Politics Isn’t Therapy: Why Facts Should Lead, Not Feelings

While it might be emotionally satisfying to vent in political discussions, calling a political figure a sociopath is unlikely to get those supporting the individual to reconsider their position.  Democrats today find it nearly impossible to understand how more popular votes were cast for Donald Trump than Kamala Harris.  Republicans (folks such as me) have an equally difficult time understanding how, after four years of Joe Biden, interrupted by his removal as a candidate, anyone could think it was a good idea to continue down the path we were on, much less put Kamala Harris into the White House.

Here is the suggestion.  Substitute the insertion of measurable and observable facts for allowing emotions to control the rhetoric.  Facts, logic, and reason are the best tools for addressing a topic, giving focus on specific outcomes on particular items.  Narrative, feelings, and emotion ought not overwhelm this approach.  However, I think it is fair to say this is where we are today.

The truth is that I have too often been guilty of doing the venting, instead of calmly, with conviction, explaining my point of view.  Asking questions where facts, not personal opinion, drive the conversation.  Last year, when Democrats and the media were telling us that Joe Biden was sharp as a tack, I instantly felt the need to call bullshit.  

What would have been better was to present a summary tape, along with all the raw footage, challenging any and all to look at the material in its entirety and conclude the man had the cognitive ability to be our President.  With digital platforms, including social media, rendering legacy linear media less and less important, it is my belief that it would have cut through and worked to the advantage of Republicans.  Instead, I took the bait and loudly conveyed my opinion that the man’s brain was jelly.  

One of the lessons I have learned in half a century in the political arena is that it matters less what you say than what people conclude after you have said it.  It should be possible to choose your words such that those who already agree with you are pleased, while also opening the door to those not already with you to consider what you are saying.  Obviously, those who are dedicated to your demise will not be moved, but so what?  Politics is a game of addition.

The death trap for anyone attempting to convince another is allowing conceit to dictate things.   “I am right, and you are wrong.  Basically, that is because I am for good things, and you are for bad things.  Sadly, that is because I am a good person, and you are a bad person.”  Cannot remember that being a winning formula.

For many years, the political debate did not center on what the desired overall goals outcome should be.  It was about how best to accomplish it.  For good or bad, that has changed.  

On one side, you have people arguing that since the goal is to have an inclusive society where everyone feels safe and good being who they are, that means drag queen hours for children in kindergarten are a good thing.  On the other side, you have those who argue the goal should be a society where all are treated fairly, and also held personally responsible for their behavior, with parents deciding what is best for their children, thus drag queen hours for youngsters are anything but a good idea.

From where I sit, persuasion is at least a possibility if you start with which outcome you desire on a specific topic, then provide your reasons.  Instead of debating which society a person is seeking, focus on the specific topic at hand—drag queen hour for very young children.  Do not succumb to which side is kinder or more in keeping with a religious point of view.  Just say this is about X.  Sure, have your supporting proof points at the ready.  However, whichever side you are on, do not let the topic yield to vague, who is the good guy discussion.  That leaves out all those not already committed to one side or the other.

Common sense:  Emotions do drive opinion.  That does mean facts are unimportant, especially if you want to persuade someone.  Let them choose on the topic at hand, not which side they are supporting.