Throwing Cold Water on Controversy

People say they don’t like politics because “both sides can never agree on anything.” But is there anything that can ever achieve universal agreement?

Take the now-infamous ice bucket challenge sponsored by the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Association. For the last few weeks, the Internet has been completely consumed by videos of people dumping buckets of water over their head in an effort to raise awareness about ALS, a tragic disease that is still incurable.

Clearly, everyone wants to find a way to prevent or cure ALS. So you would think that something so seemingly uncontroversial would be universally embraced. And yet mixed in with the videos of those taking the challenge are posts taking a stand against the practice. Some claim that those who accept the challenge should have donated money instead. Others claim that those who embrace the challenge don’t understand what ALS really is.

Mainstream media columnists have written about the ineffectiveness of the effort, only to be deemed “ice bucket challenge haters” by supporters, who respond with their own columns. (See, for example, Caitlin Dewey’s Washington Post column entitled “Stop hating on the ice bucket challenge.”)

Ironically, the ice bucket challenge has actually injured people. A CNN headline from last Friday reported “4 firefighters injured when ice bucket challenge goes wrong.” Buzzfeed has compiled numerous lists of ice bucket challenge “fails.”

There is also a moral objection. Many Catholic leaders spoke out against donating to the ALS Association because of its use of embryonic stem cells in its research, leading many religious people to donate to other organizations that refrain from such practices.

Clearly we live in a messy world. People disagree about everything, and politics is certainly no exception.

Look at the goal of reducing poverty. Generally everyone agrees that poverty is bad, right? The problem comes when we try to agree on how to achieve that goal.

When Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced an innovative new anti-poverty plan this summer, the battle lines were drawn within the hour. His ideas were criticized as “obsolete,” “scary,” and “paternalistic” by opponents, and lauded as “promising” and “impressive” by supporters.

There are always people who will take sides, and many will have valid reasoning. So when faced with a divisive issue, we have two choices. We can run from controversy and hide our opinion, or we can jump into the discussion and defend our beliefs—ideally in a respectful way.