…are moving on up, to the west side, to a delux townhouse in the sky yie yie

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

- by Paul Krugman, “The Big Hate.” New York Times, June 11, 2009.

This week Graham and I celebrated 3 years of wedded bliss, and 5 years together. We met at a group that discusses international policy. He generally represented the more conservative side of the debate, while my perspective is far (FAR) more liberal. We recognized early on that our opinions differed not because one was more ignorant or callous than the other, but because the trajectory of our most important values led us to different conclusions for solving problems. Often times, our solutions both had merit in their context.

We also recognized the importance of shades of gray, versus binary right/wrong or black/white thinking. The perfect solution to a political question is less likely all one ingredient or another, but most likely a a finely crafted balance of a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Just enough crisp, juicy carrot plucked from the earth at just the right moment; a finely crafted stick with to dole out ample sting.

This nuance seems lost in so much of the political rhetoric we hear in American culture today. There is no genuine debate, only a sad game of one-upmanship that’s too often focused on tactical arguments based on logical fallacy, non sequitur, and ad hominem attacks.

Is that what we’ve come to? How do you have a real debate when both sides are spewing hate, judgmentalism, and willed ignorance to the other side’s motivations. Toxic political debate that has no real hope of solving problems because it doesn’t care about the questions, only winning the debate. It’s hateful and it makes everyone who engages in it less of a person.

What we need to overcome this twisted, toxic substitute for political discussion is to rediscover as a culture is how to argue without fighting. I love this guy’s ideas so much I’m going to quote and summarize here.

An argument is good; a fight is not. Whereas the goal of a fight is to dominate your opponent, in an argument you succeed when you bring your audience over to your side.

And it starts with teaching kids logos (argue by logic), ethos (argue by character) & pathos (argue by emotion). The key is to do so with integrity. Here are the ground rules:

• Teach decision making. There’s only room for shades of gray. Present both options fairly.
• Focus on the future. Pose open-ended questions that focus on resolving the problem in the future rather than debating the past or placing value judgments on the character of the former decision maker.
• Call “fouls.” Anything that impedes debate counts as a foul: Shouting, storming out of the room, or recalling past atrocities should instantly make you choose the opposite side. Logical fallacy, non sequitur, and ad hominem attacks are fouls, too.
• Use right emotions. No screaming, no attacking, no guilt trips, no sanctimony, no judgmentalism. “Oh, come on. You can do better than that.”
• Let the other side win sometimes.

{ 0 comments }