In your experience and opinion, what has happened over past four or five election cycles to bring civil discussion into such disuse and the object of political disdain?
I thank you for this piece, and for the “backstory” that was its genesis.
In "Bicker, Battle, Broil, and Brawl" (https://graboyes.substack.com/p/bicker-battle-broil-and-brawl) I argued that our polarization came from Roe v Wade, Election 2000 (Florida), computerized precision redistricting, and social media. I might add residential and social patterns that have made it possible to never encounter people from the other side.
“Residential and social patterns” - I can’t help but think back to Jane Jacob’s descriptions of city life in Death and Life… the socio-economic mingling just doesn’t seem to exist in cities any longer. The opportunity to encounter someone from the “other side” occurs mainly through social media. It’s so much easier to be uncivil electronically than it is during a 1:1 meeting on the street.
The interesting thing about Haidt's research you cited here is the implication thereof. Volokh pokes at it a little bit, further down in the article:
> If it is the case that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, why is that? Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the [conservative] views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”
What the article is hinting at, but being very careful not to actually say in so many words, is extrapolating this point to its logical conclusion. As Jonathan Haidt has recounted elsewhere, he began as a liberal — a very committed one, who started researching moral psychology in an attempt to help Democrats win elections! — but his research and analysis made him move to the right.
If the notion that "conservative morality is a superset of liberal morality, thus conservatives can easily understand the liberal mindset but not vice versa" is correct, it strongly implies that what you're asking for here ("If you don’t understand your adversaries’ mindset, you won’t persuade me.") is literally not possible. When a liberal begins to understand the conservative mindset, *that is when they stop being a liberal.*
Very interesting point. However, I might add that Haidt's characterization reflects TODAY's liberals. I would argue that back in the day, when I was a liberal, people on the left had a far better understanding of conservatives than their counterparts today have. One example: At 18, I led the overthrow of the Democratic Old Guard in my hometown and became party chairman. Watergate unfolded during my two-year term. The local Republican Party Chairman was a family friend, and he and I spent many hours together politely discussing and debating over what would happen. I understood him, and he understood me. When Nixon resigned, he saw me on the street crossed over, and said, "Well, you got that one right, and I got it wrong. Hats off to you." Forty years later, he was elderly and retired in Arizona. I made a point of visiting him a couple of times when I was in that part of the country. We could disagree and still be empathetic friends. That would be unheard of these days.
To be fair, your point is consistent with Bob F’s and Haidt’s.
Those “liberals” were mostly center-left. And at minimum all of them believed in free speech and were not completely hostile to the free market.
I’ve not seen the details of Haidt’s study, but I would bet a lot of money that today’s center-left Josh Barro / James Carville types in fact do just about as well as moderates on the test in question.
That point aside, the main thing Bob’s and your arguments leave out is the simple information asymmetry point: most non-progressives today consume some left media, while very few progressives consume non-left media (all of the MSM save the WSJ being left media), so non-leftists are simply better informed about the other side.
Personally I believe that this is the single biggest factor. Whether we are more sympathetic, empathetic, or better at synthesis or anything similar notwithstanding.
Very very good words, as always. Still the greatest disappointment of my political life: Barry Goldwater wasn't elected in 1964, but my dad warned me he wouldn't win. Thanks for the remembrance of he, if he had been elected, would have been our first ethnically Jewish President.
Ethnically Jewish, but not at all Jewish by normative Jewish law, which recognizes only a child whose mother is Jewish (as defined by Jewish law)--and Goldwater's mother wasn't. On the other hand, they could've run Elvis Presley, who might have met the definition of Jewish under traditional Jewish law. Supposedly, his mother's mother's mother's mother was Jewish, which would make him Jewish under traditional law. The tombstone he designed for his mother has a Jewish Star, and he regularly wore Jewish emblems as jewelry. (His ancestry is disputed by some.) ... ... How;s that for a complete detour from the topic at hand? :)
My wife and I call those rabbit trails... And that's what makes dialogue so fascinating, and learning new things all the time. Did not know this about normative Jewish law, thanks!
The more liberal streams of Judaism no longer adhere consistently to the matrilineal descent rule. Interestingly, being a member of the Kohains (priestly class) or Levites (deputies to priests) is determined by patrilineal descent.
It is my observation that it is Trump's loyal followers (not to mention Trump himself!) who flagrantly violate all of these suggestions. I hope that Mr. Graboyes will take that into consideration in 2028.
Mr. Clemons, I would certainly agree that Trump and his supporters make the same or similar errors in communication, but I think the precise content of the list starting from the right might be a bit different. For instance, if you start from the premise that everything Trump says is correct and everything he does is clever, you won't persuade me. But I don't think there is any figure similar to Trump right now on the left.
I don’t understand what point you are making. My comment was meant to point out that while Mr. Graboyes’ suggestions have some merit, his one-sided portrayal of the obligation of the Democrats to practice them to have some chance to “persuade” him almost implies that his default disposition is to be persuaded by the transgressive abrasiveness of the Republicans. I see that you have already addressed this apparent one-sidedness in a separate comment – thanks for that.
It's certainly fair to say that there is “no figure similar to Trump right now on the left”, and that is a good thing. Trump routinely violates all of Mr. Graboyes’ “suggestions” for civil discourse – it would be good to see Graboyes take him to task for that.
Indeed, I long for more civil modes of discourse on both sides, and have written as such elsewhere. Kennedy and Nixon conducted an elevated debate, despite some fierce moments. Reagan and Mondale were radically different on policy, but the two were capable of amiable, civilized banter. Dukakis has a deficit of personality, but Bush vs. Dukakis was certainly two intelligent, respectable, and respectful individuals. I do long for those days.
