I have a handful of Republican friends with whom I occasionally engage in political banter. Every time we get into an argument (despite the lack of heat), the script is nearly identical:
Step One: We establish a fundamental disagreement about (topic).
Step Two: We begin to banter back and forth about our personal takes on the issue.
Step Three: We each provide the other with evidence that we believe bolsters our opposing positions.
Step Four: I call into question the integrity of the institution from which they gather their evidence based on documented cases of clearly (and often admittedly) partisan fact-skewing/bending/manipulating/dodging. If they're willing to lie about "x" without admitting that they're lying, how can they serve as a credible source of information?
Step Five: They dodge the question of integrity, entirely, and move into the "Well, Both Sides Are Equally At Fault" phase of the argument.
Step Six: In the effort of maintaining a friendly atmosphere in which I appear reasonable, I acquiesce that their is blame to share on both sides, and things end convivially, with each of us feeling as if we've won the argument.
Step Seven: I feel like an asshole for not sticking to my guns and pointing out that more blame lies with their side than with mine, but realize that no matter how often I point that out, nor how many examples I provide demonstrating that Republicans lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate more than Democrats, they will never admit that they are wrong.
The difference between our styles of argumentation is that, if I am wrong, I will admit to being wrong unless I can find more evidence to back up my position. As someone who works in research, I try my hardest not to rely on a single source of information; any person worth their salt will provide documentation to lend to their own credibility. This is simply the way things are "done."
What rankles me, as it does most people who want things peer edited, is when people pull out "research" done by clearly partisan "think tanks," and attempt to supplement their findings with information from other clearly partisan "think tanks."
When someone whips out a study conducted by The Heritage Foundation, and supplements it with additional research from, say, Americans for Prosperity, that is not a credible argument. This is not a solid form of argumentation because the two entities are intrinsically linked; they are both Conservative "think tanks;" there is no balance.
People who engage in this form of "research" often present their "findings" without having them adequately peer reviewed, primarily because they misunderstand the definition of "peer," as well as the process, itself.
A peer is not someone who agrees with you; it is someone who works in the same field, but is not connected to you or your backers. They often hold similar levels of education, expertise, and prestige, and have the ability to analyze your processes, methodology, findings, and whether or not the results can be replicated.
A similar example is when the NRA argues that when more people own guns, everyone is safer, and backs up their assertions with opinion poll research gathered by asking gun owners if they feel safer.
There is no balance; of course guns owners are going to say they feel safer - they own the guns.
Another way you can tell if your source of information is not credible is whether or not they consistently admit to and correct their mistakes.
One of the most frequent complaints I hear from Republicans is how much they hate Rachel Maddow. I understand why they hate her - she embodies everything anathema to the Republican ideal:
She's a woman, she's young (39), she's educated (B.A. from Stanford, D.Phil from Oxford), she's a lesbian, she's outspoken, she's not blonde, and she does her research.
Rachel Maddow is the face of everything Republicans hate because she is able to hold them accountable for things that simply do not add up in reality. Worse still, when she is wrong, she openly admits it, apologizes for her mistake, and corrects herself where she erred.
This is something that is rarely, if ever, done on the other side, and to be fair, isn't often done by journalists on either MSNBC or Fox News. It's a sad state of affairs that reporters and pundits seemingly cannot admit when they are wrong, much less correct themselves in the process.
When people tell me how much they can't stand Maddow, I have to wonder if it's because they just don't like that she's doing a superb job at journalism.
The sad reality is that, while both sides have blood on their hands, it is important to note how much blood, and how it got there. Saying that both sides are equally at fault in American politics is like saying the both the murdered who stabbed and the doctor who tried to save someone are equally at fault for his death - the guilt is not shared.
No comments:
Post a Comment