I just finished reading the book titled Union: A Democrat, a Republican and a Search for Common Ground by Jordan Blashek and Christopher Haugh. I don’t think that they found common ground, but I think that they did find, recognize, the humanity in each other and the people they met. They were also willing to accept their differences and move on. 
Recognizing the feelings, concerns, values and life plans of others is critical to allowing us to communicate with each other, and, if not find common solutions to problems and policy concerns, at least be able to understand the other person’s position and why they’ve taken it.
Chris and Jordan do not reach agreement on whether identification ought to be required for voting or on how aggressive we should be in pursuing climate change. Their arguments over these issues resulted in hard feelings and estrangement. But they cared about each other and were able to overcome it and move on in their friendship. I think that is what we all need to do when we find we disagree about public policy issues and politics. But I also think it is critical that we be willing to talk about why we have taken our positions and why we support the politicians that we do.
Exchanging Views
I prefer to say that we should have discussions: “give-and-take; an exchange of views on some topic,”1 not arguments. Arguments sound like battles, conflicts, and those will not be helpful or productive because we think that someone has to be the winner. In discussions, we can layout how we think things ought to be, what things we think should be done, and even who we think people should vote for, hopefully, without antagonizing each other. Discussions that we ought to have could be seen as debates, but again, debates have winners and losers. Discussions can be win-win because all parties can come out of discussion, if not with agreement, then with a better understanding not only of the other person’s positions but probably of our own as well.
Meaningful Discussions
The definition of arguments describes what we need to do in a meaningful discussion. “An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.” (Wikipedia, September 1, 2024) I think that rather than call them “conclusions;” we should call them “claims.” We provide support for our claims with convincing reasons, or premises. Premises can also be called the “grounds” for our claims. Some rules discussions include:
- Try and reach a shared understanding rather than ‘win the argument’.
- Clarify with others to make sure I genuinely understand their perspective.
- Endeavor to avoid committing logical fallacies in support of my claims.
- Attempt to account for my own biases and try to be intellectually humble.
- Try to be reasonable, rational, and create coherent arguments.
- Use the ‘Principle of Charity’ to see the merits of others’ points of view in the best light.
- Remain genuinely receptive to changing my mind if presented with compelling arguments
or evidence[2].
Sticking to the Facts
Figure: Claim and Grounds/Reasons
- All supported by facts: measurements, research and validated climate models.
- Based on the value of human life and property lost due to climate change and the cost of climate disasters and the rising ocean to the economy
The same kind of chart to be constructed by those opposing aggressive responses to stop climate change. Their claim could be that the evidence for climate change is not strong enough to justify actions that will increase unemployment and decrease economic growth. They could cite as grounds that climate change has occurred before and was not caused by humans, that decreasing the use of fossil fuels will cost jobs and close businesses in areas that are already poor, and that we cannot replace fossil fuels with effective and efficient alternatives fast enough. However, the compromise would be subsidizing and funding the creation of clean energy factories in the areas hardest hit by the reduction in the use of coal and other fossil fuels.
Rewiring
Unfortunately, our brains have some wiring that stops us from accepting new information and changing our minds when necessary. You can find a great deal of information about these biases and fallacies in arguments thethinkingshop.org. One of the most common is the confirmation bias.
“(We) favor things that confirm our existing beliefs. We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions, and to ignore and dismiss information that conflicts with them. You could say that this is the mother of all biases…. To help counteract its influence we ought to presume ourselves wrong until proven right. Think of your ideas and beliefs as software you’re actively trying to find problems with rather than things to be defended. ’The first principle is that you must not fool….’” –Richard Feynman3
Making the Argument Personal
Another common fallacy is the ad hominem argument. 
This is when you discount the person is saying because of some personal trait they have or who they are rather than whether what they’re saying is true or logical. When we call a person names like stupid, silly, a bad parent for example, we are responding to who they are not what they’re saying. Some of said or implied that Karl Marx writings must be wrong because he was a bad father and husband; he did not take care of his family. There are plenty of reasons for disagreeing with Karl Marx’s writings without attacking him personally. Communism is assumed to be evil, and it has failed every time it’s been tried, even by the apostles in the book of Acts. But the fact that it doesn’t what’s the thing along with conspiracy theories that people called colds work, or hasn’t thus far, doesn’t mean it’s evil, it just means it is not useful.
Seeking Facts over Opinions
A very real problem is knowing whether what someone else is saying is true or not. It is easy to fall for conspiracy theories, “the big lie” and the techniques used by cult leaders. The big lie as you successfully for years by Goebbels the Nazis. It is when someone you think must be honest tells a lie and keeps on repeating it. We assume that they, and our politicians and elected officials, would never keep repeating a lie. So, it must be true.
Many people think that the standard news sources such as CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post lie about the politicians they support and issues they care about. Instead, accept as true claims by social media outlets on the Internet without fact checking them. But then if you don’t accept standard sources is telling the truth, if you don’t accept scientific research is true, then how are you going to check what people are telling you.
Having Respect and Sympathy
While remembering to treat each other with respect and sympathy, we also need to remember human beings are not automatically clear or logical thinkers. It may not be possible to convince some people that they are wrong even if all of the objective evidence shows that they are. At that point, unfortunately, we just have to let it go. I worry that about 35% or more of American voters are in that category. They are so committed to dishonest and anti-American politicians and social media personalities who care only about themselves and using their elected offices and positions of influence to increase their own wealth that the citizens cannot be convinced of him for those politicians’ dishonesty and lack of character. Hopefully, we and will pay attention to what they do and not what they say and will occasionally stop and think about what people who are against those politicians are saying. Of course, we all need to do that.
Notes:
- English Dictionary. Off-Line; NxeCcde24 Labs
- https://therulesofcivilconversation.org/
- https://yourbias.is/confirmation-bias
