The Blind, the Elephant, and the Truth
By: Barbara Radisavljevic
Tags: Politics, Truth, Discussion, Life Lessons, Controversy

Yesterday a dear friend emailed with her perception of the election results. I felt sick. She’s intelligent. She is kind. She is not a political person. I have no idea about which channels she watches or how much time she spends on social media. But we do see the election results very differently. And I wasn’t sure how to respond to her email.

I prayed about how to answer her email truthfully without hurting her or questioning her judgment. I know she’s a person of goodwill. We may have even voted the same way. We didn’t talk about that. I simply couldn’t agree with the opinions she expressed as to the results. How could I disagree tactfully and still explain?

“The Blind Men and the Elephant” to the rescue

As I pondered this, I remembered the old poem about the blind men of Indostan and the elephant. As you may recall, six blind men were “looking” at an elephant, trying to understand and communicate what it was.

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,

who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),

that each by observation, might satisfy his mind. By John Godrey Saxe

Each was studying a different part of the elephant — one the side, one the trunk, one the knee, one the tail, one the tusk, and one the ear. So each discerned his truth about what the elephant was and they disputed long and loud about it. Was the elephant like a wall, a snake, a tree, a rope, a spear, or a fan? None had seen the whole of the elephant, and each determined the truth about it on his own observation of part of the truth.

So it is with politics, religion, and everything else we dispute about. We all have different backgrounds, cultures, and families and we tend to see the information we receive under their influence. We also pick up our information from different sources. None of us are able to see all the information that will give us a complete and true picture.

One person watches Fox News, another CNN, another NewsMax, and another MSNBC. One person lives in a liberal state, another in a conservative state. One person hangs out on Twitter and another on Parler. One is at home on Facebook and another has moved to MeWe to escape censorship. One person has socialist friends and another hangs out with Trump supporters. And some people barely pay attention to anything beyond the news shared on their source of choice. Some follow politics closely all year and some only pay attention just before and after an election.

Do we really know what we think we do?

Can we trust our observations? Suppose you have a couple of close friends whom you’ve always known as a couple. Suppose their marriage starts to fall apart. What if both of them talk to you about it.

How do you know whose word to trust? Are they both at fault? Or is one spouse more evil than you ever suspected and the other a victim? Or did the spouse who did the unthinkable that you simply can’t get your head around only have a momentary lapse when he encouraged his partner to kill herself? How do you respond to each after that?

In such a case we have to trust what we knew about each person’s behavior and character by observation before the breakup. Who is most credible? Who has always seemed consistent? So do we trust the husband? The wife? The daughter who had left the nest before the problem was exposed? Do we believe the coworkers? Do we trust what we observe of each party’s behavior after the breakup?

Perhaps we will never know for sure everything that happened to kill the marriage. We will never see the whole picture. We have only the information we have personally been able to gather. We have to use it as we determine our future relationship with each partner.

So it is with politics

Except on the local level, most of us will never personally talk to, let alone actually have any consistent relationship, with those running for a national office. Unless we have enough time, interest, and access to do extensive research, we rely on information that comes from others to form our opinions.

Most of those sources have their own agendas and biases. Those informing you will be expressing opinions that will somehow benefit themselves. Some are hired to support a certain bias. Some have money invested in a certain outcome. Others expect to get a government contract if a certain candidate wins. Still others are motivated by love or hate for a certain candidate or their personality.

Did you form your perception of a candidate from a few video clips or sound bites the media has designed to influence your opinion? Did you read some tweets from people you like to follow? Did you read a story in People? Or maybe you follow news reports of what bills a candidate has supported or signed into law or what executive orders they gave.

What about the junk mail that fills your mailbox? It’s after your money to support a cause or candidate. Is it only telling you what it thinks you want to hear? What about the news coverage of riots and “peaceful” demonstrations that result in death and destruction that hurt innocent people? Is it giving you only the picture reporters want you to see and leaving a lot out?

