No Politics at the Dinner Table
There is nothing more important in a democracy than a well-informed electorate. You may have heard these words before; if not from News Night with Will McAvoy, the main character of HBO’s The Newsroom, than maybe you have heard them in class or on the news. In fact, the idea dates back as far as Thomas Jefferson, as he encouraged this idea on many occasions. In a letter to Charles Yancey in 1816, Jefferson wrote:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
In another letter to Cornelius Camden Blatchly in 1822, Jefferson again reiterated the importance of an informed electorate:
I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the conditions, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man.
Regardless of when and where you have heard these words, I am sure you all thought the same thing: well, of course being informed is important! And I am sure you also did a mental check to remind yourself of the ways in which you have informed yourself — or perhaps how you have failed to do so.
Nonetheless, this assumption, that a well-informed citizenry fuels democracy may perhaps be overestimated. It is simple to accept an obvious ideal; yet realistically, if every citizen were well informed, than from where would political discourse emerge? In fact, this ideal may be much further away than we all expect.
According to a study released in September, 2014 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which surveyed 1,416 respondents, “little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one.” Also, “just over a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.” And “one in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5–4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration.” This information is shocking.
Americans as a whole are disturbingly uniformed, but I believe that the problem has deeper roots. As Americans, we have been repeatedly warned: “No politics at the dinner table,” a phrase and sentiment that relegates political discussion to the realm of the unpleasant. I understand the fear of offending your peers and worrying what they will think of you. However, by stifling ourselves, we also stifle any and all attempts at vigorous debate. Nonetheless, debate is required in order to expand our ideas.
As well as snuffing out debate, this attitude in turn makes us inept debaters. It takes time, practice, and exercised empathy in order to have a great debate. That, and a few key concepts:
1. The point of arguing, of debating, is not to win, but to learn. Lyndon B. Johnson aptly said, “You aren’t learning anything when you’re talking.” The point of debate is to bring in new information from another perspective that is different from yours. Of course, it would be ideal to change someone’s mind entirely, but this is an extremely rare circumstance. The purpose is for each participant to contribute credible new information in order to enlighten the other participant. If you do not change their mind, that is fine. But if you bring an educated opinion to the table backed by credible facts, then I assure you that you will make at least a small difference.
2. You must understand that the person you debate with is not trying to upset you. They most likely do not want you to take their argument as a personal offense. An argument may get intense but it should never become tainted with anger. You must be empathetic to their perspective, and you must act accordingly. Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes could very well shed some light as to why they think a certain way from their perspective.
3. No matter how energetically you disagree, do not assume that the other person must believe what they do because they are stupid. Do not even assume that they are ignorant. They simply have a different combination of sources than you. Their information set differs from yours. Additionally, their preferences and priorities are going to differ from yours. For example, a 22-year old young man who serves in the Armed Forces is likely going to prioritize military spending more than the 40-year-old woman who never served in the military. Similarly, if that woman has children in grade school, than she will likely prioritize education reform, whereas the single 22-year-old man will not. The accumulation of information between people is never the same, and neither is their prioritization of political issues.
4. There are no universalities. In a perfect world, abstract concepts such as freedom, justice, power, and rights might have unambiguous definitions. In this world, they do not. For example, while universal health care might seem like an obvious ideal, there are realities that make it more complicated. There is an opportunity cost to every dollar and minute spent on health care. There are even more widely accepted ideas, like the phrase and construct of “white privilege” that are not 100% true in every situation. I believe that it exists and is prevalent, but I also believe that certain stereotypes may improve a person of color’s position in some situations. The world is altogether too complex to be boiled down into simple truths and incontrovertible universalities.
5. Finally, it is imperative to be open to having your mind changed. Think about this: if you recently had lunch and were now meeting up with a group of your friends, and you had spinach stuck between your teeth, would you want someone to kindly tell you that it’s there? Yes, you might be a little embarrassed initially, but you will be thankful to that person for letting you know so that you do not walk around the rest of the day like that. Well, politics is very similar. It is okay to change your mind. What if someone really does it? What if they bring enough new information to your attention as to actually make you realize that your previous idea was not as watertight as you had thought? Wouldn’t you want to be more right? Is it worth changing your mind despite that initial embarrassment, so that you might walk around later and share your newfound belief? Being influenced is okay; it should be encouraged.
Now, I do not claim to be a superior debater myself. I believe that we all have areas in which we can and should improve. I believe that if we each attempt to overcome our fear of debate with our peers, than our society would be infinitely better for it. Politics affects and infiltrates every single aspect of our lives. As Americans we have the right to freedom of speech — yet we hardly use it when it matters most: every single day. One protest is great. Several protests may make a difference. Even so, we are not truly fulfilling our civic duties if we do not participate in vigorous, civilized debate each and every day. Listen to others. Appreciate their opposing opinions and perspectives. Let them influence you. It is okay to change your mind.
