Are we talking about rhetoric or conversation? This and other articles by Mr. Kristof seem to suggest the latter, but that's not really the case, is it? The "torn social fabric" problem isn't about what happens when two people from different demographics meet at an airport and have a chat. It's about what happens when people get online, on TV, or on the opinion pages. That's where the fangs come out. And more often than not, it's where one person communicates to the public at large, not another individual. Ergo, rhetoric.
And contrary to popular opinion, rhetoric involves ethics. It's not about beating an opponent. It's about convincing people your view is the right one. You make an argument, cite some evidence, and use emotion to motivate (rather than manipulate). There is one core ethical requirement for this kind of communication: you must be on the side of the audience. You must want what's best for them. That means treating them like adults who are responsible for their own decisions. It also means treating them like human beings with autonomy and moral status. If you cannot do this, you cannot speak ethically.
There is a barrier to entry to the kinds of rhetoric Mr. Kristof wants more of--the civility of which he speaks. It's not much of a barrier, but it's there. Show me you understand, as they say in Judgement at Nuremberg, the value of a single human being. If you can do that, I'm listening.
39
Mr. Kristof has tried to step outside his tribal bubble, and without saying it, called for intellectual honesty and the moral requirement to at least understand what others think and why. This was an encouraging experience, until I read the comments and found that tribalism forms the premise for almost every comment. This mostly comes in the form of, "Yeah, I would listen to others, if they weren't so ignorant and intentionally evil. But if they could first show they think like I want them to, then we can talk." I think any outside observer, maybe even the Russians, would see that both sides are so bent on eliminating the voice of the other, and that both sides are so blinded by their version of zealotry, that it imperils our republic. So thank you, Mr. Kristof, for taking a moment to remind folks of their obligation to learn the mind of the other. Given the comments from people who are so sure that the other side is so far gone as the make this useless, I hope you have the patience to return to the topic repeatedly. Or maybe we should all reread Federalist 10, where we are reminded of the fatal effects of permanent, intractable factions on civil government, or as we like to say today, tribalism and bubbles.
72
Can't agree with Mr. Kristof, whom I respect mightily, when he says both sides "frequently spend more time demonizing the other side than trying to understand it". I really don't think progressives "demonize" Republicans--they express horror at the deliberate decisions regarding clean air, affordable healthcare, excellent education, maintenance of national parks and freedom from assault weapons--to name a few. This attempt to create false equivalencies doesn't work for me--because it's not true!
I've always thought that Trump was a shallow, narcissistic imbecile, but I didn't feel the strong revulsion that now overcomes me every time I see his face. The same is true for Mitch McConnel and Paul Ryan. It's their egregious actions and legislation that take away from the very qualities that make America a fine place to live--not a demonization of "the other side".
295
Excellent column. Can always count on Kristof to rise above the corruption and claptrap.
Reading both the NYT and WSJ is a good way to start.
As for “The Daily Me,” the NYT seems to have become just that, feeding a daily dose of fury to its enraged anti-Trump readership.
The glut of anti-Trump agitprop and the absence of objective reporting—and often of any reporting—of facts that exculpate Trump, or inculpate Clinton, Obama et al., are now daily NYT fare.
The Times would be wise to consider the law of diminishing returns. Its readers' minds have become increasingly desensitized to the addictive fury even as its writers have become increasingly shrill and nutty.
36
Nicholas has identified an age old problem: bias and prejudice aren’t amenable to fact or logic. But it takes a leader to make these failures of character a force. Trump is such a “leader”.
And, to be sure, money helps. The wealthy weirdos writing the script for the GOP Congress have managed to get elected a bunch of venal lackeys incapable of either thought or honor.
38
The difference is no longer between to ideologies, it is now the difference between adults and children. It is now painfully clear that many conservatives have no concrete believes aside from a the belief that the worst member of their tribe is better than best human outside the tribe. It is a stupid and dangerous way to look at the world, and has no place in a functioning modern society.
More good advice from a Conservative, no thank you.
29
More false equivalence. I cannot have a discourse with someone who denies climate change, opposes gun control, favors polluters over the environment and supports tdump and his cronies. Moreover, I don't want to.
85
My experience with progressives is they prefer emotions over facts whereas most conservatives argue from facts. For example -- in the opening to Nick's column he subtly slips in that Trump is mentally unstable and was partially elected by Russia. Both are progressive talking points - without a shred of evidence. The left wants to believe Trump is mentally unstable and that he colluded with Russia for no other reason than they want the results of the 2016 overturned. But there is no evidence Trump is mentally unstable -- and as our intel agencies and Rosenstein again said on Friday have said -- there's no evidence of collusion or that Russian activities changed a single vote.
Let's take another favorite topic embraced by progressives: Climate Change. Any attempt to engage with an alarmist on the topic only leads of cries of "flat-earther, anti-science" etc. as few know the science. And yet any review of the data shows many problems with the 1880-present global record of temps and storms and CO2 levels. I say this not as a partisan but as one trained in science (Ph.D.) with an emphasis on statistics.
Or cop shootings of Blacks: The progressive argument is that cops are stalking and killing Blacks, cops are racist, untrained, etc. When the more likely explanation for the higher incidence of Blacks being killed by cops is the higher violent crime rate for Blacks (7x that of Whites).
I rarely hear fact based arguments from progressives on these & other issues.
33
I love reasoned arguments. In fact, I thirst for them. But look at the people in the photograph. And consider the consumers of Fox News. What is their capacity to engage in reasoned debate? In answering that question, don’t be nice, and don’t worry about seeming to be a snob or an elitist. Instead, be honest. What troubles me about these times is the widespread inefficacy of appeals to reason and objective truth. It is actually a moral decadence.
28
One America has been dumbed down to the point where it believes an Elmer Gantry-style grifter who promises the rubes untold riches while he robs them blind. Another America doesn't believe the con man but can't get rid of him because his enablers in Congress have abrogated their role as a rein on the presidency. It won't end well.
43
The only thing I have learned from the conservative voices on the Times Op-ed pages is how much they are willing to say something nonsensical to try and prove their point. That's a polite way of saying they lie, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and just call them willfully ignorant.
30
Perhaps critics like Mr. Kristof need to re-wind any video tape that may still be available (and not blocked by legal injunctions ) which pre-dates the past 3 Presidential elections before casting a "stereo type" on the 40% or so of the voters/supporters of President Trump that their "cognitive functions" are impaired by ideological beliefs.
For me personally I originally was not a supporter of then candidate Donald Trump during the primaries, however my vote was for anyone other than Hillary Clinton on the basis of a documentary that PBS aired a month or so before the 1992 President election on candidate Bill Clinton about his time in office as Governor of Arkansas. The most dominant aspect that I recall from this documentary was how Bill with the assistance Hillary manipulated the Dept of Education in Arkansas to support for his re-election campaign to remain governor.
So whatever efforts the Russian campaign did on social media to disrupt the election had no bearing to influence my vote since it was the documentary by PBS 25 years prior to 2016.
Furthermore, a lot needs to be said about the fact that Hillary Clinton could not even carry (for a second time) her second home of Arkansas.
15
There is another side to this discussion also.
I just had a dust-up with a facebook friend(and neighbor) over a conspiracy article by Charles Krauthammer alleging that POTUS 44 has formed an army of 30,000+ who's mission is the overthrow of the US Gov't.
At first I assumed that Mr. K was posting a humorous article mimicking JK Rowling's The Order of The Phoenix - and the Obama's Army was styled on Dummeldor's Army.
Then, I realized that my friend believed this garbage.
I then asked him to do some research on this conspiracy before passing it on as factual.
My point is that we should be civil, but we cannot stand by and let ignorance reign.
54
So do I conclude that my observation that the Republican Party has gone to the dogs over the last 25 years and Trump's insistence that global warming is a hoax are merely opinions, equally valid or faulty? What's the point here? That there is no underlying reality? That I should respect the views of the far right and shrug off their utter disregard for facts and evidence? That I should seriously consider that Donald Trump might be one of our greatest presidents because his base thinks so?
Sorry, I found this column both confusing and disappointing.
29
Deep wisdom from Mr. K. We should have and advocate our views understanding that these views may rest on moral judgments that aren’t provable by reference only to facts and logic. At the same time we must maintain and strengthen our ability to be objective and to evaluate critically our convictions.
7
Mr. Kristof has tried to step outside his tribal bubble, and without saying it, called for intellectual honesty and the moral requirement to at least understand what others think and why. This was an encouraging experience, until I read the comments and found that tribalism forms the premise for almost every comment. This mostly comes in the form of, "Yeah, I would listen to others, if they weren't so ignorant and intentionally evil. But if they could first show they think like I want them to, then we can talk." I think any outside observer, maybe even the Russians, would see that both sides are so bent on eliminating the voice of the other, and that both sides are so blinded by their version of zealotry, that it imperils our republic. So thank you Mr. Kristof for taking a moment to remind folks of their obligation to learn the mind of the other. Given the comments from people who are so sure that the other side is so far gone as the make this useless, I hope you have the patience to return to the topic repeatedly. Or maybe we should all reread Federalist 10, where we are reminded of the fatal effects of permanent, intractable factions and civil government, or as we like to say today, tribalism and bubbles.
13
“When we stay within our own tribe, talking mostly to each other, it’s difficult to woo other tribes to achieve our aims.”
Consider the bias in that statement. Achieving “our aims” is the goal, which seems to preclude compromise to move society forward.
10
There is a second chasm in our politics, between the moderate right and the extreme right. Perhaps that could be used to change things. The NY Times and the Washington Post each have a small group of consevative opinion writers alongside their liberal pundits. Each of these moderate conservatives is highly opposed to Trump and his extreme right cohorts. So are moderate conservatives in the Republican Party who are afraid or too bought-off and complicit to speak up. Maybe an alliance of sorts could be forged
between pincipled conservatives and Democrats to roll back or at least stem the dominance of steam-rolling extremism on the right. This would mean exploratory talks between Republicans and Democrats in Congress aimed at an alliance less temporary than merely for one bill here and there. Could it happen?
10
A well written and balanced essay, Mr. Kristof which is rendered more or less meaningless in the real world when incontrovertible facts are now routinely denied and those institutions conveying said facts are accused of outlandish political bias and mendacity if the facts in question don't fit the accuser's narrative and thinking. The wild west anonymity of social media just fuels our national disconnect from reality and the toxic rise of incivility. Americans and apparently Russians pretending to be Americans, are now routinely yelling "fire" in the crowded theater of social media, with impunity.
18
Yes, most Americans are subject to tribalism and pre-conceptions, and do not wish to step out of their "comfort zones". Such a shame, for what had distinguished us from the homogeneity of much of the rest of the world has been our diversity and open-mindedness.
I, for one, prefer to be apolitical - to choose with a broad sense of values what is best for the greatest number of people to enhance the well-being of all. I choose my political representatives (whenever given a valid choice) by whom they are and what they do, not by empty words. I choose honesty and integrity, actions with a broad view instead of a one-issue focus, commitment to do the "right thing" regardless of political consequences.
If we do not seek excellence, integrity, intelligence and compassion, we will reap the dregs of humanity - the swamp that currently plagues this America.
These goals are objective - they do not, and should not, reflect tribalism or cult following. They do not seek fame, celebrity and fortune. They seek just compromise and cooperation in maintaining and furthering our diverse Democracy, for its inherent value.
A change away from this "new normal" is necessary. Perhaps the young, with their just emotional response to the latest slaughter of innocent children and the unquestionable avoidance of Presidential and Republican involvement, will bring about this change in the next election. This smells like the Vietnam era. I hope this new generation is as formative as mine was.
7
It may not be ideological blinders that upend us. We are, as far as we know, more intelligent than any other species. Reading history is a great fixer for ideological blinders. The ideologies of candidates should be open books for us to read. I have variously been astounded, angry and/or determined to make better choices after pursuit of truth from the past and have changed political views accordingly. It is not the ideology of politicians I detest; it is their survivalist instinct to lie, smear, destroy their opponent "by any means necessary," to borrow Malcom X's words, that sicken me. Some of these politicians masquerade as Christians, yet they ruthlessly apply their strategical claws to the very personhood of the "other" candidate and cleverly hide their very real agendas from my view. I do not know if I vote for a person of integrity or for the campaigner with the least scruples about ethics, justice and morality. Do those things matter to us anymore? Perhaps this Russian interference is healthy for us. Obviously the Russians have studied our proclivity to pay attention to disparaging algorithms, biased interviews and jaundiced reporting, and they have beaten us at our own game. Stunning! To see ourselves in the mirror the Russians have shown us! Could they have won if we respected each other and listened and discussed real ideological viewpoints from candidates?
4
If the argument were about the sides of the political spectrum then it would be possible to find a middle ground. The argument now is about humanity, compassion, reason and science. Sorry, I can’t accept greed, avarice, ignorance and nonsense as the other side of the argument.
25
Mr. Kristof, if I lived at the time of slavery, and listened to the slave owners’ side, I still would have said,”You’re wrong! I’m right!”
If I lived when women didn’t have the right to vote, I would have said to those opposed, “You’re wrong! I’m right!”
If I was in the South when blacks were blocked from schools, restaurants, the front of buses, I would have said to the segregationists, “You’re wrong, I’m right.”
I think too many in our country are not quick enough to reject views that on their face are inherently wrong.
Haven’t we listened long enough to the views of the NRA? They’re wrong! And so are all of the members of Congress who refuse to act on gun safety laws.
We have not been quick enough to reject their views. They are wrong.
61
There is civility and there are just blantant lies and evil. To be honest, I am getting tired of the fact that the Republicans are having to be ever-increasingly authoritarian to remain in power. To paraphrase the founding fathers, its the "Tyranny of the Minority over the Majority." That should be the Democrats new rallying cry!
16
The time is up for those that have been wrong. How this has happened so quickly is as simple as night and day, we are not in the dark anymore, the entire world has woken up. This already has become a reality for the political pretenders eveywhere as it will be for the writers who continue to deceive us with their disinformation. Those who are determined to hold on to the past will be left in the dust, no need to take anyones word for it either, all that is necessary is a willingness to open our eyes and see this truth for ourselves.
2
The social fabric of America has always been torn. Maybe not torn, but fraying along various edges. In fact some Americans (e.g. African Americans, American Indians) would say that America's social fabric has always been terribly torn in their portion of our collective cloth. The point being that while most Americans believe in our collective social fabric, Trump's racist and bigoted behavior has exposed how truly frayed America really is.
Racism, 160 years after a Civil War and 50 years after the Civil Rights Act, is sadly alive and well. Bigotry, mysogyny and other hatreds of "them" is openly rampant despite Americans proudly idolizing our democratic freedoms for every citizen including unalienable rights like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Open hatred of "them" provoked by Trump has not made America great. The opposite is true. Trump's policies, slanderous slurs and behaviors has made America ugly and now other nations in the world see that ugliness.
America may soon reach a cross road where a collective choice is made. Despite the open hatreds or today; I hope a vast majority of Americans will reaffirm our American ideals includeing how everyone is treated equally regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, religion (including none) or any meaningless categorization.
Making categories can lead to picking at and unraveling a frayed social fabric. Ending the hatred and respecting everyone equally strengthens our American cloth
6
I suggest that we each adhere to our beliefs in being true to ourselves. Support ideas and platforms that give vent to this personal truth. Do not attack other positions, just work for yours.
