Many of us don't like to argue. A lot of the time, we don't think debating a point of contention is worth the time and emotional consequences. It's easier to let the point of contention pass and hope it doesn't recur. A lot of the time, that's the best decision to make. Parents of teenagers quickly learn the wisdom of the phrase "pick your battles." Most of the slights that happen at home aren't a matter of policy; they're passing moments of inattention or immaturity, and unless the consequences are severe, we're better off letting them pass.
But politics is about policy. In politics we need to argue, because the consequences of not arguing can be even worse.
More below the fold.
Why We (Should) Argue
This week Morning Feature will look at arguments: why we need to argue, and how to make more convincing arguments. Let me be clear: I'm not talking about "fighting," rage-filled explosions of vitriol. I'm talking about dialogues with the intent of finding and agreeing on better solutions for problems. That may be adversarial with speakers advocating and defending different points of view, or it may be collaborative with speakers exploring together. Arguments may be passionate, and many should be, but they needn't be bitter. We can "disagree without being disagreeable" and still try to convince others of our position.
And in a democracy, we should. I've read several diaries about people who've decided to end friendships because they and the friend disagree about politics. They always sadden me. I don't judge the decision; that's not my place. But it saddens me that Americans are increasingly not only polarized on political issues, but insulated from other points of view. We are coming to inhabit separate idea-universes, each with its own news sources and its own echo chamber of opinion. We cheerlead each other, and that's worthwhile to a point, but we too often make no effort to convince those outside our idea-universe. Some even go so far as to suggest that The Other Side shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions, or vote, because they're "teh stoopid" or worse. Such ideas carry serious risks.
Ignore Them And They'll Go Away.
We're a social species, and we survive and thrive by our capacity to communicate and cooperate. Brown University professor Philip Lieberman argues in Uniquely Human that the development of speech drove the evolution of the human brain. As our vocal apparatus permitted a wider range of more subtle sounds, our brains developed the capacity for language, and that in turn drove the development of complex, abstract thought and moral reasoning. While the science is still open on that, I'm among those who thinks Lieberman is onto something, and the science is clear that our ancestors lacked (and we still lack) the biological advantages to survive and thrive as individuals. When Tree Ape became Plains Ape, we had to live and work in groups to do together what we could not do alone, or we would have long since been Pootie Poop.
That requires not only talking, but listening, and we've all experienced the frustration when someone cannot or will not hear us. Many of us feel that when we watch the news and hear someone say something we believe or know to be untrue. We may even yell at the TV, and later perhaps laugh at ourselves for doing so. Or we may come here to DKos and post a diary. In most cases we know the person on the TV won't read our diary, but we've at least said something and maybe someone here will read it and respond. We may even laugh at ourselves for doing that, or criticize others who do it, but we're acting on a basic biological impulse: the need to be heard.
When no one will hear us, no matter where or how we try to communicate, we usually don't just give up and give in. Oh, we may for awhile, but we don't like it and the resentment builds. If we're ignored long enough and completely enough, we look for other ways to be heard. We may go out in the street, individually or en masse, and carry signs.
Or we may carry weapons. If we get desperate enough, we may commit some dramatic act. But we will be heard, one way or another. Ignore Them And They'll Go Away is simply not how our species evolved to survive.
We Shouldn't Have To Argue About This.
This is a less extreme version of Ignore Them And They'll Go Away. In this approach, we're willing to hear some disagreements but not others. Those others "should be" settled and we shouldn't have to argue about them again. We often express this in terms of education: "They should have learned that in school." Sometimes it's true that our schools should have exposed students to the facts in dispute, although often the schools did and the students simply weren't listening, or have forgotten, or the lesson in school was overridden by other formative impulses: parents, peers, community, church, or the media.
For whatever reason, this other person disagrees with us on that issue, and if the issue is one of policy we're back to the previous section. Whether we "should" have to argue about it or not, we do have to argue about it or face the foreseeable consequences of Ignore Them And They'll Go Away. If those consequences are severe enough - and we have to weigh that case by case - we should argue, even if we don't think we "should" need to have that argument.
Someone Else Should Argue This For Me.
Again, this is related to the previous section; it's the tacit premise for We Shouldn't Have To Argue About This. When we say "They should have learned that in school," we're saying Someone Else - a teacher - Should Argue This For Me, in the past tense.
We also express this in the present, most often in criticisms of the media. "They should get the facts right" or "the media are biased (always against my position)" translate to Someone Else Should Argue This For Me. If the media were "doing their job," we wouldn't need to argue the issue because others would already agree with us.
Finally we express this in the present in criticisms of our political leaders. "President Obama needs to speak out on this," or "Senator Reid needs to show some leadership" also translate to Someone Else Should Argue This For Me. If our political leaders would make the argument, we wouldn't need to because others would already agree with us.
Except the neighbor, colleague, friend, or family member does disagree. In most cases, he/she isn't going back to school. Even if some in the media and/or our political leaders have made the argument, he/she obviously hasn't been convinced. So who's left?
"Change comes from the bottom up."
We are. Part of what President Obama meant by "change comes from the bottom up" is that each of us has a civic duty of political argument. That's part of being a citizen in a democratic society. That doesn't mean getting into a screaming match every time a neighbor, colleague, friend, or family says something with which we disagree. Screaming matches are rarely useful arguments. But neither does it mean Ignore Them And They'll Go Away, or fuming silently and then coming here to vent and be told We Shouldn't Have To Argue About This, or Someone Else Should Argue This For Me. And while it's not always situationally appropriate to argue, if we never take up political argument with neighbors, colleagues, friends, or family members, we are failing in our civic duty.
And no, we can't convince everyone. Sometimes we're the ones who need convincing, and even when we're not, there are issues on which reasonable people can and will reasonably disagree; at the very least, we can better understand those reasonable disagreements. Then there are unreasonable people, so invested in a position that their commitment is unshakable. They exist, but I don't think they're as plentiful as we're led to believe. We can convince - and learn from! - more people than think.
So we should argue. And tomorrow and Saturday we'll talk about how to argue better, both to make more convincing arguments and to have fewer and lesser explosions of vitriol in the process. And not to dash hopes, but there's no magic solution. Even the best-made arguments can get out of hand, and we need to know how to cope with that.
The central premises of democracy are words rather than weapons and ballots rather than bullets. We have a duty to argue ... lest we find ourselves with no choice but to fight.
+++++
Happy Thursday!