At this point, I think both supporters and non-supporters of Clinton can agree that things have gotten out of hand at Dailykos. On all sides people are complaining about how the site has become a toxic environment, and how it is no longer the warm and welcoming place it once was. Now, this situation isn't entirely new. Those of us who were here doing the last presidential election will recall just how heated the discussions about Dean, Clark, and Kerry became. However, perhaps it is just a failure of memory, but things seem far more ugly this time around. I teach and research rhetoric and philosophy for a living, so I would like to offer some friendly advice as to how this might be overcome. This advice, I hope, will be helpful to all candidate supporters.
UPDATE A number have pointed out that this diary should not have been directed at Clinton supporters, but at all candidate supporters. I agree and those of you who have suggested this are right. I think there have been problems all around and that many, many, many of us can stand to improve. I apologize for fanning flames further. This is exactly what I don't want to do. I've been extremely troubled by the level of discourse about these parts, and have experienced it mostly from one direction because of my own biases.
I will say, however, that I don't think it's productive to go on pointing out all the evils of the various supporters. You've all heard of the Hatfield's and McCoy's, I'm sure. One guy punches another guy. The other stabs another guy. The other shoots another guy. And eventually you have two families locked in a bitter and senseless war. Until we can lay down our own wrongs we can't get past these things and begin to dialogue. Fixating on them does no good.
The key aim of any rhetorical encounter is persuasion. To speak is to speak to another person who does not necessarily share your views and who you are trying to persuade. This means that in addressing ourselves to our audience it is necessary to be attentive to our audience and where our audience is situated, i.e., what positions they advocate.
The first step in establishing such productive communication lies in gaining the respect, trust, and recognition of our audience. Many of us have learned about this much to our dismay over the last seven years from Bush-supporters and conservatives. Because conservatives do not respect us, do not trust us, and do not recognize us, we've discovered that no matter how well supported our arguments, no matter how careful our reasoning, we are unable to persuade such people. For people like myself who passionately believe in the power of reasoned persuasion, this has come as a traumatic and upsetting shock.
Fortunately, at Dailykos, things are not so dire. Because nearly all of us are democrats, and because nearly all of us share very similar goals, there is at the outset a minimal level of trust, respect, and recognition for one another. This means that while persuasion might be an uphill battle that requires patience, caring, and a willingness to debate points for an extended amount of time, persuasion is possible in a number of circumstances if we express ourselves in the proper way. This doesn't mean that persuasion will come immediately. You might not even hear the other person say "I've been persuaded!" or "You're right! I'm wrong!" One of the frustrating things about rhetorical interactions is that we don't always get to see the results of our own arguments; but we should never forget that the effects of our own rhetorical engagement can be delayed and that here we're always being watched by an audience that can be persuaded as well. In other words, don't assume that the person you're talking to is necessarily the person you're trying to persuade. The audience watching is just as important. This is especially true of Dailykos today as we have an added responsibility to comport ourselves well because of the national attention we've earned through our passionate engagement.
However, while there are plenty of possibilities for persuasion here at Dailykos because we already have some degree of trust, recognition, and respect for one another, it is possible to significantly derail the possibility of persuasion and destroy any possibility of agreement. This is what is referred to as "poisoning the well". Poisoning the well occurs when we relate to the person we're talking to in such a way that we render it well nigh impossible for them to agree with us or listen to us because we've behaved in an insulting way or in a way that negatively colors their perception of all our subsequent arguments and evidence. One of the most important elements of persuading another person lies in establishing our own credibility as a speaker. We do not listen to people who we do not believe to be credible, and do not entertain their arguments no matter how well reasoned they might be if we see them as lacking in credibility. For instance, there are few circumstances under which I would listen seriously to the arguments of the Intelligent Design theorist Behe. This is because I believe Behe lacks credibility in scientific matters and actively distrust him, believing that he distorts things to support his own position. If we behave in such a way as to undermine our own credibility then we lose our ability to persuade, regardless of whether truth is on our side.
Now, I fully admit that my views might be colored by my own views about which presidential candidates can be best, but it seems to me that many Clinton supporters are behaving rhetorically in such a way as to undermine their credibility to others at Dailykos, and are destroying any trust, respect, and recognition they might have had with many others at the site. This is not true of all and some are far worse than others, but it is a problem that has gotten worse in recent weeks. Assuming that the aim of Clinton supporters is to persuade others to support their candidate, new rhetorical strategies need to be adopted so that this might stop and some level of peace might be attained. This is especially important given that Clinton will likely be the nominee. Clinton supporters need to tread carefully with other progressives, lest they end up alienating these progressives and diminishing her chances of getting elected in the general election.
Here are a few helpful tips for overcoming this problem. I hope Clinton supporters will take this advice with an open mind and will not attack me for suggesting them.
