I have unfortunately lost access to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary, so, loathe though I am to do it, we will turn to Merriam-Webster:

debate: a contention by words or arguments as A) the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure or B) a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

It’s fairly obvious that our current topic falls within definition B: “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.”  So let’s take this bit by bit:

• “regulated discussion”: The current debates fit this, ostensibly.  It depends, of course, on whether Tom Brokaw’s desperate attempts to make Obama and McCain stick to their time limits qualify.  In the end, however, I think that in the ideal debate the regulation comes from the debating parties themselves rather than a third-party moderator.
• “of a proposition”: Again, we ostensibly fit this idea.  The debates are usually framed around a series of questions put to the candidates.  The candidates then reply via their alloted time.
• “between two matched sides”: This is the only part that we get completely correct.  We may even get it too correct, thanks to today’s TV culture.  Candidates are matched in time, posture, terminology, and more, all to remove any possible advantage one could have from appearences.

On the surface of the definition we seem to be doing fairly well, yet anyone who has watched a political debate knows that something is horribly wrong with the system.  But where have we gone wrong?  I would suggest it is because we need to look earlier in the definition of debate: “a contention by words or arguments.”  And there we find it: we’re lacking arguments. Debates today are far too much about one of three things:

1. Look at my record.
2. Look at his record.
3. Soundbyte.

What they are not about is arguments, at least in the traditional definition (again from Merriam-Webster): “a reason given in proof or rebuttal.”  I do not call “he voted to raise taxes 94 times” or “he will give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies” a logical line of reasoning.  Whether or not such statments are true, they are not a logical proof of why the candidate in question will be effective or ineffective.

Reason would sound like:

• Tax cuts for American families, which I propose to provide, will put more money in their pockets, allowing them to invest and thus increasing our savings rate and promoting future growth in GDP.
• Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will promote confidence by putting enough troops on the ground to deal with the violence and begin building relationships with local leaders.
• Following a surge-like strategy in Afghanistan will not work because the problem is not with the number of troops but with how we engage both our enemies and our friends.
• Offshore drilling should not be pursued because the effects are minimal, especially when seen in light of the global oil market.

Instead we get politicians arguing back and forth only in the sense of “argument” that means “two children quarelling.”  They say plenty of words, but with very little logic behind them.  The problem, I suppose, is as much with us, the audience, as with the candidates.  Both candidates are intelligent men who can present a logical argument if they want to (and if you don’t think this is true you’re deluding yourself) .  But, sad to say, soundbytes and accusations are what work on us and thus that’s what the candidates use.

The solution?  There probably isn’t one.  But here’s a rough idea of what I think should be tried someday.  Instead of a debate in front of a live audience, with millions more watching on TV, the two candidates sholud be locked in a room together for a day.  They would be given a list of topics that to consider together, with two allowable means of responding:

1. A joint proposal laying out how to solve the issue.
2. Separate essays on the issue, in which mentioning the other candidate is forbidden.

The debate over the course of the day could be recorded if necessary, but it would not be live.  Afterward the candidates would have a chance to address the audience.  On each issues they would either present their joint proposal or give an outline of their essay, again without mentioning the other candidate, and the logic behind their idea.

It would, of course, be nice to have a live debate in which the candidates could discuss ideas and argue about the logic behind them instead of who did what.  I just don’t think that’s possible in today’s media.  My idea is an attempt to force such conversation.

Granted, it probably would not be as interesting to watch (I said we were part of the problem, didn’t I?).  But it would at least force the candidates to give “a reason given in proof” for their “contention by words or arguments.”  Then we could really have a debate.

• Washington Post – Debate Live Fact Check
• Fact Check.org

Before reading those, however, you might read this article on ideology and evidence.  What it says is worth keeping in mind, especially for those of us who already support a candidate.  It is too easy to read the fact checks looking for things the opposing candidate did wrong and skimming over those parts that reflect badly on our candidate.  I know I often find myself doing that.  You have to carefully force yourself to read what is right and wrong about both sides.

