Hoping the debate moves to a more realistic discussion

Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Email

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:

  1. SEDUCES with loaded, heated language and childish name-calling that appeals more to emotion that reason.
  2. BLINKERS by using cherry-picked facts, and ignoring or mocking opposing arguments and evidence rather than actually addressing them.
  3. TRIVIALIZES by focusing on “straw-man” issues whose value in re-enforcing biases is clearly greater than their substance.
  4. BULLIES by making you feel like a dupe or a traitor if you even listen to the other side.
  5. 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.
  6. FRIGHTENS by portraying the other side as not just wrong, but a dangerous, evil enemy, replete with wicked hidden agendas.
  7. “CLANS,” that is, plays the “us vs. them” identity politics game of associating the other view with groups or people (implicitly) “inferior” to “us.”
  8. “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 weekalas, no mass shootings, no carnivalesque hearings, no outrageous scandals (at least that break into convenient red/blue categories) that the Polarizers can use to “prove” how right/wrong we/they are. So, it’s just more of the same old, same old broad accusations the “they” are dumb, insensitive, outrageous and uncaring. Is it too much to hope that as the Presidential election season gains steam, the variety of candidates and complexity of issues will actually begin to move the debate to realistic discussion?

When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are just a few of the blue and red polarizing headlines from the past week.

More to explore

A Better Angels State of the Union

On January 31st, Better Angels shared a vision of what our politics could be if we were to seek the best in each other, harkening to our common creed. Here’s what it felt like…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *