We, as Americans, cherish the freedom and right to disagree—which we do, often deeply about important issues that need resolution. But polarization undermines that freedom by tightening prejudices rather than opening thought, thus diminishing the chances for finding resolutions and moving forward. So while polarization may feel like a righteous champion of freedom and right, it is in fact just the opposite—a stick jammed in the spokes of the democratic discourse of freedom. Here are some of the common ways it does it:
- SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
- BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
- TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
- BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
- FLATTERS with language and a tone that makes you feel like an insider, who, of course, agrees with them because you “get it” … just like they do.
- FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
- “CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
- “TRIBES” by using the knowing winks and nods of sarcasm, coded language, words in quotes (suggesting they’re misleading) and innuendo which you, as a member of the tribe, of course, will understand without explanation or justification.
This week . . . was even more all about Brett Kavanaugh. The “he said/she said” dueling testimony of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh poured even more fuel into our already raging polarization fire. So it is all the more impressive to discover thoughtful, while still passionate, discourse amongst the conflagration of bullying, frightening, “klanning” and “tribing” surrounding this fight.
Two articles stood out, one for, the other against Kavanaugh confirmation. Neither, interestingly, tries to untangle the “he-vs.-she” Gordian testimony. Both, rather, focus on important issues that have emerged from the debate.
The anti-confirmation piece, “An Injudicious Man, Unfit for the Supreme Court,” by Roger Cohen, argues that, regardless of the facts, Kavanaugh has revealed himself to be “a man without measure, capable of frenzy, full of conspiratorial venom against Democrats. Justice would not be served by his presence on the Supreme Court”.
The pro-confirmation piece, “Believability Is the Road to National Ruin,” by Bret Stephens argues that, again, regardless of the facts, hinging the such an important decision on whether or not we believe something, played out on in a public spectacle on TV, is a dangerous precedent, because…”if suspicion based on allegation — even or especially “believable” allegations — becomes a sufficient basis for disqualification, it will create overpowering political incentives to discover, produce or manufacture allegations in the hopes that something sticks. Americans have a longstanding credulity problem — 9/11 trutherism; Obama birtherism; J.F.K. assassination theories; the “deep state” — so the ground is already fertile.”
Both pieces argue from an ideological perspective. But both bring interesting, intelligent, well argued points. Neither rely on the cheap- shot tribal tactics of polarization. And as a consequence, lift the debate from the enraged rancor of polarization and both (at least should) give you pause for thought and make you clarify and weigh your own thinking. This, to me, is real politics.
And there was a third piece by Michael Gerson (printed below) that keys off the Kavanaugh hearings, not to argue pro or con, but to identify the tenor of the debate as a cautionary tale of where we are as a nation:
There is a strong current of dehumanization running in our politics. The rival crew, it turns out, is not only wrong but evil. And how can mortal enemies embrace the give and take of a shared political project? Only the raw exercise of power can decide between them. The goal is no longer to win arguments but to crush opposition.
This is the moral risk of extreme political polarization: dehumanization. In our circumstance, it has emerged in the bipartisan dehumanization of political opponents and in the nativist dehumanization of certain groups: migrants, refugees and Muslims. This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania. Our democracy is designed for disagreement. It is broken by mutual contempt.
I think all would agree, whatever your viewpoint, that it was hard to watch the televised Kavanaugh hearings and not to be disheartened. But perhaps, as these three articles suggest, the old adage, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” will apply. We’ll see.
This is not politics as usual — it is political pyromania
Michael Gerson, Washington Post, 9.24.18
One of the dubious advantages of a Supreme Court nomination battle is how it brings into the open some of the vicious, ideological arguments that are normally hidden by shame and discretion. That has certainly been true on the right, with some figures demonstrating a callousness toward the charge of attempted rape that would presumably change if their own children were even remotely threatened.
On different issues, this has been a revealing moment on the left as well. Asked this past weekend by CNN’s Jake Tapper if Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh deserves a presumption of innocence, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) offered a curious response. She argued that Kavanaugh’s denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because “he has an ideological agenda that’s very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him.” Hirono added: “He very much is against women’s reproductive choice. . . . So there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility.”
It is not easy to unpack an argument that was packed so haphazardly. But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. These beliefs, she seems to be saying, are indications of bad character.
At one level, this is an indication of an outcome orientation that has seized partisans on both sides (including Hirono) in the Supreme Court/culture war/cage-match politics of our day. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent.
But why this particular charge? Does Hirono actually believe that being pro-life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? I guess it depends. The argument might go: Conservatives who talk about judicial restraint are really seeking the outcome of making abortion illegal. This is a form of deception. And because violating the autonomy of women (in this argument) is inherently misogynistic, therefore Kavanaugh is naturally an anti-woman liar.
Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people — people like me — call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? Do you think this is not just mistaken thinking but a sign of absent integrity?
I also want to set aside the merits of the abortion issue itself. I only ask: Is it possible to believe, as a matter of principle, that rootless judicial activism is anti-democratic and dangerous? It is feasible that some people are genuinely disturbed by a medical procedure that begins with two genetically distinct human beings and ends with one? Is it reasonable to credit the good intentions of millions of men and women who want the circle of inclusion and protection to include every human life, at every stage of development?
There is, of course, a mirror-image problem of pro-life activists who regard pro-choice people as murderers. But that is precisely the point. There is a strong current of dehumanization running in our politics. The rival crew, it turns out, is not only wrong but evil. And how can mortal enemies embrace the give and take of a shared political project? Only the raw exercise of power can decide between them. The goal is no longer to win arguments but to crush opposition.
This is the moral risk of extreme political polarization: dehumanization. In our circumstance, it has emerged in the bipartisan dehumanization of political opponents and in the nativist dehumanization of certain groups: migrants, refugees and Muslims. This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania. Our democracy is designed for disagreement. It is broken by mutual contempt.
Just like a five-alarm conflagration is probably the wrong time for a fire-safety class, I’m not sure how it is possible to teach the proper way to argue in a democracy during a nomination battle. But maybe the lesson should begin with members of the Senate, who are losing badly in a very different trial.
