Art of Manliness: How to Have a Civil Political Debate | The Art of Manliness
Will
· 1 year ago
Yes, yes, yes!
James
· 1 year ago
My friend, this is perfect. Now if only politicians could get their heads on straight, and discuss sensibly instead of "getting in people's faces" and arguing. Such standards show ignorance and lack of leadership. (Quote was from Obama)
Nate
· 1 year ago
Great article Brett. My friends and I all share separate beliefs on political and religious matters, but we have all usually been able to debate them reasonably with each other due to us all being very close and really caring about what each other thinks. Great guidelines!
dave
· 1 year ago
Well done, Brett & Kate -- Truth told, these aren't the qualities of a politician -- at least not in Australia. Gentlemanly debating and oratory is optional; salesmanship, gamesmanship, factionism and a readiness to cut down your fellow man to advance your own cause are standard fare. The qualities described here strike me more like those of a statesman -- a leader who has transcended petty politics and is actually able to provide a course for their country (or company, or instituion, or whatever) to move forward and become great. It's too bad that our leaders spend so much time taking shots at each other to hide their own weak policies & poor decisions.
Case in point: One of our major parties elected a new leader last week (Malcolm Turnbull of the Federal Liberal Party), and he hadn't been in office (as the leader of opposition) for two hours before the ruling ALP party was taking shots at him regarding his personal life. Without taking sides (the Liberal party has run more than its share of smear campaigns in recent years), it simply highlights a culture long on politics and mudslinging and short on statesmanship and leadership.
Brett
· 1 year ago
@Dave-
Thanks for your comment. I had a phenomenal professor in college who often expounded on the virtues of a statesman, a position all men should aspire to and which transcended politics. He said a true statesman had four qualities:
1. A bedrock of principles 2. A moral compass 3. A vision 4. The ability to build consensus to achieve that vision.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Ian
· 1 year ago
Great article (my comment may sound trite, but I sometimes offer the opposite sentiment to some aom posts). Sound political argument is the hallmark of a democracy. I was alarmed when I read the first paragraph of this article that I was going to read a recommendation to not discuss politics, glad to say I was wrong with my hasty judgement.
Both politics and religion are important, therefore they should be discussed, debated and criticised, to uncover their worth. But in a reasonable fashion, as this article points out.
I agree entirely with dave--- I have petty name calling and the inclusion of irrelevant personal actions of politicians. In actuality this behaviour indicates the lack of worth of the party making the attack. As both sides indulge what does that say?
Lyndon Johnson
· 1 year ago
Great post! I went straight to the National Review and it did, indeed, get my blood boiling.
Darren
· 1 year ago
Yet another great post----In Masonic lodges, it is forbidden to talk about politics and sectarian religion. I couldn't tell you what party most of my brothers belong to. We are required, as well, to cheerfully obey the laws of whatever country we are in. I think the reason that the political discourse in the United States has taken such a nasty tone lately is because the two main parties have such divergent beliefs about the function of government. Personally, I look to "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine and the "Federalist Papers" by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, for guidance on that issue.
tadeusz
· 1 year ago
I would add one suggestion: try to find a constructive way of action.
People often agree taht the current situation is bad (not-optimal) and generally we could use more freedom, material prosperity, safety, education etc. Encouraging constructive discussion about means to achieve this general improvement is a good idea to cool down, and reach consensus.
If you read only one politic book in your life - make it Human Action. That helps understanding politics a lot.
Ross
· 1 year ago
Very good article. It puts me in mind of an article I read a couple of years ago called "The Mannerly Art of Disagreement." You can find it here: http://members.aol.com/MacedonPg/tmaod.htm
Is this actually possible? I hope so, b/c my business partner (mostly left) and I (mostly right), usually wind up in a nuclear war by the time the conversation is over. I don't even think we care about our side anymore as much as the fact of who is right and why they are! Great post.
Darren: I have to disagree with you about the two parties having such divergent views. If anything, they agree on far too much. Both parties seem to vie for more control over our lives, they merely disagree on how much more control in each area.
