Divisive Politicking and Reviving Civil Debate

 

shutterstock_433218895I’m on day two, after essentially a week off due to a death in the family. It’s election day, and I’m only slightly paying attention — for now, I have more interest in “glitches” on a large scale, as opposed to who actually wins or loses. People having trouble voting in the first place is a bigger problem in my mind, of course. I don’t have a horse in any race this time around, and while I intend to vote, I don’t intend to cast a ballot for the presidency. As a Pennsylvanian who knows Philadelphia will be in play thanks to SEPTA no longer striking, there is no point (not that I had any intention of voting GOP anyway).

At least a few people have accused me of being at least a little apathetic, which is inaccurate. I merely recognize that as one of the candidates might put it, it doesn’t make any difference who moves into the White House in January. I’m not talking about ideology, or agendas. I am pointing out a Constitutional fact that has been at least a little ignored of late, but I suspect will not be during the next presidential term. Please, let us be brutally honest with ourselves, and recognize that the checks and balances created by the Constitution will regain their meaning.

No, I am not focused on the identity politicking that has eclipsed everything else for the past several years. It came to a head of sorts this election season, and I’m hoping that tomorrow will finally be the beginning of the end of it. True, it may be wishful thinking, but we all need a little bit of that.

I’ve been absent from here for a great deal of time, mostly because I’ve been busy in a similar place. While I just write here from time to time, I’m now an Editor-In-Chief on a non-partisan political site. That means we publish lots of political articles, but we honestly don’t care where the authors are on the political spectrum. We have this idealistic notion that if people would just stop screaming at each other for long enough to actually listen to each other, maybe we can go back to a point where we can have intelligent conversations on politics again. Oddly enough, I just finished writing about essentially that concept over in that other place.

In spite of having the mission of getting all points of the political spectrum under one virtual roof on the web, I was having more than a little trouble dealing with content from people who disagree with me. But today, I published work from a man who worked for Obama, and scarier still, found myself agreeing with some of what he had to say. It was a magical moment, as an editor and a person who had been sucked into the maelstrom of highly partisan politicking. I’d like to say I suggest it for everyone, but I can’t. My submissions inbox is regularly hit with essays that have the potential to send me into a crisis of conscience. Instead of just blithely going along through life with my own little set of beliefs neatly cemented in place, I regularly have to defend them at least in my own mind. It’s not easy.

I can’t just dismiss writing because I disagree with it, and I have to stop myself from mercilessly searching for errors to justify a rejection based on my personal beliefs. Remove “writing” from that, and put in the word “people”. Now think about it. How often do we dismiss people simply because we feel that they are making errors in their thinking? It is “feel,” not “think,” because it is a visceral reaction to someone disagreeing with our world view. We react with that feeling we get, as opposed to attempting to empathize with the person in front of us. We don’t attempt to think through what the person is talking about from that person’s point of view, as opposed to our own. We fail to put ourselves in their shoes, even a little.

In case you’re wondering, the point I’m trying to make is that there is no way to have intelligent exchanges among people with differing views if no one tries to see the issues from the same perspective as the others. You can’t win an argument, change any minds, or reach a compromise without taking that step outside of your own world and into theirs. Like opposable thumbs, this skill separates humans from animals. It’s more than just co-feeling — it is also co-thinking. It’s also not for the weak, because it means you have to be willing to place your own thoughts and beliefs out there in the open. They may or may not survive it. You might — change. You might have to give up some of the labels you’ve adopted for yourself, and you might grow beyond the point where you can only tolerate the company of people who think like you do. The people on the ballot today wouldn’t like that. That last one is probably a perk.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    I would like nothing more than to live in a world that emphasizes rational and civil debate.  After all, the more calmly we discuss the issues, the more likely undecideds will actually hear what we have to say and thus agree with us.

    Which is exactly why our opponents have a vested interest in keeping us screaming at each other.

    Unfortunately, when we address the civility issue we’re usually pretty naïve, thinking that if we approach an argument in good faith that either the other side will reciprocate or bystanders will get turned off by leftist hysterics and then side with us.

    It doesn’t work that way.  Leftists know they have to keep us demonized to win, and the general public doesn’t respect gentility nearly enough.  They say they hate divisiveness, but it often has a subconscious appeal as “passionate”.

    So we’ve got to be able to win the nasty wars before we’ve any hope of returning to civility, just like we need police and military with the baddest guns to restore peace.  They’ll only give up on insult wars when they start losing them.  I’m not happy about it, but that’s how it is.