4
"But what does seem clear is that rigid ideological beliefs impair our cognitive functions. For many years, Philip Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania has been running experiments measuring the ability of thousands of people to make sound predictions." However, the dictionary definition of liberal is open-minded. And that is what I ascribe to. I am open-minded. I would agree with those who disliked Hillary Clinton. Her hubris in maintaining a private email server was misguided. Her avarice in accepting millions of dollars in speaking fees from the rich made her in ,my opinion an unfit candidate. In addition she was a terrible campaigner. As bad as she was she was eons better than Donald Trump. That is an assessment from an open-minded Liberal and a 3rd generation Democrat. I take a backseat to no one in my political views.
7
Every morning at 5:30 I wake up to NPR. Often my first utterances of the day would be censored on network TV. My cursing and raised blood pressure are a reaction to the easy deceit being propagated as fact by the president or his lackeys. The other morning my first emotion was not anger but utter despair as the names of the dead from the Parkland Florida massacre were rattled off one after the other.
I would love nothing more than to engage in civil discourse with those of differing opinions than my own. However when facts are irrelevant what is there to debate? It is impossible to reason with the unreasonable.
Our Alternative-Reality-Star president has no use for the truth. His rhetoric inflames the falsely held beliefs of his cult followers. How does one debate with an angry mob?
The recent indictments handed down by Mr. Mueller reinforces the harsh truth of our country...there are those that think things through and those that have no use for the truth and are instead roused by lies.
Crowd mentality has taken control, but I prefer my crowd to be mentally competent.
8
I find this lacking in the sad realities of the consequences of each sides' policies. When conservative policies are enacted, such as eliminating barriers to getting assault rifles (once banned in the US, lest we forget), thousands of people, including children die. When the Clean Water Act is attacked, when the EPA is turned into an arm of the carbon fuel industry, we all suffer - both short term in health effects and long term, as we get closer to the point of no return on global warming. When liberal policies are enacted, like fighting climate change, increasing access to health care, expanding our immigration rules, protecting public education and many more, thousands of people are protected, uplifted, and given greater chance of both personal success and improving the lives of all Americans. When conservatives start proposing laws and regulations that harm no one, then we can have a conversation about it. Until then, their policies are an imminent physical threat to the rest of us (and, not to leave them out, their OWN children and families!).
10
"But what does seem clear is that rigid ideological beliefs impair our cognitive functions." If Nicholas Kristof had not written that sentence I wouldn't have been confirmed in my beliefs that:
Republicans as a group are more willing to use lies and deceit as strategies than are Democrats, who are more likely to utter platitudes;
Platitudes become boring when repeated;
Platitudes are more likely to be ignored, and those who speak them more likely to be avoided.
We look for Russians to be our problem. The problem is here, in the U.S., where we have made punishment of our people a part of our economy, and international warfare the Trump card that sooner or later will be played by the man who bears that name.
If ideology is bad, the lack of one is worse.
6
It's difficult to have meaningful conversations with people who reject the scientific method as worthwhile and valid.
A large percentage of the human population values religious authority more than the scientific method. If forced to choose between religion and science, they choose religion. That sets us up for the rejection of rational discussion, and by extension, political extremism.
Teaching the scientific method and critical thinking are dangerous enterprises. They undermine authority and thought control.
7
Sorry, but false equivalency will not solve our problems. Only one side of our polarized society rejects scientific inquiry, considers the accumulation of wealth to be the only viable goal of society, and celebrates intolerance. Only one side attacks the judicial system and a free press as enemies of the people. Unless we vote the GOP out of office, and start educating the next generations to engage in critical thinking, there will be no solution.
10
The problem is intellectual laziness. Neither the Left nor the Right are willing to step out of their convenience bubbles to do any real investigation of facts. Most people in America have gotten to used to prepackaged processed food, technological progress and ideas. Add to that the overpowering urge to conform, to be part of the crowd and you have a recipe for national disaster.
6
Just two sides in America? Your problem is right there.
There is the hard left, and the hard right. That is true. These two groups are by far the loudest. But they are, combined, by far the smallest. You chose to ignore the vast American Middle, which makes up possibly 80% of our population. Some are democrats, some are republicans. Many, many more are independents.
We don’t walk in lock step to the left or to the right. Sometimes we swerve either way. It depends on the issue. That’s the trouble with today’s media. They think there are only two sides in this country, and they spend their entire bandwidth talking about that portion of our population that makes up maybe 20%.
I’ll give you some advice. You won’t win independents by ignoring them, or by demonizing your opponent. You’ll neither impress nor convince Middle America that your politics are what’s best for them without a vast amount of compromise to your principles. For more than two decades, republicans, democrats and the media have engaged in a policy of divide and conquer without mercy. And you wonder why we’re divided? You wonder why young men take guns to schools and kill kids when all they see and hear and read are the most extreme views your two sides can muster?
You can change that. Start engaging with Middle America. Get out of your echo chamber. Be willing to compromise, because America is vastly, mostly middle. If you want America to make sense again, engage the Middle.
11
Very difficult to have a civil conversation with the most devoted subset of Trump's base, who feel their tribal identity threatened by any awkward facts and resist awareness they were gulled: not just from embarrassment, but because if Trump is discredited, they have nowhere to go psychologically: no readily available alternative source of simplistic solutions, nostalgia for unrepeatable 'greatness' before blacks and women began to disrupt. Even for the open-minded, the great hope is for reconciliation and tribal cohesion, but there are inherent conflicts in politics, that will worsen with climate change. The supposed self-corrective qualities of the market are unstable and illusory, but accepting the importance of government and politics requires us to accept the importance of robust debate -- and civility. It has never been an easy lesson for humanity to accept, as other nations have found. The role of early and persistent education in the values of free expression, and the importance of government to realize moral values that a market cannot evaluate, and endangers by attempting to privatize, cannot be overstated.
2
One of the best tests of a position is to weigh it against an intelligent defense of the opposing view. As a slightly left-of-center moderate living in Texas, I have no shortage of conservative friends with which to do this. As fruitful as this is, it's more frustrating to debate with someone so firmly in their tribe that even simple facts can't penetrate, and in my experience this is a worsening problem.
In the 30 years since reaching voting age I've never registered or identified as a Republican or Democrat, because this can be one step toward an intellectually lazy "what does my team think, well I think that too" approach that lessens our ability to bridge our political divide.
5
To paraphrase Tetlock, the world is divided between Hedgehogs, who know a few Big Things, and Foxes, who know a ton of little things. As noted in the column, the Foxes are much better forecasters. They outline their conclusions in terms of probabilities and cite supporting AND contrary evidence in outlining their views. (Bravo to Mr. Kristof for calling out the issues surrounding the studies he cited in this column.)
But at this point, the world favors Hedgehogs. They are lot more entertaining. They claim to have The Answer, even though they often glib, cocksure and have an uncertain grip on the facts. They shout way, way louder than Foxes, don't sweat the boring, uncomfortable details and get much higher viewership on TV.
And, of course, in this political climate, nuanced political views get commentators relatively less attention. Woe to commentators who are brave enough to cut against the grain of their more loyal Hedgehog viewers and readers. They are much more likely get slammed more by the people who watch and read them to get reinforcement for their own views. They likely will get relatively little credit for taking the relatively harder road through disciplined thinking.
Unfortunately, the middle is becoming increasingly like a no man's land, where everyone wants to take a shot at you.
3
"But I do believe that all of us, on both sides, frequently spend more time demonizing the other side than trying to understand it..."
What's to understand? A person said to me that not all people who voted for Trump are bigots. No, but 100% of the people who voted for Trump voted for a bigot. If I engage with a Trump supporter the discussion quickly turns to them arguing with logical fallacies; Tu quoque amongst the favorite (but, but , Clinton, but, but Obama. There is nothing to understand from these people.
3
The challenge of cognitive bias becomes intractable when the opposition operates in a world of "alternative facts," making the very possibility of an honest debate on the merits impossible. When Trump and his enablers first deny that Russia hacked our election, and then try to undermine the investigation trying to get to the bottom of it, the problem is not "liberal" vs. "conservative" world views, but a fundamental and systematic dishonesty about objective reality. This dishonesty is also at work in the debate over what to do about climate change or gun control.
I am a progressive. Please publish a daily list of "inconvenient facts" designed to challenge progressive biases, and I will read it and digest it. In fact, I will welcome it as an invaluable service. But I doubt that the vast majority of Trump Republicans (and remember, something like 80% of Republicans support Trump) would be equally open to the basic facts about global warming or the Mueller investigation or why America leads the world in mass murder.
Now, maybe that's my cognitive bias talking. If it is, please prove me wrong.
10
Mr. Kristoff ends as follows:
"It should be possible both to believe deeply in the rightness of one’s own cause and to hear out the other side. Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."
Theoretically... I cannot possibly disagree; but in a U.S.of A. shaped by trump, sessions, ryan, mcconnell, et al, I very much fear the continuation of "false equivalence" that finds the high-minded media torturing itself against sounding out most republican views for what they are precisely -- horrible and fraudulent. Indeed, the views they present, and upon which they seek to act (or sit) are so predominantly horrible and fraudulent that any worry about not listening to 'the other side' that might otherwise strike my senses -- while the aforementioned pols and their donors bow to and pursue limbaugh and hannity insanity, and the 'actually deplorable' take that insanity on 'faith,' and hear nothing else -- is necessarily and 'ultimately' immaterial.
2
I appreciate your basic message of making sure we pay attention to intelligent arguments on the other side and that you aren't arguing that the "two americas" are equivalent. But you do seem to dismiss somewhat that there are factual statements included in your descriptions of two americas and one contains objective falshoods. One IS Alex Jones personified. So we aren't really talking about two americas. We have one america with a large portion lied to and manipulated into believing falsehoods.
3
The Squeaky Wheel... I think the fringe gets all the headlines, the middle, where logic prevails, does not. Most people, I believe can see the failure and the good in politics no matter what party they belong.
3
No. This is not the time to reach out and understand the other side.
Sherman’s March to the sea was not about understanding the confederacy. We are at war. It is an information war, a covert war. But it is a war, and it will not end in ‘understanding’.
The office of the Presidency is held by a Russian asset.
Parts of the Intelligence Community and Justice system are aware of this and are fighting back. Our democracy has been damaged by covert action. Both propaganda efforts we are aware of, and potentially direct vote counting interference.
The strength of our relationship with key allies has been weakened. They are rightly concerned that if they share information with the US, the President will give it directly to the Russians.
We need a new Sherman’s March, right through Russian infrastructure, bank accounts and hidden assets. We need to roll them up.
6
What we lack is leadership with principles and the courage to tell their own side they are wrong when they are wrong.
3
While the current polarization of American society is frequently offered as a new phenomenon resulting from historically unprecedented access to solipsistic news sources, the fact is that this nation has always been a cauldron of extreme differences in our perception of what America is and what it should be. We fought a Civil War more than a century before the Internet was conceived trying to sort those differences out.
Whenever we have overcome the most destructive tendencies of factions in our democracy, it has been when leadership appealed to us to see our self-interests fulfilled through broad reaching-policies: the New Deal, the New Frontier, diplomatic ties with Communist China are all examples of political leadership that cast broad vision or specific initiatives in a lens where most Americans could find shared interest.
We cannot ignore the proliferation of self-reinforcing echo chambers as a price for the many benefits of the Internet. But neither should we despair over our nation's ability to generate the electoral leadership or citizen-led movements to advance a common agenda.
Cycles of extreme factions will always be with us. However, our ability to rise above their most destructive tendencies--aided with a Constitution that receives amendments to stabilize change--has allowed us to be one of a handful of nations still existing under the government that founded it.
1
The telling example here is that ideologues incapable of seeing the implications of data when told the data refers to politicized subjects are quite capable of determining the implications when told the data refers to banalities like acne creams.
To me that means the ideologues can use their critical faculties but sometimes don’t. So a course in decision making isn’t going to help. And neither is more data.
The problem and it’s solution lie elsewhere. Unfortunately, sermons aren’t the answer either. Whaddaya do??
2
I agree with this opinion however something is missing. Isn't it true that those on both sides MUST educate themselves with the facts, not fake news but cold hard facts. The problem today is too many people don't read and those of a certain unnamed party only watch one channel and firmly believe that virtually every newspaper, local and major, as well as all of the other channels are fake news.
One has to ask themselves if it could be possible that only one network and only one major newspaper tell the truth. While all others misrepresent the truth or just plain lie?
4
Here's a simple illustration of why many progressives--and now a majority of Americans--feel like they are in a country they no longer recognize.
When Obama launched the ACA website--and it failed--he owned up to it. And vowed to fix it. Which happened three months later.
It such a failure for such a momentous program happened today, Trump would say Hillary sabotaged the website, or that the site is working great and we don't know what we're talking about. And Trump loyalists would believe his every word.
That's why the urge to be loud is so compelling. People get loud when they think 1/3 of their country have their heads in the sand or checked their brains at the door.
6
Democrats see the world the way they wish it was. Republicans see the world the way they fear it is. The former can be Pollyanna-ish and the latter unremittingly dark and fearful. (Yes, right wingers, you frequently sound very fearful.) These are pretty dissimilar psychological starting points from which to build consensus.
One has to admit that with the ascendancy of hard right talk radio, the right has been pushed much further to the right, frequently into some fairly indefensible positions. The left has no equivalent to right wing talk radio and therefore seems much less prone to the blatantly outlandish and screamingly partisan. They at least try to make a sensible argument. Granted, I've met more than a few nitwit liberals from Cambridge, Mass whose world view lies somewhere between just plain silly and excessively privileged.
So, how do we leave the unreasonable amongst us on the sidelines and let the slightly more opened minded among us talk to each other.
That of course presupposes that there will be enough of us left to have the conversation.
9
Kristof puts up a false choice. The loudest voices (as selected by the media) resemble the two choices Kristof serves up. But there are many people who don't fit anything close to those two descriptions.
He does get things right when he notes that "there’s some experimental evidence that our biased approach to getting news actually makes us dumb". Um, yes, most thoughtful people have noticed for a long time that "partisanship makes you stupid". Taking it further, deeply partisan people actively cultivate ignorance as a tribal virtue.
But Kristof quickly returns to his false choice narrative, closing with a call to "hear out the other side". What "other side", Mr. Kristof? The fact that you think in such binary and one dimensional way undermines your own message.
If we do feel the need to think in terms of a binary, I propose on one side
A) Those who attempt to eliminate bias and reduce the influence of prior conclusions, remain open to and actively seek new information, apply a broad set of frameworks with which to view complex issues.
B) The hyper-partisans. These are advocates, not analysts, who find, fit, and ignore facts and opinions based on their emotions and prior conclusions.
7
It's not a "false choice" Kristoff presents, but an observation of an increasingly common reality. Like you, he is decrying the dearth of your Side A citizens. Unfortunately, the preponderance of Side B'ers, who are not so much selected as they are influenced by partisan media on both sides, tips the conversation into a binary, tempting many who might otherwise be more rational to align with one side or the other, lest they be left out of the conversation altogether.
1
We have set up a local "conversations" group in an attempt to listen to one another, and converse civilly about the current political landscape. It isn't easy, but we try. Differentiating points based on facts, opinion, and emotional response helps keep the conversations from getting too heated. We aren't there to change anyone's mind, but to learn how we differ, and to discover how we agree.It will be up to citizens to unite; our Government is not helping.
