We Need A National Conversation About Calling For Conversations

How many times in the last five years have you heard that America needs to have a national conversation about something?  Normally, the conversation is about the liberal topic of the day.  We are told we need conversations about racism, about sexism, about homophobia, about illegal immigration (excuse me, undocumented workers), and the like.  In simplest terms, a national conversation about one of these topics means that the libs will tell us all what we are supposed to do and everyone is then supposed to agree and comply.  That's the old narrow definition of these "conversations".  Lately, however, "conversations" have also become a mechanism for speaking while saying nothing.  Hillary Clinton has mastered this use of the word.  She wants national conversations about income inequality for example.  Of course, she offers no plan as to how to deal with the issue, but she wants us all to talk about it.  Hillary also wants a conversation about equal pay for women, but again she has no concrete proposal.  Others are adopting this new use of conversations to avoid dealing with problems.  I just heard the former director of the CIA say that there needs to be a "conversation" about violence within Islam.  He even said that Americans should not participate in that conversation because we are outsiders.  He wants a conversation between parents and children, between religious leaders and congregants, between, well, basically everyone in the Islamic world.  Of course, he also has no suggestion what should be said in the conversation.

Wouldn't we all be better if the calls for "conversations" ended?  Perhaps people could offer suggestions as to what needs to be done rather than making pronouncements of the need for talk.  It's a much harder task to offer real solutions and it gives rise to some folks disagreeing with what is said, but it's much more likely to be productive than the doubletalk which is calling for a conversation.