Hostility and futility in political dialogue

They say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but this never-ending election cycle has not been stinting in its efforts to retrain me. It appears, from what I hear and read, that lessons I thought I had learned from excellent sources long ago have been replaced by some diametrically opposed ones. I had been under the assumption that a robust exchange of ideas concerning political parties, candidates, platforms and such was healthy, but that personal insults, baseless accusations, and denial of easily proven fact were all beyond the pale. Evidently that is no longer the case.

Under apparently acceptable current standards, insulting those whose political views don’t match my own is the way to go. Stranger, relative, or long-time friend, it doesn’t matter. Just hurl invective. Let the rage build. Let spittle spray, literally or figuratively. Unbridled anger couched in unfiltered words is unlikely to change anybody’s mind, but what the heck? It lets you explode with the red-faced, spluttering fury not enjoyed since you were a frustrated first-grader on the playground.

You can enhance your insults by assigning unproven motives and agendas to those who don’t believe as you do. No need to provide proof. Just pick what you’d like to believe about your adversary, or what some unsupported web site or list of political talking points offers, and fire away. And don’t worry if some of the accusations you lodge are outlandish, unbelievable, or comically absurd. All that matters is that they support your position. You can be sure some people will believe them.

On the other hand, when someone assails your own political choices, you need not worry about the accuracy of their attacks. You simply tag whatever proof they offer with the name of the political party they seem to represent, point out that it thus cannot possibly be factual, and dismiss it. See how easy that is? If you need to study examples, check into social media on line or listen to comments on talk radio and television news discussions.

Attempting to reason with someone holding opposing views, even a friend, may not be all that productive. Studies have shown that offering clear facts that counter your opponent’s arguments, even easily provable facts, may not lead to a meeting of the minds. Actually, these studies have shown that, faced with such facts, the recipient of them often will not only remain unmoved, but will hold even more firmly to the argument you just proved wrong. This has been called the “backfire effect.”

It would be good if we could assume that the conflict and anger so prevalent now will abate after the election is over, but that looks doubtful. For one thing, modern election cycles not only seem to march in a nearly unbroken column, one ending and a new one beginning almost seamlessly, but completing an election doesn’t automatically lead to living together happily ever after. And harsh words, once spoken, are not easily erased. So what we end up with after a presidential election is not unlike a marriage with two spouses who don’t see life the same way at all, who don’t like each other, don’t trust each other, and who are looking for ways to outsmart each other, but who have no choice but to remain in the marriage. They must for economic reasons, for security, and perhaps, to use that overworked clincher, for the children.

In that unhappy but necessary marriage, we may tend to hold grudges not only against the other spouse, but against friends and in-laws we once respected but whose angry snarls, even if not directed against us personally, have left us with a revealing picture of them that we don’t like.

The future doesn’t look all that happy to me. I could be wrong. I have been many times before, and sometimes I was delighted to have been embarrassingly mistaken. May my propensity for missing the mark not fail me this time.

This story was originally published October 8, 2016 at 7:13 PM with the headline "Hostility and futility in political dialogue."