Trump is Trump. He is sui generis. He will not change. And he will be in presidential debates no longer. His likely successors on the Republican ticket are mostly people with more traditional demeanors. Regardless of how one feels about J.D. Vance, he put on a respectable face in the VP debate. Rubio got down in the mud a bit against Trump in 2016, but his natural pose in debate is rather respectful. I can go down the list.
But again, the purpose of this piece was to offer unsolicited advice to those who are failing miserably at the task of persuasion. Were I to write a parallel piece about Trump and the Republicans, their answer would be, simply, "We've won everything. So, why the hell should we listen to you?" And they would have a point.
Yes, they would have a point. And the easy answer would be that what they say is true, but there is no reason to believe that Trump's glamor transfers to other Republicans or that Trump cares at all about party- or coalition- building. And in 2028, Trump will be gone.
I absolutely take such things into consideration. But, as I've noted in writing, at the moment, the Republicans are enjoying great success in persuading erstwhile Democrats to abandon their former voting habits. Democrats are having practically zero success in that quest. Harris lost ground over Biden with most ethnicities and almost all geographic locales. Not sure it's worth wasting the pixels to try persuading Trump and his acolytes to act differently. Why would they? But, long before 2028, I'll likely have opportunities to weigh in as you suggest. For now, concerning Republicans, I'm mostly focusing on the shortcomings of their policies--tariffs, drug prices, etc.
But your very good response here re: Republicans policies makes it all the more striking that you included not a single policy suggestion whatsoever in your suggestion to Democrats.
Changing their tone 100% but their policies 0% is unlikely to appeal to very many in the center, save perhaps if they were running against Trump himself again.
Do you really think that tone and style changes are literally more important than policy changes?
I absolutely wanted to avoid getting into policy recommendations. To some extent, I think policy is downstream from style. If they stopped vilifying, fabulizing, obsessing, and shouting and started listening and empathizing, I suspect their policy positions would change accordingly. The current platform is only sustainable in a world where they do not understand or care about the views of those outside of the coastal bubbles. View this 12-step program as opening the door to policy discussions.
2. Disagree mildly, but I'm troubled that I did not know Biden allowed that protesting.
3. I'm not a historian so I don't presume to use technical terms.
4. Yes, except I'm supportive of non-violent protest of Elon Musk.
5. Your point about diagnosing is persuasive, except that my experience with New Yorkers is that they are much more polite and helpful than Trump.
6. Yes!
7. ??
8. Agreed, but I can't help but notice how repeated "talking point" phrases also multiply (and thus become impotent) on the right when I listen to Republicans.
9. Yes! The electorate is far more complex than we think!
10. I'm confused.
11. Yes!
12. Yes, and I'm stealing: “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”
This is an interesting experiment in dialogue. It pushed some of my buttons, but it is an example of how everyone's truth is partial and incomplete. Now we just have to spend more time together gathering our pieces of truth to make a better world.
2. I recently asked a professor/friend which he would prefer. A demagogic university president who urged angry, potentially violent students to march on my friend's office for a few hours, or a university president who urged angry students to surround my friend's house day and night for months, singing and chanting at all hours.
5. In 1989, Donald Trump sponsored a bicycle race--the Tour de Trump. One stop was Richmond, VA, where we were living (having moved from NYC a year earlier). My wife's work colleagues were beside-themselves excited that The Donald was coming. One asked my wife whether she planned to go hear him speak. My wife (a lifelong New Yorker from Queens) responded, "Why would I want to do that? I just moved out of New York to get away from people like him." ... ... I think Trump fits perfectly the stereotypes--good and bad--of New Yorkers.
10. In other words, don't assume you are always right and that those who disagree with you are necessarily stupid or evil. Having a generous spirit toward those who disagree with you gives you a much clearer view of the world.
12. I stole Anton Chigurh's line, so feel free to re-steal it. :)
Interesting piece. I notice that you provide a lot of examples from the port side of the political conversation. In the traditional academic fashion, I suppose providing corresponding examples from the political starboard is an exercise set that will be collected next week.
Yes, I try to do the other side, as well, but there are several asymmetries built into the exercise. (1) For now, Republicans are in complete control of the federal government and, regardless of what one thinks of them, they have done a stunning job of persuading erstwhile Democrats to switch sides. In contrast, the Democrats are flailing badly, so I think they're the ones who need advice--and there are some willing to listen to advice. (2) My writing is written from a personal vantage point. And that point is that my natural tendency these days is to vote rightward (within limits)--with the caveat that I can be persuaded to vote leftward at times. I would love to see someone who is a mirror image of me write a similar piece. (3) Republicans have some terrible rhetorical tics, but they are different from Democrats' tics. At this juncture, Republicans may be rude and obnoxious, but they are mostly punching upward at Democratic elites. Democrats are prone to punch downward--vilifying ordinary rank-and-file voters . Accusing them of being stupid, racist, low-information, etc.
"Republicans are in complete control of the federal government and, regardless of what one thinks of them, they have done a stunning job of persuading erstwhile Democrats to switch sides"
I would suggest that the Republican Party representatives and Senators are a completely different party than Donald Trump's. Too many Senators and Reps are "RINO". The House has managed to pass almost no legislation, and the Senate has confirmed - by tiny margins - many of Trump's nominees.
The Republican Party will be entirely different after the end of their internal disputes, and I have NO idea how that will all work out.
Democrats are in lock-step; every Democrat supports every crazy idea. Trump WAS a Democrat, just as Ronald Reagan WAS a Democrat. So Trump is having some success in navigating a "middle way". Note, for example, that Elon Musk, RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard all WERE Democrats, before joining Trump.
This actually adds a layer to the persuasion problem. Trump is not a traditional conservative at the head of a party whose base is conservative. So, you also see debates where Trump-friendly Republicans and Trump-skeptical Republicans try to persuade each other. My comment on Mr. Clemon's point below partly reflects this.