Nevertheless, I have to agree with you on the reading of Common Sense (http://publicliterature.org/books/common_sense/...) and The Federalist Papers (http://federali.st/), but I think to be fair, one should read The Anti-Federalist Papers (http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/) as well. There were two very passionate sides to that debate, and in hindsight we can see that the Anti-Federalists' concerns were very well-placed.
StevefromMKE
· 1 year ago
I consider myself right of center, but have friends who are probably way over on the left. We can discuss issues without going apoplectic or cursing each other or renouncing each other's friendship.
I just find that the coverage seems to be skewed towards the left in the media these days, which is hard to talk about anything because a lot of people only are getting (or only wish to) one side to a story. This is why the internet is critical to getting news and of course, disseminating it so as to get the real story. I don't get that from my local paper or the nightly news these days.
Gabe
· 1 year ago
Thank you for the timely article. The next couple of months would be much pleasanter if folks took this advice. My only qualm is that Brett and Kate keep mentioning "feelings": pointing out that those who disagree with us, "feel differently than we do," and inviting us to ask folks, "what makes them feel that way."
I know it's a petty nitpick, but I think there's a distinction to be made between thoughts and feelings, and it's important to keep in mind if you're going to be discussing politics. When you're discussing and defending political positions, your personal feelings aren't going to hold much sway. If you've arrived at your positions rationally, you will be able to explain to others how you arrived there. Feelings don't have rational roots, so they aren't worth a hill of beans in a debate, or of much interest in a political discussion.
The writers wisely allude to this in their final point, recommending that one sticks to vetted facts. This is sound advice. Don't ask your pals how they feel about politics, because there's not much to discuss or debate there. Ask them what they think.
Great site, great article, thanks again!
JS
· 1 year ago
Good article. I have always had aspirations for running for a political office when the time was right and I became slightly older (presently 25). It has always been a priority of my campaign that I would never devolve into petty mud-slinging or slanderous tactics as they cloud the issues that the candidates should truly be debating. As such, it constantly pains me to watch TV and see a continuous onslaught of "he said/she said" ad's regarding a candidates campaign. Highlight your achievements and your platform without lowering yourself to the level of a grade-school child. Instead, be a true leader and rise above the squabbling and lead the people as they need to be led.
Darren
· 1 year ago
@Ross--Perhaps I wasn't clear, I wrote: "the two main parties have such divergent beliefs about the function of government". What I mean is why government exists. Paine stated that protection from our enemies and protection from each other are the only true functions of government. Therefore, we sacrifice a portion of our property to help facilitate the protection of the rest, and the government that provides the most protection, at the least expense, is preferable to all others. Others would have the government protect us from ourselves and the "Fates". This is anathema to the concept of "self ownership" from which Liberty derives. I maintain that this is the same paternalist view used by Jefferson to justify his reluctance to free his slaves. This is also the same premise used by Marx and Lenin to espouse communism. When one cedes personal responsibilty, or has it taken from them, they are rendered under absolute despotism. But I digress; this is, in a nutshell, what I meant. Whether or not any politician puts ideals into practice is another thing. I also submit this as a humble example of what I hope is taken as gentlemanly political discourse. Thank you for your patience.
Ross
· 1 year ago
Darren:
Ahh, I see. I did misunderstand you. You mean to say that the current political landscape has diverged from the initial views the United States were founded upon. I can agree with that, as well as much of what you wrote.
Judging from Jefferson's writings, he knew slavery was opposed to his ideals, despite his occasional attempts at justification. I would say it is a simple as this: comfort and power are both very difficult to give up once you have them, despite knowing that you go against your own principles to keep them. Even Washington waited until he and his wife were dead before relinquishing his slaves. It is unfortunate that such intelligent and good-intentioned men could harbor such cowardice, but great men often have great weaknesses. This was a large reason why these men believed government should be limited to specific functions, for even they were not fit to wield such power. And while better presidents than most, they too were willing to manipulate the laws once in office.
Peter
· 1 year ago
I find it interesting that nearly everyone believes themselves to be a moderate.
