Finding A Worthy Opponent: A Lincoln-Douglas Story
If you’re like me, you competed in high school. You might have been on an athletic team, shooting for the top spot on the Dean’s List, or simply trying to see how many times you could be late to class before you got suspended. Whatever your chosen art, there was one factor that might have single handedly determined your success or failure and unfortunately, you had no control over it. The quality of your opponent.
As easy as it might be to play chess against a toddler, we all know that’s not how you hone your skills. You want opponents that are in their prime. You want a challenge. That’s how both parties grow. Having an opponent that is potentially your better pushes both sides to become greater than they ever could be alone. You want victory over the opponent, of course, but there is a level of collaboration that occurs simultaneously. One of the best examples of this are the Lincoln Douglas Debates from right here in Illinois.
(Yes, I know I’ve mentioned the Debates before but it’s important to revisit something that is constantly present in one’s life to prevent the extraordinary from fading into the commonplace.)
Lincoln and Douglas were a team. They were on opposite sides of the issues, but they were a team. Both men agreed to the debates as an opportunity to refine their position and become a stronger candidate for Senate. Of course, part of that goal would be proving that they were smarter than the other, “winning” the debate and the seat but both men saw the opportunities beyond the surface. Both men knew that the strongest minds and voices, (not just those with an elected position,) would be the ones looked to in the tumultuous situation in which the country found itself. They found a worthy opponent in the other and proceeded knowing they would both come out stronger, regardless of who won.
It’s a bit of a semantic observation but note that we do not talk about the “Lincoln Vs. Douglas Debates,” we talk about the “Lincoln And Douglas Debates.” Even our language suggests that the debates were more than straight competition. The debates were an exhibition in intellectual sparring, benefiting both the candidates and the public.
Compare that to the modern debates that we’re used to. Even assuming the rare occasion when a candidate answers a question instead of redirecting, do we genuinely think a candidate is growing from the process? Is the opponent there to actually consider the opposition stance? Instead of an opportunity for positions to be clearly stated and responded to, we are often left with shallow, safe sounding comments that wouldn’t be significantly changed if the candidates where in their own separate interviews. Hardly the worthy opponent format.
After the debates, Lincoln and Douglas became each other’s strongest supporter. Lincoln following Douglas in the Senate, and Douglas gathering opposition party support when Lincoln needed it most. They both trusted the other because they had engaged with each other rather than trying to destroy the other.
It’s important to point out that the debates were largely a response to Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech where Lincoln committed to the idea that the Union could not exist in two worlds. Eventually, some resolution would have to be reached or the Union would fall. That’s the nature of debate. A disagreement where either the debaters grow to a mutual plan or the entire house falls. Forming an argument is not the same as arguing. Disagreement does not require division. Debaters do not have to, and in fact shouldn’t be enemies.