I'll grant that President Trump himself has done a stunning job of garnering support from erstwhile Democrats (In fairness, Trump himself is also in this cohort). I'm not so sure the Republicans _as a party_ have done this. I think the Republicans have an opportunity to do this between now and 2028, but I don't see it as a certainty.
Thank you for this exegesis, Professor, if I may cast it in that light. You've brought light to a lot of issues and done so in a way that I find myself agreeing with, overall. And you've done so in a manner that should not be threatening to someone who is willing to consider alternatives; thank you for that. It gives me pleasure to find myself agreeing on so many points as I have begun to winnow subscriptions to other sites which, upon reflection, have not lived up to my initial high hopes. You, on the other hand, have hit it over the left field wall once again.
The family I am supporting in Kenya finally reached me telephonically this afternoon to say my latest transfer arrived safely. They are experiencing unusually heavy rainfall, and my earlier communication apparently got washed away on its way through the international ether. Meanwhile here in SE Ohio we have just received a flash flood warning -- I'll lay in some lumber tomorrow so I can start work on an ark for my family. (That's tongue in cheek, BTW.).
I need to go back and re-read your latest essay. At first blush I could find no fault. I need to go back and see if I missed something.
Delighted to hear all of that! Thanks. ... ... Not long ago, I wrote about how difficult telephone communications were in Kenya when I visited there in 1984--and how easy it has become in our time: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/hey-siri-what-is-hell
"In 1964, nearly 10 percent of America’s psychiatrists disgraced their profession by publicly declaring Barry Goldwater mentally unfit for the presidency." I'm not sure of that statistic, Professor. Fact Magazine surveyed 12,356 psychiatrists about whether Goldwater was mentally fit to serve as President. Only 2,417 responded. Of these, 1,189 said he wasn't. But, was 1,189 a tenth of American psychiatrists or only a tenth of Fact Magazine's sample? I failed to determine how many psychiatrists were practicing in the USA 1964 but maybe as a health care economist you have more complete sources.
I believe that 12,356 was the total number of psychiatrists in the U.S. in 1964. I just did some snooping and found a slightly higher estimate (c.17000). But my reading of the Goldwater controversy was that 12,356 was supposed to be the universe of psychiatrists at that time.
This is perfect. Thank you. I'm simply exhausted by the screaming insults and disdain. I think on some level, liberals think that with enough 'gotcha' moments and enough invective, they'll simply take control again. But Trump is merely a symptom of a far deeper discontent with politics and culture. Conservatives aren't going to scurry back, and if Trump fails they'll just move forward with a better candidate. It's going to take connection to win hearts again. More to the point, understanding. Maybe, as Bob Frank says below, it simply isn't possible. I hope not.
This was excellent, a much-needed dose of sanity. In 2008, I could debate with my fellow college students, liberal and conservative. No one was angry or cruel. No one got defensive and shut down discussion, except when I told some guy I thought astrology was a joke.
Thought-terminating mantras like “trans women are women” have replaced discussion. In online spheres, like Tumblr, where much of Gen-Z grew up, “TERFs don’t follow” became normal ways to ward away the merest threat of interaction with a single contradicting idea. “Zionists die” seems to have become more popular, in recent years. That’s not politics. That’s superstition and a horror of contagion that would have bewildered the people of Salem in 1692.
I can only add my own recommendation for future candidates:
13. If today’s Democrats continue to justify and fund Hamas, Iran, and their genocidal, mass-raping allies, they belong with them in the dustbin of history. The same goes for their right-wing and libertarian counterparts.
IN 19 years of teaching at five universities, my students supported Bush, Obama, Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Biden, Libertarians, and more. No one in my classes minded the ideological diversity. I received one professor-of-the-year award from a very left-leaning department because the students appreciated the fact that I was even-handed and did not use my lectern as a soapbox.
This was extremely interesting. Both the post and the comments. One comment blew my mind. Who knew that Elvis had any Jewish blood? If its true. One commenter asked what happened over the last election cycles, etc. among other things it was the forced insistence of impossibilities. Trans women are not women. trans men are not men. Drag queens in schools. 30 years ago would anybody have considered it acceptable to scream death to Jews? Other than groups wildly outside the pale like the KKK. And we have reinstituted segregation, whites or whatever it was for Kamala.
There was a wildly successful TV show named All in the family that made fun of attitudes like that it was wrong, in part, about people like Archie Bunker (I grew up in Queens) but he was a troglodyte. And you were not supposed to sympathize with him. Now he is the Democratic party. certainly in Queens AOC is probably his congresswoman. QED
Pretty sure Archie Bunker would be voting for Trump. Archie's rep would be either AOC or Nydia Velázquez. Trump's childhood home is represented by Gregory Meeks.
A fascinating piece where I agreed with almost all of it.
You mentioned not a single policy position, nor even a single talking point (e.g. “trans rights are human rights”).
If they are not running against Orange Man Bad, is it really the case that with the policies and (spoken politely) policy talking points of Democrats 2020-2024 you could actually be persuaded to vote for a Democrat for national office?
As I mention above (maybe to you), I consider policy positions to be in part downstream from rhetoric and mindset. A Democratic Party that ceased vilifying voters outside of the blue districts and started empathizing and listening to them and conversing with them would almost certainly abandon a good bit of their present-day policies.
In my 50+ years on this good green earth, the only U.S president in my lifetime that has given full throated support to socialist economics is Donald Trump. Here he is in his own words:
"We are a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it...So I will set a price, and when I set the price, and I will set it fairly according to the statistics, and according to everything else."
Centralized economic planning is foundational to a socialism, and here we have the president of the United States bragging about how control of the economy will flow through him. The only difference between Trump's approach and Marx's is that Trump wants to unilaterally control the U.S economy whereas Marx advocated for control by committee. But the end result is the same: centralized planning.
