“MY beliefs do not require you to believe in them.” That’s a paraphrase of a line from “The Matrix Reloaded.” Ideally, that’s what we should all aspire to in a democracy: having beliefs that we do not need to impose on others. With certain ideological true believers, however, the reverse is true: the implementation of their beliefs requires that the rest of us accept them, too. They don’t want the freedom to argue with you — they want your agreement. And if that’s not forthcoming…
Take, for instance, the reactions to Charlie Kirk’s assassination — and to Jimmy Kimmel’s show being suspended over what he said about it. More often than not, such reactions depend on a person’s politics. But believing that our brilliant arguments will floor and convert the other side of a controversial issue is unrealistic. For political pros, the point of arguing isn’t to win over the other side. It’s to reach the swing voters — the non-ideological middle — who may be listening.
To paraphrase Arnold Kling, the author of the splendid book, “The Three Languages of Politics,” people “appreciate the value of cooperation, and we are skilled at it. However, when it comes to politics, [the] politically aware…seem to split into tribes, and those tribes use the skills of cooperation not to work with each other, but instead to mobilize against each other.”
In the latest edition of their (satisfyingly cerebral) book, “The Elements of Journalism,” authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel described the current “public square” as “more like a vast public park where people are huddled in their own ideological groups, stewing over separate facts, concerned with different stories, buzzing with their own rumors, occasionally looking outward to call other groups names…. The different groups…often do not share the same facts, let alone the same level of interest. Conspiracy theories abound. And the media are often perceived as biased or even part of a conspiracy.”
In politics, according to Kling, the three “tribes” — progressives, conservatives and libertarians — speak different languages. The language that resonates with one “tribe” does not connect with the others. Instead, most political commentary serves to increase polarization. The points that people make do not open the minds of people on the other side. They serve to close the minds of the people on one’s own side.”
To know — or confirm — which “tribe” you belong to, Kling suggests asking yourself which of the following statements you agree with:
(1) My heroes are people who have stood up for the underprivileged. The people I cannot stand are the people who are indifferent to the oppression of women, minorities, and the poor.
(2) My heroes are people who have stood up for Western values. The people I cannot stand are the people who are indifferent to the assault on the moral virtues and traditions that are the foundation for our civilization.
(3) My heroes are people who have stood up for individual rights. The people I cannot stand are the people who are indifferent to government taking away people’s ability to make their own choices.
Kling said (1) is the language of progressives, (2) is the language of conservatives and (3) is the language of libertarians.
He believes that nearly any event can be interpreted from the perspective of each of the tribes. “If you stick to your own [tribe], then every event appears to confirm your point of view while making others’ views seem less reasonable,” he said.
Jonathan Haidt wrote a, more or less, similar book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.” Among other things, he discussed “confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what you already think. People are quite good at challenging statements by other people but if it’s your belief, then it’s your possession — your child almost — and you want to protect it, not challenge it and risk losing it.”
Haidt asks, “If thinking is confirmatory rather than exploratory…then what chance is there that people will think in an open-minded, exploratory way when self-interest, social identity, and strong emotions make them want or even need to reach a preordained conclusion?”
As for the two main political groups in the U.S., Haidt said liberals focus more on care and fairness, while conservatives also value loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Both sides hate oppression. But while liberals are for the underdogs, victims and powerless groups everywhere, Haidt said conservatives are more parochial — concerned about their groups, rather than all humanity. American conservatives sacralize the word “liberty,” not the word “equality,” which explains why, at least before the Trump era, many libertarians saw them as natural political allies.
Haidt, in any case, believes that we can disagree more constructively through better dialogue, which might be possible by acknowledging our different moral perspectives.
Kling recommends that we see an issue from a number of angles rather than along just one axis. You can slow your political thinking, he said. “You can catch yourself when you start to frame an issue in your preferred language, without considering other nuances. You can become more cautious about your own beliefs and less inclined to dismiss people with whom you disagree as malevolent. You can avoid contributing to polarization and unproductive debates where people simply talk past one another.”
And if you succeed in doing this — to quote Mary Schmich — tell me how.
Send feedback to [email protected]