Progressives: Stop Being Petty and Polemical

Tags

advice, America, American politics, argument, arms race, barack obama, Citizens United, Citizens United decision, climate change, communication, communism, congress, conservative, conservatives, culture war, culture wars, debate, decision, decisions, discussion, division, divisiveness, egalitarian, egalitarianism, email, equality, fairness, frank luntz, freedom, freedoms, fundraising, Gilded Age, gun, guns, historical, history, Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby decision, idea, ideas, ideological, ideology, immigration, inalienable rights, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, law, laws, lawsuit, lawsuits, legislation, liberal, liberals, liberties, liberty, message, messaging, obama, political, political advice, political advice for progressives, politics, President Barack Obama, president obama, prisoner's dilemma, progress, progressive, Progressives, progressivism, rhetoric, rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, talking points, Tea Party, tone, U.S., U.S. politics, united states, United States of America, unity, US, US politics, zero sum, zero-sum game

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

The Media and the Ministry of Truth

Tags

1984, America, audacity, barack obama, Bashir, biden, campaign, campaign 2012, candidates, Citizens United, class warfare, classism, cold war, courage, Dana Milbank, debate, debates, deceit, deceitful, deceitfulness, deception, democrat, dishonesty, division, divisiveness, Election, election 2012, elections, elite, elitism, exclusive, exclusivity, fact check, facts, fantasy, focus group, focus groups, frank luntz, George Orwell, history, honesty, inclusive, inclusiveness, integrity, international, joe biden, Karl Rove, liars, lie, lies, Luntz, Lyin' Ryan, lying, MAD, Martin Bashir, mendacity, Milbank, Ministry of Truth, MiniTrue, Mitt lies, mitt romney, Mitt Romney lies, morality, morals, MSNBC, Mutually Assured Destruction, national, nuclear weapons, nuke, nukes, obama, objectivity, Orwell, paul ryan, Paul Ryan lies, Paul Ryan's lies, politicians, politics, polling, polls, president obama, presidential debate, prisoner's dilemma, reality, republican, romney, Romney lies, Romney's lies, Rove, Ryan, spin, subjectivity, The Washington Post, truth, universal, vice presidential debate, vote, voting, VP debate, Washington Post

I’m writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate.  I’d like to comment on the veracity of both.

I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night’s debate through a pretty straightforward lens.  My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth.  I know, it seems like a tall order.  It shouldn’t, though.  If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished.  While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.

For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie.  For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can’t trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness.  To an extent, this ethic may be true.  It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.

The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.

It is not the world of 1984.  There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact.  Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.

On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC.  Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney’s debate performance.  Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate.  He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate.  Essentially, facts be damned.  When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama “let him lie”, and that that’s how you play the game.  Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn’t see how “you would expect anything different”.  Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney’s case was an advantageous move.  He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama’s court to disprove Romney’s lies.  Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney’s “litany of lies”.  Milbank saw no problem with these lies.  Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television. 

People should be very upset.  The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement.  Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position.  What are journalists for?  Where is the media?  Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs.  I don’t care if this was an opinion piece.  Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement.  Like Mitt Romney, “no apologies”, it seems. 

Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden.  Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth.  The moniker “Lyin’ Ryan” didn’t come from nowhere. 

Yes, I’ve been picking on Romney and Ryan.  I’m putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples.  This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don’t seek to be discredited by acting as if it is.  Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable.  It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn’t be how you win votes.

Aren’t the candidates supposed to love and laud “the American people”?  To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you.  You’re supposed to be a public servant.

To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.

1. An “anything goes” downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician’s lies are “but the other side does it!”, as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing.  If evasive tactics haven’t worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with “blueberry pie on [his or her] face”, as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism.  We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to “fight back” against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent.  We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner’s dilemma.  Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn’t have to lie, but unfortunately, once the “other side” does it, “our side” has no choice.  We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the “other side” even lied in the first place.  There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I’m calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying.  At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down.  Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.

2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let’s say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples.  This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation.  The candidate has a reputation to uphold!  How dare you question his or her character?  Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions?  The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take “responsibility for our lives” (here’s looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it’s more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.

3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor:  This is very clear cut.  Lying is unethical.  Most people would agree on this point.  Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel.  This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy.  If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her?  And should you trust him or her?  Pick any point in human history.  One person’s lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake.  Trust is crucial to survival.  Trust is earned and can be broken.  Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn’t result in one’s immediate demise.  That is why we put such a premium on it.  If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?

4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it’s wrong to separate people.  From accusations of “class warfare” to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that “united we stand; divided we fall” is an ethic to live by—until it’s not.  This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser.  If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician.  Somehow, the view has been turned upside down.  Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line.  Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society.  They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified?  Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special.  Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians.  They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else.  This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us.  It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being “one of the people”.  One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.

5. It’s Disingenuous: What’s real?:  This is an important point: I’m not saying all politicians lie, and I’m not saying they do it all the time.  If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many.  It’s unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers.  This statement is viewed by some as heroic.  Really?  Facts don’t matter?  What else do we have?  Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality.  Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it’s pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant.  Facts do matter.  Unbiased data is essential.  Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence.  No one should be allowed to cheat.

When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate’s integrity.  This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated.  Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians.  Your vote matters.  They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier.  Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life.  Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible.  Honesty and integrity are basic tenets.  Telling the truth is the least people can do.