Nothing even remotely socialist or Marxist about Trump's comment. Government is a collection of services. All Trump is doing is setting prices on the government services. If he was truly socialist or Marxist, he'd be using the power of government to set all prices and force companies to accept his decrees. Trump isn't trying to "unilaterally control the U.S economy." He's not centralising economic planning, he's setting fees for government services.
You obviously have no clue as to what socialism really is:
Controlling what companies can produce - Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro: "We want the tires made in Akron. We want the transmissions made in Indianapolis. We want the engines made in Flint and Saginaw, and we want the cars manufactured here"
Controlling what prices companies can charge: - WSJ headline from March 27: "Trump Warned U.S. Automakers Not to Raise Prices in Response to Tariffs
Threat came in a call earlier this month, in which carmakers feared punishment if prices go up"
Controlling how much of a given good people should have - Trump: "Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls"
Using government power to promote labor over capital - Populist economist Oren Cass, defending MAGA republican Bernie Moreno's legislation preventing the closure of an Ohio factory: "So it may in fact be the case that keeping the Chillicothe plant open is the more socially valuable use of the capital"
This is the very definition of socialism. Marx has never been so proud.
"You obviously have no clue as to what socialism really is" ... Nice. That there is some world-class How to Win Friends and Influence People-type persuasive technique. I can take exception with Mr. Miller's view of socialism and yours as well. In my view, Trump's economic policies resemble corporatism, not socialism. Corporatism is the more polite cousin of Fascism. The stuff of pre-jackboot Mussolini (back when the New York Times loved him). Though a closer parallel with Trump's policies would be those of Juan Perón. Unlike socialism, corporatism allows private entities to exist--under close supervision by the government. The corporatist state might dictate prices, output levels, limits on imported inputs, and so forth. Corporatism allows the state to modulate where production lies on the capitalism-to-socialism spectrum. I have described corporatism as "franchise-model socialism." And it's often forgotten (or buried) that Mussolini was originally a conventional socialist, and Hitler's party overtly offered itself as a variety of socialism.
But, given that the topic of my essay is "persuasion," my guess is that any chance you had to persuade Mr. Miller ended by the time you completed your first line, accusing of cluelessness. After that opening sentence, this how the remainder of your comment sounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_BU5hR9gXE
Socialism is a term that has become completely bastardized in our current political lexicon. It is misused on a regular basis, mostly by people on the right who levy it as an insult in response to any policy they don't like. Medicare-for-all is not socialism. Food-stamps and welfare are not socialism. DEI is not socialism. European countries with nationalized healthcare systems are not socialist countries. Hillary Clinton was not a socialist. Neither was Joe Biden. Neither was Barak Obama. Neither was Kamala Harris. The economic policies of the left are not socialist, and yet the post I was referring to called them that - I should add with a certitude that apparently you find unpersuasive.
When I responded with an actual quote from Donald Trump that sounded an awful lot like something a socialist might say, the reply I got was some nonsense about Trump setting the price for "government services." We pay for government services via taxes; these aren't things we choose to transact in like we would in the private sector. The reply was a non-sequitur.
If you want to critique my response as being too dismissive, go ahead. There are times when someone's ignorance on a subject should be called out. The malignancy eating away at our social fabric has as much to do with the inability to persuade others as it does the expectation that any opinion or idea, no matter how outlandish, has to be treated with some level of respect.
We've sadly arrived at the point where people researching advanced scientific topics on their iphones while riding the bus should be allowed to debate those that have spent their lives studying those same topics. People should be allowed to "just ask questions" about topics that have been considered settled for decades. We've managed to bring back conspiracy theories like the moon landing was faked.
There was a time at an earlier point in my life where it was considered impolite to opine on topics that one knows little about. It was considered a social faux pax to misuse words repeatedly - like say, "socialism" - in conversation. These societal norms have been destroyed in part because people are not willing to more forcibly call out when someone has ventured into areas they know nothing about.
As for engaging with the substance of your reply, I think calling Trump's economic policies corporatist is a fair assessment. I don't disagree with it, but I would add that if one studies the history of.the 1930's when these ideologies were new and ascendant, there is strong "horse-shoe" effect where the right wing economic ideas like corporatism became virtually indistinguishable in practice and outcomes to left-wing ones like socialism.
Given the extent of the mixed nature of economies these days, it's hard not to equate virtually all nations save possibly North Korea and Venezuela (stuck in Marxism) as conforming to Mussolini's definition of fascism where the melding of economic power of corporations with the institutions (media) and the coercive power of the state. The Covid era certainly brought it out. Even the really nasty bits like anti Semitism is re-emerging. So Trump could qualify along with virtually all other leaders of today's nation states. Rand Paul and a few others are principled exceptions to this trend. Almost none of them are at Hitler's level but as Ayn Rand observed 50 years ago, there are "ominous parallels".
In another comment, I referred to this as "corporatism," which I described as "the more polite cousin of Fascism" and "the stuff of pre-jackboot Mussolini (back when the New York Times loved him)"
In your experience and opinion, what has happened over past four or five election cycles to bring civil discussion into such disuse and the object of political disdain?
I thank you for this piece, and for the “backstory” that was its genesis.
In "Bicker, Battle, Broil, and Brawl" (https://graboyes.substack.com/p/bicker-battle-broil-and-brawl) I argued that our polarization came from Roe v Wade, Election 2000 (Florida), computerized precision redistricting, and social media. I might add residential and social patterns that have made it possible to never encounter people from the other side.