“I am the man in the middle; for the middle is, by my definition, where I stand. … I am a ‘friendly’ sort of person; anyone more friendly than I is ‘familiar’; anyone less friendly than I is ‘aloof.’ I am an ‘open’ person; anyone more open than I is ‘brutally frank’; anyone less open than I is ‘devious.’ … I am a ‘determined’ person; anyone more determined than I is ‘pig-headed’; anyone less determined than I is ‘indecisive.’ … I am a ‘realistic’ person; anyone more realistic than I is ‘cynical’; anyone less realistic than I is ‘naive.’" (Sidney J. Harris)
The Left Wing blogs wonder when the media is ever going to go after Sarah Palin, while the Right Wing blogs wonder when the media is ever going to give her a break.
The Democrats think that Fox News is a right-wing propganda organ, while the Republicans are sure that the Daily Kos has a direct feed to MSNBC's teleprompters.
And since we tend to gather around us people with similar socio-economic/religious/social backgrounds, we find ourselves surrounded with people who are just as much in the "middle" as we are, and we can all pat each other on the back for our acceptable views and wonder what is wrong with the rest of the country out there.
A perfect example is the 2000 eleciton fiasco in Florida. Both the Republicans and the Democrats can say with perfectly straight faces that they believe that the other side was trying to steal the election. Since Republicans tend to discuss politics with Republicans, it's pretty clear to them that "everybody that they know" voted for Bush, there is no way that Gore could lay a claim to a victory. The Democrats discuss politics with Democrats and don't know anyone that purposefully voted for George Bush, let alone Pat Buchanon, so it must have been fraud.
One of the hardest things to do in life is to try to actually see things from anothers point of view.
John
· 1 year ago
I liked this article on how to debate. Too bad I hadn't read this before. It gives me many things to think about for the next time. I do have a question, though. I find myself in debates often but I end up feeling like I am unprepared. Where are some good places to get unbiased facts about debated topics (especially ones important to the current election)?
Ross
· 1 year ago
John: Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any one place you can find unbiased facts. Usually, to find unbiased information, you check multiple sources and make sure they're not sourcing each other. Wikipedia is not a bad place to start though, since people of different opinions have to work together to keep the page from constantly reverting (although you should still check the sources, and be sure to read the discussion page). Otherwise, you can try to tease out unbiased facts by reading many differently biased opinions on the same thing, although that is much more difficult. Unfortunately, information is recorded by humans, and humans tend to be biased in one way or another.
Jerry
· 1 year ago
Great rules of engagement! These apply equally as well to debates on religion.
TheMightyQuinn
· 1 year ago
Bravo for making it this far in the discussion without it disintegrating into mudslinging re: the upcoming US election. It's good to be in the company of men. Now if our politicians would behave in a similar fashion...
Kimberly
· 1 year ago
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Brett
· 1 year ago
Great comments everyone. You all have provided some good insights.
@Ross- Thanks for sharing the link to the Mannerly Art of Disagreement.
@Gabe- You make a good point on focusing more on facts and less on feelings. I think that's probably at the heart of most uncivil political debate. People focus too much on how they feel about an issue and less about their thoughts on it. And you're right. Feelings don't really sway people in a political debate.
Nick
· 1 year ago
Loved the article. However, political debate has given us some of the most brilliant insults of all time, and I find it sad that our discourse today is so insulting, yet not creatively so. My favorite from British politics:
"Sir, I don't know whether you will die first of the pox or on the gallows!"
The reply: "Well, that would depend on whether I first embrace your mistresses or your principles."
Kevin J Jones
· 1 year ago
I second Gabe's concern about using the word "feel" as a synonym for "think."
We are at our best when we are reasoning, rather than feeling. Implying someone has thought through to his position is a subtle compliment.
However, asking someone "Why do you feel this way?" can come off as patronizing. It implies that at root his opinion is emotional or psychological and not rational.
The "principle of charity" from the rhetorical arts expands on the material presented here. Always consider the strongest part of your interlocutor's comments, rather than clutter the conversation with straw man arguments.
