Ask Auntie Pinko
November 13, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

I am a 48-year-old lifelong Democrat who has the geographic misfortune to be living in the heart of Bush country (West Texas). Around these parts, virtually any attempt at a rational discussion of Bush's failed policies, both foreign and domestic, is doomed to failure for two reasons:

a) You get the knee-jerk response of "Aw, hail, boy, y'all are just one o' them dag-gone liberals," as though the simple fact of my political affiliation totally negates any facts I may try to present;

OR:

b) Some smug, self-righteous cotton-eyed schmoe with an "Amurrica Love It or Leave It" bumper sticker on his Ford F-150 (and who knows less about politics than I do about particle physics) will ask the question, "Well, what would you have done differently?"

My questions for you are these: Is it really necessary for anyone who disagrees with Bush to have a whole slate of alternative strategies on hand to trot out on demand for any flag-waving yahoo? Is it not enough to SEE that something is wrong? After all, one need not be a dietician to know that a steady diet of crap isn't good for you, and neither should he have to present an alternative diet when he points this out.

I'm hoping you can give me some answers.

Thanks,

Alan Lubbock,
Texas

Dear Alan,

The answer to your question depends on the goals you are trying to achieve in your discussions with these neighbors. If you simply want to score points and feel good, Auntie is happy to provide you with validation: in a discussion focused on the value of an object, it is not necessary to prove that the object is superior or inferior to another object of the same class. If your premise is that something is bad (or good), in a classic debate you need only provide convincing evidence to that effect, and if your opponent cannot refute such evidence, or cannot offer more convincing evidence that supports their own position, you win the debate.

Real life, however, rarely follows the rhetorical rules of a classic debate. In other words, that hackneyed old tag, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still," remains valid. If your rhetorical 'victory' satisfies you, and if your satisfaction is your goal, you're fine. But if you're trying to open minds, let in new ideas, change thinking patterns, etc., such victory is counter-productive. To the discomfort of information that doesn't match their world view, you have added the pain of rhetorical defeat, even if your 'vanquished foe' refuses to acknowledge such defeat. S/he will be even less receptive to information that doesn't match her/his world view.

In other words, the cheap satisfaction of winning battles is a poor substitute for progress in achieving the greater goal. Argument for its own sake is fun, it's a way to blow off steam and vent accumulated resentment, but outside the context of a structured debate among those already inclined to think in similar patterns, it's not likely to change anything. What do you really want to achieve?

Auntie Pinko thinks that the most constructive thing we can be doing to advance progressive ideas may not be to tear down the regressive policies of those in power, nor even to provide our evidence of the superiority of those very progressive ideas. Neither tactic will be very effective on minds slammed shut, locked, barred, and chained against the intrusion of uncomfortable change. What are some tactics that do work? Well, the old classics offer some pretty good clues, starting with the Numero Uno: appeal to self-interest. How are the Bush policies harming your neighbors, in a way they can clearly recognize as harm? Shine the spotlight on that, without necessarily advancing it as an argument for change (overt arguments for change are likely to make people intensely uncomfortable and resistant to further thought processes.)

Other tactics include using humor. Auntie has been encouraged by how diligently some of our syndicated cartoonists are deconstructing the absurdities of current public policy - and don't underestimate the effectiveness of this 'slow drip' method!

But I would also recommend that we be cautious and vigilant not to succumb to the same weakness we deplore in others - closed-minded assumptions about each other, based on too little data. Just because someone has a flag sticker and a gun rack on their truck doesn't mean that you have no common ground with them. You might be surprised at how much common ground you share, in fact. Finding out exactly what that common ground is, and working from that perspective, is the most effective tactic of all. It requires that we acknowledge one another's humanity, and the commonalities we all share.

I doubt this has been exactly the answer you wanted, Alan, but I hope you're not regretting asking Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.