Playing by the Rules

One of my friends who is herself quite liberal--she favors legalized abortion and gay marriage--wrote to me yesterday about a conversation about politics that she had with another friend that ended with her friend claiming that she (my friend) "didn't think that history had ever happened." The conversation left my friend somewhat upset ("Oof," she wrote me, "feeling your pain right now") and wondering why such conversations are so hard to have without descending into such ad hominem attacks (not quite the way she put it, I am paraphrasing here). Our conversation (which ranged widely and has given both of us much food for thought--I have promised her multiple blogposts) ended with her proposing a set of guidelines for how to have productive conversations, beginning with the premise that "all parties must acknowledge [that] the other is intelligent." 

Her subsequent premises were equally sensible:
All parties should also acknowledge that they are working towards a common goal...a more prosperous country...[and that] no one is actively and intentionally trying to destroy the country.  
Everyone must acknowledge that a single system of thought/party can[not] be right about every single issue at all times. We *always* have something that we are wrong about, and we should always be trying to figure out what that thing is.
Once you've acknowledged you're not right about everything, agree that a good place to start is by talking to people with other viewpoints.
Be willing to take a break from the conversation if you get too emotionally invested. Even though most of the issues we're talking about have personal impacts on everyone, talking out of anger or hurt won't fix anything. 
So, after all, why don't we? Why have our political conversations become so rancorous and mean-spirited? Why do even friends find it nearly impossible to talk about the things that they see happening in our country without ending up feeling like they have to take sides in a mud-slinging match? Why is every national debate so divisive when everyone loves our country and wants the best for its people? Because, of course, we are all not playing by the rules that my friend suggested. Some of us are playing by rather different ones.

Here are a few of them (there are thirteen in all, according to Wikipedia):
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. 
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
8. "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. 
11. "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Why does it feel like every time you turn around, somebody in the political media is making a personal attack rather than discussing the issues? Rule 13. Why do so many of our political conversations end in verbal or physical violence? Rule 11. Why does it seem like nobody can open his or her mouth without being subject to mockery and abuse? Rule 5. Why is everyone apparently so unwilling to acknowledge that the other party is intelligent, also loves our country, and might possibly have some ideas that are worth trying out? Rule 3 (which is basically advice on how to make your opponent look stupid). Why is every conversation so polarized, with one side cast as the enemy? All of the above.

Saul Alinsky, the author of these rules, was not, of course, the first to employ such polemical tactics in seeking to organize a party for reform--check out some of the things that Martin Luther said about his enemies--nor was he the first to claim that the ends justifies the means (look up Robespierre's 1794 "Report on the Principles of Public Morality," which he made in defense of the revolutionary Terror). What is different is that nobody in Luther's day pretended that he was not at odds with the pope ("I can with good conscience consider you a fart-ass and an enemy of God"*) or that Robespierre was not complicit in the executions in the Place de la Révolution. I suspect my friend has never heard about Alinsky, or if she has, does not know that Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky. Nor is it likely that my friend associates Alinsky's tactics with our president, the "community organizer" (Alinsky's term), even as she deplores the fact that our politics during his presidency have only become more and more divisive. Rather, so skilled have those who follow Alinsky's rules become that most of us aren't even aware that there are rules, only bad feelings and broken politics. 

 "All parties must acknowledge that the other is intelligent" vs. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." I don't know about you, but I like my friend's rules better.

*From "Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil," pg. 344 of Luther's Works, Vol. 41.

Popular posts from this blog

Chivalry Our Lord's-Style, ca. A.D. 33

Image
I saw a video on one of my friend's Facebook feeds the other night, one of those videos taken with a mobile phone that can now be uploaded to the world from anywhere in the world. It was one of a number of videos taken at the same time--you could see all the other people in the scene holding up their phones, too--so I don't know how many of them there are of this particular incident. The scene is a street and there are about a dozen or so men standing round, most of them with their faces covered by black ski masks. In the middle of the group, there is an older woman, dressed in a black gown with her hair covered also in black. She is carrying a red backpack. The men, according to the description of the video that my friend gave, are talking with her about how offensive they find it that she will not cover her face, too. All of the men are carrying guns. I cannot watch this video, it is too awful. Because my friend told me what happens. After talking with the woman for a few m
Keep reading

Talking Points: Three Cheers for White Men

Image
1. When white women (see Marie de France and Eleanor of Aquitaine) invented chivalry and courtly love , white men agreed that it was better for knights to spend their time protecting women rather than raping them, and even agreed to write songs for them rather than expecting them to want to have sex with them without being forced. 2. When white men who were celibate (see the canon lawyers and theologians of the twelfth century and thereafter) argued that marriage was a sacrament valid only if both the man and the woman consented , white men exerted themselves to become good husbands rather than expecting women to live as their slaves. 3. When white women (see Christine de Pizan, Mary Wollstonecraft, and the suffragettes) invented feminism , white men supported them (see John Stuart Mill) and even went so far as to vote (because only men could vote at the time) to let them vote, not to mention hiring them as workers and supporting their education. And before you start telling me a
Keep reading

Make the Middle Ages Dark Again

Image
I miss the good old days. You remember. Back when the only thing people knew about the Middle Ages is that they were Dark and filled with evil barons wresting a living off the back of their serfs, not to mention lecherous clergy imprisoning young maidens so as to rape them and then accuse them of witchcraft. You remember, right? What it was like when the Middle Ages were Dark? The Roman Catholic Church made slaves of everyone, stripped them of their sense of dignity and independence and made social status a matter not of achievement, but birth. The Church hated science and industry and did everything in its power to keep people in chains. It guarded its authority with the sword and the stake, stifled all innovation, and fed the common people lies. And why were these Ages so Dark? There were no universities, no towns, only castles with dungeons. Monks huddled in their cells thinking dark thoughts about sin, while Vikings stormed across the countryside, raping and pillaging and ca
Keep reading

Free Speech Fundamentals: Building a Platform

Image
Milo's platform It is without a doubt one of the sillier complaints that protestors at Milo's talks have regularly made when they are trying to shut him up for having conservative political opinions about freedom of speech. For example, at UC Davis, where the protestors effectively shut down Milo's event the night before with their violence , after which the next day one of them demanded of Milo as he was talking to the crowd gathered outside to hear him speak (see video at 4:01 ): "Where's my platform? Where is everyone else's platform?" Milo admonished him: "You had it last night, brother," but of course the young man was not satisfied. He thought that it was Milo's fault that nobody wanted to listen to him. Trigglypuff at UMass Amherst had the same complaint, if imperfectly expressed (see video at 1:26 ): "But this is free speech! If you're so concerned about free speech..."--meaning presumably hers, as she clearly wa
Keep reading

God's Fools

Image
Like Jesus , Francis of Assisi did some pretty outrageous things. Everybody knows how he went and preached to the birds, but not everybody knows why he did it. It wasn't, as certain 1970s movies would have it, because he was a nature-loving hippie (although I do love Donavan's soundtrack, especially the theme song). It was because the human beings he was preaching to wouldn't listen. He had wanted to preach the word of God in Rome, but when he arrived there, the people scorned him because he was dressed poorly, so they thought him an idiot. He tried for several days to gain their attention, but could not overcome their hardness of heart. "I grieve deeply over your misfortune," he told them, "because you are not only spurning me as a servant of Christ, but you are also really despising Him in me, since I have been preaching to you the Gospel of the Redeemer of the world. And so I am now leaving Rome. And I call as witness of your desolation Him who is t
Keep reading