Americans Need to Get Better at Political Arguments

Facilitated by politicians, social media, cable TV and talk radio, the rancor in the way many Americans argue increases polarization and undermines self-government. Just one recent exchange on a community bulletin board’s website illustrates the problem:

 “I just stopped by [supermarket] and was stunned by how many unmasked people were in there shopping. Once I noticed how many were in the store, I started counting: 32! I asked someone at the help desk what was their mask policy. I was told that they really didn’t have one. Said it would be too hard to enforce.”

 “If you need to count the people in [supermarket] not wearing masks, perhaps you should stay home!”

“I've got better things to do other than count how many people aren't wearing a mask. I don't wear one, my choice, Good !” 

“I know people are over COVID, understandably, and the politicizing of a global virus and pandemic made our moods worse. That being said, what is so hard about putting on a mask - that science has proven works . . . Bottom line, people should think about the kids and the vulnerable .”

“It's been this long and people still believe there's a pandemic?? I knew it was a sham immediately!! Honestly, it's refreshing to hear more people are AWAKE and not falling for the mask tyranny.”

“Your head is under water if you believe there’s no pandemic. This is a public health issue, not a political one.”

These people argued, but got nowhere. Their “conversation” exhibits frustration, anger, belittling, self-justification, moral outrage and misinformation.  It’s doubtful anyone learned anything or gained respect for each other.  Political arguments are essential for democracy.  They engage citizens, explore issues and pave the way for reasonable solutions.   Thus, as Eric Liu, founder of Citizen University puts it, arguing is not the problem; bad arguments are. Liu suggests what we need are better arguments.

Good arguments have affective and cognitive components.  The former requires respect toward others.  We don’t have to agree with them but must treat others civilly.  The latter requires careful listening, a search for facts and a willingness to learn and change one’s views.

Good arguments include inquiry and advocacy. The grocery store argument about masks defines advocacy.  Participants were concerned with winning their point.  If, while someone is speaking, you are you already planning in your head what you’ll say to counter them - you’re in advocacy.  You can’t truly listen in advocacy mode.  Such arguments often escalate emotionally and fail at workable solutions.

People engaged in inquiry listen to discover what they don’t know.  They invite disagreement and   aim for problem solving.  Sufficient inquiry leads to learning and collaborative solutions, which makes implementing them easier because it reduces resistance.

Better arguments of course require both.  Without some advocacy, decisions never get made.  But good decisions – shared decisions in a democracy – require an effective balance, with heavy attention to inquiry.

Better arguments, of course, are only possible when citizens want them.  Polarization entrepreneurs in the media and online gauge their success by driving people to extremes.   Individuals too often judge their self-worth by how many “likes” or retweets they get, which usually encourages emotion-generating content rather than rational discourse.  Too many Americans have weak critical thinking skills and see too few exemplars of good arguing among public officials.  We are advocacy-rich and inquiry-poor.  Many Americans find political discourse upsetting so they avoid it.  In a 2018 Pew Research Poll, 53 percent of respondents said talking about politics with people they disagree with is generally stressful and frustrating.  In the political conversations they do have, 63 percent report finding they have less in common afterwards than they thought.  

We can have better political arguments.  Getting them requires accepting the need and acquiring the skills.  These should be taught in schools at all levels since good political arguments are as essential to democracy as reading, writing and math proficiency.

One example of the kind of skills that could be taught is Rapoport's Rules, named after game theorist Anatol Rapoport.  Designed to avoid pushing someone into defensive, advocacy mode, the rules are:  

1.      “You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."

2.      You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3.      You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4.      Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.”

Thankfully, there are a growing number of organizations now devoted to fostering the skills needed for better arguments.  These include, for example, the Better Arguments Project of Citizen University, the Center for Deliberative Democracy, CitizenConnect,  OpenMind and the 1:1 Conversations program of Braver Angels.

"If you wish to win a man over to your ideas, first make him your friend,” Lincoln said.  Americans today are making too many enemies instead.  Better arguments can help change that.

Photo Credit: Mohamed Hassan@pixabay.com