth my time to double check its possible side effects on my health.
And this is the model for the kinds of interaction we are having now. You don't believe in climate change? "Ehhhh, I'm not a scientific person," said one woman on an NPR interview. And right there, she popped the pills. No amount of citation, no link to a scientific study is going to convince her. She simply doesn't care if it's true because there's a remedy for her headache, her fill-in-the-blank other problem that's not climate change. Her concern is more immediate and she's not interested in the grand scheme of things and how climate change actually impacts a multitude of economic factors that may actually impact her immediate source of suffering, blah blah blah. She doesn't care about the side effects.
The majority of people who have been asked why they voted for the president-elect stated 1 of 2 things:
1. his opinion on one issue matched theirs so they aligned themselves on this one issue while neglecting all the others, (like his stance on repealing the ACA but completely ignoring that white supremacists embrace him).
2. or they express an obtuse overall feeling like wanting change while also not being interested in how it happens, ("drain the swamp" without caring about the details).
The conversation is no longer that some people believe the holocaust never happened. Now it's that a radio personality without credentials states Sandy Hook never happened. (This is untrue.) This man has no basis for it, but will spout it, and people will believe it. Something recent, on our soil, also with survivors' accounts and eye witnesses, now completely held in question.
So it's going to have to be each individual having human contact, sharing their stories that will make a difference. One to one. Our stories are where we start to understand. They by their very nature give 1 person a platform for expression while also engage an active listener. Stories break down barriers. Stories are also not subject to facts, but are our own words and have their own merit. If we're not dealing facts anymore, then let's deal in personal experience. Stories don't need to be universally true because there are 2 sides to every story. And this is the pivotal point that will break open the fact vs. fake news frustration. It's hard to refute eye witness accounts and personal stories about how people were affected by Sandy Hook.
Why are people upset? What prompted their vote to be swayed one way or the other? Let them tell you their story--not their rhetoric, not their opinion, not their stance. Their story.