Civility In Politics–Is It Possible to Agree to Disagree?
In response to a CBS interview about the supposed ‘enmity’ prevalent throughout talk radio, President Obama urged politically-minded individuals to take the high road in debate, suggesting that neither side should resort to demonizing the other side just because they disagree. But, in a closed economy, is it possible to just agree to disagree?
In the interview, the reporter asked about instances where the president has been called a ‘socialist’ and even a ‘Nazi’ by credible sources. The general tenor of the interview made it seem as though these accusations were merely aimed at demonizing the president, the assumption being that there are major differences between Obama and socialists and Nazis.
The solution, according to the president? That we should all change our tenor, that we should be civil and agree to disagree. In the interview, he said:
I am concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized. I’m concerned about it when Democrats do it, I’m concerned about it when Republicans do it. I do think that there is a tone and tenor that needs to change. Where we can disagree without being disagreeable or making wild accusations about the other side and I think that’s what most Americans would like to see as well.
But in our current state of affairs, is this even possible? If I disagree with you, and you’re in power, then I’m out of luck. Since you’re in power, you can do as you please and it doesn’t matter whether I disagree, you still get what you want.
The repercussions are clear: People feel compelled to strike out against those in power with whom they disagree. It becomes a battle of us versus them, my rights versus yours. People may feel compelled to demonize the other side because, after all, the other side is dictating what they can and cannot do, and to a large degree, it is against their will.
What do you think? Is it possible in this day and political climate to just agree to disagree? Can we simply turn the other cheek when someone disagrees with us politically? We can all agree that violence and hatred are not the answer. So what is a workable solution?
It seems that the President is referring to the importance of eliminating “arguments against the man” also known as ad hominem. The ad hominem argument, being one of the most common logical fallacies introduced in political debate, detracts from finding the true fundamental differences of opinion in a much current political debate. In the example you have cited, the President was asked about being compared to a Nazi or a socialist. Both terms “Nazi” and “socialist” have become loaded over the years and when spoken, often invoke feelings of hatred and disgust amongst most Americans.
The listener has his choice of responses. Suppose listener A believes in his heart of hearts that President Obama is a Nazi. Listener B believes in his heart of hearts that President Obama is not a Nazi. One day, listener A and B beginning discussing education in America. The following are two examples of how this conversation may go. The first includes the common fallacy of the argument against the man. The second example is an escape of the ad-hominen argument which is the ‘high road’ the President is endorsing.
Example #1
A: The government is spending too much money on public education.
B: This is becase Obama is a Nazi socialist and he wants to spend all of our tax money brainwashing the youth.
A: Obama is not a Nazi socialist, he doesn’t want to brainwash our youth.
B: Yes, he is a Nazi socialist and he believes in public education, therefore public education is bad because Nazis and socialists are bad. Anything a Nazi socialist agrees with is wrong.
A: Obama is not a Nazi socialist. I have a lot of free time on my hands, so lets keep debating about whether Obama is a Nazi and a socialist. I support the commander in chief.
B: Yes, I will also spend my time proving to you that Obama is a Nazi socialist. We will spend no time discussing education, the topic we were originally discussing.
Example #2
A: The government is spending too much money on public education.
B: This is becase Obama is a Nazi socialist and he wants to spend all of our tax money brainwashing the youth.
A: Obama is not a Nazi socialist, he doesn’t want to brainwash our youth.
B: Yes, he is a Nazi socialist and he believes in public education, therefore public education is bad because Nazis and socialists are bad. Anything a Nazi socialist agrees with is wrong.
A: Let’s agree to disagree about whether Obama is a Nazi socialist.
B: Okay. Back to the question at hand, then. I don’t believe in public education at all. If there was more commercial involvement in education the youth, providers of knowledge in the free market could thrive through motivation to be innovative and better educate our youth.
A: I think it’s spending too much on public education because the kids learn so much stuff we don’t really need, like algebra and the periodic table of elements. Nobody uses that stuff in real life.
B: Scientists use that stuff on a day to day basis. Did you know that the United States has the leading comparative advantage over all other countries in research and development? You can learn more about this at http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9347/index1.html.
A: So you believe it’s economically advantageous for the members of our nation to be well educated in the sciences?
B: Yes, and this should start at an early age with all youngsters because you never know who might be the next Albert Einstein.
A: That’s interesting to consider. I’m glad we stopped arguing about whether Obama was a socialist or not, because now I have learned something new about one of the things that makes our country great.
B: Yes, there are some great things about our country, even though it’s full of people who elected a ding dong Nazi Socialist for president.
A & B: (Laughing together) Ha ha ha ha
Both examples 1& 2 are somewhat extreme, but hopefully it demonstrates that when the ad-hominem argument was avoided by both parties, they were able to have a clear and relevant discussion about a topic.
Personally, I believe a strong understanding of logical fallacies is the key to workable solutions. It is through clear reasoning and logical discussion which we come to understand our true differences of opinion amongst each other as human beings.
This is classic. Thank you for the insightful and entertaining post. More to come shortly.
To offer a fuller response: I would agree with your suggestion that logical errors are at the root of most disagreements, and that understanding how they arise in order to overcome them is the crucial step toward workable solutions. And we can assume that the people who call Obama a ‘socialist’ or ‘Nazi’ are perpetrating some sort of logical error–exaggeration or part-to-whole if not ad hominem (even though Obama has some characteristics that are Nazi-like, he has many that are not and never will be).
The fact is that people are compelled to demonize him for his characteristics, whether it stems from logical fallacies or not. This is no different, notably, than people demonizing George Bush for his characteristics. The fact is that some people feel necessary to wholly discredit the president for some reason or other.
I agree that it might well derail an otherwise fruitful conversation (your example above shows this poetically). But, it is my claim that the people who use these fallacies don’t necessarily intend to derail the conversation. They might actually see the logical fallacy as a way to get to their end. Since the president is in the way of their living a happy life (or so they think), the president must be removed from the picture one way or another. The patient might try intellectual means; the impatient will try any logical error they can think of.
So, my question to you (and anyone else that might be interested): is it true that the president stands in the way of any individual’s quest to live a happy life (or a life that they want to live)? If so, is that condition justified in any way?
Again, thank you for your dialogue. This forum is honored to have it.
Oooops, got A and B mixed up and can’t edit after posting. A does not believe Obama is a Nazi socialist. B believes Obama is a Nazi socialist. Sorry for any confusion. I am not an author.