I like the idea of deep listening. It's something we on the left could do better. Part of the problem with the highly partisan discourse here on Salon (e.g. War Room, Daou report) is that it is often based on shouting, declaring, attacking, criticizing -- back and forth between left and right -- thesis and antithesis with little attempt at synthesis.

I am not a moderate. My point of view is radical left. But I can synthesize, mediate and discuss issues with people on the right better if I involve deep listening. Deep listening involves discovering what you have in common with a person on the right. For a Democrat to discover common ground with a Republican is an important accomplishment. It is the same kind of accomplishment as a westerner finding common ground with a Muslim -- or any two pair of opponents for that matter.

Thich Nhat Hanh is saying that the inability to find this common ground through deep listening is part of the human foible that leads to terrorism.

It's easy to see the lack of deep listening in people on the right. For example, "The terrorists are people who hate freedom," is a good example of someone who is speaking without listening. It might be more accurate to say, "The terrorists are people who hate having their territory occupied by foreign powers." In this example, we see how dangerous and unhelpful it is to not listen deeply, because it leads not only to misunderstanding, but to an inappropriate response to terrorism, i.e. more occupation.

But we can apply this same critique to ourselves as we listen to the right or to Republicans. Take one of the more obvious hot button issues, abortion. The right is coming from a point of view that abhors what it considers murder. I can dig that. I abhor murder too. That's a common point of view. Democrats and Republicans, Pro Life and Pro Choice, all of us abhor murder. This leads to recognizing that the critical part of the discussion -- and one that does not get debated as directly as abortion per se -- is, when does life begin? That should lead us to say things like, "well, I don't like murder either, but this is clearly not a matter of simple murder, since there is both uncertainty as to whether or not a life yet exists to be taken while there *is* certainty that another life, the mother's, is deeply affected." This sentence does not say whether abortion is right or wrong, but it probes the more essential question.

This digression on abortion is just to illustrate the principle that we have to start with ourselves ... and cultivate our own deep listening ... so that we can model this behavior of deep listening as part of our dialgue with the right wing, with the muslims, or with anyone who appears to be "other." I think that is what Thich Nhat Hanh is saying. We need to talk to others in a way that reveals that we understand -- really -- where they are coming from -- and that acknowledges that they are coming from human impulses that are not so different from our own. It is only from this common ground (which I assure you is not moderation) that transformation can occur.

--Duck

P.S. As several writers have noticed, the author tries to disarm cynics by adopting a cynical point of view with respect to Thich Nhat Hanh's spiritual ideas. I don't think that's a bad approach to writing an article like this ... but like anything else, it takes practice, practice, practice, to learn how to do it inoffensively.

I have seen the Christmas holiday evolve since my childhood in the 1950s. There has indeed been a collective effort to bring a more multi-cultural point of view to the holiday season. And there has been some progress in further separating religion from government.

It is not surprising that conservatives, whose main purpose in life is to resist change, would resist this process.

But evolution, as a natural law, will compel us to move forward -- toward a more enlightened society. Conservatives cannot easily stop this process. Historically they have only been able to achieve an occaisional pause or temporary set back in the evolution of culture.

In our future world, I believe, the whole holiday season will become overtly re-situated within the context of the winter solstice, which is the actual physical phenomenon that underlies all the cultural trappings and religious beliefs that have been constructed around it.

What amuses me is the tremendous lack of self-confidence revealed by conservatives like O'Reily -- who believe that their religious ideals are so vulnerable. There is an implicit assumption that Christmas is so weak and powerless in its own right, that it would quickly dissolve without incessant propping up by the government and corporations.

It reminds me of the insecurity of many heterosexuals, who seem to imagine that if children were exposed to a gay teacher or told that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, they would instantly and unilaterally become gay.

Such insecurity presupposes that the things one believes in, be it Christmas or heterosexuality or for that matter anything one wants to advocate, has no inherent appeal or strength, and would lose all its adherents without laws to compel its practice.

I regard conservative campaigns against evolution as normal. Conservatives fulfill a purpose in evolution, which is to keep change at a managable pace. We liberals can easily handle change at a faster pace -- but society as a whole is forced by the laws of evolution to change at an orderly pace.

--Duck