    • #1
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Liz Harrison: Please, let us be brutally honest with ourselves, and recognize that the checks and balances created by the Constitution will regain their meaning.

    We have seen a steady erosion of the power of Congress to the Executive and Judicial Branches over the past 50 years. What evidence do you have that the next Presidency will see a reversal of this trend?

    • #2
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Liz Harrison: You might have to give up some of the labels you’ve adopted for yourself, and you might grow beyond the point where you can only tolerate the company of people who think like you do.

    This call, when it comes from the left, usually means “Stop thinking your way and think my way, and we will call that “compromise”. Jonah Goldberg has more than one essay on the “no labels” crowed.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255240/once-more-no-labels-breach-jonah-goldberg

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/254859/politics-without-labels-what-silly-concept-jonah-goldberg

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381662/labels-liberals-jonah-goldberg

    • #3
  4. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Surely you haven’t forgotten how 0bama has taken Executive Orders to the extreme of legislating from the Oval Office. Just wait until you see what HRC does with the E.O.

    And then, with her additions to the Supreme Court, “checks and balances” will be a quaint thing of the past! She can legislate from her Bench too.

    • #4
  5. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    There are lefties with whom you can engage in civil discussion.  When afforded such an opportunity, by all means take it.

    But (as one of countless examples) the screaming safe space college crowd aren’t exactly inclined towards civility.  Being nice to them just makes them think you’re weak.  If they’re ever going to treat their opponents with respect, it’s only going to be after somebody intimidates them the same way they routinely intimidate everyone else.

    • #5
  6. TKC1101 Member
    TKC1101
    @

    Liz Harrison: I’m not talking about ideology, or agendas. I am pointing out a Constitutional fact that has been at least a little ignored of late, but I suspect will not be during the next presidential term. Please, let us be brutally honest with ourselves, and recognize that the checks and balances created by the Constitution will regain their meaning.

    I do not see the case for this point. Is this something you just assume will happen?

    • #6
  7. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    How I engage in civil discussion with lefties:

    1. Discuss issues rationally.

    2.  Observe leftist “cross the line” by engaging in an ad hominem or character assassination against me or my allies.

    3.  Ensure that everyone witnessing the discussion is aware that a line has just been crossed.  “I’ve been calmly discussing this with you, and you had to resort to name-calling”.

    4.  Quickly and mercilessly tear into the leftist in question.  Embarrass them.  Ensure they’re aware that if the discussion proceeds in this manner they’ll look like an utter moron.

    5.  Offer to return to civil discussion instead of humiliating them.

    6.  Proceed with civil discussion.

    • #7
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Martel:How I engage in civil discussion with lefties:

    1. Discuss issues rationally.

    2. Observe leftist “cross the line” by engaging in an ad hominem or character assassination against with me or my allies.

    3. Ensure that everyone witnessing the discussion is aware that a line has just been crossed. “I’ve been calmly discussing this with you, and you had to resort to name-calling”.

    4. Quickly and mercilessly tear into the leftist in question. Embarrass them. Ensure they’re aware that if the discussion proceeds in this manner they’ll look like an utter moron.

    5. Offer to return to civil discussion instead of humiliating them.

    6. Proceed with civil discussion.

    The problem is when after #3 they just move to yelling.

    • #8
  9. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Martel:How I engage in civil discussion with lefties:

    1. Discuss issues rationally.

    2. Observe leftist “cross the line” by engaging in an ad hominem or character assassination against with me or my allies.

    3. Ensure that everyone witnessing the discussion is aware that a line has just been crossed. “I’ve been calmly discussing this with you, and you had to resort to name-calling”.

    4. Quickly and mercilessly tear into the leftist in question. Embarrass them. Ensure they’re aware that if the discussion proceeds in this manner they’ll look like an utter moron.

    5. Offer to return to civil discussion instead of humiliating them.

    6. Proceed with civil discussion.

    The problem is when after #3 they just move to yelling.

    That’s when you laugh at them.

    If the more angry they get the more fun you have, they can’t win.

    • #9
  10. Super Nurse Inactive
    Super Nurse
    @SuperNurse

    This is an interesting piece. I will say that I have some very close very leftist friends with whom I occasionally find common ground. They are lovely human beings, and we have many things other than politics in common. The issue I have with the very rosy picture you paint of open discussion is that we actually have such fundamentally oppositional views on the role and nature of government that it is difficult to agree on anything substantial. We agree on some principles like free speech (for example, both for an invited guest at a college and for his potential protestors) but broadly speaking, we could not be more divergent. She is the VP of a non profit health insurance safety net, and I work in a traditional healthcare setting. We talk healthcare policy a lot, but I think that the government should be getting out of the healthcare business almost entirely, and she wants to tweak the current system or go to single payer, better yet. There is a yawning chasm in between our values and ideology that cannot be papered over. We will both fight like cornered alley cats if someone tries to move the ball in the wrong direction.

