I’ve been wondering for a while about the nature of political disagreement and the nature of political discourse. Like many people I’ve been struck by the vitriolic nature of political discourse, both on the SDMB and everywhere else. The following things occur to me.
First, we have common problems. By that I mean we live in the same country, and the issues we face are similar. This is only broadly true, but broad truth is still a sort of truth, if you will. Whatever happens to this country (note to non-U.S. dopers:for convenience I’m making this an Amerocentric thread, but I think that some of the general ideas apply the world over.) affects everyone who lives here. Granted we all have our particular interests. A fisherman, for example, will be more interested in and affected by fishing policy than someone else. But broadly we all want a good economy, peace and security, the ability to live our lives and raise our families etc. etc.
Second, we are good people. O.K. we’re not allgood people. But look at the dope for example. Sure there are trolls, lunatics, and evil people who occaisionally wander through here. They ususally wind up being banned or leaving of their own accord. I’m talking about the long-timers who participate in the political threads. I’m especially thinking of the strongly partisan dopers. I’m not going to list them because I don’t want this thread to be about individuals, but most people who post or read a lot know who the political dopers are. And I think it’s a good guess that they are, for the most part, decent people. They’d help you out if you were in trouble, give you a cold drink if you were a guest in their house, and be able to talk politely about any non-political issue one could name.
So given these two facts, the commonality of national destiny and the decency of debaters, why is it so difficult to come to any concensus–even a tentative and vague one–about politics?
One obvious answer is personal interest. I touched on this a little above. But I don’t think this explains everything. If political disagreement were simply a matter of everyone having their own interests I doubt you’d see the level of heat that you do. Debate would simply be a matter of putting out your own interest and listening to other people explain their’s. Some sort of consensus could be reached. It would go something like this:
“As a logger, I’d like to work.”
“As a hiker I’d like to see old growth forests preserved.”
“As a consumer, I’d like wood products, but I also care about the environment.”
All:“Let’s put our heads together and see what we can come up with.”
Needless to say, this is not how the debate goes. Also, people’s political opinions do not always track their economic interest. You have rich socialists and poor libertarians. Furthermore many debates—abortion, for example–don’t track to personal interest at all.
So, while economic interest is important, it does not explain the nature of po;itical discourse. (I was going to say political discourse today, but a look at histroy reveals that political vitriol has a long history.) I don’t even think it goes far at all to explaining the nature and tone of political discourse.
My question then is why is it impossible to even start a rational discussion about any number of political ideas. My theory is that while political discussion appears on the surface to be about rational ideas and positions it is really about certain desires and feelings that live deep within us, motives which we would be hard pressed to explain or articulate, motives that may not be clear even to ourselves.
To explain this further I have a few parables. (I said this was long. 
)
The Road Trip
Andrew and Barb and Cathy and Dan want to take a trip from Exville to Whytown. Unfortuately they can’t agree on a way to get there. Andrew and Barb want to go by the most efficient route. Cathy and Dan want to go by the most senic route. How do they decide which way to go?
It’s clear that rational discourse can’t solve this problem. How can one rationally compare aesthetics to efficiency? The only thing they can do is agree to disagree.
And their problem is worse than this, for neither pair can agree amongst themselves. Among the senic pair Cathy wants to go by the route with the most natural history. Dan wants the route with the most interesting history. Again, how does one compare history to nature? It’s impossible.
Surely their can be no such disagreement between Andrew and Barb. But there is. There are two possible efficient routes. One route will get them to Whytown in 3 hours, guarenteed. Another will get them their in two hours, but with a one in six chance of a traffic jam that will delay them og knows how long, possibly longer than the senic route would have taken. Barb is a risk taker, and wants the chancy route. Andrew likes a sure thing and wants the longer but certain route. Again, how do you compare security and risk?
So the stage is set for argument. And, as we’ve all probably seen in our lives, the argument can grow long bitter and pointless. Niether side can talk to each other in terms the other will understand.
So why do people value efficiency over beauty or vice versa? I don’t know and neither do you, if I may say so. These values are part of our character, and form from deep places within us, places we will defend against any perceived threat.
Of course our political situation is much worse than the quarrelsome foursome of my little parable. They’ve only got a road trip to fight about, we’ve got a whole country. The consequences of their decision will last a day, ours will last a lifetime. Our debates are over vast amorphous things like “the economy” or “foreign policy” and involve a host of values, not two or four. Their debate can be easily resolved (though anyone with a quarellsome family will know how often easilyt resolved debates aren’t.) They can flip a coin, or some of the group can give in in exchange for a later favor. In a nation of 300 million, it’s a little difficult to see how this kind of give and take can be accomplished.
The Foreigner
Say a man has just learned English. Through some unlikely quirk he has confused the meanings of “cat” and “dog.” Thus when he says to you “I have a new cat” you, by no fault of your own, completely misunderstand him. You are using the same words, but meaning two different things.
Obviously in this case the confusion will probabaly resolve itself when you first see the animal. But when we use words like “justice,” “right,” “life,” “equality,” even though we can all speak english, I’m not sure if we’re using the same words.
The Red Sox and The Yankees
Beyond the problem of values and mutual incomprehension comes the problem of political tribalism. It seems that we now follow politics as though our side, Rep or Dem, was a team with whom we will revel in victory or wail in bitter defeat. This is regrettable but it is perfectly natural. We are tribal animals, and for a long time in our history we have created artificial tribes, of which sports teams are probably the most absurd manifestation. (I say this as a sports fan myself.) Beyond whatever real concerns we may have in politics, alot of us have staked our ground, and by god we’ll defend it. We look to score points like competing athletes or game players, and often the goal of this very serious game is forgotten.
One thing to think about given the current balance of power in Congress and the White House: If the Republicans are right, then the Democrats win by losing. If the Democrats are right then the Republicans lose by winning.
Information Overload.
Let’s debate Social Security. O.K. How? I’m a smart guy, I think, but I’ll admit I have no clue what the pros and cons of the Social security plans are. To get this information I’d have to do considerable research through conflicting and biased accounts. This takes time and a considerable knowledge of economics. If I take the time to do this, then I’m not taking the time to research the current situation in Iraq, the possible consequences of global warming, the looming deficit, and a host of other complex problems.
Furthermore, even a cursory look into the social security debate reveals that for every position you take, there is some economist–someone whose knowledge of the ins and outs and details of the issue is much greater than yours or mine–who is fer it, and some other wise economist who is agin’ it. If these guys can’t come up with a definitive answer, how am I supposed to?
So what do we do? We decide not according to the facts, which are ambiguous at best, but according to the positions we’ve already taken. We look to see what our “team” is supporting and support that. We fit the debate into our world view–our paradigm, to coin a cliche–and cherry pick information to build a clever and complex argument in favor of a conclusion we had all along.
So this is why debate becomes what it is–not a reasoned discourse but a vitriolic screed. It’s not because we’re bad people. Quite the opposite. It’s because we’re good people that the debate is so intractable. We’re good people and we want what’s best, and we can’t for the life of us figure out what’s wrong with those people (are they nuts or what?) who disagree with us.
Believe it or not I had a lot more, but this is quite enough. I apologize to the hamsters for the length. If you’ve read this far I thank you. I wrote this mostly to get it off my chest. It’s nothing new I grant, but I needed to say it.
If you have any opinions, I’d be very interested to read them.
Thank you,
LB.
