Guidelines to civil political discourse

Cool Rhetoric. Eldorado Springs Canyon, Colorado, 2013

These days, it is pretty hard for many of us to engage in a political discussion and keep the blood vessels in our neck from bursting, a la Camp Counselor Carl. That is unfortunate as healthy political discussion is important in order to grow as individuals, communities, cities, counties, states, as a country, and, ultimately, as a world community of human beings.

What I propose, then, is that we cool our rhetoric a bit and follow these “Ten Guidelines for Civil Political Discourse”:

#1  Understand that we all have a natural tendency toward confirmation bias as we seek out new information about the world. Try your best to not succumb to its nasty and intellectually stunting effects.

#2  Realize that none of us has a complete monopoly on the truth–the truth is much larger, more difficult to discover, and more nuanced than is typically presented in mass media.

#3  Understand that just about every writer, pundit, historian, economist, and expert can expose some percentage of the truth in their analysis, but its never an equal amount. Some writings only expose 5-10% of the truth while other writings may bring out up to 70-80% of the truth (and the latter, often more boring to read!). Rarely, if ever, can even the most expert expert hit the 100% truth mark. To zero in on the “truth” you’ll need to consult many different sources and perspectives. Even then, you could still be wrong.

#4  Arm yourself with good information. Generally, peer-reviewed books and articles by respected scholars and scientists should carry more weight in the formation of your opinions than the rhetoric of those who do not do research and do not footnote. Beware of authors, celebrities, speakers, and such who play on emotions and for whom entertainment rather than enlightenment is the primary goal.

#5  Understand that an emotional argument does not equal a logical one. Many of today’s “experts” simply appeal to your emotions rather than building a logical, well-researched position.

#6  Learn about logical fallacies (no, you don’t need to know their Latin terms), something most of us were unfortunately never taught in school, unless you took a class in logic. Then, try to be more aware when a speaker or writer falls into one of these traps. Some examples, explained in this very good Wikipedia article, include the fallacies of: false cause, many questions, misplaced correctness, misplaced concreteness, deduction, composition, and division. Then you have sweeping generalizations, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, begging the question, the straw man, proof by verbosity, the No True Scotsman, innuendo (and out the other), attribution, and so on.

[A quick editor’s note here…It is often easy to fall into the following logical fallacy when discussing politics: I am a really smart person and I believe A. My opponent believes B. Therefore, my opponent is an idiot. Can you identify which fallacy this is?]

#7  Always be willing to change your position when new information or facts emerge–a difficult thing to do as it goes against our human nature. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when faced with good evidence–on the contrary, it shows maturity.

#8  And related to the previous point, if you are wrong, admit it. There is nothing wrong with being wrong every once in awhile. Who isn’t?

#9  Don’t use inflammatory language–just stick to the facts.

#10  Finally, realize that you are discussing ideas, not the worth of the person on the other side of the argument. The goal is to “agree to disagree” about the topic in question, but understand that it doesn’t have to affect your relationship in other areas. Think of that uncle you love dearly, for example, but with whom you totally disagree about gun rights, property taxes, and fly fishing technique.

A Most Excellent Starting Point: Intelligence Squared US

Do you want to hear what intelligent political discourse can actually sound like? If so, then check out this link to Intelligence Squared US. They take on many very, very controversial subjects in a controlled debating format, and both sides always come armed with eloquent, highly qualified and powerful speakers. In the end, the audience gets to weigh in and tell whether or not they were persuaded by one side or the other.

When you listen to these Intelligence Squared debates it quickly becomes apparent that most issues are a lot more complex than we are often led to believe by our popular media sources. You can actually find yourself painfully questioning your own personal views now and then–which, of course, means you are growing.

So, let the debates begin!