Brett
· 1 year ago
@Kevin- As I commented to Gabe, I definitely would temper the importance of feelings in debate. But I also disagree that "feelings" have no place in political discourse or that asking someone "why they feel that way" is patronizing. A man may be pro-choice because his sister was raped and did not want to have the rapist's baby. A man may be anti-war because he served in Vietnam and became totally disillusioned with armed conflict and nation building. A man may be against free trade because his father had his factory job outsourced to India. A man might be against gun control because he's an avid hunter or because someone broke into his house and he had to brandish his gun to scare off the intruder. All of these things are reasons are subjective in nature but show why a man would "feel" a certain way about a policy. Without understanding these "feelings" you would never really understand why you friend felt a certain way.
Certainly rational facts should be the basis of an argument, but the reality is that we often seek out these facts to confirm and support a pre-conceived position based on our feelings from life experiences. Therefore, if you and a friend have reached an impasse of understanding in your debate, and are having trouble respecting each other's side, citing another study or historical factoid isn't going to help. You need to delve deeper and ask why your friend came to that position in the first place.
Vynara
· 1 year ago
Ah, a timely and thought-provoking article; thank you, AOM.
to fellow AOM reader John: Nothing wrong being unprepared, really. What I do is to seek facts from the person I'm discussing with. Stuff like, "I can't say I know this topic very well. Why don't you tell me why you agree with position X and not position Y?" Even without the so-called unbiased facts at your fingertips, it is perfectly possible to engage in a frutiful debate via Socratic questioning alone; that is, exploring the internal rationality of your fellow debator's belif system. So the discussion becomes more of a "You claim that you disagree with position Y because of X, Y, Z, but Y is unrelated to the issue at hand here". Be warned, though; Greek philosophy Socrates eventually got so many people mad at him that he was sentence to drink hemlock! ;)
@Rational vs Emotional Debate: I very much agree with Brett on this. It seems too "traditionally masculine" an approach to demand pure rationality and cut out of the discussion anything that touches on the emotion. It doesn't have to be that way; emotions are part of that which makes us who we are, after all. Emotions, I feel, have gotten a bad reptuation from seeing politicians rant and rave at each other - the kind of shout-matches that have so unfortunately taken over so many debates. You can be calm and still speak passionately about what you believe in. Understanding how yourself and your opponent came to 'feel' about certain policies would, in my opinion, open new ways to look at any old issue.
My two cents' contribution to the article:
i) Sometimes, at the end, two intelligent and passionate individuals can simply agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong or odd about two great friends holding differing views on a certain topic. If anything, those two people are even better friends for being able to respect each other's principles and beliefs.
ii) Take responsibility for your own beliefs. I avoid saying stuff like, "You're wrong to think that way", "Can't you see why this is irrelevant?". Instead, I try to use "I think", "it is my opinion that", "from where I am standing", "from what I understand". That is, instead of making it sound like I'm accusing my opponent of something, I try to phrase my words in such a way that it's clear *I* am the one presenting *my* side of things. I feel this makes the discussion much less confrontation and therefore much more fruitful.
Lastly, to Nick: Haha! Thanks for sharing that. The stiff British upper lip never fails to amaze.
Chris Cree
· 1 year ago
I get along much better with folks of diverging opinions after a friend of mine told me one day, "Chris, you've got to decide: do you want to be right, or do you want to have friends?"
It never occurred to me that those mostly are mutually exclusive goals.
So now, instead of working to "prove" to others that I am "right" I simply share my view and allow them to think that I'm "wrong."
Sure I still have as much conviction of my own beliefs. But once I let go of my need to be seen as right I quickly found myself getting along a whole lot better with other folks.
Charlie
· 1 year ago
Really thought-provoking piece, guys. I myself need to take some of this advice to heart.
Man, I look around and American politics has gotten so nasty over the years. People are really fed up and a lot angrier than they used to be, or maybe it's just me. The art of a friendly political debate is lost, it seems. I'm going to take this advice to heart. Certainly, the older you get, the easier it is to see the other side. As the old French saying goes, "If a man is not a socialist before the age of 30, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist after the age of 30, he has no brain."
