How we talk about politics and how we think about politics is pretty messed up. Why? To paraphrase George Orwell, messed up thinking, leads to messed up talking. Messed up speaking, paraphrasing myself, leads to messed up relationships. That’s bad enough. BUT….
Messed up relationships creates a messed up democracy.
So if you are at all concerned about our public inability to have civil discussions about politics, I hope this post will help you out a little bit.
I’ve been thinking about this is a lot because I love talking politics. I mean, I LOVE talking about the philosophies, policies and personalities that make up the political environment. I love talking about it because 1) it’s my responsibility as a citizen to be aware and informed, 2) I think the American political system is truly unique and as close to genius as you get in these things, and 3) politics is a great topic to have intellectually stimulating discussions on.
However, I’m finding that it’s harder to find people who want to talk politics for one or all of these reasons.
Talking politics seems to have become America’s ongoing celebration of Festivus, an invitation to open the faucet of all our negative emotions and direct the stream at whoever is willing to hear (or not), or better yet, share those emotions.
There’s a big difference between discussing a topic for emotional catharsis and discussing it for intellectual growth. To be clear, the former isn’t a bad thing per se, but too much of it can quickly make venting an end in itself. As I noted in an earlier post on citizenship, this collective mass venting we do is fostering culture of fear, which is bad for our democracy.
So if we’re going break this cycle of democracy-destroying invective, we need to reset our thought process on politics.
Who doesn’t love a triple layer…. anything?
Cakes, hamburgers, chewing gum, doesn’t matter. Layering seems to be a go-to for our taste buds. Layer a bunch of flavors together and you get some kind of awesomeness, especially if one of those layers is bacon. So why not apply this layering concept to politics?
In the broadest sense, politics is a triple layer deal (though one could make the argument for four layers). Those layers are
- Global
- National
- Local
Now these three terms can refer to not just space, but also the categories that we sort information into:
- Global: events and issues
- National: policy and relationships
- Local: communications and personality
Unfortunately, these three levels often get jumbled up. Each is processed through the lens below it, we distill down to what we know. So we interpret an international event as though it happened in an American context and we engage with it based on how we feel and in context of who we’re relating to at a given moment.
Such thinking can create an emotionally cohesive narrative, but not a comprehensive thought process or political philosophy. It’s reactive rather than reflective.
For example, air strikes in Syria (global) get interpreted in light of discussions on refugees and Islamophobia in the US (national), and interacted with based on what we think about who is calling the shots (local).
Consider that after the initial chemical attack in Syria in 2014. Many within the Obama administration wanted to take action against the Assad regime. However, once President Trump takes action, criticism emerges. Why?
While the strategic reality on the ground in Syria has not changed much, besides getting worse, what has changed in the United States is a presidential administration and an increasingly antagonistic political public. This is a near perfect illustration of how our feelings and thoughts on local and national politics impact our thinking on global issues.
So how can we sort all this out? The simple answer, is to learn to recognize what we’re looking at whenever we consume the news and our ask ourselves one simple question:
Is this issue or event Global, National, or Local?
Global issues
As noted above, there are two components to this question: space-time global and theoretical global.
Space-time global considers the event/issue in terms of its location and magnitude in relationship to the individual. If it’s happening somewhere outside of your national borders, it’s a global issue.
It should be pretty easy to spot a theoretical global topic: climate change, human trafficking, trade, terrorism, etc. These topics effect most of the globe and can be spoken of in a broad way.
That’s not to say theses things don’t have local impacts, they do. But to the extent that they similarly effect large areas of the earth, we can address them globally. It’s often best to start our analysis at that level.
Theoretical global topics look at big ideas and concepts. You should expect to hear a fair amount of generalized language in this area.
Global issues should be thought of at the broadest possible level. They should also engender the greatest degree of humility as your generalized thoughts on these topics may be most open to error.
Never assume you know all the material info at this level.
National issues
In other words, is this thing happening within your national boundaries? If it is, then it should be of increased interest to you because it may be indicative of trends, or have a direct bearing on your social and political environment.
Because it’s happening at a closer distance to you, it should also promote a deeper awareness of the policies and persons involved. Especially in a country like America, public access to government documents allows for a great amount of detailed knowledge on a given issue and/or topic.
In thinking “nationally” about an issue, we should expect and demand that greater detail be present in any conversation on a topic.
Because we’re talking about policies and persons at this level, we should also be aware of how these things are institutionally connected, and how that impacts governance.
Local issues
At the most personal level of politics, we have the local. Weirdly, and this is true of myself, this is often the level of politics we pay the least amount of attention to.
In answering this question, think in terms of your local community, county and state.
Because this is the level of politics we are most immediately impacted by, it should influence how we think and talk about politics the most.
What do I mean by that? Your neighbors of different political persuasions should influence your political thinking more than whatever is overloading your social media feeds.
Why? Because these are the people you live, work and play with. In the event of a community emergency, they’re the ones you’ll organize with. Ultimately, thinking about local politics considers personalities and communication; who people are and how they interact.
Putting it all together
So let’s take an issue and break it down at each of these levels.
Why don’t we consider the allegations surrounding the Trump administration and its alleged collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election?
This is a topic that liberals seem to be as heated over as conservatives were with Benghazi. It’s a divisive issue that has become a dividing line for many. How should we think and talk about this topic? How can we do so in such way as to promote civil discourse and mutual understanding?
Global
This is a topic that has international implications in terms of US-Russia relations, US-Europe relations, and American leadership in the world to name a few.
Since this is the “big picture” level, we want to consider the big questions like
What are the allegations being leveled?
How does such actions help and/or hurt the major players (Russia, US, etc.)?
How did the Russians even pull off their election manipulation attempts?
What does this mean for democracy in general?
As you can see, these questions stay focused on the big picture and material facts. The goal is to identify what we actually know and what the major issues and questions surrounding the topic are. At this level, there’s no assessment being made about the issue, it’s merely information gathering and organization.
National
This is where we’re looking at persons and policies involved. National level questions address not just the “who” and “what” components of an issue, but they dig a little deeper to ask questions about motivation, power, potential responses, etc.
In the case being considered here, these are problem-specific questions that start to consider implications. Global level questions consider the material facts of the issue, but national-level questions start to unpack the meaning and possible interpretation of those facts.
It’s important to be careful here and recognize that a lot of speculation seeps into conversation at this level. This is where conflating terms and issues can begin, hasty generalizations are made and communication climates get poisoned.
Local
Because national-level questions can often be the point at which misinterpretation and miscommunication occurs, local level discussion, the final level of analysis, digs into our individual response. At this point, we have material facts, we’re aware of the issues and persons in play, now we go reflective.
How do we feel about this? Why? Where does this emotional response come from?
What do I think about the issues in play here? Why do I think that way?
How and why are we communicating ‘x’ way on this topic?
Here, we’re stepping back to consider how our own experience and emotions respond to an issue AND how others might as well.
Why it’s worth it
Honestly, this is perhaps the more difficult thought process, and it certainly doesn’t lend itself to the mile a minute world of social media. However, it is the most effectual means to creating relationships and conversations.
Through thinking in these terms and answering those questions we can become both more self aware and more empathetic. Both essential qualities if we’re to relate to those we disagree with.
Aristotle noted in his Politics that humans are uniquely political because of their ability to speak. Conversation allows for relationships, organization and community. If we can’t have good conversations about the issues that concern our communities, democracy dies. It’s that simple.