Why does it feel like political discussions never get anywhere? During a political debate at a family dinner with your stubbornly opinionated uncle, have you ever felt like you are just going in circles? Have you noticed how, at those family dinners, no one came out with a different opinion than the one they started with? There are probably many answers to why this happens. I think it comes down to one very specific problem: the all-or-nothing political mindset.
When you make an argument with a general theme that someone disagrees with, people with the all-or-nothing political mindset may feel the need to view you as wrong. You, as opposed to your argument which is what they actually disagree with. From this point forward, any further arguments you make, whether correct or incorrect, whether they agree with it or not, already fall into the category of “wrong” in the eyes of this individual. When that happens, any further discourse you try with this person just results in meaningless, obnoxious, fighting over every small detail. As you can imagine, convincing someone who plainly views you as “wrong” is nearly impossible. The only way to stop this standstill is to be open and not allow such mindsets to influence your thoughts about others.
The all-or-nothing mindset goes a lot further than I initially described. Once this mindset becomes widespread, it results in people grouping up into ideological tribes. For example, during election season, let's say you really like Candidate A for his foreign policy platform. Your friends, however, like Candidate B's foreign policy platform better, and when your debate reaches a dead end, they bring up Candidate A's flawed tax policy. As a foreign policy guy, you know very little about tax systems. Nevertheless, since you've aligned yourself with Candidate A and your friends are on the opposing side with Candidate B, you feel compelled to defend Candidate A's tax policy, despite being totally ignorant on that subject.
What I just described to you is how most people end up picking sides over issues that they either previously didn’t care about, or only cared about as a secondary issue. (A common justification for this is that all the issues are interconnected, or share the same basic premises. In reality, though, most people just agree with their side on all issues because it's simpler than distinguishing between which issues they agree or disagree with. I discuss this more in depth here.) As it is within human nature, once you find an issue you strongly care about, you’ll seek a group of people who agree with you. That group is now your political party. The more you debate against “the enemy” about views you didn’t care about yesterday, the stronger your belief in these views becomes. Before you know it, you have taken a side on an issue which you haven’t thought through and have fought for that side with all your heart.
In the context of this phenomenon, think about how disruptive a two-party political landscape is to civil discourse. This is a world that forces people to choose one of two sets of beliefs which, through this rigid structure, creates a mutual state of across-the-board disagreement before the conversation can even begin.
The idea of political identity through party affiliation is deeply flawed. Party association was initially intended to bring together people with similar ideas. Associating yourself with such people can be very beneficial for political debate. However, this becomes problematic when you feel a certain party loyalty which prevents you from taking a stand about an issue you care about if it puts you at odds with the party stance. Over time, parties have begun shaming those who disagree with them on anything, even within their own party. This creates an environment which demands conformity and leaves no room for individuals to reach their own conclusions.
This applies equally to everyday conversations. In this modern era of party affiliation, personal disagreements are generally just party clashes. The average dinner discussion that never goes anywhere aren’t really discussions. They are just regurgitation of party talking points. The simple solution to this problem is to make it a discussion.
This starts before the conversation even begins. Walking into a discussion, you must acknowledge that you have not yet heard your opponent's argument. You may already be assuming you are in the right. And since your opponent took a stand opposed to something you said, you may already think they are wrong. But if you’re being completely honest, you have not yet heard your opponent's argument. You may have heard similar arguments. You may even think that since you have had previous discussions with this same opponent, you know what they will say. But you have not had this particular discussion before. A small nuanced change in a line of reasoning may very well change their argument entirely, way beyond simple semantics. You don't know definitively what this new argument’s flaws are, or even if it has flaws. All you do know at this point is that your opponent's argument is different than your own. Does that mean your opponent is wrong?
Once you walk into the discussion with an open mind, the next challenge becomes keeping your mind open throughout. Start the discussion by finding out what you agree with your opponent on. Whatever you think you disagree about, there must be some common ground where you both agree that can act as a good starting point for the discussion. Do you share the same understanding of the problem? Do you share the same goals? Do you agree on the same general solution?
Without this common ground, the chances of anyone walking out of an argument having changed their mind is extremely low. If you do not both share an understanding of what the problem is, you and your opponent may not even realize that you’re spending the entire debate discussing solutions to different problems. If you and your opponent enter a debate without the same goal as your opponent then the nuanced solutions that you are both proposing are essentially worthless. Your solution and your opponent’s solution might both solve the problem, but your solution does not fit your opponent’s priorities and your opponent’s solution does not fit yours.
Once you agree on the same end goal, the next step is asking whether you both agree on the same general solution. Without this question, you run the risk of accidentally spending the entire conversation arguing over an already agreed upon conclusion. If you do both share the same general solution, then acknowledging this common ground can guide the discussion towards specifics that would work better towards the shared solution. If you do not share the same general solution, pointing this out will guide your discussion towards that topic instead. You will then be able to spend the debate understanding your opponent's general solution and comparing it to your own to determine which one better solves the problem.
Being on the same page as your opponent does not only help you figure out how to refute your opponent's argument, it may also help you understand when you are wrong. The purpose of debate is not to prove yourself right but instead to figure out the best solution to a problem. Sometimes, the best solution is the one proposed by your opponent. Understanding this is essential to having healthy and productive discussion. However, that is not all that these methods are useful for. The methods laid out previously all work towards the goal of removing constraints from your thought process which would help if you are seeking to be a freer thinker.
Becoming better at having healthy political discussions is a massive undertaking. It is not a process which happens in a day or even a week. It takes commitment, discipline, and willpower. You will be in situations where there is a rhythm to the debate, and you will need to break that rhythm. That task is certainly easier said than done. You may find it helpful to keep on asking yourself whenever you disagree with someone, “Why do I disagree?” Instead of giving into the impulse to generate arguments with what your opponent just said, try to figure out why you believe what you believe. After some time, you’ll start noticing that you will more frequently walk out of political debates with both sides having learnt something valuable during the process.
Comments
Post a Comment