The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divides
“The point of the three-axes model is to give people a tool for communication.”
It’s Sunday. Half of my street will attend service at the neighborhood ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Even though I’m not a member and I don’t share their beliefs in the supernatural, I occasionally join them. I find that I walk away from their service feeling uplifted; I’m not certain why, but perhaps one reason is that it just feels good to connect with my neighbors.
The book Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Communication—the subject of this week’s Econtalk podcast—reminds me of the importance of connecting with people. We are social, tribal animals, especially men. Going to church and talking with the men in my neighborhood gives me a sense of belonging, even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything.
My most common Sunday activity is to hike with my wife and three kids in the local foothills. I love climbing to the top of a tall hill or small mountain and taking in the view. Often there is an unspoken race to the top, but sometimes there is an explicit race followed by prizes awarded in the form of ice cream during the drive back home.
In the winter, when the trails are too muddy, we seek out other spiritually uplifting activities. One option, though somewhat logistically complicated and expensive, is alpine skiing. Like hiking and church, skiing is a social activity that can bring people closer together through conversation. Riding on the chairlift allows for short personal conversations with family and is a good way to connect with strangers. Talking with strangers can be surprising uplifting. This week, Russ Roberts said, “Many of my favorite moments in my life were conversations with strangers.” I find that amazing. How true is this for you?
Skiing doesn’t have to be expensive. One can pick up a used cross-country setup for much less than a new alpine “getup.” Nordic skiing is similar to hiking, only faster, more challenging and more fun. At a slower pace, Nordic skiing can also be a good opportunity to talk with friends and family. It offers a beautiful escape in the winter months, in tandem with a continuous, inexpensive and time-efficient core workout.
At minimum, a family walk to the nearest grocery store or downtown shopping area can provide a mental break from the typical indoor frames of mind, chores, TV, internet, etc. Walking to Walmart doesn’t necessarily inspire great accomplishment, but it can provide relief on days when we just need to get out of the house, possibly because we’re short on time or family members aren’t feeling well. To make walking on flats more entertaining I sometimes bring my DSLR camera. Photography is like life and fishing: you never know what you’re going to get.
On weekends and vacations I try to find a balance between intellectual activities and athletic activities. Visiting bookstores and public libraries are two of my favorite “intellectual” activities.
In my twenties, when I had nothing better to do, I would browse the shelves of bookstores. I frequent bookstores less often now, but last weekend we discovered a local bookstore with excellent and thoughtful displays. They even sponsored an entertaining Monster Dog Pull. (Don’t miss the dog videos—especially the one of the Doberman).
For me, church is a new discovery—a new weekend possibility. I was not raised religious. I’m agnostic. And because religious dogma can deter me from attending, I try to find creative ways to motivate myself to attend.
One way to motivate myself, is to see church as a book club or poetry reading. It’s conveniently organized for me, and can be free, intellectually stimulating and emotionally gratifying. Most importantly though, it’s a good time for me to be introspective and reflective. I find many Christian denominations to be too full of sermons. A good sermon can be informative and entertaining, but I prefer a more personal connection. I like hearing personal stories, speeches and shares from my neighbors—more like honest conversations. This DIY-church format can be similar to a Toastmasters speaking club or an Al-Anon 12-step meeting. Both have their place and time, but neither is perfect.
There’s no perfect club. There’s no perfect church. There’s no perfect political philosophy. Unless we want to create our own club, or be alone, we have to make do with what our communities offer. Getting ourselves there can require discipline, creativity and a positive attitude.
Regardless of the weekend activity, it’s important to keep in mind the differing types of conversations, and differing languages that people speak.
This morning Rob Henderson wrote
Oddly enough, it’s possible that the lack of partisan rhetoric in my book actually backfired.
I responded with
Actually, the lack of partisan politics in your book is a huge plus.
And another commenter followed-up with
I wholeheartedly agree. It is rare to find books/posts/articles that just relay information without using it as a hammer to influence your politics. I do not like being told what I should think. That is my province.
This little exchange, inspired by Rob’s memoir, inspired this post, and brought to mind this wonderful excerpt from Arnold Kling’s book The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divided. Kling’s book seeks to teach us how to have better political conversations. He writes
Learning to speak other political languages can enable you to look at political debate from a point of view detached from your preferred heuristic. I am not saying that you should give up your preferred heuristic. However, you will find it useful to detach from it on occasion. Detachment can help you understand those who use different heuristics. It also might enable you to employ slow political thinking rather than fast.
Detachment can help us to see the merit in other points of view and avoid taking our own views to erroneous extremes. Detachment can lead us to take a charitable view of others' disagreement, rather than retreating into demonization. Learning the other political languages might help us to have conversations instead of shouting matches.
[…]
Taking a charitable view of those with whom we disagree is rare in the political media. Many of the most popular newspaper columnists, radio talk show hosts, bloggers, and pundits using cable TV or social media do exactly the opposite. They take the most uncharitable view possible of those with whom they disagree, and they encourage their followers to do likewise. They achieve high ratings, but they lower the quality of political discussion. If you have a dominant political language, then chances are that both your favorite public intellectuals and your most hated demagogues are guilty of doing this.
The strategy of being uncharitable focuses on finding the weakest arguments of opponents and denouncing those arguments and characterizing the opponents as having relied entirely on those weak arguments.
[…]
Few pundits of any persuasion attempt to be charitable. Instead, they play this game of "Gotcha." The net result for most people is that reading their favorite pundits actually reduces and narrows their understanding of issues.
Consider three goals that a political pundit might have. One goal might be to open the minds of people on the other side. Another goal might be to open the minds of people on the pundit's own side. A third goal might be to close the minds of people on the pundit's own side. Nearly all the punditry that appears in the various media today serves only the third goal. The pundits act as if what they fear most is that their followers will be open to alternative points of view. To me, these media personalities appear to be fighting a constant battle to keep their followers' minds closed. The saddest part is that I believe they are succeeding. Political polarization has risen.
Let me hasten to point out that I do not classify myself as a centrist. I am not looking for some sort of "Kumbaya" compromise that tries to satisfy everyone. I believe that on any given issue, libertarianism usually gets you to the best answer. However, the point of the three-axes model is to give people a tool for communication, not to steer the outcome of that communication in my direction.
That was a long, but important excerpt, so let’s summarize it. First what is a heuristic?
From Psychology Today: “A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows an individual to make a decision, pass judgment, or solve a problem quickly and with minimal mental effort.”
In conversation we don’t have to give up our preferred heuristic, but it helps to detach from it on occasion, just for a little while, so that we can understand the heuristic of the person we’re talking with. Easier said than done, I know. Maybe a good goal here is to try detaching and listening for a mere few seconds, then try to extend for tens of seconds longer. Take a small step. Trim. Then, see if I can hold out for a few minutes.
Finally, much political punditry appears to close the minds of the people on the pundit’s own side.
The pundits act as if what they fear most is that their followers will be open to alternative points of view. To me, these media personalities appear to be fighting a constant battle to keep their followers' minds closed.
My point of view: We need more thought leaders like Rob Henderson, Russ Roberts, and Arnold Kling; more people that will open our minds.
Whatever you do this weekend, keep in mind the importance of connecting with your neighbors and family members. And remember to talk to and love your children.
Alright, time to spend time with my family.