Talking Politics Without the Screeching and the Insults

We might disagree with someone instantly, but what value does our judgment hold if we don't entertain the idea we're wrong? fizkes/Shutterstock

Commentary

“Never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table,” runs the old maxim. Unfortunately, as another old adage reminds us, “That horse has already left the barn.”

Over the past decade, political discourse, both in the public arena and the private sphere, has become toxic and nasty. Politicians and other public figures savage their enemies with insults, celebrities hurl swear words at politicians they don’t like, and social media is a swamp of vitriol. Many Americans have seen relationships with friends and family collapse, casualties of the political divide. The ugly word-wars that sometimes occur at the Thanksgiving table have become a bad joke.

Meanwhile, rational discourse and real debate have become about as common as a June snowfall in Georgia.

In his 2021 article “How to Star-Man: Arguing from Compassion,” Angel Eduardo rightly notes, “Our discourse is rife with belligerence and bile, and our platforms are designed to stoke polarization.” He then goes on to say that while we should argue and disagree with one another, in doing so, we all too often “make monsters of mere men and women of different minds.”

Avoiding this major misstep in argumentation, Eduardo writes, “begins with each of us making the choice to see the other as human—flawed, perhaps ignorant, maybe even dangerous, but also human—no matter what they think.” Extending this recognition can be extremely difficult, as Eduardo tells us, and we may receive no respect in return, but this is where we start.

Once started, we can bring to the fore some other tools that will help us avoid a discussion into an altercation. Here are a few of them.

Define Your Terms

It’s pointless to have a serious discussion without some mutual understanding of the basics at stake. Suppose two people disagree about inflation and which political candidate can best bring it under control. Without a common ground definition of what constitutes inflation in the first place, any rational argument quickly becomes futile. What exactly do we mean by social justice or peace in the Middle East or equity versus equality?

Words matter. Stake out what they mean to you and avoid the frustration of wasted breath.

Listen

For many people, this one is difficult. While the other person is speaking, our mind races ahead, working out what points we want to make next. Consequently, you’re missing the chance to learn what the other person is thinking. You’re also missing an opportunity to discern faulty thinking in the other’s argument.

We are all aware of the importance of listening to a spouse, a child, or an employer. The same is true when we debate politics.

Ask Questions

Years ago, I heard author and social critic Os Guinness speak at Wake Forest University. During the Q&A period, a student stood and briefly explained that a professor in one of his classes interpreted historical events through a Marxist lens.

“I disagree with him,” the student said, “but I don’t know what to do.”

Guinness offered that young man some advice that I took to heart and have found useful ever since.

“Ask questions,” Guinness told him. “And don’t be confrontational. Ask your teacher honest questions.”

Several times over the years, asking honest questions rather than firing off retorts has benefited my own arguments. The other person is then compelled to examine and defend his position, which may be an entirely new experience for him.

Become Mr. Spock

Long ago, when I was in high school, my friends and I were fascinated by Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) on “Star Trek” because of his logical approach to problems. This same reliance on reason and rationality is absolutely necessary in a debate.

Put the emotions aside, stick as much as possible to facts and data, and keep your cool.

Stand Down

Let’s say you’re discussing the border situation and illegal immigration with your college niece. You’ve followed some of the strategies mentioned above. Meanwhile, she reviles politicians who want to clamp down on immigration. You cite data—the enormous economic costs, rising crime rates, the influx of deadly drugs along with those crossing the border—and she replies with sweeping smears, such as “nativist” and “racist.”

It’s time to end the discussion. As Kenny Rogers sang in “The Gambler”:

“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em, Know when to fold ’em, Know when to walk away, And know when to run.”

Preserve your relationship and walk away. You’ve given honest debate a shot, and it’s time to withdraw gracefully. And who knows? That young woman may later reflect on your arguments and make some adjustments in her thinking.

Remember: The purpose of this sort of discourse isn’t to beat an opponent into the ground. That will accomplish nothing. If you think you’re in the right, then the purpose should be to win hearts and minds to your cause.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.