Peter
· 1 year ago
Great article! It is a shame today that there is no respect given in the world of politics, much less anything else. It seems to me that our current election is more of a Hollywood popularity contest than it is about ideals and beliefs. I am not saying votes are not important, I just see this as a reflection of most Americans inability to think for themselves and their lack of principle. It is a sad day. Very good points and thank you!
Meiji_man
· 1 year ago
Very well put.
Too bad those Morons on the other side can't read, they could benefit from this! (joke, I joke...)
Gabe
· 1 year ago
@ Brett and Kevin,
Interesting discussion, all. I think the emphasis one places on the importance of feelings versus rational arguments is largely a product of one's personality (Meyers-Briggs' T vs F types), so different people will respond to different kinds of appeals.
But more importantly, I think that the approach you take in a conversation should be dictated by what you hope to achieve.
In my earlier comment, I was thinking along the lines of a semi-formal debate, where you're trying to convince someone of something, or change someone's mind (if not your opponent's, then an audience's). In these cases, your personal feelings don't count as arguments.
But if you're having a social conversation with friends or acquaintances, you're probably just trying to state your personal case in a respectable way. You're trying to help someone understand you. In cases like these, it seems to me that a string of statistics or facts might not be very compelling. They don't help your audience understand you. Brett provides some clear examples of how our personal experiences can shape our views, and in discussions where understanding is the goal--not scoring points or changing minds--I think discussion of personal anecdotes can be relevant.
Could it be that in personal discussions, first-hand experience probably holds more sway than a bunch of numbers that may not be immediately verifyable? While in public or professional debates, you need to abstract your arguments beyond yourself, since you're acting as a spokesman for a position?
Thanks for the discussion, folks. Again, excellent site here.
Thomas Johnson
· 1 year ago
Good article, a lot of this applies to any conversation on a sensitive topic e.g. relationships, philosophy.
I don't think "why" and "how" questions are necessarily more provocative than "what" questions. "What" can form some pretty hurtful statements as well e.g. "what on earth makes you think that!".
Alan
· 1 year ago
Maybe I am slowly becoming a cynical and angry person, but it seems that as time passes, attack ads against politicians have become more prominent than positive ads about themselves, and that the ads have reduced themselves into demonized, twisted, pus-spewing shells of truth. McCain attacked Obama for "Wanting to teach kindergartners about sex", when he wanted to help them avoid potential predators. Obama made fun of McCain for not being able to use computers, even though he had a war injury that does not allow for enough finger dexterity to use a keyboard. It seems petty, like two children fighting, and whenever the proverbial shit hits the fan, they both point to each other for the problems that arise from it. I would love for one to have an ad of them just sitting in a chair, and talking about what they believe in, without throwing a single "My opponent|the liberals/conservatives|the right/left|etc." anywhere. I would quite literally jump out of my seat and applaud for one of them finally doing something relevant.
I am withholding my political views from this post, because I don't want it clouding my own judgment. All I will say is this: I think there are too many attack ads, and they just degrade the ones who release them.
Ed
· 1 year ago
Vynara on September 22nd, 2008 8:22 pm
I think that in a formal debate, such as a political debate, your methodology is absolutely perfect. It would allow you to actually understand how the person came to his/her belief and also if they really did believe it deeply it would come through. Also it would give you time to question your own position, especially if you respect the other party. This keeps you everyone from having to come up with some sort of long winded song and dance that the audience knows is a not correct. There is never anyone who knows everything about everything and your knowledge base is created by your life experiences.
I think some of the best advice is finding common ground, though you give it the least attention here. I think it's incredibly important to let the other side know that you share their same concerns--it's just that you disagree with the way they are proposing to fix it.
All Comments
Truth told, these aren't the qualities of a politician -- at least not in Australia. Gentlemanly debating and oratory is optional; salesmanship, gamesmanship, factionism and a readiness to cut down your fellow man to advance your own cause are standard fare.
The qualities described here strike me more like those of a statesman -- a leader who has transcended petty politics and is actually able to provide a course for their country (or company, or instituion, or whatever) to move forward and become great.
It's too bad that our leaders spend so much time taking shots at each other to hide their own weak policies & poor decisions.