“Residential and social patterns” - I can’t help but think back to Jane Jacob’s descriptions of city life in Death and Life… the socio-economic mingling just doesn’t seem to exist in cities any longer. The opportunity to encounter someone from the “other side” occurs mainly through social media. It’s so much easier to be uncivil electronically than it is during a 1:1 meeting on the street.
Precisely.
Any form of centralization robs local constituencies of political influence. It also pisses them off.
The interesting thing about Haidt's research you cited here is the implication thereof. Volokh pokes at it a little bit, further down in the article:
> If it is the case that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, why is that? Haidt’s hypothesis is that it is because conservative values are more overlapping than liberals–conservatives have a “thicker” moral worldview that includes all five values, whereas liberals have a “thinner” view that rests on only two variables. Thus, the liberal moral values are constituent part of the [conservative] views, but not vice-versa. So conservatives can process and affirm liberal moral views and liberals literally cannot understand how someone could be both moral and conservative–the moral values that might be animating a conservative (say, tradition or loyalty) are essentially seen by liberals as not being worth of moral weight. So conservatives who place weight on those values are literally seen as “immoral.”
What the article is hinting at, but being very careful not to actually say in so many words, is extrapolating this point to its logical conclusion. As Jonathan Haidt has recounted elsewhere, he began as a liberal — a very committed one, who started researching moral psychology in an attempt to help Democrats win elections! — but his research and analysis made him move to the right.
If the notion that "conservative morality is a superset of liberal morality, thus conservatives can easily understand the liberal mindset but not vice versa" is correct, it strongly implies that what you're asking for here ("If you don’t understand your adversaries’ mindset, you won’t persuade me.") is literally not possible. When a liberal begins to understand the conservative mindset, *that is when they stop being a liberal.*
Very interesting point. However, I might add that Haidt's characterization reflects TODAY's liberals. I would argue that back in the day, when I was a liberal, people on the left had a far better understanding of conservatives than their counterparts today have. One example: At 18, I led the overthrow of the Democratic Old Guard in my hometown and became party chairman. Watergate unfolded during my two-year term. The local Republican Party Chairman was a family friend, and he and I spent many hours together politely discussing and debating over what would happen. I understood him, and he understood me. When Nixon resigned, he saw me on the street crossed over, and said, "Well, you got that one right, and I got it wrong. Hats off to you." Forty years later, he was elderly and retired in Arizona. I made a point of visiting him a couple of times when I was in that part of the country. We could disagree and still be empathetic friends. That would be unheard of these days.
To be fair, your point is consistent with Bob F’s and Haidt’s.
Those “liberals” were mostly center-left. And at minimum all of them believed in free speech and were not completely hostile to the free market.
I’ve not seen the details of Haidt’s study, but I would bet a lot of money that today’s center-left Josh Barro / James Carville types in fact do just about as well as moderates on the test in question.
That point aside, the main thing Bob’s and your arguments leave out is the simple information asymmetry point: most non-progressives today consume some left media, while very few progressives consume non-left media (all of the MSM save the WSJ being left media), so non-leftists are simply better informed about the other side.
Personally I believe that this is the single biggest factor. Whether we are more sympathetic, empathetic, or better at synthesis or anything similar notwithstanding.
Yup!
Very very good words, as always. Still the greatest disappointment of my political life: Barry Goldwater wasn't elected in 1964, but my dad warned me he wouldn't win. Thanks for the remembrance of he, if he had been elected, would have been our first ethnically Jewish President.
Ethnically Jewish, but not at all Jewish by normative Jewish law, which recognizes only a child whose mother is Jewish (as defined by Jewish law)--and Goldwater's mother wasn't. On the other hand, they could've run Elvis Presley, who might have met the definition of Jewish under traditional Jewish law. Supposedly, his mother's mother's mother's mother was Jewish, which would make him Jewish under traditional law. The tombstone he designed for his mother has a Jewish Star, and he regularly wore Jewish emblems as jewelry. (His ancestry is disputed by some.) ... ... How;s that for a complete detour from the topic at hand? :)
My wife and I call those rabbit trails... And that's what makes dialogue so fascinating, and learning new things all the time. Did not know this about normative Jewish law, thanks!
The more liberal streams of Judaism no longer adhere consistently to the matrilineal descent rule. Interestingly, being a member of the Kohains (priestly class) or Levites (deputies to priests) is determined by patrilineal descent.
It is my observation that it is Trump's loyal followers (not to mention Trump himself!) who flagrantly violate all of these suggestions. I hope that Mr. Graboyes will take that into consideration in 2028.
Mr. Clemons, I would certainly agree that Trump and his supporters make the same or similar errors in communication, but I think the precise content of the list starting from the right might be a bit different. For instance, if you start from the premise that everything Trump says is correct and everything he does is clever, you won't persuade me. But I don't think there is any figure similar to Trump right now on the left.
I don’t understand what point you are making. My comment was meant to point out that while Mr. Graboyes’ suggestions have some merit, his one-sided portrayal of the obligation of the Democrats to practice them to have some chance to “persuade” him almost implies that his default disposition is to be persuaded by the transgressive abrasiveness of the Republicans. I see that you have already addressed this apparent one-sidedness in a separate comment – thanks for that.
It's certainly fair to say that there is “no figure similar to Trump right now on the left”, and that is a good thing. Trump routinely violates all of Mr. Graboyes’ “suggestions” for civil discourse – it would be good to see Graboyes take him to task for that.
Indeed, I long for more civil modes of discourse on both sides, and have written as such elsewhere. Kennedy and Nixon conducted an elevated debate, despite some fierce moments. Reagan and Mondale were radically different on policy, but the two were capable of amiable, civilized banter. Dukakis has a deficit of personality, but Bush vs. Dukakis was certainly two intelligent, respectable, and respectful individuals. I do long for those days.
