On Today's Political Discourse, and why we need a reboot.

In the choice between the taboo discussion topics of Politics, Sex and Religion, give me sex or religion long before politics...

"United we stand! Not you - you stand over there."

We're supposed to be living in a society which champions Tolerance and Diversity, or at least that's what one might reasonably conclude based on the amount of lip-service paid by its most dedicated advocates. And that would be a fair assessment in some ways. Sex? Most people will accept you can do what you want with whomever you want. Religion? Same, provided it doesn't infringe on others' civil liberties.

Politics? Well, no. That seems to be the one field exempt from requirements of diversity, tolerance and mutual respect. Consequently, while we claim to be living in one of the most tolerant societies, differing opinions within the political sphere seem more divided and opposed than ever.

Respectful discussion seems a thing of the past, especially on some platforms (Hello Facebook, G'day Twitter!). Neither nuance nor complexity, neither empathy or compassion can seemingly be conveyed efficiently in 140 characters or less, so they tend to be done away with. Four-letter-words and 'isms' are much easier to pack into a tweet, however. It makes engaging with politics a daunting and threatening prospect- not a grand strategy in a democracy if you want people to be able to come together to shape a community for the betterment of everyone. That's my understanding of democracy at least.

Ok, I'm not a political scientist. I try to stay well-informed, but my background is pharmacology and science, not the humanities. And I know, I've only had thirty odd years on the planet, but these are some thoughts which have been percolating since, brought to a head by some recent events. Specifically, the Rise of Donald Trump, the issue of Transgender Bathrooms, the Pulse Orlando tragedy and most recently the successful Brexit campaign.


Stumping the polls

Brexit took a lot of people by surprise. Myself included. I mean, it was close (52%:48%), but like the preceding British General Election, the outcome was opposite of what the polls predicted. It says a lot when canvassed opinion largely proves inaccurate. It demonstrates that there are a lot of people out there whose views on matters simply aren't taken into account, or perhaps even assumed.

This begs the question, how do we (particularly in the General Election) get it so wrong? Maybe our data sets aren't big enough, or representative enough. Maybe people make last-minute decisions.

I think those factors all play a part, but maybe some people are also afraid to answer honestly until they reach the security and anonymity of the polling booth on The Day. That's a personal theory, and I'll try to explain why.


A change in the climate of acceptable discourse

I'm no political science guru, but my understanding is that diversity of political opinion looks a bit like a bell curve: fairly high distribution between the centre-left and centre-right, fewer in the moderate categories, and then dwindling numbers as you make it out to the fringes of the far left and far right.

Those low numbers at the edges are a good thing, as history tells some sorry tales about extreme movements on both sides. Meanwhile, those of us among and between the moderates of each side have been happy to talk it out over ideas and accept the public consensus through a vote. It gets tense, it can get heated, people disagree, but that's ok. That's politics. That's life, actually. Or at least that's how I remember it (good grief, I'm now old enough to use that phrase sincerely).

A new problem as emerged. The rise of political correctness happened. Now that was a good thing back in its heyday. It highlighted issues, made people more thoughtful of one another, encouraged diversity, helped combat discrimination. All good things. At some point though, something changed.

Certain views and opinions, quite reasonable and deserving of open, considered discussion, became taboo. It wasn't enough anymore to love and respect your neighbour despite your differences. The Western liberal ideal of 'Live and let live' (you know, 'Tolerance') wasn't enough. If you held a differing (AKA 'wrong') opinion, there was a problem, and you had to be called out for the terrible human that you were.

Support traditional marriage? You're homophobic.
Concerned about immigration? You must be one of those racists.
Question climate science? Planet hater!
Worried about Islam? Islamophobe.
Subscribe to the idea of using a bathroom according to your biological sex which is now totally archaic despite being the social norm not twelve months ago? Transphobic.

Topics around which you would expect to be able to find reasonable, honest, respectful discussion have become taboo. Any form of dissent won't be tolerated. If you have genuine concerns that you want to discuss, you need to choose your audience carefully if you want to avoid being accused of being any kind of -phobe or -ist.

Sadly, a lot of people believe that shutting down discourse is just as good as educating and changing someone's opinion. Well no. It's pretty much the worst thing you can do if you genuinely seek reform.

It does two things. Firstly, it makes people too scared to air their views at the risk of becoming a social pariah. Secondly, it makes people dig in their heels, become more resilient and more reluctant to change.

When you shut down discourse, you shut down inquiry. A person who can't ask questions can't learn and will have no reason to change their beliefs or opinions. They will still hold these opinions, you just won't know about it.

Ordinary, reasonable people with honest and genuine concerns are cowed into silence, but they don't go away and nor do their opinions. They become a part of that silent majority which has been surprising the pollsters.


The rise of the Political Fringe

What happens then, when these constituents have no voices to represent them in government? Moderate politicians are also susceptible to this kind of public intimidation and many are unwilling to represent people and issues classified as 'unsavoury' by the mob, for they too fear for their own reputation and careers. These constituents must consequently look further to the fringes to find those who are prepared to speak; to the eccentric and possible extremists, whose egos care little about public perception.

These are the characters who emerge when more reasonable and moderate politicians have been alienated by society. Constituents feel driven to support them, even though they too may find some of their positions extreme, simply because nobody else will.

Enter...


...Donald Trump.

The political Left is aghast at the rise of a figure like Trump. His political successes in the US have left many bewildered at how he could rise so far on his controversial platforms.

To my mind, by silencing perfectly decent, moderate people (with genuine, honest concerns) and their representatives with intimidation and horrible allegations against their character, it is they who have driven these people further to the fringe to seek representation. Personally, I believe Donald Trump is a consequence of a decade of poor conduct by his political opponents. They have largely themselves to blame.


What's the solution?

Let people speak. Let people discuss. Let people express fears, ask questions, seek answers, find greater understanding. Alienating people does not change people for the better. As we've seen, it only divides people further, pushes them to the fringes and makes the situation worse. Here's how I see it:

- If you simply called someone transphobic for being worried about grown men in the same bathroom as their daughter, you are a part of this problem and are making it worse.

- If you called someone 'Omar Mateen' (the Orlando Shooter) or homophobic for simply supporting traditional marriage, you are a part of this problem and are making it worse.

- If you said that the Brexit vote was simply a vote driven by racism, xenophobia and stupidity, you are a part of the problem and are making things worse.

Stop it.

What's needed is respectful discourse, no matter the topic. Appreciate that people have different values and reach different conclusions for different reasons. If you want to change someone's opinion, try to actually understand their position and how they arrived there, then develop an argument and engage them. But be ready to be challenged, because who knows - their own perspective may even bring you greater clarity on an issue, and open your own mind to new possibilities.


Look, at the end of the day all I want to see is people actually respecting one another. We are all in this together after all, whether we like it or not.

Final thought: sometimes the best way to start changing someone's mind is not to speak, but to listen.

SG


***

I was going to share some thoughts on the influence of Social Media and the loss of nuance upon this larger phenomenon, but frankly this was long enough for any person to suffer through and I dare say others have had the same insights and articulated them better elsewhere.
I still might approach this later but basically: YouTube, Twitter and (to a lesser extent) FaceBook are huge ideological echo-chambers from which, let's face it, it's healthy to take a break every now and then.