Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
I start my day with the Cato Daily Podcast (by the way, if you're not listening to it, you're really missing out. You don't need to be a firebreathing anarchist to appreciate solid public policy research) and they did an episode the other day called Be Charitable to Your Opponents' Views.
In it, Arnold Kling explained how conservatives, liberals and libertarians all judge things on different axes. And this may be elementary to you, but, to me, the axes as he described them were a grand revelation.
Conservatives, he argued, see things on an axis of Civilization versus Barbarism -- order, either from the state or the church, versus the chaos that would come without those things. Kling said the archetypal story for this is Lord of the Flies. In the absence of civilizational constraints, everything descends into barbarism.
Liberals see things on the axis of Oppressors versus the Oppressed. Kling says the story for this would be Exodus, or slavery in the American South.
Libertarians see things on the axis of Coercion versus Free Choice. We've discussed before the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and that's where this fits in.
The more I turn this over and over in my head, the more sense it makes to me.
Kling's point is that to understand your opponents and their point of view, you need to view things on the axis they use.
And I can see this all the time: when conservatives claim libertarians don't want any rules; when liberals claim pro-lifers just want to control women's bodies; when libertarians claim conservatives want a police state.
This is so valuable because you need to understand the other guy -- you need to see things on his axis -- in order to begin to persuade him. There are a lot of people who claim to understand their opponents' arguments but only parrot straw men arguments. I like to think I do it fairly well, and, to a point, I do. That's why I ask a lot of provocative questions here: I don't always understand things and I need to draw people out to be able to see their views.
But understanding needs to come first. That is the essential first step.
- Comment (52)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (24)
Comments:
Oct '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
I must be a libertarian conservative, with free choice in civilization there can be no oppressors.
Apr '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
This perhaps, is one of the reasons why I continue to argue that Libertarians aren't going to rush to vote Republican should they be lacking a Libertarian candidate.
Jul '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Timely.
Sep '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
The axes fall apart at the point of dishonest self-justification. Let's say I want free stuff from government, but I can only get free stuff if taxpayers accept the Oppressor role and I sell the Oppressed role to the hilt. Watch out, Al-Not-So-Sharpton, here I come!
Such self-justification requires cooperation if it is too succeed. All it takes to bring down this rotten house is one little kid to proclaim, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Nov '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
I'd argue there's multiple axes for most people, mostly defined around moral/immoral. Maybe that's included in the axes in the podcast, but while a traditional conservative believes in civilization/order Nazi Germany had plenty of order and conservatives (and pretty much everyone who's not a neo-Nazi or holocaust denier) view Nazi Germany with the same disgust a libertarian would.
Oct '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
I call myself a 'practical' libertarian, and I vote republcian. I believe in freedom from abuses of the 'religious' right and freedom from over taxation. We have an instutition to protect our individual rights, the Supreme Court. However, I no such institution to protect my property, so I vote Republican. Libertarian, ideas of small government and individual liberty if co-opted by the republicans would expand the party, but loose the christain conservative, it would be a win-lose situation.
Nov '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Libertarians are generally speaking individualists, which means you can't paint them all with a broad brush.
But if you take the time to understand their point of view (which is the whole point of the thread), then you can craft policies and frame them in a way that will appeal to them on their axis.
You get what you want from people by appealing to their sensibilities, you have to understand those sensibilities in order to appeal to them.
Mar '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
NAP?
To the degree what he says is true (and I tend to agree with him), then like the three axes of space, there is one and only one meeting point where all would agree. Even the two dimensions of conservative and libertarian have a single line in common.
Using this understanding will elevate debate, but, to me, it seems to make agreement less possible. I would say conservatives and libertarians are largely incompatible. Civilization (order) tends to require some form of coercion, while choice (freedom) entails a risk of barbarism. Conservatives and libertarians will, therefore, always be at odds to the degree which they stand on their principles. This seems born out by several threads on this site.
The odds of reaching a point of common agreement seem remote to me.
Oct '10
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Fred makes very good point. The most successful negotiators and sales professionals have a clear idea of what value the counterparty seeks from the transaction.
Then, rather than trying to persuade the counterparty to reduce or change his value, he will try to show how his product or policy will deliver that value, perhaps in a different way or time frame.
So, for a conservative to persuade a libertarian of the value of some new regulation.. say a police power restricting public assembly under some specific condition.. the conservative should get in the mindset of the libertarian and try to understand if the regulation in any way could advance or protect libertarian values. So, his argument might be best framed as protecting libertarian free choice against mob action.
Consider a libertarian trying to persuade a conservative that legalizing pot would be a good thing. Conservatives tend to value successful policy and reject policies that have been proven to fail.