Case in point: One of our major parties elected a new leader last week (Malcolm Turnbull of the Federal Liberal Party), and he hadn't been in office (as the leader of opposition) for two hours before the ruling ALP party was taking shots at him regarding his personal life. Without taking sides (the Liberal party has run more than its share of smear campaigns in recent years), it simply highlights a culture long on politics and mudslinging and short on statesmanship and leadership.
Thanks for your comment. I had a phenomenal professor in college who often expounded on the virtues of a statesman, a position all men should aspire to and which transcended politics. He said a true statesman had four qualities:
1. A bedrock of principles
2. A moral compass
3. A vision
4. The ability to build consensus to achieve that vision.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Both politics and religion are important, therefore they should be discussed, debated and criticised, to uncover their worth. But in a reasonable fashion, as this article points out.
I agree entirely with dave--- I have petty name calling and the inclusion of irrelevant personal actions of politicians. In actuality this behaviour indicates the lack of worth of the party making the attack. As both sides indulge what does that say?
People often agree taht the current situation is bad (not-optimal) and generally we could use more freedom, material prosperity, safety, education etc. Encouraging constructive discussion about means to achieve this general improvement is a good idea to cool down, and reach consensus.
If you read only one politic book in your life - make it Human Action. That helps understanding politics a lot.
http://members.aol.com/MacedonPg/tmaod.htm
tadeusz:
Human Action is a great book, and even better, you can find it online:
http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp
http://yinvsyang.com/
I have to disagree with you about the two parties having such divergent views. If anything, they agree on far too much. Both parties seem to vie for more control over our lives, they merely disagree on how much more control in each area.
Nevertheless, I have to agree with you on the reading of Common Sense (http://publicliterature.org/books/common_sense/...) and The Federalist Papers (http://federali.st/), but I think to be fair, one should read The Anti-Federalist Papers (http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/) as well. There were two very passionate sides to that debate, and in hindsight we can see that the Anti-Federalists' concerns were very well-placed.
I just find that the coverage seems to be skewed towards the left in the media these days, which is hard to talk about anything because a lot of people only are getting (or only wish to) one side to a story. This is why the internet is critical to getting news and of course, disseminating it so as to get the real story. I don't get that from my local paper or the nightly news these days.
I know it's a petty nitpick, but I think there's a distinction to be made between thoughts and feelings, and it's important to keep in mind if you're going to be discussing politics. When you're discussing and defending political positions, your personal feelings aren't going to hold much sway. If you've arrived at your positions rationally, you will be able to explain to others how you arrived there. Feelings don't have rational roots, so they aren't worth a hill of beans in a debate, or of much interest in a political discussion.
The writers wisely allude to this in their final point, recommending that one sticks to vetted facts. This is sound advice. Don't ask your pals how they feel about politics, because there's not much to discuss or debate there. Ask them what they think.
Great site, great article, thanks again!
Ahh, I see. I did misunderstand you. You mean to say that the current political landscape has diverged from the initial views the United States were founded upon. I can agree with that, as well as much of what you wrote.
Judging from Jefferson's writings, he knew slavery was opposed to his ideals, despite his occasional attempts at justification. I would say it is a simple as this: comfort and power are both very difficult to give up once you have them, despite knowing that you go against your own principles to keep them. Even Washington waited until he and his wife were dead before relinquishing his slaves. It is unfortunate that such intelligent and good-intentioned men could harbor such cowardice, but great men often have great weaknesses. This was a large reason why these men believed government should be limited to specific functions, for even they were not fit to wield such power. And while better presidents than most, they too were willing to manipulate the laws once in office.
“I am the man in the middle; for the middle is, by my definition, where I stand. … I am a ‘friendly’ sort of person; anyone more friendly than I is ‘familiar’; anyone less friendly than I is ‘aloof.’ I am an ‘open’ person; anyone more open than I is ‘brutally frank’; anyone less open than I is ‘devious.’ … I am a ‘determined’ person; anyone more determined than I is ‘pig-headed’; anyone less determined than I is ‘indecisive.’ … I am a ‘realistic’ person; anyone more realistic than I is ‘cynical’; anyone less realistic than I is ‘naive.’" (Sidney J. Harris)
The Left Wing blogs wonder when the media is ever going to go after Sarah Palin, while the Right Wing blogs wonder when the media is ever going to give her a break.
