HOW TO TALK ABOUT POLITICS

In my lifetime our country and indeed much of the western world has not been as polarized over partisan politics.  Even the tumultuous 1960s and 70s, when Vietnam, civil rights and the Nixon impeachment divided the country, did not appear as divisive as today’s social media fueled political atmosphere.  With the prospect of a presidential impeachment inquiry and a national election on the horizon, getting along with those with differing political views is bound to get worse. To counter this tendency I will describe some of my experiences and offer ideas on how to talk about politics.  

  

I am not suggesting that those who care about our political system should stop participating in the debate. As concerned citizens, it is our civic responsibility to speak out against policies that threaten the political, social, economic and ethical positions we believe in.  But political discourse can be accomplished in a fashion that seeks to build consensus rather than to tear down, that is open to other opinions and considerate of other points of view. 

Making fun of or degrading political leaders and their followers from the opposing party has become a fool’s errand for both Democrats and Republicans.  It can only result in emotional responses and increased hostility.  I have decided to leave this task to the late night comedians, political cartoonists, and the cable news talking heads.

My goal when I make a point, post on social media or comment in public will be to focus on the positive.  Quotes by or about Elijah Cummings, Maya Angelou, Martin Luther King Jr. and political philosophers often get at the position I want to emphasize in a positive manner.  In my experience, providing a thought that highlights the optimistic “what could be” rather than the negative of “what is wrong” has greater impact in getting others to consider an opinion.

When I speak with Republicans about politics, I now try to differentiate between “Party Republicans” and “Trump Republicans.” Rather than criticize Republican views on conservative and/or religious principles, I first seek to determine whether my opponent would give up Trump for another conservative political leader if all policy results were the same (abortion, Supreme Court appointments, tax cuts, regulations, etc.). I have found that separating Trump with his destructive tweets and dangerous precedents for running the presidency from policy positions opens up avenues for constructive discussion on important issues. Moreover, I believe that many Party Republicans are not Trump Republicans and that this fact will ultimately determine the President’s political fate.

I will continue to respond to posts and articles that are factually wrong or misplaced.  Recently a conservative family member re-posted an NPR piece on young people in Sweden implanting a financial chip into their arm. He turned the article into an anti-socialism rant when the reporting was simply pointing out Sweden’s move to a cashless society. I pointed out his mistake and we had a constructive on-line discussion.

One of my favorite columnists is Tim Hartford, aka the undercover economist, who writes for the Financial Times. In a recent column (10/12/19), he laments the effects of Brexit on British society.  He makes the excellent point that: “It’s tempting to obsess about the tone of politics, but that is a trap.  If we spend our time wringing our hands over the form of the political conversation, it leaves little space to think about the content.”

Mr. Hartford offers three ideas on how to talk about politics that I find refreshing.  First, when faced with someone whose politics you dislike, engage on what can be done to solve an issue that both agree requires resolution.  

Refrain from sinking into a food fight on which politician is the most despicable.

Second, stop scorning others who you believe to be under-informed.  Most of us know less about complex issues than we think we do. Just because one reads the Economist or Foreign Affairs does not mean that the individual understands the history and solutions for immigration at the southern border or the interests of the multitude of factions involved in northern Syria.  Unless one is a constitutional scholar, it is difficult to grasp the nuances of the emoluments clause, the limits of presidential power or impeachment.  All are complicated.  Most people who are willing to engage on such topics have something to point out worth considering.

Third, people on the other side of the debate, like all of us, want the best for their family and the country. Living in a society where one-half the citizens are considered either ignorant or wicked or both may provide fertile ground for certain politicians but is barren ground for the rest of us.  

We can do better.  If nothing else, hug the uncle who exasperates you.