I like the poles

No, I did not make a derogatory mistake by writing Poland with a lowercase p. I am not talking about our, until now, still EU colleagues, who are most often encountered here in truck cabins. I'm talking about the poles that are each other's opposites. Such as the South and the North Pole. One with penguins and the other with polar bears. One with ice on a land mass and the other a pile of ice on water. But both cold, with a lot of ice and both threatened.

They are there because our earth is polarized. The magnetic field protects us against a lot of inconveniences from space. The sun gives us energy to live on, but without the poles we would die from it. The poles also give us direction. Our compass shows us the direction. And very special: they can change places. That would cause us a lot of inconveniences. Fortunately it doesn't happen too often.

In short, I like polarization. It gives direction to our lives. Nowadays polarization is a swear word with which someone wants to put a definitively superior end to a discussion. 'You are polarizing things,' and voilà, the judgment has been made that it is better to remain silent because otherwise you are harmful. Critics, debate scientists, opinion makers, media, yes even experts are silenced by this word that hides just as much beauty.

The power of rhetoric

In my classical Latin-Mathematics education at an episcopal college, the last year was still referred to as the rhetoric. In all our language subjects, attention was paid to conducting debate. The old Latin speeches of Catalina, for example, are still etched in my memory. The fact that our young Dutch teacher gave us the opportunity to freely take a position on any social issue and then defend that position with word and pen is still a fond reminder of my college years.

For me, a disagreement and the resulting debate are the salt on the earth that allows me to form my own opinion. By the way, you can take that salt literally. There is nothing as tasteless as a debate or talk show where no strong opinions are allowed to clash with each other. Today physics makes its most beautiful discoveries by causing elementary particles to collide, but in the social debate the salt-free pensée unique has become the norm. If it clashes and clashes, people are polarizing and doing the wrong thing, they say.

So I don't agree with that and I hope I will be forgiven if I cause extra tension at the poles. The major debates of today are always led by scientists and I often see them act in such an unscientific manner. When they are later accused of errors in their earlier discourse, they appeal progressive insight. Completely right, by the way, because science that stands still is dead science. That is the mistake that the Catholic Church has made for a long time and, in my opinion, the reason why science and religion are often still opponents instead of supporters. A mistake that is now being repeated by other faiths.

Driven by progressive insight

Progressive insight almost always comes from the question 'is this correct?'. Science is driven by the challenge of ignorance and the urge to replace it with knowledge. It therefore remains a mystery to me why scientists are no longer open to people who dare to question their results. This should give rise to the most beautiful disagreements that lead to new knowledge.

For me it is no different in the social and therefore also political debate. If most parties become similar, then victory almost always goes to the extremes who simply dare to be different. Just different is, by the way, the title of a wonderful book by Marc Noppen, professor of medicine and CEO of UZ Brussels, who describes how he creates better medicine by simply asking 'can this be done differently?'.

Political reallocation necessary after core tasks debate

Politicians also know this and therefore make the mistake of simply being different from others on certain points. At a conference, Open Vld once opted for confederalism and a focus on the regions, but now they hardly dare to say the word because that is now the only thing they can be different about. Unless it is progressive insight, but I would like to hear that again in a contradictory debate with words and answers.

However, the big debate is not being held and that is the core tasks debate. How I would love to see the clash of the titans in it, defending their worldview with fiery words. Without the killer 'you polarize'. Let the net polarize, then we will finally know what we are choosing. And yes, some may conclude that the mutual differences are so small that a reorganization of the political landscape is necessary because the fractures of fifty years ago are no longer the fractures of today. Progressive insight thanks to polarization.

No hate street in the debate

So I love polarization but I hate the hate. I have an opinion and I don't think everyone should share that opinion. I select my business partners based on quality and opinions that differ from my own. Not to always arrive at a complex compromise. That keeps the peace, but then you are often in the gray, large mass. But if one can convince the other with arguments, a strong front is created.

To achieve that, however, one element is needed in the discussion: respect. I like my opinion and I like it when people respect it. By the way, respect is completely different from consent. By the way, the best way to create respect is to show respect for other opinions, without agreeing with them. I myself have been opposition leader in a municipal council and during the session things sometimes got tough. After the last blow of the hammer, we moved from the town hall to the 'old town hall' taproom and drank together and laughed at the best comments. That was possible because there was respect for each other.

So polarization is not a problem for me, but rather part of the solution. Learning to disagree with each other with respect is something that is lacking. Gosh, how I miss my Dutch rhetoric teacher. He could probably hammer it in with a few firm words. I didn't realize that 30 years ago, but I do now. Progressive insight, you know...