Conversations

It’s good to talk!                    Photo Credit: FreeImages.com/Jon Wisbey

One of the most important duties we have for our country and to each other is to talk to each other about what divides us. We have apparently not done a very good job of that over the past several decades, as evidenced by the great hate and invective spewed between political adversaries, pundits, bloggers, celebrities, and many ordinary citizens.    

The Importance of Political Dialogue

My third post for this website in May 2015 examined just how polarized Americans were. The data from the Pew Research Center displayed there persuasively showed how the two major parties themselves were polarizing: Democrats to the Left and Republicans to the Right. Many took this as evidence the American

people themselves were polarizing. However, if true, this would be a very bitter pill indeed to swallow, and Morris Fiorina in the Washington Post argued that it was not true. Instead, he argued what this Pew report showed was a sorting by ideology of the American electorate into the two parties. That is, Democrats who held conservative views were moving to the Republican party, and Republicans with left-of-center views migrated to the Democratic party, a process called ‘sorting’, with the actual overall ideological makeup of the nation remaining almost constant. Presumably, some members of each party also moved in the direction of their party’s ideological shift. Rather than becoming more polarized, the electorate was re-sorting itself between the parties. This is demonstrated in a Gallup tracking poll published in January, 2015, whose results are displayed in the graph below.

However, if Americans really were just re-sorting, the American public was already greatly divided. Gallup found the percentage of the electorate that was conservative was 38% with the progressives claiming 24% and the so-called moderates  38%.

With such an ideologically riven society, we are finding it increasingly hard to agree with each other. The situation would not be so bad if the political differences were slight or could be accommodated in compromises that were at least compatible with the world-views of each side. Unfortunately, these views of reality are to a great degree incompatible, with each side regarding what the other would do in power as catastrophic for the nation. The progressives see the application of government power as the solution for most, if not all, social and economic problems. They see conservatives as allowing problems to fester without solution, or worse, as allowing the very wealthy to destroy democracy by forming an oligarchy. Contrarily, the conservatives see the application of government “solutions” in chaotic social systems, especially the economy, as making the problems increasingly worse. Moreover, conservatives see progressives progressively centralizing economic power into the state, pushing us ever farther down Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, [E2], to the ultimate destination of authoritarian, fascist government.

With such an extreme polarization of a little less than two-thirds of the electorate into incompatible ideologies, I find it very hard to envision how compromises between the two groups can be found. There was one other period of time in which Americans found themselves in a similar divide, and that was in the pre-Civil War period. The prospect of such an extreme, horrific result should motivate all of us to search either for ways to compromise or for ways to convince the other side that they are in error. How long can we polarize in incompatible directions before we have a second Civil War?

Some Thoughts on How to Conduct a Successful Conversation

So what can we do to productively engage each other on our differences? I would humbly offer the following thoughts.

1. Seize any opportunity to discuss issues with those who have contrary beliefs: This is a piece of advice much easier said than done! Because of the way many political issues have of inspiring emotional hostility, a great many folks will do all in their power to avoid these kinds of discussions, especially with friends. To lose a friend because of contrary beliefs would be a very bitter result, indeed. For this reason, you would be well advised to lead into and conduct a discussion with an attitude of friendliness and  — if possible — with some self-deprecating humor. Otherwise, all other expressions of emotion should be avoided, which is especially true of anger. Sweet reason is required for any productive conversation. One great difficulty with this advice is that it requires a great deal of emotional self-control.
   
   You probably know a number of friends with different ideological viewpoints from your own. In my case it seems like more than 50% of my friends and acquaintances are of the opposite persuasion. Many times when I meet with them I am asked my opinion on the coming elections or sometimes on some other political topic. Other openings are sometimes given by my friends’ comments on the vicissitudes of life. However they start, they will continue to a hopefully useful end only if the friend finds the conversation interesting and hopefully pleasant.
   
   
2. Know why you believe what you profess; know what you do not know: If you are going to express a position on an issue, you had better know your own mind on the subject. If you have not developed your personal ideology yet (the case for a very, very small number of people in my experience), or you do not know the facts of the case, you would do much better to just listen and limit your contribution to the conversation to questions. There is no greater fool than the one who opens his mouth to confirm the fact.
   
   In fact, some of the most useful discussions are those in which you do not know all the facts, where you have an opportunity to ask questions. But to take advantage of these kinds of situations, you have to know what you do not know, which is not always easy. Recently, I had an occasion to repeat a Mark Twain quote that is especially applicable.
   
   “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
   
   
3. Avoid the trap of emotion, especially anger: In trying to be persuasive in a discussion about something intrinsically emotional, anger is the most destructive emotion to display. All you will accomplish by displaying it is usually to arouse anger in your opponent. and to close his mind. However, there are other destructive emotions, such as pride or despair, that hinder you from acknowledging your opponent’s valid points. If he says something persuasive that you can not immediately counter, it would be far better to say you need to research the matter to discover the truth rather than merely state the point can not be true because it does not fit your own detailed, beautiful argument. However, if you do have many facts supporting your position, neither do you have to concede the argument. Your friend’s point, after all, could well be true, and even if true it may or may not totally invalidate your position. Reality is very complicated and marvelously subtle. Simply say you need to research the matter. After doing your research, this situation gives you the reason to bring up the subject at a different time
   
   

Finally, I would like to point out the advantages of holding political discussions on such emotionally divisive issues on a website such as A Divided World. A blog like this represents a perfect opportunity for anyone to participate in the great conversation. Unlike an ordinary conversation, the participants are not in each other’s physical presence, which removes much of the tension and emotion involved. You can more easily think about how you should respond. Also the response need not be immediate; you have time to do a little research, perhaps on the internet, to compose the best response you can. These are real advantages, and they take much of the threat out of an encounter.

Views: 1,659

GO TO HOME

Sharing is caring!