Blog entry 6: Productive discussions

Blog entry 6: Productive discussions

My friend Andy posted a comment on an earlier blog entry: “Q: if drone strikes are abominable to you, Scott, does that mean you vigorously opposed Obama in 2012 and campaigned for his opponent? I think not.”.  I would like to explore his comment in-depth.  It may take multiple posts.

What are the differences between conversations, discussions, debates and arguments?

We have these sorts of interactions all the time.  (Andy and I do, but I think it’s common in today’s world.)  We may have conversations, that are simply sharing of information and opinions that are completely inconsequential, probably forgotten 5 minutes later.  We may have discussions, which are probably around a variety of topics, but which may have a central theme of some kind.  We may have debates, which, in theory, have a mutually-understood and perhaps explicitly-identified topic, often formulated as a question, intended to reach an answer that may or may not be convincing to people whose minds had not been made up (and even sway people whose minds HAD been made up).  And we have arguments, which essentially are not even pretending to convince the other side, but are expressing our displeasure about people who we see as attacking us.  I may be missing some important types of communication, but these seem inherently different to me.

One of the hallmarks of our polarized times is that we can’t seem to have discussions anymore with people who don’t share our beliefs.  Discussions become debates, debates become arguments, and we all end up shouting at each other.

I do not see Andy’s comment as intended to be a discussion.  I don’t even see it as a debate.  I see it as an argument.  If I interpret it as part of a discussion or debate, though, it would be useful to figure out what Andy is trying to say.  I’m in tech support, and part of my daily job is to answer the question “what problem are we trying to solve.”  Maybe it will be helpful to apply that here:

What question or statement is Andy making, consciously or unconsciously?  Here are some possibilities I see:

“You claim we lost our way, and drone strikes are an example.  I think we did NOT lose our way.  I think drone strikes are good, and I’m proud of them, I’m defending our country and drone strikes.”

“You are being a hypocrite if you say that we lost our way and you didn’t take action 6 years ago.  I hate hypocrisy.”

“Let’s shift this discussion to criticize Obama, who isn’t directly relevant to anything that has been mentioned and isn’t currently in power, because I really like criticizing Obama.  Attack the other side!”

“Let’s shift this discussion to criticize Obama, because I’m uncomfortable with any criticism of those who are currently in power, yet I don’t actually want to defend them.  Deflect!”

Fine, there’s a spectrum of conversation/discussion/debate/argument.  What’s so awful about arguments?   Are debates better than arguments?  Are discussions better than debates?

I certainly don’t see arguments as constructive.  They don’t truly change people’s minds.  All they do is escalate the conflict.  I’ve been characterized as conflict-averse, and I think I’m _argument_-averse, but I embrace the search for solutions.  I’m human, I tend to push back if I’m pushed, so I cop to sometimes arguing.  But that’s not my objective.

The problem with debates is that, to truly be successful, they have to focus on “a question”.  And there’s disagreement about what that question ought to be.  Essentially, there needs to be a debate about what the debate is.  And people who think the question misses the point will always be motivated to push the debate to another topic.  Discussions seem like a more desirable objective to me.

The Kavanaugh confirmation was an excellent example.  On the surface, it seemed like an incredibly simple question to debate: Should Kavanaugh be confirmed?  It certainly FELT to me like a simple question, which essentially boiled down to: Will Kavanaugh act as a good Supreme Court justice?  Which then veered into Is Kavanaugh an honorable person?  And then Has Kavanaugh been demonstrated to have committed sexual assault?  And ultimately Should Republicans be allowed to confirm someone despite his being accused of / committed sexual assault?  Ultimately, people took sides.  People argued.  There was less and less opportunity for debate or discussion, there was more and more polarization.

What can we do to shift arguments to debates, and debates to discussions?

THAT, in my opinion, is the really important question.  Part of it is listening.  If we truly listen to those who we disagree with, AND those who we agree with, and allow ourselves to think critically instead of succumbing to knee-jerk reactions, I think it encourages discussions and discourages arguments.  AYSO coaches training talks about making sure that any criticism you offer is sandwiched between 2 compliments.  This is incredibly hard!  I suck at it.  I tend to focus on “what should we do to make things better?”, which is constantly finding and expressing negativity.  I take good things for granted, they’re already good so why should we change them?  I welcome people who provide constructive criticism to me.  But it helps me hear it if it is framed as a discussion rather than an argument.

What ARE the differences between hypocrisy, inconsistency, complex situations, and changing your mind?

