Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse on 3 Quarks Daily look ahead to the next election cycle – and what we need to do to return to more placid days of politics:
The biggest hurdle to get over in our rehab will be to firmly renounce the common practice, made even more prevalent in the current election cycle, of pathologizing our political opponents. From the widespread use on the Right of the offensive epithet ‘Libtard,’ to the Left’s regular invocation of DSM personality disorders (particularly, paranoia and narcissism) to explain the behavior of Trump and his supporters, there is an overwhelming temptation to see those who we oppose as utterly irrational, driven not by reasons but simply driven. When we engage the activity of political argument, we first need to preserve the sense that there is an argument to be had. And this requires us to sustain a view of the opponent that unrelentingly attributes to him or her reasons.
But I get the feeling they may be making a mistake often attributed by skeptics (i.e., Skeptical Inquirer and that crew) to the media – attempting to be even-handed when there’s no real way to do so. Consider this chart (from PolitiFact) and commentary from long time political observer Kevin Drum:
Source: PolitiFact
For the arithmetically challenged, 51 percent of Trump’s statement were categorically false, compared to 13 percent of Clinton’s.
The only reason I’m putting this up is because we’ve all gotten so bored with it. Trump lies so consistently and so baldly that we barely even notice it anymore unless he says something truly outrageous—with the bar for “outrageous” moving upward all the time. Trump has ushered in an era of not merely exaggerating or cherry picking or twisting or evading. He just says anything he wants, and his followers buy it. This isn’t normal, and we shouldn’t accept it as normal.
It seems to me that Scott and Robert are really ignoring the situation on the ground, perhaps in an effort to rise above the fray and appeal to the better nature of both sides.
It may not work.
Having kept an eye on the Progressive web site The Daily Kos over the last couple of years, it’s certainly easy enough to see that those clustered under that banner share a depressing characteristic with the far right, namely a self-absorbed confidence that they have the answers, and the other side is completely bonkers. It’s annoying and tends to give the writing exhibited by most members a “preaching to the choir” quality. It’s not so much persuasive as it is … snotty.
However, in this case I think they’re right – their opponents are … well, mass categorizations never work. A few are bonkers. A bunch are parochial and incurious about the world. A whole lot have permitted religion to drive their world view to an indecorous degree, whether it be the Evangelical movement or the White Supremacists (hopefully that’s a small number, as that idiocy has even less justification than most religions.) Another crew are just power jockeys, with minimal ethics. Probably every single GOP Presidential contender falls into that category.
And far too many fall into Andrew Sullivan’s “echo chamber”. They get all their information from each other, their argumentation, everything. Because that’s what makes them comfortable. Everything else is treated with disdain.
So when Scott and Robert appeal to them, it won’t work because they lack the “conservative” credentials, whatever those may be in four years, required to get the attention of whoever makes up the conservative base. Based on the threats of the GOP Senators to keep Scalia’s seat open on SCOTUS if Clinton wins, it’s become clear that the GOP has become disengaged from American norms. They have convinced themselves that Clinton, the most thoroughly vetted candidate ever, is Evil Incarnate, and she must be stopped.
She must be the cleanest, most honest ever, actually.
I’m not going to claim to know how to burst the wall of irrationality the GOP has built around it. But I don’t think Scott and Robert appealing to better natures while trying to just ignore the irrationality is going to work. President Obama actually took that tact, from holding out a hand to the GOP in legislative initiatives to the nomination of relatively middle of the road justices. That got him nada but dishonorable snarls from the GOP. We’re fortunate we’re not down more justices (Sotomayor and Kagan were approved by Democratic majorities in the Senate).
I suspect the successful approach will be a combination of analysis of how the putative ideals of the movement are actually contradicting the current practices of those who want to be conservative, and the real-world results of the practice the current behaviors. There’s nothing like having an ideological venture go bust, much like in Kansas, to throw cold water all over the basics of the ideology. And maybe introduce a ray of reason into an overcast of misguided assumptions.
