Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Harry Dreyfuss on the Importance of Listening
You might not have heard of Harry Dreyfuss, but you probably know his dad. Harry’s intellectually curious and politically active father decided to attend a speech by one of the presidential candidates. He didn’t endorse or campaign for anyone; he just listened. And, our current media environment being what it is, he faced blowback for that:
My father went to a Ted Cruz rally. My father also won an Oscar in the ’70s and his name is Richard Dreyfuss. Those two things are only related because by virtue of being famous, my father’s attendance at a Cruz rally got written about by a couple of media outlets. Those write-ups were absorbed by a number of mouth-breathers, and so began The Dumb.
Let me clarify. When asked if his being there suggested he supported Cruz, he responded, “It suggests that I’m interested in what he has to say… It’s the politics of my country, so I’m interested.” This seems like a pretty clear answer to me. I don’t necessarily endorse these views, but I’m curious about them because they are poised to have a very big effect on me and my country.
But clarity be damned, the same day as those articles were published I started getting calls and complaints asking me why my father was a Ted Cruz supporter. This is where we should leave the story of “Richard Goes To Ted Talk” behind, and just start talking about the principle of the thing. I’m really not trying to talk about my dad. I just want to address The Dumb.
As always, read the whole thing. Harry’s short essay reveals a small-mindedness that has taken over much of our political scene. The simple act of listening to someone on “the other side” is considered a betrayal by his opponents.
For his part, Richard Dreyfuss describes himself as a centrist and an Eisenhower Republican. He also called for the impeachment of George W. Bush and wants more gun control. Not exactly the red-meat party activist one would expect to hang out at a Cruz rally. But he came anyway to hear him out.
My question to the Ricochetti: What positive lesson have you learned about politics or policy by listening to politicians with whom you disagree?
Published in Politics
I’ve been thinking about an exercise. Imagine they’re you’re friend. Your really good friend. And you’re at a dinner party with all your other friends. And you all got to talking . and he had some things to get off his chest. Really important things about the country. You wouldn’t lay into him and start calling him names would you? You wouldn’t embarrass him in front of everyone would you? Wouldn’t you exercise some charity? Wouldn’t you grant him the benefit of the doubt? Wouldn’t you treat him with all the kindness and respect you ever had? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not.
I wish I could learn from listening to Trump, what he is up to. There is a disconnect. He really can’t be that concerned about immigration, and his prior stand seems to indicate he once had a more nuanced view. So why this strident tone now?
I wish listening was enough, but it just isn’t.
People know Lincoln sounded sort of like Mr. Day-Lewis does in the movie. Probably, people can find in old letters notes about such things; they’re private observations, but concerning men of importance, so that people pay attention & consign their thoughts to paper. These hostages to fortune, I’m sure, will reveal something about the man who was about the most important man in America in the 1850s…
For decades, there’s been a persistent (and alas, almost certainly false) rumor that Abraham Lincoln’s voice was recorded by Phonautograph, a pre-Edison device that recorded sound waves on paper, like a seismograph line. There was no way to play the sounds back; they were merely graphed for scientific analysis. This recording is from 1860, 17 years before Edison’s phonograph. It’s only playable now because computer analysis enables us to turn the paper squiggle into sound.
Yes. But…. it’s a little too much like Dorothy Parker’s observation that Hepburn’s emotions ran the gamut from A to B. The gamut of Ricochet political opinion is surely wider but falls well short of A to Z. To win we must be able not just to challenge our own ideas. We must also learn how to challenge the ideas of those voters whose political opinions run the gamut from Y to Z. And win them over.
I was deep in enemy territory when I attended the 2008 Democrat Debate in Las Vegas. John Edwards played Barack Obama like a fiddle; Hillary was Hillary; I almost blew my cover chortling a couple of times, but overall it was a very instructive evening. I came to suspect that Bush Derangement Syndrome was merely a cover for their percolating fascism. (If George W.Bush didn’t exist, they’d have to invent him.) I also came away feeling that this crowd wasn’t so much “anti-war,” as they were anti-America-as-founded.
I don’t dispute either comment. That’s why I usually don’t bother. I have another saying: The heart makes a lousy substitute for a brain.
And I’ll bet Dreyfuss has never met Cheney. For if he had, I doubt he would have spoken such nonsense.
I don’t believe it is ever really possible to win over the opposition. However, winning those in the middle who lean neither right nor left can make a difference. To do this it is necessary to see the weaknesses in our own arguments. Often those best able to point those out without incurring acrimony are those who stand closer. There is a great deal of diversity of opinion on Ricochet. It’s range may be limited to the right side of the spectrum, but that does not make it valueless. Though I detest Trump, I find that many of his adherents have excellent thoughts.
Listening to opposing views helps you separate the true believers from the charlatans. Right now we’re allowing ourselves to be distracted by a few charlatans. If we let ones like Sanders soften us up we’ll miss the threat of the real thing when it comes along. A curious mind is our best defense against tyranny.
Wow. Sorry, big movie for me. He is great in it.
I’ve read mostly Sci-fi my whole life, but I tend to stay away from sci-fi movies because they usually make such a hash of them.
What was the question again?
We are primitive creatures. We, like all life forms, conserve energy. Survival has meant that we rely upon instinct followed by a semi-reasoned intuition (avoid deep grasslands early in the day when lions are hungry). Instincts and intuitions are driven by our senses, vision, smell, sound. Instincts are low energy, responses. Intuition consumes a little more energy, but not as much are reaoning – so we rely upon intuition most of the time. Instincts and intuition are pretty close to our value system. My friend saw a man mug a woman standing in a bank line. The man made for a revolving door. My friend got in the door and wedged his foot so the door stopped moving. The robber was trapped. My friend never thought, “Oh, I wonder if he has a gun and might shoot me?” He just acted out instinct and intuition. Gradually, he claims he began to worry. Then the guard arrived. My friend was acting out his values – wrong, stop mugger. He was not thinking.
We use reason about 10% of the time to back up or confirm instincts, modify or affirm intuitions. It requires more energy.
Rarely do we change our value system (instincts and intuition). That is pretty much hard wired when we are say 8 to 10 years old. If we make a discovery, it is often like Susana Martinez who relays the story of having lunch with some Republicans and getting back in the truck with her husband afterwards and saying, “Damn, we are Republicans.” She held certain views and did not realize until later they were GOP or conservative views. That happens. But we do not tend to change much.
Our views are fixed through nature (what we are born with) and nurture (our environment, experience and education). Most people are conservative by nature and this is often hidden and only emerges as they age and affirm their intuitions. Which explains Ronald Reagan and many other converts. It also explains why Ron Paul the libertarians, libertarian can identify more with Bernie Sanders (anti-Wall Street, anti-war) and not at all with Ted Cruz (close to Wall Street and a carpet bomber of civilians).
So, there is no risk to listening to other viewpoints. We are not likely to be confused. And since conservatives are a minority, we should welcome when a Dinesh D’Souza type engages with a good debate with some liberal. He is more likely to convert a liberal than the other way around.
And when we listen to the other side, we learn in two ways. We understand them and we hone our position. We affirm or modify our intuitions.
We are unlikely to change much though. We are more likely to fall back on on instincts, affirm our intuitions and use our thinking to back it all up.
Preach it brother! The tribe is all; there is no dialectic, only monologues passing in the night, occasionally unloading broadsides of snark in transit.
Six Frigates is well worth the read on this.
$94.20 for a new hard cover edition?
Listening to Dubya after 9/11, I learned that Islam was a Religion of Peace™.