• A born-again Christian telling me she has no problem with evolution
• The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supporting a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”
• George W. Bush proposing a moderate immigration policy
• The head of a regional hospital advocating single-payer healthcare
• Leaders from the Tea Party movement and MoveOn.org saying how much they crave dialogue
• Catholic leaders advocating for the poor (a “liberal position”) and against abortion (a “conservative position”)

You see the common thread here? All these statements strike a dissonant chord. They make us think, “How can those people take that position when they also believe this?”

I find these voices terribly important.

To understand why, first consider the voices we usually hear. Spend any time with the news media, and you’ll find yourself hearing, on any given issue, the same things from the same people—over and over and over. If a news segment covers abortion, for instance, it will most likely feature a pro-choice advocate touting a “woman’s right to choose” and a pro-lifer promoting “the rights of the unborn.”

Now the positions behind those sound bites may have merit. But the endless repetition of the same catchphrases by the same people obscures whatever nuance these positions may have. “Of course he’d say that,” we think. “He’s a [insert political party or special interest group here].”

But then someone zags when we expect her to zig. Or she holds two positions that we’ve been led to believe are contradictory. There’s your dissonant voice.

These are important, I think, for two reasons. First, when people express a belief contrary to their historical position or perceived self-interest, it implies that they find the belief itself compelling. I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk that a hospital CEO would support a single-payer system. So when James Barba of Albany Medical Center does, it’s an opportunity for us to see single-payer differently. If he’s for it, the thinking goes, maybe it’s worth another look.

Second, these dissonant voices can explode our stereotypes. Over the years, I’ve been guilty of painting the born-again Christian community with too broad a brush. Like many people, I could see them as uniformly literalist, creationist, and overly focused on abortion and gay marriage. So when a priest’s wife touts the beauty of evolution as the means of God’s creation, or I see born-agains advocating for the environment and social justice, it forces me to rethink my image. More accurately, it forces me to discard the image—and listen to each unique person with his own unique voice.

Dissonant voices can point out areas of truth. Dissonant voices can help us see our “opponents” more clearly—and thus treat them more respectfully. See how many of these voices you can hear in the public square.

When the latest version of the debate heated up in earnest, I had no grasp of the issues whatever. So I started reading, listening, and thinking—and discovered some interesting insights. One article, written by the president of a regional health center, came out in favor of single-payer as a way to cover everyone and drive costs down. On The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Richard Armey (one of my least favorite politicians) talked about allowing insurers to compete across state borders, thus giving people more choice and driving costs down. I read about the Massachusetts model and what it might teach us. Because I learn by writing, I also wrote an article to ask questions about the issues.

At first, and through most of this process, I’ve leaned in the direction of single-payer. Now, after hearing other good ideas, I’m not so sure.

And that’s the point.

Preparing for authentic dialogue means absorbing ideas and perspectives from many parts of the ideological spectrum, even—especially—those that drive us crazy. It’s critical to hear from conservative and liberal, doctors and hospitals, government officials and poor people, those who have been denied coverage and the insurers that denied them.

This is hard work. It asks us to set aside our vested interests and emotional stakes. For instance, I resent the health insurance industry because a family member was denied coverage for desperately needed treatment. But to sort out issues as complex as this, I have to set that resentment aside…and listen.

How do we get to the point where we can do this? By cultivating certain attitudes of heart, especially openness to others—and the willingness to take on the risk that such openness involves. When we absorb other perspectives and listen to other people, we might find out we’re wrong. In my case, I might learn that health insurers include good people with honorable intentions. If I do, I’ll have to let go of my resentment permanently.

Which, by the way, will bring more peace to my soul and more generosity to my spirit.

If we do this hard work—if we approach the health care debate with an open heart and an inquiring spirit—we give ourselves the chance for good ideas to emerge. Good ideas sometimes lead to good policies. By contrast, the current climate of shouting and misinformation actually distracts our attention from listening, weighing alternatives, striving for consensus, and letting good solutions emerge.

We have nothing to lose by applying the way of dialogue to health care. And we have much to gain—maybe even a workable, compassionate policy, worthy of the name reform.