The path of pugnacious debate and argument will not save democracy, nor will it win the next election for the good guys. The calm jujitsu of dialogue might.
Jeff - Look at Real Clear Politics - Democrats hold a 3-5 percentage point advantage on polling for a generic congressional ballot. The in-party usually loses a substantial number of seats in midterms for a first term president, even one much more popular than Trump - whose approval is underwater by record margins. The Dems only need 3 seats to get a House majority. All the normal political signals in this abnormal time point to a big blue win in 2026. Sorry to bother your profane cynicism with actual polling and historical facts. I realize that part of the abnormal times is the possibility of military occupation of major blue cities on Election Day. I would hope, without being sure, that that would spur, not depress, turnout in those cities
Thanks, Alan. My focus is not mostly on Kirk's audience. It's largely on the roughly 9 million people who voted for Obama, then voted for Trump, then voted for Biden. They decide elections. There's also still some unknowable number of traditional, decent, patriotic Republicans who supported Trump out of party brand loyalty, but are now appalled and dealing with the guilt of the whole thing. These voters are the ones who need to be motivated to turn out to swell a blue wave in 2026 (assuming we actually have a fair election.). They are not going to be persuaded by a message of "You are ignorant racists who helped destroy the country, but we'd like your vote. Here are the many things you must learn and the many vocabulary points you must correct before we will consider you in good standing as Americans." They are going to have mental humps to get over to vote D; the only way to help them get over the humps is to listen to them talk about the humps' shape, their height, their width.
One challenge in all of this is to acknowledge the pebble(s) in our own shoe(s) -- we have to have the wisdom and the humility to admit we have one (or perhaps more) things about our own thing that are not set in stone, about which, if we are honest, we have some uncertainty. And that can involve making ourselves vulnerable to the other. There's another side to this as well, and that is to point out something the other says that makes sense to us. It doesn't have to be a major point, but we do have to be willing that we agree with something the other person says they support.
All of this means we have to listen with an open mind and open heart to what the other is saying, and be willing to give them credit to be a thoughtful person in some ways.
This is a great article. I was ready to quit reading, but I would think - just one more paragraph. eventually, I finished it. I appreciate your covering the ideas of active lightening. I learned those techniques about a zillion years ago as a Management student majoring in Behavioral Science at Drexel University. I did not pursue the behavioral science path, but in my career in Business Process Optimization active listening was THE essential tool for getting people to buy in to using the new technology that we were selling. Without user buy-in, technology projects fail.
Sounds pretty similar to your political project, doesn't it?
On the other hand, I'm not sure that we need to change the minds of Kirk's audience. We want to change their vote, which is a different thing with a specific time horizon. Also, we need to get more of the people who agree with us to come out and vote. That's a strictly political goal, with different behaviors to achieve it.
I also recalled two different discussions that date back to my student days, both, oddly involving Willian Buckley. PBS would televise occasional shows with debates between Ira Glasser, head of the ACLU and Buckley. In those, they would at least be civil and listen to the other's ideas. At least that is how I remember it. One quote from Glasser I recall is when he sort of praised Buckley, saying that they had 'done this dance many times".
Buckley and Gore Vidal were brought together by one of the networks to 'discuss' daily the events happening at the 1968 Democratic Convention. No active listening there. Their conflict was a nice parallel to the conflict outside. It ended with Buckley revealing and insulting Vidal's homosexuality, and one of them storming out. I think it was Vidal.
Jeff - Look at Real Clear Politics - Democrats hold a 3-5 percentage point advantage on polling for a generic congressional ballot. The in-party usually loses a substantial number of seats in midterms for a first term president, even one much more popular than Trump - whose approval is underwater by record margins. The Dems only need 3 seats to get a House majority. All the normal political signals in this abnormal time point to a big blue win in 2026. Sorry to bother your profane cynicism with actual polling and historical facts. I realize that part of the abnormal times is the possibility of military occupation of major blue cities on Election Day. I would hope, without being sure, that that would spur, not depress, turnout in those cities
Thanks, Alan. My focus is not mostly on Kirk's audience. It's largely on the roughly 9 million people who voted for Obama, then voted for Trump, then voted for Biden. They decide elections. There's also still some unknowable number of traditional, decent, patriotic Republicans who supported Trump out of party brand loyalty, but are now appalled and dealing with the guilt of the whole thing. These voters are the ones who need to be motivated to turn out to swell a blue wave in 2026 (assuming we actually have a fair election.). They are not going to be persuaded by a message of "You are ignorant racists who helped destroy the country, but we'd like your vote. Here are the many things you must learn and the many vocabulary points you must correct before we will consider you in good standing as Americans." They are going to have mental humps to get over to vote D; the only way to help them get over the humps is to listen to them talk about the humps' shape, their height, their width.
Bullshit. The democrats have an approval rating just below that of syphilis. They have no one
One challenge in all of this is to acknowledge the pebble(s) in our own shoe(s) -- we have to have the wisdom and the humility to admit we have one (or perhaps more) things about our own thing that are not set in stone, about which, if we are honest, we have some uncertainty. And that can involve making ourselves vulnerable to the other. There's another side to this as well, and that is to point out something the other says that makes sense to us. It doesn't have to be a major point, but we do have to be willing that we agree with something the other person says they support.
All of this means we have to listen with an open mind and open heart to what the other is saying, and be willing to give them credit to be a thoughtful person in some ways.
This is a great article. I was ready to quit reading, but I would think - just one more paragraph. eventually, I finished it. I appreciate your covering the ideas of active lightening. I learned those techniques about a zillion years ago as a Management student majoring in Behavioral Science at Drexel University. I did not pursue the behavioral science path, but in my career in Business Process Optimization active listening was THE essential tool for getting people to buy in to using the new technology that we were selling. Without user buy-in, technology projects fail.
Sounds pretty similar to your political project, doesn't it?
On the other hand, I'm not sure that we need to change the minds of Kirk's audience. We want to change their vote, which is a different thing with a specific time horizon. Also, we need to get more of the people who agree with us to come out and vote. That's a strictly political goal, with different behaviors to achieve it.
I also recalled two different discussions that date back to my student days, both, oddly involving Willian Buckley. PBS would televise occasional shows with debates between Ira Glasser, head of the ACLU and Buckley. In those, they would at least be civil and listen to the other's ideas. At least that is how I remember it. One quote from Glasser I recall is when he sort of praised Buckley, saying that they had 'done this dance many times".
Buckley and Gore Vidal were brought together by one of the networks to 'discuss' daily the events happening at the 1968 Democratic Convention. No active listening there. Their conflict was a nice parallel to the conflict outside. It ended with Buckley revealing and insulting Vidal's homosexuality, and one of them storming out. I think it was Vidal.