I am sure many Facebook friendships were ruined this election season. Political rhetoric can be especially inflammatory and frustrating. When the stakes are high, as they are in politics, the allure of winning can trump the allure of learning, leading to fallacious arguments and nasty attacks. Some of the recent columnists in this publication are egregious offenders.
A key ingredient to fruitful dialogue is the principle of charity. This principle states that one should always interpret a view in its most persuasive and compelling form before criticizing it. A moment's reflection should convince the reader that this principle is regularly ignored in political discussions.
Suppose Alice believes abortion should be legally available. Then, suppose Bob, who is pro-life, discovers this fact about Alice, but knows nothing else about her. Bob might claim Alice holds her view because she has no respect for human life. But this is far from the most charitable interpretation of Alice's position. It would be more reasonable for Bob to claim Alice holds her position for rational reasons. After all, I've never heard anyone say, "I am pro-choice because I have no respect for human life." Similarly, I hope Alice would charitably interpret Bob's position. Indeed, I have never heard someone say, "I am pro-life because I have no respect for women."
There is a related issue at play here: ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is an argument that attacks a person - not his or her positions, but his or her character. It is easy to see that these arguments are invalid - one might be perfectly correct despite imperfect moral character. But these arguments are frequently used in political debates. For example, while discussing abortion, Bob might call Alice a heartless baby murderer. Even if Alice is a heartless baby murderer, the issue at hand is the legality of abortion, not Alice's moral character. When one's interlocutor isn't a heartless baby murderer - or whatever else he or she has been accused of being - these attacks are slanderous and thus even more objectionable.
People often use ad hominem attacks on their favorite punching bags: politicians. One of my least favorite claims about politicians is that they are in it for the power, for the money or to pursue all sorts of other nefarious goals. I do not doubt that corruption exists or that some politicians misbehave. But it seems unlikely that most politicians enter politics in the name of evil.
I know a few people, some at Brown, who claim they want to become involved in politics. Not one of them has ever claimed that they wish to gain power so they can oppress people, steal money or whatever it is politicians supposedly want to do. They all find politics interesting and want to improve the well-being of others. I would be surprised if President Barack Obama, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, or any other politicians did not meet those two criteria. Perhaps Romney's suggested policies might decrease others' welfare, but that is quite a different claim than the claim that Romney intended to decrease others' welfare.
Applying the principle of charity might also help us come to agreement. Suppose Alice discovers Bob is pro-life, and she responds by calling Bob a misogynist and saying she has lost all respect for him. This kind of language does not start conversations - it ends them. If Bob disagreed with Alice before, she has not given him any reasons to start agreeing. Even if Alice is correct that abortion should be legally available, she has alienated somebody who might have otherwise taken an interest in her points.
I think part of the problem here is the aforementioned emphasis on winning as opposed to learning. Sometimes, interlocutors have their minds made up from the start and do not consider their positions open for revision. In that case, the interlocutors don't seem to want to pool their information or perspectives. As long as Alice is interested in winning her argument with Bob by making the most devastating conversation-ending points, they don't find common ground or learn from each other.
I would like to briefly discuss the reaction to Oliver Hudson's '14 column ("Universal suffrage is immoral," Nov. 13). Whether you agree or disagree with Hudson's conclusion, it is not productive to attack his character. Unfortunately, many on campus, whether in comments on The Herald's website or on Facebook, did just that. Even though Hudson was arguing against democracy, something many students cherish dearly, I still find the reaction inappropriate. College should be a marketplace of ideas. If we are too dogmatic against marginal opinions and make sacrificial lambs of their bearers, we run the risk of turning college into a command economy of a few select ideas.
I am not opposed to political engagement or fruitful political discussion. Indeed, I encourage it! But uncharitable, ad hominem character bashing is neither fruitful nor engaged. And it just isn't very nice either.
James Walsh '13 is a logic and classics concentrator.