Talking about an individual right to use pot will be unpersuasive, but showing that enforcement of pot laws has failed and wasted resources may persuade.
Thus, a conservative may be brought to agree with Libertarian policy positions for completely different reasons.
Nov '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
The NAP is the non-aggression principle. The concept that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another person.
I figured we talked about it enough here it didn't need a link.
May '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Sharp and incisive comments, Fred. We all have our axes to grind.
Nov '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Schrodinger's Cat:
Using this understanding will elevate debate, but, to me, it seems to make agreement less possible. I would say conservatives and libertarians are largely incompatible. Civilization (order) tends to require some form of coercion, while choice (freedom) entails a risk of barbarism. Conservatives and libertarians will, therefore, always be at odds to the degree which they stand on their principles. This seems born out by several threads on this site.
The odds of reaching a point of common agreement seem remote to me.
As to that last, if you start with the mindset, it will certainly end up as a self fulfilling prophecy.
I can make non-coercive order related arguments from a libertarian point of view. I'd start with the concepts of spontaneous order and the discipline of constant dealings.
But, no offense, if you start with a puss on your face and say "Why bother talking We'll never reach common ground," then the odds of reaching common ground are zero.
Jun '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Schrodinger's Cat:
NAP?
. . . Using this understanding will elevate debate, but, to me, it seems to make agreement less possible. I would say conservatives and libertarians are largely incompatible. Civilization (order) tends to require some form of coercion, while choice (freedom) entails a risk of barbarism. Conservatives and libertarians will, therefore, always be at odds to the degree which they stand on their principles. This seems born out by several threads on this site.
The odds of reaching a point of common agreement seem remote to me. · 0 minutes ago
Non Aggression Principle
I find agreement when we consider Common Law and the Constitution.
Taking Marriage for example, If Common Law were the rule of the land, Conservatives and the Churched could exist just fine with Libertarians or unchurched. Just marry at your church, or co-habitate and make a common law marriage.
When we control gov't with a constitution granting them very limited powers, and then have Common Law ideals where things are legal unless they infringe on others rights, we could get along.
I enjoy your comments, BTW.
Peace.
Nov '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Limestone Cowboy:
So, for a conservative to persuade a libertarian of the value of some new regulation.. say a police power restricting public assembly under some specific condition.. the conservative should get in the mindset of the libertarian and try to understand if the regulation in any way could advance or protect libertarian values. So, his argument might be best framed as protecting libertarian free choice against mob action.
[snip]
Thus, a conservative may be brought to agree with Libertarian policy positions for completely different reasons. ·
EXACTAMUNDO! You just need to appeal to someone on their terms.
I'll also add, with your above example, that there are sometimes conflicts that are just irreconcilable. That just happens. Some things are fundamentally incompatible. But I'd say that's actually much rarer than most people think.
Dec '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
I did not know, until this very day, that the Cato Institute's target demographic is the firebreathing anarchist block. I shall view myself differently henceforth.
Oct '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Liberal/libertarians can become persuaded using this mindset as well. A good example is the current 'right to work' legislation. Union joining choice is an individual liberty, and should not be mandated by the state. Libertarian-Democrats can be 'right to work' people when presented this information.
Apr '12
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
I think this a very useful discussion. I've done a lot of public speaking over the years, including on some very contentious issues, and learned from some early bad experiences that it was important to think about my audience and how to speak to them in a way that would at least make them possibly consider my points rather than close their minds at the start.
It often meant starting a discussion in a very different way than if I was talking about it with people who already agreed with me.
In a country of more than 300 million you will never have a majority aligned with all your individual policy preferences. Politics is about how can we successfully manage those differences without killing each other in the streets as has commonly happened thru out human history. Think of it as a giant venn diagram where your goal is to find enough common ground to get a large enough overlap to have electoral success. To do that you need to have some understanding of how others think beyond the notion that they are just crazy, stupid or evil (well, okay, maybe some really are).
Dec '10
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Please never leave Ricochet, Fred. Thanks.
Aug '10
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
This will be useful in describing the differences between the three philosophies to my 13-year-old. I won't tell her (just yet) that liberals want to coerce us, take away our free choice, and cause us to descend into barbarism.
Mar '11
Re: Understanding The Other Guy's Point Of View
Limestone Cowboy: The most successful negotiators and sales professionals have a clear idea of what value the counterparty seeks from the transaction.
Then, rather than trying to persuade the counterparty to reduce or change his value, he will try to show how his product or policy will deliver that value, perhaps in a different way or time frame.
The reason this doesn't work in politics is because most base voters (on both sides) are most interested in demonstratin that the other side's values are wrong.
The most active voices aren't interested in pushing specific policies as much as in pushing their worldview and demonizing the opposing one. This would be a recipe for disaster in the business world.