Trump is Trump. He is sui generis. He will not change. And he will be in presidential debates no longer. His likely successors on the Republican ticket are mostly people with more traditional demeanors. Regardless of how one feels about J.D. Vance, he put on a respectable face in the VP debate. Rubio got down in the mud a bit against Trump in 2016, but his natural pose in debate is rather respectful. I can go down the list.
But again, the purpose of this piece was to offer unsolicited advice to those who are failing miserably at the task of persuasion. Were I to write a parallel piece about Trump and the Republicans, their answer would be, simply, "We've won everything. So, why the hell should we listen to you?" And they would have a point.
Yes, they would have a point. And the easy answer would be that what they say is true, but there is no reason to believe that Trump's glamor transfers to other Republicans or that Trump cares at all about party- or coalition- building. And in 2028, Trump will be gone.
I absolutely take such things into consideration. But, as I've noted in writing, at the moment, the Republicans are enjoying great success in persuading erstwhile Democrats to abandon their former voting habits. Democrats are having practically zero success in that quest. Harris lost ground over Biden with most ethnicities and almost all geographic locales. Not sure it's worth wasting the pixels to try persuading Trump and his acolytes to act differently. Why would they? But, long before 2028, I'll likely have opportunities to weigh in as you suggest. For now, concerning Republicans, I'm mostly focusing on the shortcomings of their policies--tariffs, drug prices, etc.
I agree wholeheartedly.
But your very good response here re: Republicans policies makes it all the more striking that you included not a single policy suggestion whatsoever in your suggestion to Democrats.
Changing their tone 100% but their policies 0% is unlikely to appeal to very many in the center, save perhaps if they were running against Trump himself again.
Do you really think that tone and style changes are literally more important than policy changes?
I absolutely wanted to avoid getting into policy recommendations. To some extent, I think policy is downstream from style. If they stopped vilifying, fabulizing, obsessing, and shouting and started listening and empathizing, I suspect their policy positions would change accordingly. The current platform is only sustainable in a world where they do not understand or care about the views of those outside of the coastal bubbles. View this 12-step program as opening the door to policy discussions.
1. Yes
2. Disagree mildly, but I'm troubled that I did not know Biden allowed that protesting.
3. I'm not a historian so I don't presume to use technical terms.
4. Yes, except I'm supportive of non-violent protest of Elon Musk.
5. Your point about diagnosing is persuasive, except that my experience with New Yorkers is that they are much more polite and helpful than Trump.
6. Yes!
7. ??
8. Agreed, but I can't help but notice how repeated "talking point" phrases also multiply (and thus become impotent) on the right when I listen to Republicans.
9. Yes! The electorate is far more complex than we think!
10. I'm confused.
11. Yes!
12. Yes, and I'm stealing: “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”
This is an interesting experiment in dialogue. It pushed some of my buttons, but it is an example of how everyone's truth is partial and incomplete. Now we just have to spend more time together gathering our pieces of truth to make a better world.
2. I recently asked a professor/friend which he would prefer. A demagogic university president who urged angry, potentially violent students to march on my friend's office for a few hours, or a university president who urged angry students to surround my friend's house day and night for months, singing and chanting at all hours.
5. In 1989, Donald Trump sponsored a bicycle race--the Tour de Trump. One stop was Richmond, VA, where we were living (having moved from NYC a year earlier). My wife's work colleagues were beside-themselves excited that The Donald was coming. One asked my wife whether she planned to go hear him speak. My wife (a lifelong New Yorker from Queens) responded, "Why would I want to do that? I just moved out of New York to get away from people like him." ... ... I think Trump fits perfectly the stereotypes--good and bad--of New Yorkers.
10. In other words, don't assume you are always right and that those who disagree with you are necessarily stupid or evil. Having a generous spirit toward those who disagree with you gives you a much clearer view of the world.
12. I stole Anton Chigurh's line, so feel free to re-steal it. :)
Interesting piece. I notice that you provide a lot of examples from the port side of the political conversation. In the traditional academic fashion, I suppose providing corresponding examples from the political starboard is an exercise set that will be collected next week.
Yes, I try to do the other side, as well, but there are several asymmetries built into the exercise. (1) For now, Republicans are in complete control of the federal government and, regardless of what one thinks of them, they have done a stunning job of persuading erstwhile Democrats to switch sides. In contrast, the Democrats are flailing badly, so I think they're the ones who need advice--and there are some willing to listen to advice. (2) My writing is written from a personal vantage point. And that point is that my natural tendency these days is to vote rightward (within limits)--with the caveat that I can be persuaded to vote leftward at times. I would love to see someone who is a mirror image of me write a similar piece. (3) Republicans have some terrible rhetorical tics, but they are different from Democrats' tics. At this juncture, Republicans may be rude and obnoxious, but they are mostly punching upward at Democratic elites. Democrats are prone to punch downward--vilifying ordinary rank-and-file voters . Accusing them of being stupid, racist, low-information, etc.
"Republicans are in complete control of the federal government and, regardless of what one thinks of them, they have done a stunning job of persuading erstwhile Democrats to switch sides"
I would suggest that the Republican Party representatives and Senators are a completely different party than Donald Trump's. Too many Senators and Reps are "RINO". The House has managed to pass almost no legislation, and the Senate has confirmed - by tiny margins - many of Trump's nominees.
The Republican Party will be entirely different after the end of their internal disputes, and I have NO idea how that will all work out.
Democrats are in lock-step; every Democrat supports every crazy idea. Trump WAS a Democrat, just as Ronald Reagan WAS a Democrat. So Trump is having some success in navigating a "middle way". Note, for example, that Elon Musk, RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard all WERE Democrats, before joining Trump.
This actually adds a layer to the persuasion problem. Trump is not a traditional conservative at the head of a party whose base is conservative. So, you also see debates where Trump-friendly Republicans and Trump-skeptical Republicans try to persuade each other. My comment on Mr. Clemon's point below partly reflects this.