One of the arguments that Andy has made (along with others) is that Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct, but so was Clinton, and Democrats defended Clinton, so therefore Democrats ought to defend, or at least not attack, Kavanaugh for something comparable.  And that therefore they’re hypocrites.  I’ve always found this kind of argument incredibly odd, since it can be turned around exactly to the other side: Republicans attacked Clinton for his sexual misconduct, yet they aggressively defended Kavanaugh and attacked Ford.  And Andy essentially appears to be attacking me for hypocrisy, based on his accusation that I ought to have campaigned against Obama “vigorously” if I dislike drone strikes.  While I disagree with the drone strikes – if we wouldn’t support them in the US, we ought not support them elsewhere in the world – I think that I’ve opposed them equally over time.  I happen to have been consistent regarding drone strikes.  I don’t think anyone can accuse me otherwise.

However, I have become more politically active over the past 2 years.  Funny thing!  I’m much more passionate about the areas that I consider significantly worse than they used to be.  I think I’ve responded to the world changing around me, which is pretty much what humans ought to do in life.  I certainly don’t see that as objectionable.  I was quite unhappy with much of what Bush did while President, but I took no real action.  I was happy with Obama as a President, but was unhappy with Congress at that time, yet I took no political action (other than voting).  I’ve responded to changes in the world around me.  In my opinion, I’ve grown wiser.

I’m sure there are other accusations that Andy could make against me where my opinions would be less consistent over time, and that would potentially fuel a charge of inconsistency or perhaps even hypocrisy.  I think it’s important to recognize the differences between inconsistency and hypocrisy.  Inconsistency is almost a built-in part of the world.  We invaded Iraq because we were convinced that they were a threat.  We’ve been convinced that North Korea was a threat, but we didn’t invade them, because there were other factors to consider, like the threat North Korea poses to South Korea – to a large extent, we invaded Iraq not because it _was_ a threat but because it _wasn’t_.  But inconsistency and hypocrisy are different, in that hypocrisy means treating yourself or those you hold dear differently than strangers or those who you consider enemies.  Donald Trump was hypocritical when he opposed immigration yet Melania’s relatives were allowed to become US citizens.  Senate Republicans were hypocritical when they insisted that Kavanaugh be believed because there was no proof yet Ford was not believed because she had no proof.  McConnell was hypocritical because he insisted on not voting on Garland but insisted on rushing the vote on Kavanaugh.  Being inconsistent is not normally considered a moral failing, but being hypocritical is definitely seen as a moral failing.

I think it’s important to consider the difference between hypocrisy, inconsistency and changing your mind.  I would hope that we do think differently as we gain knowledge and wisdom, and that our opinions change.  For instance, when I was younger, I absolutely believed that the death penalty was appropriate for certain crimes.  While I still think, in the abstract, that people who commit horrific crimes deserve to die, I no longer believe that the state ought to carry out executions.  There are too many cases of innocent people being killed, exonerated years later in some cases.  There are too many cases of eyewitnesses who testify against a defendant who is later exonerated by DNA evidence.  People make mistakes.  And an execution is simply impossible to undo.  That’s one example I have where my opinions have changed.  Does that make my earlier opinion wrong?  It means I’m open-minded enough to consider different ideas over time.

Considering all this, I see no need to apologize for not vigorously opposing Obama regarding drone strikes in 2012.  I certainly don’t see it as any kind of inconsistency.  And I don’t really see it as relevant to my overall point.  I do hope that, rather than arguing over some kind of tangential-at-best topic, we could discuss questions that matter today, about people abusing power today, who may be countered by midterm elections in less than a month.

It’s been a busy day, I haven't done much politically today.  I turned down a request for more help from Doctors Without Borders, because we’re giving to political campaigns at higher levels than I had planned.  I deeply suspect that we will donate more to political campaigns than any tax savings we might receive from the Republican tax giveaway.  Which is fine… but we’re giving to enough non-political causes for now, and I want to focus on reversing these terrible situations.  Republicans depriving Americans of their right to vote.  Republicans forcing a bad Supreme Court justice on us.  Republicans supporting Donald Trump in his mis-management of our country.  I have 1 month to make a difference in the midterm elections, and just over 2 years to make a difference in the next Presidential elections to replace Trump with a Democrat, and just over 4 years to complete a full cycle of Senate elections in which I hope to drive a comprehensive Democrat majority in the House and Senate.  There’s a lot to do.