Let me preface by saying that my brother is one of the most intelligent people I know, and someone whose opinion I seek, especially on issues that I don’t understand well.  Prominent among these issues are questions concerning anything science related (from science questions to science ethics to Christianity and science), as Steve is an engineer and his wife is a biologist.

A Basis for Discussion

Over the past seven years I have had quite some time to reflect on the state of the world, politics, political issues, and the way this country is run in general. During that time a number of my positions have shifted, to the point where now I would classify myself more as an left-leaning independent than anything else. However, the issues themselves aren’t what I want to discuss today. I want to discuss something more foundational: the way people in the USA approach politics.

Specifically, I would like to discuss what I see as some serious drawbacks or shortcomings in the way that conservatives/Republicans think about and deal with politics. Let me make clear: what I’m about to say are my perceptions. I obviously feel they are accurate perceptions, but some of you will disagree and I can accept that. Let me also reiterate that while I will touch on issues, the issues themselves aren’t my main focus here.

The first shortcoming that I have noticed more and more is a tendency among conservatives to strongly favor character evaluation over discussion of issues. Character is certainly important, I agree. However, I personally find it very difficult to divorce character from the issues at stake. I feel, however, that many of my conservative friends and relatives make precisely that distinction. For example, I’ve heard Obama referred to as having a “silver tongue”, or of being all talk and no walk. I hear people all the time bashing the Clintons for their (valid) character shortcomings. I cringed when I heard the sarcastic quote from Palin’s speech about a mayor being like a community organizer, but actually having real responsibilities. All of these are character criticisms, which while valid to a certain extent, completely miss the point of discussing the issues themselves.

This is a trend both within the official Republican party and among everyday folks who are conservatives. It extends not only to candidates, but also to “liberals” in general. Conservatives tend to view liberals as selfish (discussed later) sinners, and therefore discount what they have to say about issues before they even open their mouths. It reminds me a bit of the pharisees who told the blind man who was healed, “You were steeped in sin at birth. How dare you lecture us!” and then threw him out of the temple.

Which brings me to my second point. I often hear people refer to liberals as selfish. Again, this seems to be a relatively blanket character evaluation, and also divorces character from issues. I certainly have met some selfish liberals (and conservatives too). I know a lot of selfish liberal politicians. But when it comes to issues, I find that the selfishness is a bit on the other side of the equation. With the exceptions of abortion and protectionist trade policy, most Democratic positions come in on what I consider the unselfish side. It seems to me less selfish to take the positions of socialized health care (giving up your money for the common good), larger welfare programs (ditto), gun control (giving up your rights for the common good), higher taxes (again with the money), a more lenient immigration policy (being willing to share your country with others), civil rights (being willing to let others do things you think are wrong), the environment (giving up some financial gain now to preserve the world for your children), and other things. You can debate what does or does not work, certainly, what is or is not a good idea, whether it is right to take away this or that from individuals and families, or what will or will not be economic suicide. But even so, how is it that the “selfish” party supports all these things that aren’t very beneficial to the self? Maybe we should discuss the issues and the values embedded in them, not the selfishness levels of those who hold the positions.

Third, I find the conservative distrust of the media, science, and education extremely frustrating. Frustrating both because I don’t understand it, and frustrating because I think it blinds people to important information. I read the New York Times. For many people, the New York Times is the epitomy of the “liberal media” and cannot be trusted. A lot of people don’t trust the BBC either, which I personally think is one of the best news organizations on the planet. Many conservatives will only get their news from Fox News. This is something that official party rhetoric plays into. (See, for example, all the recent media-bashing comments at the RNC.) I have to ask, though, what is the basis for all this media-bashing? I find news coverage I read to be fairly unbiased. (Editorials are a different matter, but the NY Times has editorial writers at both ends of the party spectrum.) Sometimes I think people see media reports that conflict with their personal opinions, then dismiss the reports as from “the liberal media.” But in a viscious circle, people characterize the media as liberal because they don’t agree with the reports they right. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that media organizations honestly try to report fairly and accurately. Sometimes they fail, but they at least try. It makes little business sense to do otherwise, nor can I see any motivation for it. So all this bashing of the media feels to me somewhat like the quote “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

