Posted by
RationalGuy on Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:00:18 PM
There is a disturbing trend in political discourse in America today. Increasingly, people are talking past one another rather than listening and truly responding the arguments and questions posed by the other. Talking points are reflexively hurled at the other person – often accompanied by labels intended to be pejorative – “liberal”, “lefty”, “right-winger”, “fascist” – to convey that anything the other person says is automatically discredited upon arrival. Neither person stops to seriously consider the possible validity of the other’s arguments, or the worthiness of his/her question, much less to respond directly.
The proliferation of media has contributed to, and perhaps driven, this trend. There are certainly many benefits to the proliferation of media – we are better off as a society and as individuals not being limited to three network news anchors and our local newspaper – and on balance, media proliferation is clearly beneficial. But I lament a negative side-effect: Based admittedly on my anecdotal observations, combined with the empirical fact of the commercial success of partisan/ideologically-focused media sources, it seems that people are increasingly limiting themselves to media sources that only reinforce their current opinions, and, beyond that, that demonize those who disagree. Listeners/readers/viewers apparently do so for the emotional comfort derived from hearing an intelligent, apparently well-informed media figure (host, columnist, etc.) confirming the validity of their opinions, to be sufficiently informed to converse with like-minded friends, family, and co-workers, and to collect ammo for their next encounter with their friend on the “other side” (who must be either not too bright or not well-informed) or a stranger (who must be either an idiot, ignorant, or downright evil). In short, they use media the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination.
I make a point of listening to a diversity of views in the media and in conversations with others. And I don’t mean just listening for the purpose of “knowing the enemy”, but rather to hopefully learn something new, whether it reinforces or challenges my current opinion. In conversations, I pose challenging questions and arguments not to try to “win” an argument, but to draw out the best possible arguments that challenge my view, so I can consider if I should change my view, to get others to consider doing so, or at the very least to better understand and appreciate the rationale for a different opinion.
I’m new to TownHall and I’ve encountered people who are inclined toward what I try to make my approach, and others who tend toward the approach I’ve criticized above. Forgive my lack of humility in making this suggestion, but I encourage the latter to try my approach. It may cause discomfort to seriously consider opposing views and their rationales, and to engage in real discussion or debate over underlying assumptions, principles and logic that may expose some weakness in the foundation beneath your current positions, but I believe each of us owes it to ourselves, to others with whom we engage in political discussion, and to America to force ourselves to make a good-faith effort to really listen to one another and ensure that our views – and the policies we advocate – are based on the best possible information and reasoning.
Of course, if you disagree with any of the above, I’ll be glad to hear why.