7
The only way we'll begin to understand each other is to change within. The social contagion science says, that our change affects others. The more each of us are willing to look at our FEAR and intolerance and then do something about it, we'll see formative change in society. This is not an intellectual journey. It's the work of the heart.
14
Thank you, Peace Overtures!
May I gently suggest: ONE way to understand each other is to stop saying "the ONLY way."
3
Civility has a downside.When individuals on the left or right create their own facts, too often they are not challenged explicitly and directly.So Republicans have an issue with all immigrants and Democrats conflate legal and illegal ones, both with impunity, particularly but not exclusively in their own echo-chamber. Similarly, when the President lies ,Democrats use euphemisms to describe his behavior and when Pelosi takes the floor for an 8 hour Dreamer rant she is not called out widely for a stunt that served no purpose other than to show how out of touch she is with the Country's overall mood.
9
I agree. Civility has to exist within a framework of mutual respect and adherence to the rules of discussion and interaction, otherwise it becomes a disadvantage.
Traditional game theory says that there are three types of players: cooperators, takers, and grudgers. Cooperators are civil, and give you the benefit of the doubt. Takers use any advantage that they can get, using civility to cheat the cooperators. Grudgers act like cooperators until they get taken, then they refuse to trust the taker again.
Those of us who would rather be cooperators must learn to identify takers, and treat them differently from cooperators or grudgers. I guess that makes me a grudger.
2
Nick, there are facts, and there is intellectual dishonesty. You are interested in having an honest debate of factual viewpoints. How can you debate someone with a dishonest acceptance of fiction? Where debate is concerned, fact-deniers have exploded the Geneva Conventions for truth. It's sort of like trying to debate with one tongue tied behind your back.
39
Ask a Trump supporter this question; what would Trump do for you to lose your support of him? I've tried this and got a blank stare with no response. There is nothing Trump can do to turn off his base. You can't reason with such a damaged mind. The unwavering support of his base and the complicit treasonous GOP are what this country is up against. So we have to motivate the voters who don't vote to vote against the GOP. Stop trying to deal with closed minded greedy people who don't believe in facts.
49
The problem is that hyper-partisans see the world through an apocalyptic and binary lens. Thus, for a hyper-partisan opposed to Trump, anyone who is out of lockstep with *any* element of tribal dogma is labeled suspicious at very best and more often lumped into "Trump supporters". The same thing goes from a hyper-partisan on the right.
So the hyper-partisan actually generates an army of opponents out of whole cloth.
3
At 6PM on Friday evening, Fox News led its broadcast with mention of the FBI's missed information in the Parkland shootings. The news of Mueller’s indictments of Russians, based on FBI investigations, followed. What was the implicit message? “Don’t trust the FBI.” Kristof puts us into two tribes and accuses each side of failing to listen to one another. But this false equivalency misses the fact that those on the right are the constant recipients of heavily funded, ideologically driven misinformation. This is a major cause of our divisions.
45
Ron: Since the two items you referenced were the major news items of the day, I can't imagine that any national news program didn't include both stories. As to the placement of the two items, could it not just as easily be explained by the fact that the Parkland killings had dominated the prior daily news cycle and that the Russian interference story has been nearly daily fare for more than a year.
Since we're on the subject of implicit messages, I wonder how many programs with a progressive lean noted the indictment's reference to "unwitting" Americans acting in furtherance of the Russian provocations that evening? My guess is that their lede was that the indictment showed that Trump has mis-stated the involvement of Russia in our election.
3
It wasn't Jimmy Carter who threw the aptly-named Fairness Doctrine onto the dust-heap of history at the bequest of Tom Brokaw.
It was Ronald Reagan, at the bequest of Roger Ailes. And thus was begat Fox "news" and Rush Limbaugh as "entertainment" for brainwashing the rural masses.
The American people have been consciously and purposely driven apart by neo-conservatives (ie, right-wing radicals) since that time, 24/7/365.
A challenge for Mr. Kristof, whom I have great respect for: Find ONE editorial piece by anybody at Fox, Breitbart, Newsmax or any of the other right-wing outlets, that tries to make the point you are making today. Just ONE.
I'll bet whatever amount you'd like to choose that you can't. But, please, go ahead and try to prove me wrong on that!
68
While Kristof makes some valid points (and points to some interesting studies), there are a number of gaps and flaws in this column:
- "A 2014 Pew survey found that half of consistent conservatives and 35 percent of consistent liberals say “it’s important to me to live in a place where most people share my political views.” Kristof twists this into a false equivalence. There's a huge statistical difference between 50% and 35%! 50% clumping impacts the prevailing culture (and the outcome of gerrymandered elections) a lot more.
- He's omitted an important aspect: The fact that Conservatives refuse to acknowledge empirical facts. It's fine to have a meaningful debate with an informed and reasonable Conservative; but it's impossible to do this with a person who accept a baseline of truth and accept that "alternative facts" are as valid as real ones.
- He also omits the critical historical perspective: Which side has fomented the us versus them divissiveness (and outright hatred) for the past 25 years? Progressives never had people like Limbaugh, Fox, Drudge, Gingrich, Breitbart, et al. Our country is where we are because of what the Conservative Cabal has done over the past decades; progressives don't share that blame.
- Conservatism is based on absolutist beliefs; progressivism is based on relativism. Absolutists will never accept any credence in opposing viewpoints, whereas relativists might acknowledge some even if they disagree. That's the core problem!
40
Your distorted presentation of things is itself evidence of hyper-partisanship preventing reason from prevailing.
Some examples:
"There's a huge statistical difference between 50% and 35%". Well, "huge" is an ambiguous terms (you could say "bigly"). 50% is 1 out of 2. 35% is a bit more than 1 out of 3. Furthermore, any single survey is a starting place, not a vivid conclusion. Remember that this is a Pew survey - what people *say*, not what they do. Broadly speaking isn't it plausible that self-described conservatives hold views that make them more comfortable publicly stating their desire to be among "their own", whereas a self-described liberal is often holding up a self-image of "celebrating diversity", so would be less likely to "admit" a desire to self-segregate? Truly inquiring minds want to know - we want to see multiple studies. We want to see self-reported data supported by empirical observations. You know, the science thing.
"The fact that Conservatives refuse to acknowledge empirical facts." O-Kay... then. Thank you for proclaiming a "fact" about all Conservatives. Of course, any actual study would likely find that many self-described conservatives are reasonable in their use of empirical evidence. But to the "progressive" hyper-partisan, they are all - everyone of them - gun-toting, Trump-supporting, climate change-denying, biblical fundamentalists. Again, the problem is in the mind of the hyper-partisan.
2
What planet does Pew practice on? Can't it call reactionaries by the proper word, even if they don't even know who they really are themselves? I know real conservatives, and none of them would even think of voting for Trump.
5
An interesting perspective on this problem can be found in this recent Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/a-better-way-to-loo...
When I tune in to Fox News to find out how they are covering the latest breaking scandal, I am appalled by their mastery of brainwashing. Tucker Carlson twists his face in confusion as he pretends to conduct a Socratic interrogation. Sean Hannity makes provocative statements while sneaking in heresies disguised as assumptions that every one accepts.
It's now wonder we cannot have legitimate debate with Fox viewers. They have been prey for so long they don't even know it.
29
Wonderful, balanced piece. The difference however, is we would never see an op-ed like this in FOX-world...
17
And what of global warming. I have had it up to my eyeballs with this papers false equivalency. just stop.
14
Perhaps if we look at our (U.S.) own history we might remember that not too long ago (end of Cold War) the general assumption was that the manufacture, sale and distribution of arms was our de facto default gross domestic product. I would assume that our position has not changed except to take that history underground, off the record, and somewhere along the line someone got the brilliant idea to not only arm the world in its perpetual proxy, bilateral and unilateral conflicts but why not ourselves, too! A self-perpetuating machine is this scare-the-hell-out-of and arm-to-the-hilt force majeure! And we, the many, go round and round debating the pros and cons and the volume gets turned up and bang, bang go the guns. One of these days the first amendment will be challenged to augment the second in the use of a gun as a "free expression" of it's carrier in his/her defense of his/her stand-your-ground position and also the free expression to spend his/her money on whatever defensive measure that purchase requires. This is bigger than mere argument of who is right or wrong.
