The problem with how Liberals, Progressives and Greens currently discuss politics.

I've noticed a tendency lately when left leaning people, including myself discuss politics, that can be quite counter-productive.

First off, we divide it into "us" and "them."  I know conservatives do this too, but progressives should be better than that.  Rather than seeing the right wing as an aggressive and evil enemy, we should realize that most of them are simply misguided.   They are caught up in the aggressive antagonistic cycle in a system that encourages hatred and then provides an outlet  for it in politics.   If we encourage this pattern of antagonistic politics, we will only be playing into the hands of the Right Wing.   This goes for all Progressives regardless of political affiliation.

Second, we then respond to antagonism with antagonism.  I'm sure you think, "what's wrong with that?"  Well, I will tell you what's wrong.   The Right wing is fueled by antagonism.   We need to instead provide a different type of forum.   Sure a little trollish meme is OK when preaching to the choir.  It's a good way to vent your anger, and we all need to do that.  However, we shouldn't get caught up in doing that.  It shouldn't be our primary political method, just a way to relieve stress and have a little laugh.

Third, when we present facts, we tend to overwhelm the other side of the argument.  Instead of taking a few facts to frame what we don't want in reply, we simply flood them with facts to counter every single right wing talking point.   We instead want to use a handful of facts to frame the debate, than ask questions that will force them to explain away the flaws in their arguments.   Rather than taking on the burden of proof ourselves, which is honestly downright insulting to the other person, as well as antagonizing, we should give them the chance to fulfill it before we knock down their arguments. 

This starts to get into how we should be discussing politics.   First, we should focus on solutions not problems.   To be really honest, finding the source of a problem has little to do with fixing it, so much as finger pointing.  Finger pointing is not productive.  It's just a waste of time.

Instead, we should start by framing the situation.   We should provide small counter arguments for any initial arguments, but not too agressively, it's better to draw out the counter-arguments, as the need for them may disappear as you continue to the next step, which is moving from the problem to the solution.

Yes, I just pointed out the most obvious thing everyone is ignoring in politics, that we should be focusing on solutions, not problems.   When someone argues with you, it is far more effective to find solutions if you aren't arguing about exactly what the problem is, and the one way to stop looking for a solution is to start looking for who to blame.   We should leave blame for history or at least once the problem right in front of us is resolved.

So, to go about doing this you first of all lead them to frame the problem in real terms, not right wing conspiracies.  As always, give them a chance, you can lead them a little, but don't be too aggressive.   This will give you a common ground to start from.  Once you see their view of the problem, then and only then can you frame it in a manner that you both agree on.

After this, comes the more difficult part.   I know it is tempting to go and spout why the right wing solution is wrong and the progressive solution you favor is right.  However, this is insulting their intelligence.  Give them a chance to tell you their favored solution.  They might actually surprise you, then again they may not.   Then you should have them try and justify this theory, with only a little guidance from you to steer them away from hate-mongering or false assumptions that you would just strike down in your next sentence.  If at all possible, try to phrase it in a non-confrontational question, without insulting their core theories.   After all, people only change their mind on their own, no matter how much evidence they have to the contrary of their set belief, the only thing you can do is provide the right situation for them to actually accept the evidence, and that is what the goal is here.  If they see the evidence as a confrontation that they have to defeat, then you are simply doing it wrong.  You instead must ask questions in an attentive manner, slowly molding the dialog towards reasonable terms that you both can agree on.

You then continue until they have set on their solution.  Then and only then do you give them your solution.   In this case you will pick the solution you find acceptable that they will be most likely to accept.  This is the point where you can start discussing facts that back up your view.  As, if you are successful, you have opened the door and they are now actually listening to what you have to say.   Furthermore, you can show reasonability and moderate nature by chosing the solution that implements the most of what they discussed, and directly addresses their concerns.  This shows you were in fact listening.

Let me step back here and go into detail on the most important point.  I will compare stating a fact to a common confrontational question, and then to a non-confrontational one.  

If someone is claiming that minimum wages cut jobs because it will raise the cost of labor and thus reduce incentive to hire there are two facts to the contrary you need to provide.  However, how you provide them will greatly change how likely the person is to accept them.   You could just flat out say "Well, jobs are created when there is a demand for products and a hire minimum wage will create more customers who can afford the product, thus more demand."  Think about this response from the viewpoint of the person receiving it.  In this way you would be confirming all the right-wing stereotypes about the arrogant "liberals."  You will be insulting their intelligence, you won't be addressing their concerns, and you appear to be just giving a bottled reply.   It doesn't matter how true your statement is, the person won't listen, as you insulted their intelligence, even if you didn't realize it.

Let's now move on to see how someone who is using flawed method would commonly approach it.  This is another thing you shouldn't do.   If you phrase the question "Aren't these same people that you want to deny a raise the same people who buy the products?  If they can't afford the products how is there suppose to be any demand for jobs?"   Notice three things confrontational about these questions, which I will explain in turn. 

First is the tone.  The tone is starting from a point that you are assuming they are wrong.  I know both people who disagree know they both think the other is wrong.  Unlike liberals who appreciate blatant and unrepentant honesty on this, conservatives don't like being reminded of this fact.  It makes them nervous as they have not been trained to be curious about those they disagree with like those of a liberal education and upbringing have.  Instead you should try to avoid a confrontational tone, even when the discussion is confrontational.  This leads away from confrontation instead of compounding it.  Remember, it's not a contest, you are just trying to get them to understand why you see things the way you do.

Second, is that these questions have the answers right in them.  This basically implies that you don't trust them to come up with the answer on their own.  Once again, this tendency to accidentally insult the intelligence of the other person surfaces.

Third, these questions have completely framed the conclusion without letting them come to a conclusion first.  In addition to insulting the person's intelligence, this feels very aggressive.  The questions, or statements as they might as well be, even go so far as to state the conclusion before the argument that leads to it.   This would imply that you don't trust the person to reach a conclusion on their own.

The proper way to bring up these points is to ask them as questions that aren't confronting and don't provide facts.   This takes longer, but it actually works well.  If they don't know the answers, feel free to answer for them, but do it nicely and informatively.    For instance, you need to ask them "Why are people hired in the first place?"  Wait for them to reply.  The person is likely going to give the same conclusion as anyone else: that someone wants to sell a product or service.   This is where you ask.  "Who is going to buy the product or service?"  Then in reply to that, you can ask "How are they going to buy the product or service?"  Finally, ask "If more people can afford to buy the product or service, wouldn't the owner of the business hire more people, not less, even if it costs more money to hire each person?"   This is where you can draw the conclusion.  They likely answered it themselves, and even pointed out all the little details.  The only conclusion left then is the inconclusive matter of what the ideal minimum wage should be, to which there is quite a bit of disagreement.  That is normal, and you should accept that.  However, these questions have justified a minimum wage that gives people a little bit of extra pocket change, and have liberated the person from the trickle down dogma that people hire because they have extra money, something that the person won't forget in other political issues.

I guess I decided to start blogging again.

I decided to start blogging again.

This post will be a quick note about the reasons why and will be quickly followed by a post or two.

I have lately had a lot of ideas and opinions on topics ranging from Current Events, Religion, Philosophy, Sociology, Politics and Science, and to be honest, Facebook has proven an ineffective medium to express them.

I do feel I have ideas to contribute to society, and I would like to share them.  If even one person listens it would be worth it, and even if nobody does, it will get the things off my chest.

So I guess I'm going to be posting again,
Robert Wm. Francis Ruedii