I frequently disagree with the conservative New York Times opinion writer Bret Stephens, but a while back, he honed in on an under-appreciated aspect of America’s current dysfunctions--our lack of authentic argumentation.
Before you decide that both Stephens and I are looney–after all, sometimes it seems as if all we Americans do is fight one another–let me emphasize that this is another of my frequent diatribes about the importance of using terminology accurately. Because whatever we want to label the interminable angry and hostile encounters between MAGA ideologues and the multiple factions of citizens appalled by and opposed to them, I don’t think you can properly call them arguments.
Stephens attributes his own appreciation of proper argumentation to his time at the University of Chicago, an institution that requires its undergraduates to read the books that formed the Western tradition, to familiarize themselves with a philosophy and literature that was notable for argumentation meant to persuade, not put down.
Where did the anti-Federalists differ from the Federalists, or Locke from Hobbes, or Rousseau from them both? The curriculum made us appreciate that the best way to contend with an argument was to engage with it rather than denounce it, and that the prerequisite to engagement was close and sympathetic reading. Reading Marx didn’t turn me into a Marxist. But it did give me an appreciation of the power of his prose.
I don’t think Stephens is wrong or exaggerating when he focuses on the importance of genuine argumentation to democracy.
What is the soul of the Western tradition? Argument. Socrates goes around Athens investigating the claims of the supposedly wise and finds that the people who claim to know things don’t. The Lord threatens to destroy Sodom for its alleged wickedness, but Abraham reproaches and bargains with Him — that for the sake of 10 righteous people He must not destroy the city.
The virtue of Chicago’s curriculum is that it introduces students to a “coherent philosophical tradition based in reasoned argument and critical engagement that explained not only how we had arrived at our governing principles but also gave us the tools to debate, preserve or change them.” (In other words, students who were required to immerse themselves in these works received an actual education, rather than a job training credential; a distinction entirely lost on Indiana’s pathetic legislature. But I digress…)
It’s hard to argue with Stephens’ observation that the Internet and the digital transformation of the way we receive information has facilitated our ability to inhabit carefully curated bubbles of ideology and “facts” confirming our biases. But he argues that the deleterious effects might have been mitigated “if we hadn’t first given up on the idea of a culture of argument rooted in a common set of ideas.”
Which brings me to Charlie Kirk.
Kirk, to my way of thinking, was not a real conservative, at least in the American sense. The point of our conservatism is to conserve a liberal political order — open, tolerant, limited and law-abiding. It’s not about creating a God-drenched regime centered on a cult of personality leader waging zero-sum political battles against other Americans viewed as immoral enemies…
It’s too bad that Kirk, raised in a Chicago suburb, didn’t attend the University of Chicago. It wouldn’t have hurt getting thrashed in a political debate by smarter peers. Or learning to appreciate the power and moral weight of views he didn’t share. Or recognizing that the true Western tradition lies more in its skepticism than in its certitude.
But the larger tragedy by far is that it’s America itself that’s losing sight of all that. In the vacuum that follows, the gunshots ring out.
That last sentence sums up the central point of the essay–at least as I read it. A citizenry that has lost the ability to engage in genuine arguments–and the operative word there is “engage”–expresses its disputes and disagreements with insults and violence.
The utter inability to engage in actual debate may be the most prominent characteristic of the incompetent clowns who dominate the Trump administration, and it may explain why the administration eschews civility and relies on invective and militarized violence rather than efforts at persuasion.
Most MAGA supporters respond to factual posts with laughing emojis, as that is their typical approach to debate, and they mock people who use the internet or AI for research. Stephens may have a more elitist term for this, but I call it ignorance.
You can’t debate ignorant people who have the tightest of tightest closed minds. Their ego reinforces their ignorance, which is why they like memes and emojis. There is little to no thought required – devoid of critical thinking.