The same goes for the perceptions of the educated liberal elite and liberal science. It really confuses me that we mistrust so deeply those precise people who have dedicated their lives to learning and the discovery of truth. (Global warming for example: all scientists say it is happening, but somehow a large portion of the general public, and also many a politician, disbelieves them?) I imagine this stems a lot from the creation/evolution debate, over which, I admit, the scientific community has given itself a huge black eye. Nevertheless, I don’t make the assumption that someone is wrong because they know a lot, but that is precisely the assumption I see made with many conservatives. It runs both ways as well; sometimes people dismiss me as an “educated liberal” for my views, even though I have exactly the same degree (a bachelors) as the segment of educated society most likely to vote Republican (people with college degrees but not graduate degrees – see the Gallup poll). In my case, I prefer to take what educated researchers and scientists tell me at face value, and then discuss the issues based on that. If everyone did that, I think the debate could both be more civil and better informed.

The last disappointment I have is that I often see a separation in the Republican party between “moral” issues and other issues, as if some issues aren’t about morality at all. “Moral” issues for conservatives include homosexuality and abortion… that’s about it. (What am I missing?) Other issues may have moral aspects, but they aren’t as important. As Jim said, I think this is a fallacy; almost every issue has significant moral components. Often, evaluating the morality isn’t straightforward. (Is it better to promote free trade and cause people to lose jobs, or restrict trade and see the economy suffer? What does more harm/good?) Nevertheless, the morality is there. This is extremely clear to me in issues of war, torture, and the environment. These issues have huge moral implications, but conservatives hardly touch on them. Instead, they treat them as practical issues, issues that need only be address on the merits of what is useful for something else (usually the economy or national security).

So, in summary, what I really wish is that when I talk to a conservative about politics, that what I would be able to do is discuss the issues themselves, and when I do that to discuss all aspects of the issues. I don’t want rejection of a discussion or information based on source (media, science, education, or a “selfish liberal”), and I don’t want dismissal of a discussion based on a perceived character flaw. I do want to be able to discuss morality of all issues, in addition to their practicality, impacts, and other aspects. I feel that if I could just get to that point, the conversation would go much better. (I can’t also help but think that a lot more conservatives would see things differently, but you can discuss the issues themselves with me for that.)

My own comments are as follows:

• Concerning character vs. issues, I think this is less a problem with a specific segment of the population and more one with politics as a whole.  While I have heard plenty of anti-Obama statements based (often with no good reasoning) on character issues, I have also heard people criticize him because he doesn’t talk about the issues.  (Whether or not this is true is a different matter, but I would question whether the criticizer had perhaps not read “The Blueprint for Change.”)  It’s a sad fact that political discussion today is so easily sidetracked.
• On the idea of selfishness, I find Steve’s point here fastening.  I haven’t heard this specific criticism of liberals myself, but his point remains.  I’ll address a similar subject in my next post.
• When it comes to the “liberal media,” I too get tired of the constant accusations about how the mainstream media (MSM) is portraying things.  I have, however, seen plenty of liberals (especially on the social news websites) complain about what the MSM is ignoring.  Thus I take hope in the fact that when conservatives are accusing the media of being too liberal and liberals are accusing it of being too conservative, there probably isn’t that much of a bias.  Like Steve, I think that we’re probably doing pretty well when it comes to most of the media.
• Their approach to science does seem to be, sadly, a common failing of both Republicans and Christians.  I touched on this in another post once.  The problem is that there are so many issues that demonstrate good science, evolution and global warming being just a couple, that are completely dismissed.  Part of this may be that the media is determined to give a equal point of view to both sides (note that this is different from accusing it of being liberal or conservative) and thus seems to imply that both sides are valid.  A great example of this is offshore drilling, which will have little effect on our energy situation, according to even the government itself, but is still widely accepted by the American public.  (If you want the lowdown on offshore drilling, turn to Stephen Colbert.)
• Finally, on morality and politics, Steve is completely correct: everything is a moral issue.  Again, my next post will reflect some of this.  For a different take on the same subject, however, I would recommend this post.  While I tend to agree more with Steve, there are things to be said for both sides.