- Do not use terms like "Hillary haters" or "Hillary Bashers" when referring to your democratic opponents at Dailykos. I realize debate can be extremely frustrating, especially when you make points that you believe are well supported. However, in order to persuade an audience, you need to minimally respect your audience's positions. Rhetoric like this is dismissive and shows that you are not listening to what your audience is saying. If your audience does not feel heard, then they will not feel respected. If your audience does not feel respected or recognized, then you and your candidate will not be respected or recognized.
- Do not explain the passionate negative views of Clinton by reference to "irrational hate" or "emotion". Again, this alienates your audience and diminishes your possibility of persuading them. It might very well be true that there is irrational hatred out there on Dailykos, but it is never rhetorically effective to point this out.
- Concede points when presented with a good argument criticizing your candidate's record. A lot of folk see this as a weakness, however, conceding points indicates that you're rational and honest and therefore increases your credibility and persuasive force in your own arguments. We have lived for 7 years under an administration that doesn't accept responsibility for any shortcomings. A failure to concede points creates associations in the minds of your readers that you and your candidate is like this administration. All the candidates have flaws and shortcomings. A failure to freely admit this indicates weakness, irrationality, and diminishes credibility.
- Do not ask for loyalty oaths or assurance that your candidate will be supported in the general election. This rubs many people the wrong way as it suggests that we're required to bow before a brand name rather than a set of ideals. Just work hard to be persuasive, speaking of the merits of your candidates. The rest will follow.
- Do your utmost to avoid any accusations of sexism or hinting of sexism when confronted with a lack of support for Clinton. Such claims are extremely alienating to vast numbers of your audience and poison the well, rendering any further persuasion impossible. This is true of both men and women. As progressives, most of us see bigotry as a moral issue. A person who is sexist, racist, or homophobic is an immoral person. If you call your audience immoral or implicitly suggest that a failure to support your candidate emerges from bigotry, you poison the well making it impossible for your audience to come around to your side. This is a corrosive form of argumentation and should be dropped like a hot potato if you're genuinely interested in persuading others.
- Always be polite, respectful, friendly, and easy going even when feeling heated. Such behaviors are infectious and have the added virtue of creating associations in the mind of your audience to your candidate. That is, if you display these traits of character in your dealings with others the mind will unconsciously attribute these traits to your candidate. Good behavior is persuasive in and of itself. People who respect others get respected in turn. There hasn't been enough of this in any of the candidate diaries.
- Stop with the sour grapes (this holds for all candidate diaries). Leaves your venting for your offline life and don't gossip about how they other candidate supporters are behaving (I know, I'm being a hypocrite here, but there's no other way to make the point). Remember, there's always an audience. Bitching about the bad behavior of other candidate supporters in "venting diaries" again poisons the well and makes it psychologically more difficult to come around to supporting your candidate.
- Stick to policy and be honest about both the policies of your own candidate and the other candidates. Those who behave honestly increase their credibility. If you misrepresent the positions of others or turn them into "straw men" you diminish your credibility and make it harder for the audience you're trying to persuade to take you seriously.
- Don't weasel, parse, or make arguments based on technicalities. A number of people tried to pars Clinton's responses in the debate where she performed poorly. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a bad performance is just a bad performance. Forthrightly admitting this enhances your own credibility and persuasive power. Denying and "explaining things away" diminishes that persuasive power (and again reminds people of Bush-style gynmnastics explaining the mushroom cloud comment).
- Don't equate criticism with "bashing" or suggest that people criticizing are "aiding the republicans". Again, this poisons the well and makes it impossible for your audience to listen to you, as it sounds as if you're dismissing their arguments out of hand and even believe that they are morally wrong to criticize. Remember, the aim is to create community with your audience, to persuade, not to alienate. This alienates and therefore is not effective strategically.
- Don't play the victim. No one enjoys having it implied that they are victimizing someone else. It makes it more difficult for them to listen. Moreover, it diminishes the credibility of Clinton supporters in that she's the front runner, has raised tremendous amounts of money, and has been very successful in life. It is difficult to seriously entertain the claim that criticism is victimization. Moreover, this is yet another way of dismissing the arguments you're opponent is making by dismissing them out of hand, thereby undermining trust, respect, and recognition which are so crucial for persuasion.
I think that is about all for now. I hope folks will take these observations in the spirit they are intended. I firmly believe that were these rhetorical strategies adopted and heeded we would begin to see far more support for Clinton and more recommended Clinton diaries on the list. This wouldn't occur immediately, but it would occur over time. Such strategies have the merit of getting the dark feelings out of the way and allowing us to focus on the arguments, the reasoning, the evidence itself. It is difficult for such dialogue to take place when there's so much emotion in the way. The first step is always to respect and recognize your opponent.