The political debate is raging or should I say flailing like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum in the toy aisle of Walmart. There’s a bunch of brilliantly colored crap all around us, we want it all and we’re angry, and we don’t know why, but we’re a bit hungry and haven’t had our nap. So we flail and yell and call each other names, which doesn’t get us fed or a nap, but we do get some brightly colored and poorly made toy that we’ll be disenchanted with in a few days.
Today, on super Tuesday, we get to see democracy in action once again or do we? Two professors at Princeton set out to answer the question what kind of government does the United States really have? You can read their findings here https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf but in short what they found is that United States national policy is directed by the economic-elite. The United States is an oligarchy. This isn’t some crazy conspiracy on late night radio or some cook with a pod cast, this is empirical data from a world renown university. So the question is how do we become a democracy again? We still have a vote and a voice, but screaming and thrashing about like a 5 year old is not going to help.
How Not To Argue Politics
I’ve debated politics with people from all over the world. We often disagreed, but no one from these other countries took it personally. There was often an “oh I guess I can see that, I don’t agree, but I guess you Americans aren’t that crazy.” with a slight laugh at the end or I might concede that “well that works for your culture and constitution, but it would never work in the States.” We didn’t agree, but we both learned something. On the other hand there is nothing more horrible then debating politics with a fellow American. Facts and figures seem to hold no sway, the mere rules of debate are thrown out the window, and it devolves into name calling, hot tempers, and personal attacks. Below I’ve laid out how not to debate and why, in hopes that we can all learn how to talk politics better and in a way that helps us regain our country as one of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Generic Responses and Personal Attacks
For example: A statement made about how making college affordable again through the use of public funds would benefit the economy and the country in the long run is answered with a statement that includes “nothing is free.” A statement we all know to be true, but isn’t a counter to the point. Of course it’s not free, but the point made is that it’s worth spending tax revenue on college education for the greater good of our society. To which it is often answered, “Millennials are just a lazy and entitled generation who want everything handed to them.” Which may or may not be true, it is a possibility, but it still does not disprove or counter the idea that student loan debt is crippling the economy by forcing Millennials to wait longer and longer to buy houses, cars, and other goods and services that would greatly boost the economy. You could argue that the governments introduction of easy-to-get student loans created the significant increase in tuition in the first place. Therefore more government interference would make the problem worse not better and further hurt the economy, not help it. There are so many other valid points on both sides you could argue, but you have to answer the question or disprove the idea and just like school you have to be able to support your answer with facts and examples.What you can’t do is merely throw out a general statement and call the other person names. Well I guess you can, but that’s not a debate and no one learns anything that way.
The False Analogy
This is one of my favorites. This is when some one makes an analogy like, balancing the US budget is like balancing your check book, to simplify a complex issue or to compare two things that are similar, but not really related, a single payer system and the US postal service for example. As for the budget, there are factors involved in balancing the US budget that make it far more difficult then balancing a check book. For instance our government tenders a fiat currency that’s value is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of. That means that, while your debt to equity ratio has no direct effect on the value of the US dollars that you’re paying your loans with, the debt and GDP of the US government and economy does. Whether that means we should borrow less or spend more or any other possible solution, the analogy does more to confuse the truth then to help us understand it better. Which means if you want to debate the economy you need to learn about it, which means you might want listen to an economist or two. Which brings me to my next point…
Mocking Experts, Academics, and facts
I hear all the time, “That’s stupid. It doesn’t even make sense.” Well if I learned anything from school, work, and life in general, me not understanding something normally has more to say about me then the idea being presented. Me not understanding calculus, doesn’t make calculus wrong or Sir Issac Newton an idiot, it means I don’t yet have the knowledge to understand the subject matter. Again just like school if anyone wants to tell me an idea is stupid they’re going to have to tell me why. If an idea is really stupid it shouldn’t be hard to poke holes in, on the other hand if the person merely can’t grasp the concept the statement “It doesn’t make sense.” does as much to disprove the idea as a belief that I can fly disproves the laws of gravity. That’s to say there’s no place for people condemning well educated expert economists, when they can’t even explain the interaction between supply and demand themselves. So give the idea and experts who have spent their careers studying the subject the benefit of the doubt and ask yourself if it’s you or the idea.