Note: Why  comments are disabled on this post.

1. This country will not fall apart. Whatever your political leanings, it is worth remembering that no matter who wins the election, the United States will remain the United States. Our 200 years of history, built upon the brilliant framework laid out in the Constitution, is not in jeopardy because of our next President. Congress will remain, the Supreme Court will continue to issue rulings, the market will continue to function, and people will not fall down dead.

This country has survived Presidents of both parties before, to the surprise of a great many people. In fact, Presidents of both parties have done great things for this nation. If the Democrats win, it does not mean that America will go to hell in a handbasket.

The idea, commonly expressed by both sides of the political divide, that if X or Y candidate wins the election horrible things will happen to the country shows a disturbing lack of faith in America. Such ideas fail to recognize the fact that America is created as a republican democracy in which the people rule and leaders are kept in check through governmental institutions.

2. We will not all lose our morals. Contrary to popular opinion in some circles, Democrats are not immoral or amoral creatures. While they may not hold the same set of values Republicans do, this does not mean that they are any less concerned about God, America, or people.

Abortion is usually brought up as a prime example of why being a Democrat is immoral. While I fully oppose abortion, this issue alone does not define the Democratic Party. Without even examining the many other ways in which Democrats support and show kindness to people—helping AIDS victims, the poor, those without jobs, immigrants, etc.—we can recognize that abortion itself is a nuanced issue. What about the 50 year old couple with grown kids who discover that the wife is pregnant and the baby has Down syndrome? Or the 14 year old mother with only one parent who lives in the city ghetto? Even if we unequivocally oppose abortion, as I do, we must recognize that those who support it are not heartless and cruel people.

Christianity is also linked with morals. If we have a Democratic president it does not mean that he or she will automatically not be a Christian. (It also does not mean they will be a Christian either.) Dismissing someone’s Christianity as illegitimate simply because of their political affiliation, without looking at their testimony and life displays a stunning level of ignorance and pride.

3. The world will not devolve into terrorism and warfare. Democrats care about our national and international security just as much as Republicans do. Without going into whether or not the foreign policy of past Presidents has worked, it is safe to say that even if a Democrat wins, our country will not necessarily be in any worse danger than it is already. Just because a Democratic President would do things differently than a Republican President does not mean he or she would do things incorrectly. There are many ideas in foreign policy that have been successful in the past, and not all of them were monopolized by one party.

While it is possible that doing things such as changing our policies in the Middle East could make us more vulnerable, it could also do the opposite. Any area of the world is extremely complicated and perhaps a change in policy to emphasize democracy and negotiation over force could raise perceptions of America and instead make us safer. Neither route is inherently correct, but both are worth considering.

4. Rhetoric might prove true. While it must be granted that a large part of politics is smooth talking and attempting to promise things that cannot be accomplished, this is not limited to the Democratic party. It is disturbing how fast ideologues will dismiss a speech which seeks the middle ground on an issue, such as Obama’s speech on racism, by calling it just a brilliant piece of rhetoric used to fool people. There are two things to be said on this issue.

First, rhetoric in and of itself is not a negative thing. The ability to eloquently put words together, to navigate an issue in a way that gives play to both sides of an argument, and to draw people in to a belief is not bad. In fact, it can be a sign of greatleadership. Dismissing any speech, on either side of the political divide, that shows such characteristics simply because it is “rhetoric” is illogical and ignorant.

Second, rhetoric is not necessarily a facade put up by a politician. While any politician will “moderate” himself or herself in order to pick up more votes, that does not mean he or she is lying. We must examine politicians’ words critically while at the same time being willing to grant that they may actually believe in what they say. If their rhetoric navigates a middle ground and examines both sides of an issue, perhaps that is a good thing, something that may actually be useful in a President.

