The Death of Discourse

What ever became of logic and reason and, maybe most important, courtesy? I’m talking about the ability to debate a topic using facts and a constructive argument while avoiding the cutesy nicknames, innuendoes and inevitably, the personal insult. Does anyone but me recall the days when the word argument meant a challenging conversational exercise on the merits of an issue. Today it means a Jerry Springer style battle royal with verbal folding chairs being slung across the TV studio and brawny “technicians” separating the arguers. Have we been watching too much reality TV or maybe it is too much Barbara Boxer on CSPAN.

I’ll admit it. I ask for it. I like to debate, AKA argue. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed teaching political science at the local college so much. It was always a challenge to try to get the students to think, preferably before speaking. Forcing them to support their side of an issue while demanding that they avoid name-calling and ad hominem attacks was part of the classroom game. I confess that I would argue either side of the issue to achieve that goal, which probably made me an exception in a college setting since I wasn’t advocating that they adopt my position, only that they understand theirs. What a concept.

On day one of each of my courses I would point out to the students that political questions inevitably have two sides. If everyone agreed, there would be no debate and a public policy would be easily enacted. But, issues arise on the political agenda precisely because there is a conflict. Understanding the positions of the two sides is part and parcel of the job of the political scientist. Recognizing that the advocates of each position are deeply committed to their cause, the difficult task is finding the commonalities of the question rather than the conflicts. We seldom succeed in changing the other person’s mind, but if we can find the points of agreement, we can begin to craft a tolerable policy.

Read the editorial page of your daily morning fish wrapper. Try to see if the commentary is to the point or if it is an exercise in name-calling and deprecation of the opposition. Do you see persons in authority respected, even if their position is contrary to that of the author? Of course not. Does Molly Ivins really think that she raises her intellectual stature by referring to the President of the United States as “the shrub”? And, that doesn’t even begin to approach the disrespect for the individual and the avoidance of meaningful dialogue of political cartoonists—can anyone really embrace the characterizations of then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as some sort of female Steppin Fechit? What happened to focusing on the issues while respecting the other person’s right to hold a different view?

Sit around with a couple of friends. Pick friends with a long friendship and a good sense of humor for this. Steer the conversation to a hot-button issue like maybe abortion, gun control, immigration, the war in Iraq, prayer in schools, or taxes. Now, take an opposing viewpoint to that of the group. See how long it takes to have the volume rise. Watch for the first “red herring”—the unrelated “fact” that is thrown on the table because like the spoiled fish that gives the tactic its name, the fact is so odious that it will distract the opponent from the issue at hand and overpower the topic with a stench. Notice whether derogatory names get substituted for the real titles—is the President referred to as “Bushie” or “Junior”? Does the SecDef become “Rummy”? And notice that it isn’t one-sided. Both progressives (nee liberals) and conservatives (now neocons) resort quickly to these tactics. How soon do you, their friend but now opposing them, get called stupid, ill-informed, or worse?

There are exceptions, but they are becoming increasingly rare. The television culture which demands that every complex issue be condensed to an understandable-by-the-masses slogan in less than two minutes has robbed us of our ability to understand each other. Two responsible debaters from opposite sides of the spectrum on the current political scene, both of whom have strongly held convictions but can express them in courteous terms, are former Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett and Democratic Senator and former VP candidate, Joseph Lieberman. Listen to them the next time you have the opportunity and don’t bother with whether you agree or disagree—consider only the demeanor of the discussion. It borders on adult behavior. Debate and discourse is not a zero sum game. You don’t have to lose for me to win. But, we as a country will be finding it increasingly difficult to effectively govern ourselves when we no longer respect those who don’t fall into lockstep with our thinking.