Recently, I engaged in a lengthy debate of ideals with a man who was the opposite of my views. It taught me a great deal. Here is what I learned:
The great flaw of the college graduate is the idea that intellect governs people's ideals. In reality, this is as far from the truth as you can get. Some try to rationalize this by believing that anyone who does not respond to logic and reason is not worth talking to. This is a terrible mistake because all humans can be reached, all humans can be persuaded. The success of advertising is proof of this. They must accept that the true nature of persuasion, and thus of politics, is emotion.
Emotion governs opinion. The partisan devision between conservative and liberal is most accurately mapped by emotion. The two sides are on opposite emotional spectrums. In effect, both sides are speaking different languages, and they both try to persuade the other with their own language. Naturally, this is an inherintly flawed approach doomed to failure. In the same way that languages do not have direct translations of concepts in another language, the liberal ideology and the conservative ideology have incompatible emotional means of persuasion that simply do not translate.
Liberal ideology attempts to persuade through logic. However, the ability to understand and work with logic requires a degree of intellect and learning that many human beings do not command. Logic requires an understanding of argument techniques and methods of claim and support. To win a logical argument, you provide claims with better support than the opposite side. Yet this only works when the other side has the ability to recognize superior logic and support. If that understanding is not there, then the entire effort is wasted. It also requires a certain maturity to realize when one is defeated and to accept that defeat, a trait countless human beings, both liberal and conservative, do not command. Thus, logic is a language that only works within a very small number of human beings, for only a small number actually has the opportunity to learn of logic, and an even smaller number of those people command the maturity necessary to concede victory to another in a debate. So in reality, liberals are only able to argue amongst themselves, debating policies and ideals that will effect a large multitude of people outside the circle of discussion.
Liberals become frustrated when logic does not work. This translates to the first emotion of liberalism: arrogance: "Well, if you don't understand my argument, then you are just stupid." In the opposing side, this creates indignation and animosity (no one likes to be called stupid and ignorant), two emotions detrimental to the goal of persuasion. Thus, success only occurs when there are enough liberals to democratically overpower those who are not persuaded by logic.
This success, ironically, is even worse. Success creates the emotion of the protector: the parent who makes their child wear a reflective vest when riding their bicycle on the neighborhood streets at 3 P.M. From the conservative inability to effectively communicate with logic, Liberals begin to believe that the other side is idiotic in every respect, and they become parents: dictating things for the other side when they have no real right to do so. They feel that it is for the other side's own good, and even if they don't want it, they should get it anyway because it is for the good of all.
Some who lack formal training can recognize a good argument when they hear one, and some with formal training allow belief to corrupt their sense of logic. These are not definitive stereotypes, but they do apply to a large majority.
In another contrast: the conservative businessman can command exceptional logic, but it does not overpower the fear of a change in the system. The dominant emotion determines the political ideology.
Conservative ideology attempts to persuade through fear. The fear of change, the fear of the unknown, the fear of anything different: "Those people are not like us, they will destroy everything we hold dear!" However, the emotion of fear is inseparable from ignorance. For example, the fear of death is the recognition of an event beyond mortal understanding. Fear can be controlled by a human being with will, people can defeat their fear of death. Will is created through intellect, the basic understanding that the source of fear is either untrue or can be defeated, or at least surpassed. Thus, both will and logic are commanded by intellect, and like how a great many humans do not have the intellectual capacity to command logic, a great many do not have the intellectual capacity to command willpower.
Some who have the intellectual capacity for willpower are unable to resist the emotion of fear, but in contrast, some people acquire willpower through an alternative path: wisdom. Thus, these are not definitive stereotypes, but they do apply to a large majority.
In another contrast: the anarchist and the terrorist are victims of exceptional fear, but this fear is of the establishment, not of change. Strangely, they are best identified as conservative because both desire a return to a situation of the past.