Of course, unless you are sitting in the oval office, watching Congress at work yourself, or religiously reading the Congressional Journal, you only know what the media sources you follow choose to tell you about. Sometimes you see the trunk, sometimes the tail, sometimes the side, and sometimes the ear. Depending on your sources, you sometimes see only the tusk or the knee. Rarely can you see the whole elephant, even if you form your opinion from multiple sources. You have to make your voting and donation decisions based on the information you have been able to gather. They may or may not be the best decisions.

Suppose you are in the public eye

Let’s imagine there are reporters always following you trying to get a story, waiting for you to make some verbal slipup that is Twitter worthy. Suppose someone starts digging into your past and some friend from thirty years ago tells a reporter you got drunk at a fraternity party and either made inappropriate and unwelcome passes at someone or just passed out. It becomes front-page news.

For a time, that may change the opinion of those who looked at you favorably as a person with good character. Even if you came to your senses and decided to stop drinking after that, the news may ignore that part. That news report may have changed people’s opinion of you, especially if they never knew you well.

Suddenly that news story seems to pop up every time you venture into something new, like, perhaps running for public office. It begins to color people’s perception of who you are now. Perhaps this is one reason good people are hesitant to run for public office, especially national offices. They don't want their reputations ruined by their mistakes, since repented of, from thirty years ago.

Biased news sources

It should be common knowledge now that no media outlet tells you everything that’s happening in the world or even in your own country. There’s simply too much for any one network to report.

So news commentators and reporters choose which stories to publicize. They choose the ones that support the opinions they want you to form. If they support a certain political candidate, they will only report negative information about their opponents. They will remain strangely quiet on news about questionable activities their preferred candidate engages in.

This is why half the people who follow politics think Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election and the other half believe Joe Biden sold access to his office as Vice President and stole the 2020 election through fraud. This is why whoever is inaugurated in 2021 will have trouble uniting the country. This is why families are divided over politics and some friends have stopped speaking. Tragic!

Censorship is not the answer

Could we solve the problem by having all the news come through a single source so we would all have the same information? Who would control that source? Would we ever know the truth about anything? We’d never see the whole elephant that way.

We need more information, not less. What needs to change is the way we discuss it. Instead of using news as a weapon for attacking those who disagree, we need to seek out sources that disagree and find out why they do. What are they hearing that we are not? What evidence supports what they believe? What evidence supports what we believe? Is being right more important than knowing the truth? Why would our favorite news source be withholding some stories from us? Is it because they aren’t true? Or because they are and they don’t want us to know?

We are all seeing only part of the elephant. When we keep that in mind we can approach our family and friends with humility during political discussions. Instead of calling people we disagree with stupid or traitors, or whatever, we might ask questions? Could you send me a link so I could read more about this? What policies that your candidate supports are most important to you? What are you most afraid will happen if your candidate loses and the other one wins?

Show your friend or relative that you want the truth. Ask questions that will uncover their sources, their concerns about results, and their hopes and fears about specific candidates. Then try to address the fears in a rational and unemotional way. Asking more questions is a good way to go because most people appreciate someone who will listen to them. Be patient. Repeat back to your friend what you believe he said.

I believe you said ______________________________. Is that right or did I misunderstand you? Are you afraid that ______________ will happen if _____ is elected?

This offers an opportunity to make sure you’re both on the same page. It also lets your friend know you really understand their position before you respond to it. Then respond in a non-threatening way with your reasons for believing as you do. Be willing to listen to their reasons if they still disagree. End the discussion when it appears no one will change their mind today. Agree to disagree. Unfortunately, if someone is getting their sense of worth from being right, you will be unable to change their mind.

If we Americans are ever to unite, we must first commit ourselves to searching for truth from diverse sources with different biases. We need to put ego and emotions aside and seek to understand opponents’ points of view. It’s important to discuss issues and ideas without attacking an opponent’s character. People can be rightly motivated and still hold the wrong opinions. An attack never won anyone over.

Most of all, remember that relationships are more important than prevailing in an argument. When you can’t agree, agree to disagree.