6
i am sorry but there is way too much false equivalence in this article. There is no Democratic Alex Jones out there. I hear of no progressive advocating destruction of its own government. And there certainly has never been a modern day Democratic president as unbalanced and loopy as Donnie Trump.
This undercurrent of nilhilism has always been present in modern day Republicanism but now has found its ways to the levers of power. I see nothing in their agenda that promotes building a more civil society.
46
No, we don't have our own Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh or even, really, our own FOX News. Which is good. It shows that we haven't completely lost our minds. But we do have Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Bill Maher, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee and many others, and we used to have Larry Wilmore and Jon Stewart. (Jon got close to hyperventilating from time to time, and his break has probably been good for his blood pressure.) But none of these people are screaming, hollering, jumping up and down, turning purple and flat-out lying to their audiences, or purposefully triggering their fear-response mechanism. And they're still there.
2
Let the baby boomers step aside. I'm one, who realizes that my generation has screwed up, bigly. Let the younger people (NOT Stephen Miller, who belongs in a rubber room!) take over the reins. They seem to get it better than we do.
12
I stand ready to "demonize" any side whose world-view limits the right to clean drinkable water , clean air and the ability to engage with the beauty of Public Land and sea shores.
I stand ready to demonize any whose world-view limits the ability to access the nation's judicial systems- unfettered. That limits access to affordable housing, health care and medicine; that limits protections against dangerous consumer goods flooding the market; that refuses to hold banking and financial systems accountable; that takes away protections from the vulnerable.... Yes- I stand ready to accuse all as Demons.
38
Re: "limits the ability to engage with the beauty of Public Land and sea shores."
You mean like the overwhelmingly "liberal" set who use nefarious tactics and endless litigation to thwart legal public access to the beach at their homes in Malibu?
2
When I attempt to engage with Trump supporters, either in person or online, in the majority of cases I am accused of being a "brainwashed liberal" repeating "talking points" or variant thereof within the first few minutes. At that point, I politely say "If you will not at least acknowledge that I have given just as much thought to my viewpoints as you have to yours, there is no point in discussing," and disengage. I myself would never accuse a Fox-watcher of being manipulated or brainwashed, even if I think it might be true in some instances, because there cannot be a civil discussion after that accusation is made. So I can only assume that conservatives of this ilk don't actually want to discuss anything, just dictate.
16
I challenge anyone and everyone to find an equivalent opinion piece on Fox News - or any right leaning media outlet - urging Conservatives to listen to Progressives and to consider their point of view.
33
I think you make a good point here, Nick, but what are the valid conservative ideas and who are the worthwhile moderate voices you mention, so that I might read / listen and learn from them? Most of such people have been kicked out of or left the GOP for the very fact of being moderate. That party is criminalized now. It's a mob, intent on "mobocracy" or worse, Fascism. Please advise as to what sources are valid to hear their opinions.
20
In a country where Sinclair Broadcasting actually makes a deal with the president-elect: that they will force all of their affiliates to read the same pro-Trump propaganda stories on their nightly news in exchange for who knows what, it becomes impossible to see or understand the “other side,” because their beliefs are not grounded in reality.
Could John the Savage have argued logically with citizens brainwashed by Hatcheries and Conditioning?
4
I have to say that I no longer feel that we have the privilege of pondering various points of view. Everything feels like an emergency that's being ignored, and the questions that surround the issues feel black and white, morally right or wrong.
Do we allow people to carry guns is such a free wheeling way that we end up with mass shootings that kill innocent children? Do we smile upon racists who are marching, threatening and publicly spewing hate? Do we taunt unstable countries sitting on piles of nuclear weapons? I don't know how to understand...I just know that many things are happening in our country that are WRONG and that won't end well. I am ashamed by our collective, societal spinelessness.
14
Well said, kglen! I wish I had an answer.
1
Excellent piece. Most people who identify with one side or the other side don't realize that their views are more in alignment than not with those of the opposite side -- that is assuming they take the time to understand what the other side is actually saying. Alas, however, it's the screamers on the right such as at Fox News and the idealogues on the left (dare I say BLM, and now #MeToo) whose views get heard and rubbed in the faces of the vast majority who are in the middle.
3
Just say it Mr Kristoff. One side is right and the other one is wrong. Its hard to be civil when one side is just abjectly wrong.
10
I know - but progressives aren't very well educated so you have to cut them a little slack. All those English majors and former hippies. It's hard to be civil when most of those on one side can't balance their check books or think Nancy Pelosi is a good leader. What are you gonna do though? Well, at least they are good for a laugh sometimes, although I suppose it isn't polite to laugh at those who are slightly deranged by Trump being president.
4
thank you for addressing this in such a civilized way.
3
The flaw in Mr. Kristof’s analysis is that the “divide” is not based on lack of reasoned debate, but, rather, is an emotional and visceral reaction and counter-reaction to a changing society. So many columnists and authors have written about this and it’s obvious to even the casual observer. Many conservative stalwarts, like Bill Kristol and George Will, are appalled at the alt-right. The Democratic party is so fragmented it can’t even decide what it wants to be. Very little of this is due to the lack of reasoned debate. Advertisers, car salesmen, real estate agents and trial lawyers recognize that emotion is far more powerful than reason. The heart usually prevails over the head. So, yes, if you put a bunch of academics with differing views in a room, they could stroke their beards and nod in understanding of different viewpoints. But, the schism in this country is not because of a failure to have a “conversation” about any particular issue. History has shown repeatedly that great societal cultural changes produce unrest and even revolution. Try debating that one.
72
A very thoughtful column. Three points. First, I might add that it is helpful to read some news that offers a view of the US from the outside looking in. By reading the international press, we are likely to see additional context which is useful in many ways.
Second, the online world and our online interactions seem to exacerbate the divisiveness and dismissiveness of “daily me.” As others have said, we manage to get along much better when we are face-to-face, and not necessarily in groups. Not so, behind our screens.
Third, relative to seeking to live in places where people share our political views, this is not simply about reinforcing what we believe. This has real world consequences on our lives, since prevailing political views at the local and state levels shape what is available to us. For example, my years in a red state significantly impacted (worsened) my healthcare choices. And, my vote was of less significance. When I moved to a purple state, my vote had more power, and those who “shared my political views” were using their influence to achieve policy differences (healthcare for example) that impact my life.
10
The combination of this opinion piece and my light snow shoveling in this morning gave me thoughts as below.
The digital generation(s) will succeed the previous, to become responsible for the world in the future. Some of that generation, maybe, cannot comprehend the existence of acts seeking no reward as unconditional goodness. Not altruism. Not self sacrifice. Not desired to be praised or liked. Just the act as an act. The concept might be unimaginably alien to some as much as a spaceship would have been for those (average those) who lived in the 10th century.
Examples are easy. I snow shoveled in front of the building consisting of multiple apartments. The young tenants assume and complain: "Who paid or will pay to her for the labor?", which in reality was an unpaid act, because I wanted to do (*absolutely* without video recorded publicity).
One volunteers at a thrift shop at a local church. The part of the digital generation speculates the motive: "The volunteers can take good donations by themselves first". The practice is true, but not all volunteers do so. There is no clear-cut compensational motives in volunteer jobs.
Probably, social media have been forming a new mentality, according to which many assume that all acts and behaviors of people should be commented on for approval or disapproval. There, no one is wrong nor right. Anonymous digital waves under human names, which are no individuals but as collectives, judge, decide, and direct what you obey.