Thus, Conservative ideology relies on phobia to persuade, to promote action through the threat of some undesirable future. However, this fails to work on Liberals, as they command the willpower to recognize fear for what it is: an emotion that gets in the way of logic. Thus, conservatives become frustrated when their warnings of a terrible future go unheeded: "You are a traitor and you are weak because you do not have the strength to defend us from what we are afraid of!" In the opposing side, this creates indignation and animosity (no one likes to be called weak and ineffectual), two emotions detrimental to the goal of persuasion. Thus, success occurs when there are enough conservatives to democratically overpower those who are not persuaded by fear.
This success, ironically, is even worse. Success creates, or perhaps gives outlet for, the emotion of hate: the source of fear is something that needs to be destroyed so that the fear can go away. From the liberal immunity to fear, Conservatives begin to think that every Liberal is weak and full of empathy for the enemy, and they become tyrants: destroying anything they do not understand through violence, and persecuting anyone who does not agree with their policies. They feel that they will only be safe when everyone different is either dead or silenced. For absolute conformity, to the Conservative, is the true nature of peace.
When I began The Amateur Statesman, I wanted to do something different: something that could effectively create tolerance, understanding, and friendship amongst both sides of any argument. I recognize that this is an idealistic view, but are not dreams of idealism the best goals to strive for? How do you get anywhere when you decide what you have is as good as it is going to get? The future of human brotherhood is unattainable unless you reach for it: you can never get to the cookies on top of the fridge if you do not create a plan to get them.
Yet like so many others, I descended into the futile jungle of talking heads and frothing-mouth partisans. A place where volume and effective name-calling are the only ways to judge a victor. A barren wasteland of stupid tirades by both sides. It is not what I imagined for this blog. I imagined something that would actually persuade people, people of both sides of the aisle. And now I realize that the way to do that is through emotion, not logic, not through references to the past (no one cares about the past in America). But not just any emotion, emotions that are non-partisan.
Obama got elected by focusing on the non-partisan emotion of hope. Hope is a universal emotion, and thus he commanded the majority of voters, influential in both liberal and conservative camps (for a swing voter is simply a sheep waiting for the best whistle). McCain relied on the conservative dogma of fear, and thus he could only draw from one half of the voter base, and thus failed. Republicans are again attempting to use fear for the next election, and it will only result in their defeat (unless their attempts to manufacture fear through the media are successful.)
Hope. Self-Efficacy. Fraternity.
These are the emotions that unite us all. The emotion of knowing all will be well, the emotion that we can do whatever we set our minds to, and the emotion that we are all on the same team. Naturally, these emotions are evident in partisan minds: everyone hopes, everyone is determined to do something ("Yes We Can!"), and everyone like to be a part of something bigger. These uniting factors, these uniting emotions can bring members of both political dogmas together into an effective whole. The only problem is DOING it.
The way to do it is to evoke the non-partisan emotions in a way receivable to both sides. I believe this has been best done by story and by event. Many a horrible racist were turned by fraternization with a member of "the different", many of the peaceful have let loose the dogs of war in the support of patriotic fraternity. All have joined together in hard times to get something done: the co-racial labor unions of the early south, the bi-partisan donation of blood after 9/11.
Yet there is a way to galvanize these emotions in an artificial way as well: literature and emotional appeal. Upton Sinclair, a known socialist, transformed the socialism-phobic America into the world leader in food safety. Harriet Breecher Stowe brought the horrors of slavery to the minds of millions of the racially twinged. The emotional appeal of Martin Luther's 95 Theses changed the western world as we know it (via indignation and hope).
Thus, I believe that the Amateur Statesmen must turn to these emotions, not to logic, in order to build a better world. A world where members of all faiths, all cultures, can live together on one earth without conflict. Where all of humanity is united for the advancement of its whole.
Any comments, suggestions, or arguments will be most welcome here. It will help me build my new method and philosophy (which might be just as wrong as my last one.)
No comments:
Post a Comment