We used to assign a score to leaders and assess their style. The problem with Trump is his closed mind and narcissism. He’s about a 1.5 on a scale of 5, which is about as low as you can get. Due to his enormous ego, he must surround himself with “yes people,” which means he will never lead higher than a 1.5. Never. And he’ll surround himself with 1.5s and 1.0s because they are followers. This is a famous trap that has been caught in many Dilbert cartoons. LOL
Again, I must disagree with Stephens regarding his assessment of the internet as a cause of these issues. The folks at Google and Facebook pride themselves on “user experiences” or “UX.” Via cookies, they deliver content to you based on your browsing history. You can test this by clicking on an ad on Facebook. If you click on the new Jeep model, guess what you are going to see a lot of? Yep, Jeep commercials. It’s the algorithm. Therefore, if you tend to read media designed for right-wingers, guess what you’ll see a lot of?
Therefore, it’s not necessarily the individual who places himself in an information bubble, but it’s the app’s algorithm. This is why the Zionist Larry Ellison of Oracle wants control of TikTok’s algorithm. He wants to reduce or eliminate pro-Palestinian posts while placing more Israeli propaganda. Same reason Musk wanted to buy Twitter and all their right-wing bots. It’s now a cesspool of ideologues.
Speaking of Charlie Kirk …. Did anyone see the incredible, sappy posthumous presentation of the Medal of Freedom (I left out the word Presidential, because we don’t really have one.) to Erika Kirk?
Todd’s 1.5 awarded the highest civilian award to a hate-monger, backward-thinking misogynist and all-around intellectual dwarf. It would seem that ANY education at the University of Chicago would have helped this platform abuser “engage” instead of disparage. But no … Charlie found his way into the MAGA hearts by being an articulate version of 1.5.
That all said, a review of Presidential Medals of Freedom turns up a few WTF surprises. Republican George H. W. Bush awarded one of these to Milton Friedman, the architect of “trickle down” economics. BTW, Friedman was an economics professor at U of Chicago. Do you suppose he read any of those books about western societies?
And 1.5 awarded the mouth of Rush Limbaugh one of those in his first term. More top quality awardees from Republican presidents are worth the look.
Todd, if one clicks on bullshit, will they receive a torrent of photos of Republicans?
Debate has been an important aspect of my life. Near the end of four years of high school, my debate partner and I made State finals, a “first” for our high school. In the trophy room in the Department of Communications Arts & Sciences, my name is on a lot of trophies as well as the only name that three large plaques on the wall from DSR-TKA Nationals (1975, 1976 and 1978) have in common. (I had a different partner each of those years). After I graduated from IU-Indy School of Law, I coached IUPUI’s debate team (& took two teams to Nationals as well as Novice Nationals) for four years. In 2020, during a quixotic run in the INCD5 GOP primary (as the only pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-gun, anti-trump candidate), Micah Beckwith would not debate me (although he did not dispute having challenged me to a debate). What the far right mistakes for debate is one of their people giving a speech then, as an opponent begins to speak, shouting that person down so that no one can hear her/him/them speak, is not “debate” (although in parliamentary debate, one can be heckled, but that, too, has limits). In the few rules common to various types of competitive debate, teams have time limits and, when one side speaks, the other side must remain silent. I long ago got tired of far-right hosts of radio shows &/or podcasts saying no lefties/liberals/progressives will be on their shows. A good example of this “type” is the “gun guy,” who hosts a Saturday afternoon show on WIBC. After I agreed to debate him (a couple of years ago) I emailed him about specific wording of a topic (e.g., Resolved: that handguns should be illegal) and time limits, he said that he doesn’t set limits on “interviews” on his show (& I said he was a … well, not “chicken salad” but “chicken s[. ], and I’ll bet you don’t even have to buy a vowel). I said it’s not an interview, but a debate. To have meaningful debate, people need to shut up when the other side speaks (& vice-versa). To “shout down” an opponent would be unheard-of in formal debate and should not be tolerated in such debates as those in which I competed all those years ago. Implicit in the notion that each side can speak w/o interruption is each side is equal, at least in terms of standing. Sen Barry Goldwater warned, “if & when these preachers get control of the [GOP], it’s going to be a terrible damn problem…. Politics & governing demand compromise. [They] believe they are acting in the name of God,” so they can’t/won’t compromise. He also said: “Today’s ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. [A] woman has the right to an abortion.” That is “a decision up to the pregnant woman, not the Pope, or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.” NOTE: no one accepted my offer to debate. They don’t like such equality simply in that type of forum because the only way they can “win” is via “invective and militarized violence.” They only learn how to “obey,” not think, in home schoolin’.
