Citizens across America in early 2021 are troubled by pressing issues, from the validity of the 2020 presidential election, to the security of the US Capitol, to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, to the economic struggles of people who are quarantined from their livelihoods.

Those urgent issues are so demanding that a whole raft of other very serious issues (climate change, national debt, etc.) are off the table until further notice.

But there’s one problem that probably ought to be lifted to top priority — even higher than the issues mentioned in the first paragraph.

I’m talking about the failure of discourse and conversation. Solutions to those great issues will only come about by groups of people sitting together, sharing information and ideas, and building a consensus about the best way forward. But that is asking too much these days.

It’s too much to hope for in a family gathering. Many families have a rule not to discuss politics. that helps them avoid anger and argument. But it would be much better if they’d agree to ask like adults citizens and learn to talk reasonably. Talking reasonably and respectfully shouldn’t be too much to ask for at the family dinner table. It is too much to ask for in the halls of Congress or in state legislatures.

The problem is that people don’t listen to each other and don’t try to understand each other. Witness this conversation between conservative philosopher Jordan Peterson and interviewer Cathy Newman. Try not to take sides as you listen. Just notice how completely both people talk past the other.

Each time Peterson says something, Newman rephrases it into a broad statement that stretches Peterson’s point too far. But Peterson never makes an effort to establish common ground. He prefers to keep the conversation antagonistic.

The caption to this YouTube clip says “Jordan Peterson stumps Lefty Reporter.” That betrays the bias of the person who posted the video. He or she thinks Peterson won. But plenty of people think Newman controlled the conversation. For her own part, Newman felt good about the interview and said she’d like to do it again.

The Peterson/Newman conversation happened in 2018 and is no longer news. But it is still worth considering. Because their failure to communicate is widespread in American society and shows no signs of going away.

What can citizens do to break through this national decline in conversational clarity? There are lengthy programs detailing how to cope. Rogerian Argument is a method for pushing conflict to the margins and keeping facts and agreement at the center of conversations. You can find out more about Rogerian Argument free on the internet at many different sites.

But you don’t need a program or a method. The way to start is to simply ask the other person for clarification. When you find yourself projecting ideas onto the words another person is saying, stop and ask them if they actually mean what you are thinking.

In the famous video, Cathy Newman repeatedly says, “So you’re saying . . . “ and then completes the statement with words far different from any that Peterson had actually spoken. She is deliberately provocative. She could easily have asked for clarification and listened calmly to Peterson’s answer.

I know a school teacher who says anytime he mentions a controversial issue in class, students assume he’s pushing the point of view they disagree with. This happens before he has said anything at all. His words aren’t the problem. It is the students’ determination to disagree.

The best question to ask, when discussing serious social issues is, “Could you explain that a bit more?” Or “What do you mean by [a word or term used by the speaker]?”

Ask that question, and then let the speaker explain. If they say something you disagree with, then go ahead and disagree. But chances are good that they are saying something reasonable and respectable.

You might have noticed, in the first paragraph of this essay, that I included “the validity of the 2020 presidential election” as a troubling and pressing issue. What side of that controversy do you think I am on?

The answer is you can’t possibly know what I think from that statement. I said it’s a “pressing issue” but I didn’t say whether I trust the election result or doubt it. It is a fact that faith in fair elections is important to republican government. So I haven’t said anything troublesome or controversial. If you think you know what I think, you are projecting.

Would you like to know what I think?