The arguments between conservatives and liberals can't be solved because the centerist views of both sides are true. A proper government is a mix of liberalism and conservatism that swings a bit from side to side, but that self-corrects when it swings too far.
Most people overlook the fact that many things can be true at once.
It was Tolstoy who said that both liberalism and conservatism have inherent problems that accumulate. After one has been in vogue for long enough, the problems become intolerable, the people (or in Tolstoy's case, the royals) bring in the opposition to clean up those problems, and the other side's set of problems begin to accumulate. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.
The problem isn't liberalism or conservatism, it is extremism, whether fueled by leftist firebrands or conservative billionaires.
17
We all have lives to lead and I suspect the world would be a better place if we spent more time leading them and less time judging other people. We live in a democracy and that, in theory, means we should be able to vote then get back to more urgent business (tending to our families, participating in the economy, following our faith, and strengthening our communities). This culture war without end demeans us all. It isn't about amassing facts and persuading others. It's just tribal bias and staking out high ground from which to feel morally superior. My advice would be to turn off FOX, CNN, and MSNBC (which aren't really news organizations just 'politics as sports' megaphones for the left and right), buy a good newspaper, read the BBC website if you must go to the internet for news, and then devote more time to listening and less to talking. Invest time in what you can control and make better and understand if you meet ten people today nine don't have any interest in what you think about politics. Give them and yourself a break.
13
There is no intelligent argument supporting trump. There absolutely are intelligent arguments supporting some Conservative views, but ignorance, fear, and hate are the defining feature of every single view that is uniquely trump, and of all his followers.
14
It's quite simple Nicholas. There are people who believe in and search out facts and live their lives accordingly, and then there are those who like to be entertained by garbage and chaos. The people who wallow in garbage information are in charge. Our failure to educate the masses properly is why we have a failing Democracy.
11
Thank you Nicholas: A balanced narrative is long overdue for The Times and it’s readers as well as Fox News. I have suggested and been attacked for in this column for suggesting that both sides are guilty of no longer representing the interests of the voting public,rather they take turns paying lip service to the rank and file as they follow the agenda of their big donors, Trump is an excellent example as he criticized the funding of wars for special interest and then not only continues the wars of choice but increases defense spending, which by the way is ten times that of our apparent(recently pulled out of mothballs) number one enemy Russia. What is urgently needed in The Times is the reporting on all events, it is imperative that people have accurate information that is the basis of our Democracy and without it we are no better than a third world country which is exactly what we’re becoming. The best examples I can think of this are the deliberate publishing of lies that led to the War in Iraq, the total lack of coverage on the Ukraine situation as it unfolded and the glossing over of the coup in Egypt, we as a nation and The Times as a newspaper have lost credibility both should heed your advise Nicholas. BTW, judging from China’s rising middle class and our disappearing middle class Mao doesn’t look so bad, taking 2,000,000,000 people from starvation to world trade dominance in a generation was quite a feat.
5
When I was in college, decades ago, a libertarian conservative friend stunned me when he said that I was the “only tolerant liberal” he had ever known. I like to imagine that he was right - he was the only non-racist conservative I had ever known, and I could respect his opinions even though I disagreed with them. But I was, and remain, intolerant of racism. I am also proudly intolerant of Trumpism, that alternative-fact willfully ignorant world view that has affected such a large minority of Americans. I do try to learn from thoughtful conservatives. There is nothing to learn from those who support Trump and the modern GOP.
9
I appreciate the spirit of this message but I reject its inclination to suggest an equivalency between opposing views. You talk about civility? We have never had a president in modern times more lacking in basic human decency and more willingly offensive. Admonitions to those of us who reject such leadership and its apologists that we really need to listen come across as just mushy plattitudes. Our side won by more than three-million votes. We are the majority. The minority should try to listen to us. We were scammed, we were robbed, we've been had. We are well past the time to make amends with our opposition. They have asked for war and war is what we should give them.
11
The continued pushing of a false equivalency occurs. ~ even here.
America is a decisively Progressive or Socialist country. Take any issue ( health care, education, taxes, Social Security ) and people clearly want to be taken care of. The offset is that no one wants to pay.
Having said that, the media will ALWAYS have a pundit from opposite sides of the political spectrum to push their agenda on issues, whenever they appear in media.
Pick any issue again ~ the above mentioned or the environment, fake news, and so on.
This administration was voted in by 77k votes spread out over 3 states that gave it an advantage in the antiquated electoral college. It did NOT get a majority of votes, yet holds power. There of course, will be a MASSIVE correction this November and 2 years afterward, so essentially many of these columns will become moot.
I don't have a problem with someone having a point of view that is singular or exactly opposite mine. I have complete confidence that there are not a plurality of them.
However, the people that do have my point of view generally do not vote ''religiously'' as other voting blocks, and even they do get enthusiastic are generally presented with so many roadblocks to make their votes count.
Such is the broken system we have now.
4
As much as it hurt another fellow Irishman to quote a Brit (I make exceptions for Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill), it is wise to consider this quote from Thatcher: "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money!" The good ol' USA is just beginning to realize this.
Basic decency can rule. I know Nicholas you spend a great deal of time abroad. Its striking to me how out of whack the US currently is compared to the rest of the world. The reactionary forces are winning clearly and obviously. It has a great deal to do with the poorly educated population who does not seek to be educated. They are a huge danger to democracy, in fact have killed it by not being responsible.
4
Hidden within these words are the failures of our democracy. Now tell us the ways undo them.
2
We lost so much of our courage after 9/11..We did not behave like our parents, grandparents: the "Greatest Generation" who grew the America most of us know after their Depression and fighting two wars, winning them both...We folded into a whining mass of anger, hate, and utter weakness....Needed a "villain" more than the ability to deal with our own craven fears....Finger pointing became the new normal.
Right or left--we never regained our bearings and sadly, have become our own worst enemy....We have allowed the strident to become our voice and do not seem to want solutions as much as we want to argue......We gave up on dialogue and gave up on fixing America. And, the "villain" we need to blame is inside us...Still pointing fingers and arguing over who is to blame......Easy answer--we ALL are.
3
My daughter and I saw Marvel's latest offering,Black Panther,last night. I can't remember the exact line from the movie so I shall paraphrase- great leaders build bridges not walls. Kudos to the movie for illustrating women as powerful,wise and loving. The theater was packed.
4
You can be in 99% agreement with someone and that 1% will be enough to make you their enemy. If one can't even have a civil conversation with their own side, forget reaching out to the opposition.
2
Exactly right, Nick. So now it's time for all good Republicans to put their country first. Democrats do that...relatively speaking. Let's balance the economy, push back on debt. Maintain the safety net. Let's not junk education. Spread the wealth a little, a rising tide floats all boats. Enforce the most important constitutional rights : one voter, one vote. Let's stop the war on science. Facts matter. Liberals don't have a problem with all that. We're ready to compromise, just not willing to junk democracy. You should recognize the dance that the right does. When the left works hard and shows willingness to agree, the right suddenly adds new demands. Suddenly abandons its own supposed principles in service of continuing conflict. These actions prove they want discord, not agreement. Liberals by definition want agreement. So where can the blame for discord be placed? Both sides must want to work together and only one does.
9
Sorry but there is no convincing me that citizens need guns so they can form a well-armed militia to defy the government, or for any other reason at all.
8
Honestly, Mr. Kristof, I'm just sick of the other side. I'll never understand the acceptance and favoring of automatic war weapons in the hands of the general public, the lies about sexual harassment and abuse, or the praising of communist leaders or sympathizers. I think they should be sickened by their approval of Mr. Hoax, but it seems like tax cuts and cheap, repetitive language keep them happy. This is ruining our beloved country.
15
Yup! confirmation bias is a weakness we must defend against.
The scientific method and a professional press are constructs we "discovered" to help us avoid our own psychological pitfalls as we seek and act on truth.
