Immigration debate? Stalled out on February 15. Infrastructure spending? Tax reform? No matter the issue, it seems reasonable compromise isn’t only impossible but also not the goal of our political leaders.
Today when it seems most feasible, gun control remains a non-starter in our political climate.
Since January 20, I’ve been sidelined with the flu and other illnesses. In that time, there has been a State of the Union, a long-term budget (busting) agreement, and an immigration debate. There have also been too many scandals to list within the White House.
What good is rhetoric if there is no real desire to reach political compromises?
What good is rhetoric if people assume each side is motivated by dark, sinister motives and not genuine ideals?
There is an ugly, simple truth: Voters, especially the motivated base primary voters, don’t reward compromise.
When we teach rhetoric, we assume we are teaching a useful critical skill essential to civic engagement and economic participation. Yes, there’s a value to teaching the theories and practices of rhetoric, but how much value in our current political climate? I do not know. That troubles me.
If voters do not want, will not accept, compromise, then our federal legislature cannot do anything meaningful. The all-or-nothing purity tests applied by ideologues to elected officials results in legislative paralysis.
Among rhetoricians and scholars who should know better, I hear fallacies used to critique politicians they dislike and the voters supporting those politicians. We don’t even practice what we teach in our classrooms. We aren’t good role models if we, over generalizing, assume the worst about people with whom we disagree.
A worse problem is how to deal with leaders who disregard facts and evidence. If our president doesn’t care about the truth, how can we teach students that the truth matters in policy debates? We can use the president as an example of the power of emotions, the power of tribalism — but do we then also encourage yet more tribalism and misunderstandings?
We should be able to argue facts and compromise. We should appreciate honest differences of opinion and listen to well-informed experts with whom we disagree. For facts to matter in policy debates, our leaders must demonstrate that they value facts. It’s disgusting that facts are now optional from debates.
I have no good answers. I know my views on many issues, shaped by scholarship and research, are increasingly discounted because they are associated with politicians who seem to lack core values. The fallacy of association (an argumentum ad hominem) hurts because I dislike the people claiming to represent social and economic theories I’ve studied for decades.
The president and the Republican party are more to blame for the current state of affairs than the Democrats, but the Democratic voter base is shifting solidly left with their own purity tests and lack of evidence on some issues (GMO foods and vaccines, for example, in some studies). Truth and data give way to emotion and shifting values.
I’m heartbroken by our lack of moderation in debate and the state of public rhetoric. Solvable problems are not being addressed. They are being used for campaign commercials and fundraising, further dividing voters.
What a mess we are leaving to the future generations.