Posted by tallman at 4:59pm Apr 28 '06Anyone here read the Slactivist? Pretty good liberal blogger named Fred Clark. A while back, he wrote a series of articles about Empathy.
For example, he tackles the whole "What's the matter with Kansas?" issue. In the book of the same name, author Thomas Frank wonders why the majority of Kansans continually vote against their own economic self-interest. Slactivists makes a few distinctions, and ends up asking the question I think liberals should be asking themselves: "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?"
My advice has always been to be more persuasive, and asking "What's the matter with Kansas?" won't really get you anywhere, so I'm totally in line with Clark here.
Now before he answers that, he talks about part of the reason he doesn't trust Republicans and the Bush Administration:
Now, "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?"
So firstly, does this resonate with you? I thought it was an excellent observation, but at the same time, I tend to let stuff roll off my back, so I wouldn't say that either position (torture or abortion) is extreme enough for me to close down the wall of discussion...
Now, those of you who know me will not be surprised to learn that while I think this is a pretty good observation, I also think this is something we need to get past. When people take such extreme positions on issues, it cuts off discussion and ultimately becomes counterproductive. To me, the important thing that we need to keep in mind is the process. We can't just stop talking to the other side because we disagree with them. If we do, we'll be much worse off than we were before. We don't have to like each other, and we don't have to agree, but let's just keep the line of discussion up, you know?
A friend of mine once observed: "We tend to assume the worst of those we're arguing with; that he's ignoring this critical point, or that he understands what we're saying but is being deliberately obtuse. So we end up getting frustrated, saying something nasty, and cutting off any opportunity for real dialogue."
For me, this means growing a thick skin. I have a lot of you to thank for this. Debating on this site (and its precursors at 4d and TAS) has forced me to not only grow a thick skin, but also to welcome and consider new ideas and thoughts that might even be disgusting to me at first. But I could just as easily have just assumed that people like Four and [private] are evil because they favor this or that policy. Instead, I stuck around, talked it out (and thankfully so did they), and I think we're all the better for it.
What do you think? Is it good to have a thick skin? Are you willing to open up a dialogue with someone you consider reprehensible? Should you (or I) be willing to do so?
~[private]
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/03/empathy_part_4.html
Also, some of my previous thoughts (because I know you're all interested):
http://kaedrin.com/weblog/archive/000880.html
For example, he tackles the whole "What's the matter with Kansas?" issue. In the book of the same name, author Thomas Frank wonders why the majority of Kansans continually vote against their own economic self-interest. Slactivists makes a few distinctions, and ends up asking the question I think liberals should be asking themselves: "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?"
My advice has always been to be more persuasive, and asking "What's the matter with Kansas?" won't really get you anywhere, so I'm totally in line with Clark here.
Now before he answers that, he talks about part of the reason he doesn't trust Republicans and the Bush Administration:
Torture is, indeed, "morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly" indefensible. This is a line that cannot, ought not, must not be crossed.He goes on about this for a bit, but the general gist is that it's pretty difficult to take someone who is pro-torture seriously.
I hope you agree as well. If you don't, I'm afraid I'll regard you as suspect. It would make you one of those people I don't get, one of those people -- like Fred Phelps -- that I fear I'll never be able to view with empathy, never be able to understand. In short, I would no longer be able really to trust you, or to trust your moral judgment.
I haven't written nearly as much about torture as I should have. In part, this is because I can scarcely even believe this is something we need to say. Every time I look at this page and see that icon there on the right for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture I get this sinking feeling in my stomach. I can't believe we've sunk to this level as a nation, as a people. I can't believe that "torture is wrong" is a statement I now need to say out loud. I can't believe that torture -- freaking torture -- is an "issue" on which I am now forced to take sides. I can't believe we're even talking about this.
And I agree wholeheartedly with The Editors that torture is not something that can be defended, excused or minimized. When someone is pro-torture I cannot regard this as merely one of many political stances I should factor into the mix.
And let's be clear: this is not a hypothetical situation. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are all, emphatically and unambiguously, pro-torture. So are senators Wayne Allard, Kit Bond, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions and Ted Stevens.
These are bad men. Monstrous men. As The Editors wrote, they are wrong and they disgrace America. They do.
As it happens, I also disagree with almost every other political stance these men embrace. But even if that were not the case -- if you could show me some issue-guide checklist that indicated that Kit Bond and I agreed on the other 99 out of 100 issues -- I still could not overlook the fact that Bond is pro-torture. When you're in favor of sodomizing prisoners, I really don't care what your position is on ethanol subsidies or, well, anything else. When you're pro-torture, you will never get my vote.
Now, "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?"
The answer, frankly, is that we're baby killers.I don't know that the parallels are exact, but I think it's a fantastic point.
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm not trying to articulate or to engage their argument. I'm not concerned here with the merits or demerits of that argument, and I'm not concerned here with trying either to refute or defend it.
What I'm getting at here is that this is how we are perceived.
For American evangelicals and many Catholics, abortion is the trump card. Everything I have just said ... about torture parallels exactly how these folks think -- and, more importantly, feel -- about abortion.
So firstly, does this resonate with you? I thought it was an excellent observation, but at the same time, I tend to let stuff roll off my back, so I wouldn't say that either position (torture or abortion) is extreme enough for me to close down the wall of discussion...
Now, those of you who know me will not be surprised to learn that while I think this is a pretty good observation, I also think this is something we need to get past. When people take such extreme positions on issues, it cuts off discussion and ultimately becomes counterproductive. To me, the important thing that we need to keep in mind is the process. We can't just stop talking to the other side because we disagree with them. If we do, we'll be much worse off than we were before. We don't have to like each other, and we don't have to agree, but let's just keep the line of discussion up, you know?
A friend of mine once observed: "We tend to assume the worst of those we're arguing with; that he's ignoring this critical point, or that he understands what we're saying but is being deliberately obtuse. So we end up getting frustrated, saying something nasty, and cutting off any opportunity for real dialogue."
For me, this means growing a thick skin. I have a lot of you to thank for this. Debating on this site (and its precursors at 4d and TAS) has forced me to not only grow a thick skin, but also to welcome and consider new ideas and thoughts that might even be disgusting to me at first. But I could just as easily have just assumed that people like Four and [private] are evil because they favor this or that policy. Instead, I stuck around, talked it out (and thankfully so did they), and I think we're all the better for it.
What do you think? Is it good to have a thick skin? Are you willing to open up a dialogue with someone you consider reprehensible? Should you (or I) be willing to do so?
~[private]
added on 5:20pm Apr 28 '06:
Woops, forgot to include link to original article:http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/03/empathy_part_4.html
Also, some of my previous thoughts (because I know you're all interested):
http://kaedrin.com/weblog/archive/000880.html