    • #10
  11. TempTime Member
    TempTime
    @TempTime

    Liz HarrisonI can’t just dismiss writing because I disagree with it, and I have to stop myself from mercilessly searching for errors to justify a rejection based on my personal beliefs.

    Your challenges are not my challenges.

    Remove “writing” from that, and put in the word “people”.

    Disagreeing with what someone writes does not imply disagreement with the person’s self.

    Now think about it. How often do we dismiss people simply because we feel that they are making errors in their thinking?

    Again, there is no WE with you and me; don’t confuse me with you.

    It is “feel,” not “think,” because it is a visceral reaction to someone disagreeing with our world view.  

    Tsk, tsk.  Quite a leap presuming a visceral reaction.

    We react with that feeling we get, as opposed to attempting to empathize with the person in front of us.

    So it’s not okay if the feeling is disagreement, however, it is okay in the feeling is empathy.

    We don’t attempt to think through what the person is talking about from that person’s point of view, as opposed to our own. We fail to put ourselves in their shoes, even a little.

    Civil discourse does not require an echo chamber.  Echoing is not a discussion.

     

    • #11
  12. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Liz, you going anywhere with this?  You’ve done everything but make the point.

    • #12
  13. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    TempTime:

    Liz Harrison: I can’t just dismiss writing because I disagree with it, and I have to stop myself from mercilessly searching for errors to justify a rejection based on my personal beliefs.

    Your challenges are not my challenges.

    Remove “writing” from that, and put in the word “people”.

    Disagreeing with what someone writes does not imply disagreement with the person’s self.

    Now think about it. How often do we dismiss people simply because we feel that they are making errors in their thinking?

    Again, there is no WE with you and me; don’t confuse me with you.

    It is “feel,” not “think,” because it is a visceral reaction to someone disagreeing with our world view.

    Tsk, tsk. Quite a leap presuming a visceral reaction.

    We react with that feeling we get, as opposed to attempting to empathize with the person in front of us.

    So it’s not okay if the feeling is disagreement, however, it is okay in the feeling is empathy.

    We don’t attempt to think through what the person is talking about from that person’s point of view, as opposed to our own. We fail to put ourselves in their shoes, even a little.

    Civil discourse does not require an echo chamber. Echoing is not a discussion.

    Also, regarding “seeing the other side”, I’m far better at arguing in favor of leftism than most lefties.

    I actually know what and how they think.  They’ve no clue about us.

    • #13
  14. Liz Harrison Member
    Liz Harrison
    @LizHarrison

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Liz Harrison: Please, let us be brutally honest with ourselves, and recognize that the checks and balances created by the Constitution will regain their meaning.

    We have seen a steady erosion of the power of Congress to the Executive and Judicial Branches over the past 50 years. What evidence do you have that the next Presidency will see a reversal of this trend?

    The same evidence that has been causing so many people to go running around with their heads on fire this election cycle. Do I think there may still be erosion of power of Congress? Perhaps. Do I think that the most radical ideas said by both Clinton and Trump will fly without a fight from the other branches? No. We’re still on the slippery slope of our elected officials grabbing more power in bits and pieces, but I do not think we will see a radical increase in that behavior.

    • #14
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Liz Harrison:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Liz Harrison: Please, let us be brutally honest with ourselves, and recognize that the checks and balances created by the Constitution will regain their meaning.

    We have seen a steady erosion of the power of Congress to the Executive and Judicial Branches over the past 50 years. What evidence do you have that the next Presidency will see a reversal of this trend?

    The same evidence that has been causing so many people to go running around with their heads on fire this election cycle. Do I think there may still be erosion of power of Congress? Perhaps. Do I think that the most radical ideas said by both Clinton and Trump will fly without a fight from the other branches? No. We’re still on the slippery slope of our elected officials grabbing more power in bits and pieces, but I do not think we will see a radical increase in that behavior.

    You said Checks and Balances will regain their meaning. That implies a restoration. Your response to me now is that things won’t accelerate, but continue to slowly get worse. Those are two different things.

    • #15
  16. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    TKC1101:

    Please, let us be brutally honest with ourselves, and recognize that the checks and balances created by the Constitution will regain their meaning.

    I do not see the case for this point. Is this something you just assume will happen?

    I think she left out a “not.”

    • #16
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.