My friend Robert Bidinotto
has written a lot at http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/ on the importance of narrative in
today’s politics and that the group that controls the narrative tends to win
the debate and elections. I found an interesting ebook by Arnold Kling called The
Three Languages of Politics that
talks about the kinds of narratives liberals, conservatives and libertarians
favor. He claims if you listen carefully liberals, conservatives and
libertarians each have a favored language that centers on a different axis.
Liberals talk about oppression versus the oppressed. Conservatives talk about
civilization vs. barbarism. (I'd say their reference to tradition translates
into preserving the collective knowledge that establishes laws and rituals that
preserve civilization.) Libertarians focus on freedom versus coercion.
I think Kling is onto
something and that it explains the acrimonious, usually unproductive cross
talking when people argue.
Kling gives some examples
of this in his book and on his blog, http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/.
Most recently he predicted how the narrative about the shooting in Ferguson
would play out. The media and the left would try to portray Brown as a victim
of oppression. The right would say that the ensuing riots show the battle
between civilization and barbarism and the need for strong order. Libertarians
would decry the use of coercive police force as threatening our freedom.
The more I listen to the
different spokesman of the three sides the more I see confirmation of Kling’s
model. I'm not saying it applies all of the time but I think he has identified
generally valid patterns. He doesn't try to explain why people gravitate to one
language, only that they do settle on one language and can’t understand why
someone who disagrees with them can’t see the blindingly obvious truth of their
position.
The link below has a nice,
almost hour long discussion by Paul and Diana Hsieh on the details of this
model and some ideas on how to apply them when talking with people who disagree
with you. While Paul’s preferred language is in the libertarian axis (as is
Kling’s) I believe anyone in the three groups could benefit by giving Paul’s
talk a fair hearing.
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/podcasts/2014-07-03.html Here is the general outline of points
in the pod cast.
- About
the "three languages of politics"
- The
differences in the three languages
- The
difference that the three languages make
- Examples
of the three languages
- Conflict
between camps
- Alliances
between camps
- Political
argument between camps
- The
debates over the Hobby Lobby decision
- Using
the three languages to become more persuasive
- Caveats
and cautions
- Three
take-home points