I'll grant that President Trump himself has done a stunning job of garnering support from erstwhile Democrats (In fairness, Trump himself is also in this cohort). I'm not so sure the Republicans _as a party_ have done this. I think the Republicans have an opportunity to do this between now and 2028, but I don't see it as a certainty.
Thank you for this exegesis, Professor, if I may cast it in that light. You've brought light to a lot of issues and done so in a way that I find myself agreeing with, overall. And you've done so in a manner that should not be threatening to someone who is willing to consider alternatives; thank you for that. It gives me pleasure to find myself agreeing on so many points as I have begun to winnow subscriptions to other sites which, upon reflection, have not lived up to my initial high hopes. You, on the other hand, have hit it over the left field wall once again.
The family I am supporting in Kenya finally reached me telephonically this afternoon to say my latest transfer arrived safely. They are experiencing unusually heavy rainfall, and my earlier communication apparently got washed away on its way through the international ether. Meanwhile here in SE Ohio we have just received a flash flood warning -- I'll lay in some lumber tomorrow so I can start work on an ark for my family. (That's tongue in cheek, BTW.).
I need to go back and re-read your latest essay. At first blush I could find no fault. I need to go back and see if I missed something.
But thanks.
Delighted to hear all of that! Thanks. ... ... Not long ago, I wrote about how difficult telephone communications were in Kenya when I visited there in 1984--and how easy it has become in our time: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/hey-siri-what-is-hell
"In 1964, nearly 10 percent of America’s psychiatrists disgraced their profession by publicly declaring Barry Goldwater mentally unfit for the presidency." I'm not sure of that statistic, Professor. Fact Magazine surveyed 12,356 psychiatrists about whether Goldwater was mentally fit to serve as President. Only 2,417 responded. Of these, 1,189 said he wasn't. But, was 1,189 a tenth of American psychiatrists or only a tenth of Fact Magazine's sample? I failed to determine how many psychiatrists were practicing in the USA 1964 but maybe as a health care economist you have more complete sources.
I believe that 12,356 was the total number of psychiatrists in the U.S. in 1964. I just did some snooping and found a slightly higher estimate (c.17000). But my reading of the Goldwater controversy was that 12,356 was supposed to be the universe of psychiatrists at that time.
This is perfect. Thank you. I'm simply exhausted by the screaming insults and disdain. I think on some level, liberals think that with enough 'gotcha' moments and enough invective, they'll simply take control again. But Trump is merely a symptom of a far deeper discontent with politics and culture. Conservatives aren't going to scurry back, and if Trump fails they'll just move forward with a better candidate. It's going to take connection to win hearts again. More to the point, understanding. Maybe, as Bob Frank says below, it simply isn't possible. I hope not.
Indeed.
This was excellent, a much-needed dose of sanity. In 2008, I could debate with my fellow college students, liberal and conservative. No one was angry or cruel. No one got defensive and shut down discussion, except when I told some guy I thought astrology was a joke.
Thought-terminating mantras like “trans women are women” have replaced discussion. In online spheres, like Tumblr, where much of Gen-Z grew up, “TERFs don’t follow” became normal ways to ward away the merest threat of interaction with a single contradicting idea. “Zionists die” seems to have become more popular, in recent years. That’s not politics. That’s superstition and a horror of contagion that would have bewildered the people of Salem in 1692.
I can only add my own recommendation for future candidates:
13. If today’s Democrats continue to justify and fund Hamas, Iran, and their genocidal, mass-raping allies, they belong with them in the dustbin of history. The same goes for their right-wing and libertarian counterparts.
IN 19 years of teaching at five universities, my students supported Bush, Obama, Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Biden, Libertarians, and more. No one in my classes minded the ideological diversity. I received one professor-of-the-year award from a very left-leaning department because the students appreciated the fact that I was even-handed and did not use my lectern as a soapbox.
This was extremely interesting. Both the post and the comments. One comment blew my mind. Who knew that Elvis had any Jewish blood? If its true. One commenter asked what happened over the last election cycles, etc. among other things it was the forced insistence of impossibilities. Trans women are not women. trans men are not men. Drag queens in schools. 30 years ago would anybody have considered it acceptable to scream death to Jews? Other than groups wildly outside the pale like the KKK. And we have reinstituted segregation, whites or whatever it was for Kamala.
There was a wildly successful TV show named All in the family that made fun of attitudes like that it was wrong, in part, about people like Archie Bunker (I grew up in Queens) but he was a troglodyte. And you were not supposed to sympathize with him. Now he is the Democratic party. certainly in Queens AOC is probably his congresswoman. QED
Pretty sure Archie Bunker would be voting for Trump. Archie's rep would be either AOC or Nydia Velázquez. Trump's childhood home is represented by Gregory Meeks.
A fascinating piece where I agreed with almost all of it.
You mentioned not a single policy position, nor even a single talking point (e.g. “trans rights are human rights”).
If they are not running against Orange Man Bad, is it really the case that with the policies and (spoken politely) policy talking points of Democrats 2020-2024 you could actually be persuaded to vote for a Democrat for national office?
This would greatly surprise me.
As I mention above (maybe to you), I consider policy positions to be in part downstream from rhetoric and mindset. A Democratic Party that ceased vilifying voters outside of the blue districts and started empathizing and listening to them and conversing with them would almost certainly abandon a good bit of their present-day policies.
"...suggestions for Democrats on how they might win back skeptical voters."
First, repudiate wokism. Next, repudiate, socialist economics. In other words, repudiate Leftism altogether.
In my 50+ years on this good green earth, the only U.S president in my lifetime that has given full throated support to socialist economics is Donald Trump. Here he is in his own words:
"We are a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it...So I will set a price, and when I set the price, and I will set it fairly according to the statistics, and according to everything else."