It’s an age old problem. How do you pry open a tightly closed mind? I recently read the book “Supercommunicators” by Charles Duhigg. I recommend it if you seek an answer to that question.
A communication failure here and now is in the difference between “popular” politicians and “populous” politicians, which is defined as: A populist politician claims to represent the “pure people” against a “corrupt elite”. Populism is not a rigid ideology but a flexible political strategy that can attach to both left- and right-wing positions. It typically involves a charismatic leader who appeals directly to a specific, often narrow, definition of the people while expressing suspicion of the establishment, experts, and traditional institutions.
What we have as a result is an entertainer running the country according to the script of his program, “The Apprentice”. He has one primary test for supporters: they must never disagree with him, a tenet also used by spoiled children everywhere.
“The utter inability to engage in actual debate may be the most prominent characteristic of the incompetent clowns who dominate the Trump administration, and it may explain why the administration eschews civility and relies on invective and militarized violence rather than efforts at persuasion.”
It occurs to me that this description of the administration is a mirror image of Trump, himself. He is incapable of “engagement” in discussion, “eschews civility, etc.,” on a regular basis and has surrounded himself with similar people, the only sort that he can tolerate.
I would like to suggest a name for our current epoch. We should call this the Age of Rage. This is the antithesis to previous ages like enlightenment or reason.
In looking for a model of either of those ages, I have been keeping up with Mayor Pete. He seems to be the best purveyor of civil discourse available today.
It’s not really necessary to label the followers of Orange Jesus as stupid or ignorant and it doesn’t work very well to start with that premise. What we need are truths. That’s what is so much harder to provide since AI came to the forefront of our daily musings. We have to find a new way to just talk to each other about our concerns.
As a U of C grad who’s always been embarrassed by the smugness, certitude, and righteous conservatism of the Chicago School (and of Brett Stephens), I’m nonetheless proud of the university’s longstanding and sincere commitment to liberal education (liberal as in liberating; i.e., liberating from unexamined opinions and prejudices, from tunnel vision, from ethnocentrism, from unfounded certitude, etc.). It is an essential education/preparatory curriculum for citizenship in a democratic society. And sadly it barely exists any longer as a foundational element in primary, secondary or post-secondary education. Perhaps most disturbing, it is hardly any longer a required component in the preparation of our nation’s teachers. And perhaps equally disturbing, evidence would suggest it is not an education that anyone in Trump’s cabinet ever benefited from.
Peggy,
We can advocate for truth all day long, but if we have ignorant or stupid people involved in a debate, there is never an exchange of ideas that approaches the truth. MAGA uses memes and emoticons to convey their thoughts.
“Stupidity (or intellectual deficiency) is generally considered a lack of intelligence or the inability to understand or learn, even when presented with the facts.” ~ Gemini AI
That definition encapsulates MAGA from Trump on down.
Bringing individual perspectives to the table for discussion can be a learning experience if you’re dealing with open minds. In authoritarianism the accepted truth is the trickled down thoughts/agenda of the dominate group. I think many acquiesce out of fear and go along to get along.
A scene from the movie “Cool Hand Luke” comes to mind where Hud irritates a guard sitting on a horse hovering over him, armed with a club and rifle loudly stating, “What we have here is a failure to communicate” and by force runs Hud into the ground. Arguing in those kinds of situations is useless.
Power/dominance is the goal and using false accusations and lies to uphold their position is a form of civil war.
IMO Christopher Hitchens was a master class debater in the realm of logic and reason, but I don’t think that’s the ultimate and it’s a waste of time to try to convince people who disagree. People have to have the freedom to find their own way and that’s what the trump regime has put on the chopping block. Resist.
Well, lol, I’m tempted to debate this point…. but engaging with it, in this case, leads to my appreciation and agreement of it. With a wink and a nod. Thanks, Sheila.
Correction: the character in “Cool Hand Luke” wasn’t Hud: it was Luke. I’m getting old.
Again. Before you give up, read “Supercommunicators” by Charles Duhigg. It really could help you.
Todd,
I don’t think you’re wrong, but it makes no sense to approach them with the attitude that they are ignorant or stupid. Even they are able to discern the disdain we have for them. Perhaps we could offer information about AI. like how to spot an image that has been altered by AI.