Yes, much rhetoric will just be empty words as a President can only do so much. But some may come true and even that which does not still serves to indicate where a candidate’s beliefs lie.

To conclude, we must guard against becoming too polarized. It does no good to demonize the opposition, to insist that all right is on our side. As in my previous post, we must allow ourselves to be questioned by the other side. We must acknowledge that those on the other side may be right in some areas and that they care as passionately about many of the same things as us. If the Democrats win, it will not be the end of the world, even if you do not agree with them.

So why is there an Obama logo on my website now?

Well, blame it on a lot of things. Blame it on the liberalizing influence of college. Blame it on certain friends of mine. Or blame it on blind stupidity.

Any of those could be true, I suppose. I don’t deny that I’ve become more liberal at college, I definitely have some friends who are quite liberal, and I could easily be mistaken about my beliefs. But there’s something more to it than that.

I’ve decided to support Obama because, as cliché as it may sound, his campaign really is change we can believe in. Obama’s personality, his message, and his appeal are unique in politics at the moment.

What message? The message of hope and change, not the policies behind that message. I don’t agree with a lot of Obama’s policies, but I don’t think that’s very important right now. At some point we have to get beyond the partisan divide over policies and see what it takes to be a great leader.

I’ve never seen someone rally young Americans like the Obama campaign does. In the long run, issues, ideas, and policies won’t change much. But someone who can get our youth to believe in democracy again: he can change the world.

No person will fall into an entirely constrained or unconstrained vision, as Sowell constantly reminds us. Yet most people tend to lean to one side or another, and their vision will shape their views on a whole range of issues. Thus you will often find the same people arguing against each other on many different topics.

Another interesting point made by Sowell is that people with opposite visions will often have different definitions for even such “basic” words as justice, freedom, or equality. This often results in arguments where the participants simply talk past each other, unable to understand or come to any conclusion.

An example of this phenomenon is the difference between processes and results. People with the constrained vision tend to look toward processes when defining terms. A society would be considered equal, for example, if all participants were given the same chances (processes). Someone with the unconstrained vision, on the other hand, look for results. A society can only be equal if the resulting distribution of income (or whatever other factor is under discussion) is equal.

This divide became apparent in class today when we discussed the effects of globalization on language. One side of the debate maintained that globalization is worrisome because it can destroy native culture, especially language. The other side countered that though this did happen, the benefits of globalization made it acceptable.

I sided with the second group (for reasons that can be discussed another time). In addition to the benefits of trade on a macro level, I pointed out that those who chose to learn the trade language (English, French, Chinese, etc.) made a choice to do so. This choice demonstrates that they made a rational economic decision to learn another language because the benefits it brought outweighed the costs. Immediately upon making this suggestion I was told I arrived at it from a Western viewpoint.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, considering what I said about arguments earlier), class ended here. But considering the issue farther, I do not think my statement derived from a biased Western viewpoint. Instead, I think it arises out of a constrained vision of the world (at least in this area).

Because the constrained vision values processes, which entail tradeoffs between various factors, it also values the choices made during these processes. Thus, coming from a constrained viewpoint, I tended to emphasize the decisions made by individuals as indicative of preference patterns. If the individual decided the benefits of learning the new language outweighed the costs, he or she would learn it.

The unconstrained vision, however, values results. This removes some emphasis from the decision-making process. Because the desired outcome is set, decisions made by individuals are not necessarily indicative of preference. They could simply be a factor of the current political/economic/sociological structure that must be changed in order to achieve the desired results. Ideally globalization could occur and the world could maintain a diversity of languages. In lieu of that, actions should be taken to preserve as many as possible.

I think it should be clear that neither viewpoint is a result of a bias derived from a Western viewpoint, though that charge could be levied against both sides. Using such reasoning is an attempt to prove some logical fallacy in the other sides’ arguments. In reality, the problem arises from a conflict not of cultural values but of visions at the decision making level.

Thoughts?