The Democrats think that Fox News is a right-wing propganda organ, while the Republicans are sure that the Daily Kos has a direct feed to MSNBC's teleprompters.
And since we tend to gather around us people with similar socio-economic/religious/social backgrounds, we find ourselves surrounded with people who are just as much in the "middle" as we are, and we can all pat each other on the back for our acceptable views and wonder what is wrong with the rest of the country out there.
A perfect example is the 2000 eleciton fiasco in Florida. Both the Republicans and the Democrats can say with perfectly straight faces that they believe that the other side was trying to steal the election. Since Republicans tend to discuss politics with Republicans, it's pretty clear to them that "everybody that they know" voted for Bush, there is no way that Gore could lay a claim to a victory. The Democrats discuss politics with Democrats and don't know anyone that purposefully voted for George Bush, let alone Pat Buchanon, so it must have been fraud.
One of the hardest things to do in life is to try to actually see things from anothers point of view.
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any one place you can find unbiased facts. Usually, to find unbiased information, you check multiple sources and make sure they're not sourcing each other. Wikipedia is not a bad place to start though, since people of different opinions have to work together to keep the page from constantly reverting (although you should still check the sources, and be sure to read the discussion page). Otherwise, you can try to tease out unbiased facts by reading many differently biased opinions on the same thing, although that is much more difficult. Unfortunately, information is recorded by humans, and humans tend to be biased in one way or another.
@Ross- Thanks for sharing the link to the Mannerly Art of Disagreement.
@Gabe- You make a good point on focusing more on facts and less on feelings. I think that's probably at the heart of most uncivil political debate. People focus too much on how they feel about an issue and less about their thoughts on it. And you're right. Feelings don't really sway people in a political debate.
"Sir, I don't know whether you will die first of the pox or on the gallows!"
The reply: "Well, that would depend on whether I first embrace your mistresses or your principles."
We are at our best when we are reasoning, rather than feeling. Implying someone has thought through to his position is a subtle compliment.
However, asking someone "Why do you feel this way?" can come off as patronizing. It implies that at root his opinion is emotional or psychological and not rational.
The "principle of charity" from the rhetorical arts expands on the material presented here. Always consider the strongest part of your interlocutor's comments, rather than clutter the conversation with straw man arguments.
As I commented to Gabe, I definitely would temper the importance of feelings in debate. But I also disagree that "feelings" have no place in political discourse or that asking someone "why they feel that way" is patronizing. A man may be pro-choice because his sister was raped and did not want to have the rapist's baby. A man may be anti-war because he served in Vietnam and became totally disillusioned with armed conflict and nation building. A man may be against free trade because his father had his factory job outsourced to India. A man might be against gun control because he's an avid hunter or because someone broke into his house and he had to brandish his gun to scare off the intruder. All of these things are reasons are subjective in nature but show why a man would "feel" a certain way about a policy. Without understanding these "feelings" you would never really understand why you friend felt a certain way.
Certainly rational facts should be the basis of an argument, but the reality is that we often seek out these facts to confirm and support a pre-conceived position based on our feelings from life experiences. Therefore, if you and a friend have reached an impasse of understanding in your debate, and are having trouble respecting each other's side, citing another study or historical factoid isn't going to help. You need to delve deeper and ask why your friend came to that position in the first place.
