"on the other hand"

There is a frequent segment on CNBC financial shows called, "On the Other Hand." Here, John Fortt presents an argument for a popular issue in business. Once it seems he has convinced you of one view on the issue, he stops and says, "on the other hand," as he argues the counter position on the same issue. I find it fascinating in how this approach can disarm divisiveness and conflict. 

I was walking to the stadium today when I passed this sign. In every other week the signed said, "parking $20". I began to ponder. This home had a large yard that could park some 100 cars. It seemed that the owners of this land understood capitalism. Today was Auburn vs Ala football game, the biggest crowd of the year. Maybe for these folks, supply and demand suggested higher prices for parking cars at the game. On the other hand, the demographics of those who lived here suggested they were likely Democrats, who would not see capitalism as a preferred way to operate. Maybe their loyalty to Auburn suggested they wanted to stick it to those Ala fans coming in from out of town by jacking up the prices.

Some say this is a way capitalism is not fair. It takes advantage of those who have no options but to buy. On the other hand, those who support capitalism claim it is fair to charge what the market will bare. It's hard to say which of the two views is the real reason for jacking prices today.

I heard someone say this week that we should never use "but" or "however" when discussing two opposing views on an issue. When we use these terms to introduce our perspective, we are in a sense rejecting the opposing view. This is divisive, maybe even condescending. If we say "on the other hand," we are suggesting simply there is another way to consider the issue. 

While reading the Apple News feed, I saw back to back articles that were discussing important issues of our times. One article was debunking the myth that "if you try hard enough, then you can build the life you want." Many believe our country is the land of opportunity. The author of the article was rejecting that idea by labeling it a myth. The article claims Matt Black's book, "American Geography," however dispels the myth. Every place Black visited that had poverty rates above 20% revealed structural obstacles to success. Black "belies the idea of opportunity." As far as I am concerned, Black did not advance the discussion of this question about opportunity in society because he has a "but" argument and not an "on the other hand" discussion.  

This was the next article. This points out how a Dr. who had sought to solve problems with dementia found himself a patient. He chose to build an "on the other hand" view of the disease as he examined what he saw as a patient and not what he knew as a doctor.

 

Maybe you don't consider the difference between "but" and "on the other hand" to be significant. When I pondered it, I begin to feel that this change in how we advance conflicting ideas might transform much of the discourse in the public arena and maybe even in our business organizations and families.