Stupid Supporter = A Stupid Candidate
Another tactic I see all over facebook is videos of the most unintelligent supporters for each candidate answering question about why they support their candidate. Every candidate has them and just because some idiot likes a candidate doesn’t mean that candidate or their policies are stupid, it just means that person doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Many people claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, my self included, but should the truth, morality, and quality, of Jesus’ message be judged by the actions of the West Burrow Baptist church? No! They’re are a small fringe group that is in no way representative of Christianity as a whole. It’s poor logic to judge the validity of an idea based on a few people, especially when those few people have been specifically chosen to discount the whole group or idea. Give me statistics on the mental health, IQ, educational level, intelligence tests, something that takes into account the group as a whole before I’m going to even think of letting the people who support an idea effect my judgment on that idea. What I’m saying is argue the ideas, don’t demean the supporters because when you do you demean yourself and you don’t solve the problem. Debates require both sides to find the truth and when you don’t participate because you’re too busy making fun of someone we all lose.
Passion and Belief
People support the red team or the blue team or anything but a main stream candidate. This choice is made out of a belief and a sense of identity, not rational thought. “He’s not a real conservative.” “Hillary will look out for me.” I’d like to ask these people why? “What reasoning do you have for it?” “What is a real conservative and do you really agree with that political view?” or “How exactly will Hillary look out for you? What in her past convinces you of this?” Even better “He tells it like it is” to which I ask, “in which sound bite and what truth did he tell it? Was it supported by facts or even the confines of reality?” Now, if the person can answer these questions rationally there’s not a problem. On the other hand, while the sarcastic comment about Trump may seem to go against some of my earlier points, I sadly say to that, the questions are legitimate and there legitimacy only brings to light the absurdity by realize there is no rational reason for their support.
I don’t believe that anyone who says these things is an idiot or misguided, I just think politics is marketed to us emotionally and in terms of belief. We believe in candidates or policies we don’t agree with them. We use our hearts only and not our minds. Which is wise of politicians because belief is a much surer way to get a vote year after year then trying to convince someone each election. In belief, to question the party, to compromise with the other side, to not be a real conservative, or to be part of the establishment, is to lose the faith and to be discounted as a heretic and ousted from the group. On the other side, they tap into our emotions, anger, fear, and the like, and while I believe our emotions to be intelligent and useful, they do not question too closely. They’re flags that say either the world is as it should be or it’s not, they don’t tell us how to respond. That’s the job of the mind, which seems to have gotten shut off somehow in American politics as a whole and so we run to anyone who shares our emotion and says they can do something about it.
The Sad Truth and a silver lining
I remember watching the 2012 primaries, debates, and campaigns in my flat in Edinburgh, Scotland. To the rest of the world it’s a reality show. The primaries are like survivor where the world watches to see who will get voted off the island this week. The debates are like the reality TV arguments, trash talk, and gamesmanship, while each candidate works to create his character, his brand. These campaigns spend millions of dollars advising their candidates on how to market themselves to the American people, what character to be and what mask to put on. The sad truth is we get exactly what we want. I doubt very much that the advisers making millions of dollars are wrong, especially when political analysts going over the tape point out places where; “Jeb needs to show his passion and get angry” or “Cruz needs to do this” or “Hilary has recreated her campaign again to fit what voters are looking for.” We boo and complain about them, but at the end of the day, that’s what we want a reality TV show, to be entertained. The silver lining is that we are still the ones being marketed to. We as a country and as individuals have the power to change, to ask for something new, to ask for something better, to make our country a democracy again. First, we have to learn how to debate politics though.
The Benefit of the Doubt
The most important thing you can do to discuss politics better is remember that when you’re talking with others that you disagree with, they are not trying to destroy America, they just disagree with you on what is best for the country. The person who wants a single payer system isn’t hoping that the government uses it as one more way to take away the personal freedoms of citizens, they just think that it would be the most efficient way to pay for health care, to have healthy citizens, and avoid ruining people’s lives economically, all of which they think would improve the economy, the country, and lives of individual citizens. The person who wants to pair back and remove government programs doesn’t want to see poor people suffer or create greater income disparity, they’ve recognized the corruption and inefficiency in government and believe removing those programs and regulations would help the country as a whole be better off. I think both have points and truth to them, what would be better still is if those two sides talked, pointed out the flaws in the others theory, and finally came to a conclusion that is better and closer to the truth then either side could reach by themselves.
What I’m saying is democracies need debate to work properly. Therefore, we need to learn how to debate and discuss politics constructively with each other. It’s our only hope of salvaging the American experiment because all the issues aside our system itself is broken and until we get that right, gay marriage, the economy, defense spending, student debt, whatever hot button issue you prefer doesn’t matter and won’t when the whole thing falls apart. It’s broken because we stopped using our heads along with our hearts, we stopped agreeing and started believing, we stopped being able to discuss politics civilly like rational human beings. The only way to fix it is to start using our heads again, and listen to and learn from one another.
-D
Gate to the Good Life 