to fellow AOM reader John:
Nothing wrong being unprepared, really. What I do is to seek facts from the person I'm discussing with. Stuff like, "I can't say I know this topic very well. Why don't you tell me why you agree with position X and not position Y?" Even without the so-called unbiased facts at your fingertips, it is perfectly possible to engage in a frutiful debate via Socratic questioning alone; that is, exploring the internal rationality of your fellow debator's belif system. So the discussion becomes more of a "You claim that you disagree with position Y because of X, Y, Z, but Y is unrelated to the issue at hand here". Be warned, though; Greek philosophy Socrates eventually got so many people mad at him that he was sentence to drink hemlock! ;)
@Rational vs Emotional Debate:
I very much agree with Brett on this. It seems too "traditionally masculine" an approach to demand pure rationality and cut out of the discussion anything that touches on the emotion. It doesn't have to be that way; emotions are part of that which makes us who we are, after all. Emotions, I feel, have gotten a bad reptuation from seeing politicians rant and rave at each other - the kind of shout-matches that have so unfortunately taken over so many debates. You can be calm and still speak passionately about what you believe in. Understanding how yourself and your opponent came to 'feel' about certain policies would, in my opinion, open new ways to look at any old issue.
My two cents' contribution to the article:
i) Sometimes, at the end, two intelligent and passionate individuals can simply agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong or odd about two great friends holding differing views on a certain topic. If anything, those two people are even better friends for being able to respect each other's principles and beliefs.
ii) Take responsibility for your own beliefs. I avoid saying stuff like, "You're wrong to think that way", "Can't you see why this is irrelevant?". Instead, I try to use "I think", "it is my opinion that", "from where I am standing", "from what I understand". That is, instead of making it sound like I'm accusing my opponent of something, I try to phrase my words in such a way that it's clear *I* am the one presenting *my* side of things. I feel this makes the discussion much less confrontation and therefore much more fruitful.
Lastly, to Nick: Haha! Thanks for sharing that. The stiff British upper lip never fails to amaze.
It never occurred to me that those mostly are mutually exclusive goals.
So now, instead of working to "prove" to others that I am "right" I simply share my view and allow them to think that I'm "wrong."
Sure I still have as much conviction of my own beliefs. But once I let go of my need to be seen as right I quickly found myself getting along a whole lot better with other folks.
Man, I look around and American politics has gotten so nasty over the years. People are really fed up and a lot angrier than they used to be, or maybe it's just me. The art of a friendly political debate is lost, it seems. I'm going to take this advice to heart. Certainly, the older you get, the easier it is to see the other side. As the old French saying goes, "If a man is not a socialist before the age of 30, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist after the age of 30, he has no brain."
Too bad those Morons on the other side can't read, they could benefit from this!
(joke, I joke...)
Interesting discussion, all. I think the emphasis one places on the importance of feelings versus rational arguments is largely a product of one's personality (Meyers-Briggs' T vs F types), so different people will respond to different kinds of appeals.
But more importantly, I think that the approach you take in a conversation should be dictated by what you hope to achieve.
In my earlier comment, I was thinking along the lines of a semi-formal debate, where you're trying to convince someone of something, or change someone's mind (if not your opponent's, then an audience's). In these cases, your personal feelings don't count as arguments.
But if you're having a social conversation with friends or acquaintances, you're probably just trying to state your personal case in a respectable way. You're trying to help someone understand you. In cases like these, it seems to me that a string of statistics or facts might not be very compelling. They don't help your audience understand you. Brett provides some clear examples of how our personal experiences can shape our views, and in discussions where understanding is the goal--not scoring points or changing minds--I think discussion of personal anecdotes can be relevant.
Could it be that in personal discussions, first-hand experience probably holds more sway than a bunch of numbers that may not be immediately verifyable? While in public or professional debates, you need to abstract your arguments beyond yourself, since you're acting as a spokesman for a position?
Thanks for the discussion, folks. Again, excellent site here.
I don't think "why" and "how" questions are necessarily more provocative than "what" questions. "What" can form some pretty hurtful statements as well e.g. "what on earth makes you think that!".
I am withholding my political views from this post, because I don't want it clouding my own judgment. All I will say is this: I think there are too many attack ads, and they just degrade the ones who release them.
I think that in a formal debate, such as a political debate, your methodology is absolutely perfect. It would allow you to actually understand how the person came to his/her belief and also if they really did believe it deeply it would come through. Also it would give you time to question your own position, especially if you respect the other party. This keeps you everyone from having to come up with some sort of long winded song and dance that the audience knows is a not correct. There is never anyone who knows everything about everything and your knowledge base is created by your life experiences.