Centralized economic planning is foundational to a socialism, and here we have the president of the United States bragging about how control of the economy will flow through him. The only difference between Trump's approach and Marx's is that Trump wants to unilaterally control the U.S economy whereas Marx advocated for control by committee. But the end result is the same: centralized planning.
Nothing even remotely socialist or Marxist about Trump's comment. Government is a collection of services. All Trump is doing is setting prices on the government services. If he was truly socialist or Marxist, he'd be using the power of government to set all prices and force companies to accept his decrees. Trump isn't trying to "unilaterally control the U.S economy." He's not centralising economic planning, he's setting fees for government services.
You obviously have no clue as to what socialism really is:
Controlling what companies can produce - Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro: "We want the tires made in Akron. We want the transmissions made in Indianapolis. We want the engines made in Flint and Saginaw, and we want the cars manufactured here"
Controlling what prices companies can charge: - WSJ headline from March 27: "Trump Warned U.S. Automakers Not to Raise Prices in Response to Tariffs
Threat came in a call earlier this month, in which carmakers feared punishment if prices go up"
Controlling how much of a given good people should have - Trump: "Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls"
Using government power to promote labor over capital - Populist economist Oren Cass, defending MAGA republican Bernie Moreno's legislation preventing the closure of an Ohio factory: "So it may in fact be the case that keeping the Chillicothe plant open is the more socially valuable use of the capital"
This is the very definition of socialism. Marx has never been so proud.
"You obviously have no clue as to what socialism really is" ... Nice. That there is some world-class How to Win Friends and Influence People-type persuasive technique. I can take exception with Mr. Miller's view of socialism and yours as well. In my view, Trump's economic policies resemble corporatism, not socialism. Corporatism is the more polite cousin of Fascism. The stuff of pre-jackboot Mussolini (back when the New York Times loved him). Though a closer parallel with Trump's policies would be those of Juan Perón. Unlike socialism, corporatism allows private entities to exist--under close supervision by the government. The corporatist state might dictate prices, output levels, limits on imported inputs, and so forth. Corporatism allows the state to modulate where production lies on the capitalism-to-socialism spectrum. I have described corporatism as "franchise-model socialism." And it's often forgotten (or buried) that Mussolini was originally a conventional socialist, and Hitler's party overtly offered itself as a variety of socialism.
But, given that the topic of my essay is "persuasion," my guess is that any chance you had to persuade Mr. Miller ended by the time you completed your first line, accusing of cluelessness. After that opening sentence, this how the remainder of your comment sounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_BU5hR9gXE
Socialism is a term that has become completely bastardized in our current political lexicon. It is misused on a regular basis, mostly by people on the right who levy it as an insult in response to any policy they don't like. Medicare-for-all is not socialism. Food-stamps and welfare are not socialism. DEI is not socialism. European countries with nationalized healthcare systems are not socialist countries. Hillary Clinton was not a socialist. Neither was Joe Biden. Neither was Barak Obama. Neither was Kamala Harris. The economic policies of the left are not socialist, and yet the post I was referring to called them that - I should add with a certitude that apparently you find unpersuasive.
When I responded with an actual quote from Donald Trump that sounded an awful lot like something a socialist might say, the reply I got was some nonsense about Trump setting the price for "government services." We pay for government services via taxes; these aren't things we choose to transact in like we would in the private sector. The reply was a non-sequitur.
If you want to critique my response as being too dismissive, go ahead. There are times when someone's ignorance on a subject should be called out. The malignancy eating away at our social fabric has as much to do with the inability to persuade others as it does the expectation that any opinion or idea, no matter how outlandish, has to be treated with some level of respect.
We've sadly arrived at the point where people researching advanced scientific topics on their iphones while riding the bus should be allowed to debate those that have spent their lives studying those same topics. People should be allowed to "just ask questions" about topics that have been considered settled for decades. We've managed to bring back conspiracy theories like the moon landing was faked.
There was a time at an earlier point in my life where it was considered impolite to opine on topics that one knows little about. It was considered a social faux pax to misuse words repeatedly - like say, "socialism" - in conversation. These societal norms have been destroyed in part because people are not willing to more forcibly call out when someone has ventured into areas they know nothing about.
As for engaging with the substance of your reply, I think calling Trump's economic policies corporatist is a fair assessment. I don't disagree with it, but I would add that if one studies the history of.the 1930's when these ideologies were new and ascendant, there is strong "horse-shoe" effect where the right wing economic ideas like corporatism became virtually indistinguishable in practice and outcomes to left-wing ones like socialism.
Given the extent of the mixed nature of economies these days, it's hard not to equate virtually all nations save possibly North Korea and Venezuela (stuck in Marxism) as conforming to Mussolini's definition of fascism where the melding of economic power of corporations with the institutions (media) and the coercive power of the state. The Covid era certainly brought it out. Even the really nasty bits like anti Semitism is re-emerging. So Trump could qualify along with virtually all other leaders of today's nation states. Rand Paul and a few others are principled exceptions to this trend. Almost none of them are at Hitler's level but as Ayn Rand observed 50 years ago, there are "ominous parallels".
In another comment, I referred to this as "corporatism," which I described as "the more polite cousin of Fascism" and "the stuff of pre-jackboot Mussolini (back when the New York Times loved him)"
I love this essay because I face these kinds of “criticisms” from many people in my life. Now I am armed with your wise words. Thank you.
Delighted. Good luck.
The end of the Old Greek democracy began with populists. Source: standard history curriculum of K-12.
A rabbit hole for you if you like: https://lyricstranslate.com/hu/majka-csurran-cseppen-english
I love going down the hyperlink rabbit hole. I'll give it a look!