Josh Marshall takes a run at the centrist sanewashing of Charlie Kirk. The Ezra Klein argument that Kirk "did politics the right way." Marshall points out that Kirk was not a "debater" but a "debate me, bro" guy. The latter are provocateurs who use rhetorical pugilism to entertain. Lots of strawman arguing and so forth. Marshall says debate is good, but debate bros are useless.
I'm circling in on something else that I'm refining for a school talk in January.
Debate, actually, is kind of bad. Debate is a sport. There are tactics - of which people like Kirk and Ben Shapiro are good at - that can "win points" and "win" the debate. It's a zero sum exercise - as much of our politics is.
Instead, I think we need to argue more and debate less. Arguing seems angrier, but I don't think that's the way to look at it. When I would get into arguments in college, it was fun! Even arguments with my dad were engaging. The key thing, though, is not see at argument as a win-lose situation. When you argue, you have to defend your position. To the degree that you attack the other person's position, it should be from the perspective of trying to actually understand what they are saying, rather than creating a strawman to disassemble.
The best arguments that I have had are ones where I come either better understand their position and better understand my own. It's a process of discovery, not a zero-sum contest.
Losing that has crippled public discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment