TIME TO TRY SOMETHING NEW

Let me be clear.  I have a love-hate relationship with social media.  On the one hand, I think the proliferation of Facebook, twitter, internet news sites and blogs has encouraged many individuals, not otherwise inclined, to become more active in politics by choosing sides and expressing opinions.  But, on the other hand, social media has opened and intensified a partisan animosity which often make rational and reasonable arguments impossible.

It is not that the poison pen has not existed throughout history when it comes to biting political rhetoric. Consider this opinion from a conservative in the early 19^th century, not pleased with the socialist, George Bernard Shaw, who was against England’s involvement in the first World War: “The hag sedition was your mother and perversity begot you. Mischief was your midwife, and misrule your nurse. You are a freakish homunculus, germinated outside of lawful procreation.” The author, Henry Arthur Jones truly gave some thought before publishing this elegant way of calling his political adversary a bastard.

Consider also Cicero and his scathing attacks against his opponents in the Roman Senate.  Both his writings and his oratory left no political adversary unscathed.  Lastly, consider the inflammatory pamphlets circulated before and during the American and French Revolutions.  The content was not only scandalous against the ruling monarchies, it was treasonous and came with a death sentence if the phamphleters were arrested.

The difference, between then and now, is that prior to the internet, biting political opinion was accompanied by background information that supported the opinion.  Moreover, many days would pass between the time a thought was developed, pen was put to paper, the publication of the written material and ultimately the distribution to the public of a partisan point of view.

Today, the 280 characters permitted by twitter can release an opinion to the world without much thought and with little factual basis to support the assertions.  Sound bites are re-posted millions of times with no supporting documentation.  Images are photo shopped to make a point that has little to do with the original image.  Social media participants are being made angry and returning fire, based on emotion, with little or no fact based research or time for reflection to consider their positions.

 Our problem is not that citizens disagree and argue.  Red Sox fans will never become Yankees fans no matter what facts are placed before them.  Republicans are not likely to become Democrats simply because the latter are upset over comments made by a Republican President. The problem is the tone and quality of our interactions, made worse by the speed and content of social media and by cable news.

I was intrigued by a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal: To Get Along Better We Need Better Arguments by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of ethics at Duke University (WSJ 7/14/18).  The author’s thoughts are a summary of his new book: Think Again, How to Reason and Argue.

The professor starts from the premise that: “if your primary goal in arguing is just to stir up people who already agree with you, you might be happy to use rhetorical tricks.”  He recognizes that “not every audience will listen to reason” but that if we want to improve our political climate: “good arguments can help a lot when presented in the right way.”

The essay points out three qualities to develop good arguments: “be candid”, “be respectful” and “be patient.” A candid speaker or writer will spell out assumptions that are not facts and carefully articulate each premise leading up to a conclusion.  Respect is gained through rational conflict that recognizes the established facts made by the opponent.  Patience abhors twitter and sound bites.  It recognizes that a rational argument takes time and work to develop.  Listening and then responding to the opponent is an important part of the process.

Sometimes to be credible it is important for the commentator to walk the walk.  This would be one of those times. Accordingly, I propose a formal (or Parliamentary-style) debate challenge, with the Observer Reporter providing the political topic, the Judges and choosing a location accessible to the public.  There would be two debaters on each team representing the conservative and progressive positions.  Following the debate there would be a discussion with the audience.  I volunteer to be one of the members of the progressive team.

I am not sure anyone would show up to listen or that the public cares to participate in a formal debate where facts matter.  I do know that it cannot be detrimental to try something new.  Dave Ball, are you listening?