But here are the facts - empirically demonstrable/consistently demonstrated.
The post-50s GOP became all about winning; all our higher ideals, objectives, goals relegated to lower positions in the game book.
They consistently attack the scientific method and professional press undermining our view of truth.
To win they had to play to the lower instincts of the Nation and to the plutocracy. They perfected and fine tuned doing such.
An effective tool in their arsenal was (and is) to sow disillusionment/wedges in the 58% that might rationally and cooperatively work together toward objectives and goals for the People and this Nation.
This suppressed rational candidates/vote allowing lower instincts to rule to roost.
They obscured/devalued common objectives/goals. Things Conservatives and Progressives could easily work civilly toward. No longer a competition of good implementation alternatives and good candidate alternatives - may the best win. Rather the GOP made the game a war of emotions/demagoguery.
They're commuted to the devil and must recast this Nation into a Plutocracy tinged with religious oriented bigoted oligarchy to maintain power.
The GOP is an evil Conservatives and Progressives must shed together come 2018/2020. That is FACT!
1
Nicholas Kristof may be a "villain" to other conservatives, but to me he is a thoughtful liberal who is willing to be self-critical and self-effacing, two characters traits that are the polar opposite of most of his brethren. He also is a strong voice for issues like human trafficking that should transcend party lines. I read Nicholas regularly because of columns like this.
8
The problem here is that a foreign nation has attacked our very notion of who we are through propaganda and deliberate lies. And yet, we have a Republican President who is doing absolutely nothing about it, with the Conservatives aiding and abetting. How on earth can you even respect such obvious anti democratic behavior. I am willing to listen to Conservative ideas based in fact and not some fallacy drawn up by Russia. The Tea Party started us all down this road, The Republican Party with its Hastert rule continued it. The rank and file Republicans voted against anyone who would deviate from the cause. Progressives will always be willing to listen. What we’re tired of is being duped by Conservatives, who pretend to listen but use it only as a strategy to find a weakness they can exploit. Nicholas, you’re a gentleman, but Conservatives of the last 2 decades have veered toward totalitarianism and will not compromise on anything anymore. We have to face that fact. They are not the Party of Lincoln or even Reagan. You have to see that.
5
"It's simple, really."
America is at war with itself where an ever-widening realm of "anti-social" media enables the instant cacophony driving us to a paralysis of extremes that includes routine school shootings. The set piece finds an unprincipled and made-to-measure President Trump and those in our Congress who (1) can't say "No" to laundered money for personal interests and (2) the blood-money shoveled at it by the NRA on behalf of gun-lobby manufacturers.
2
"The best forecasters, Tetlock finds,......those instinctively empirical, nonideological and willing to change their minds quite nimbly. That is a fine description of a scientist!
The scientific method requires a person's willingness to objectively evaluate a situation, accept new facts as they are learned, change their mind so they can develop better hypotheses, objectively test that idea or hypothesis, and reject or re-evaluate as new facts emerge. The default is to try to refute your position rather than confirm it. This is critical to good science, and open minds in general.
Sounds like America needs a lot more education about and use of the scientific method.
5
If Democrats want to win in the coming years they should heed your advice! Screaming about how bad "he" is won't get him voted out of office - there has to be a new narrative. We all should do better in listening to alternative viewpoints and admit that sometimes "we might be wrong."
4
I believe in data and science. When I see that of the 35 OECD countries, the U.S. in most measures (literacy, health outcomes, infant mortality, traffic accidents, corruption index, democracy index, etc, etc, etc) is either at bottom, or close to bottom or, at best, midway. Of course conservatives will either say: "fake" or "that's the price of freedom" (my right-wing brother-in-law thinks most of the OECD countries, like Norway, Holland, etc, are 'slave states'). No - I will not listen to people who insist that evolution is a fraud,
and that church & state should not be separate.
11
This experiment of governing our diverse population using a 'republican democracy' is very fragile and is based on trust.
Take a step back & imagine how forces that wanted to disrupt/destroy this system could do it without force. It's just been uncovered.
The wedge continues to be driven.
1
Well, sorry to have to inform you, but "forces that wanted to disrupt/destroy this system" is not a new thing. For example, the Nazi Bund was very active in the 30's, as was the Communist party, in the US, and many other "disruptive" groups as well. All of these were supported by foreign governments -- it has always been relatively easy to enter the US and foment trouble, perhaps a condition of a free society. But I agree with your further comment, democracy is very fragile and is indeed based on trust. To paraphrase Churchill, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
This opinion piece is completely true. I, for one, have always said that I'm part of the solution, not the problem. I actually listen to others no matter what echo chamber they are in!
2
Thank you! I, another person of "liberal bias," share your concern about the "two Americas" and how it often seems "ne'er the twain shall meet." I must add as a caveat, however, that I've developed great respect for some of the more conservative-leaning TIMES columnists, as well as for journalists like Nicolle Wallce and people like Max Boot, Steve Schmidt, John Heilman, etc, who, while maintining core "conservative" views, nevertheless are willing to call out lies and corruption and rot wherever they see them.
I am unable to pierce the mental veil between the two sides, in most cases, even though I believe the "mystical" truth that all are One. This is one of the most frustrating things in my life. Deep within me, I see myself not as having a "liberal bias," but rather a worldview that in the area of politics recognizes the "Social Gospel" as a cornerstone. On the other hand, many conservatives appear to me to believe in the inviolable separateness of all beings and the imagined right to unlimited wealth, etc, at the expense of those who don't have enough. And yet, these people are God's children, too. I obviously have a ways to go in my understanding. There are probably Conservative platforms that make sense. But even as I write that, I feel doubt.
I thought of deleting this note as too raw and one-sided. But I think it gives a picture of someone who tries not to be "part of the problem" and yet may still be.
2
Look, what really matters is whether people draw their conclusions from data and logic or ideology and rumor. Here is a T - F quiz you can give to your friends and see how they do.
1. Significantly (say, 10% or more), paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about 0.50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
4
The main impediment to this kind of dialog, at least for me, is the lack of a civil forum where people are willing and eager to exchange ideas. If I write a reasoned and evidence-supported response to a comment on social media, I end up receiving obscenities as responses. The conversation invariably ends with my leaving the dialogue or multiple flank attacks of the same name calling choir. If this kind of listening to the other side is to happen, it needs to be in a moderated environment which will likely attract moderate thinkers with an open mind. By the way, there is also a Yale study showing how people get more radical in their views as they talk to like-minded individuals and less so by talking with people who disagree with their worldview.
How about NYT, or you Mr. Kristof, organizing a series of local town hall meetings where we can kick-start this much-needed conversation? I'm willing to put my efforts where my mouth is and offer my help.
2
The continued pushing of a false equivalency occurs. ~ even here. America is a decisively Progressive or Socialist country. Take any issue ( health care, education, taxes, Social Security ) and people clearly want to be taken care of. The offset is that no one wants to pay. Having said that, the media will ALWAYS have a pundit from opposite sides of the political spectrum to push their agenda on issues, whenever they appear in media. Pick any issue again ~ the above mentioned or the environment, fake news, and so on. This administration was voted in by 77k votes spread out over 3 states that gave it an advantage in the antiquated electoral college. It did NOT get a majority of votes, yet holds power. There of course, will be a MASSIVE correction this November and 2 years afterward, so essentially many of these columns will become moot. I don't have a problem with someone having a point of view that is singular or exactly opposite mine. I have complete confidence that there are not a plurality of them. However, the people that do have my point of view generally do not vote ''religiously'' as other voting blocks, and even they do get enthusiastic are generally presented with so many roadblocks to make their votes count. Such is the broken system we have now.
2
Only one question here, where do I go to read reasonable, evidence based arguments from contemporary conservative thinkers?
I accept the reality of confirmation bias and agree, I too may be its victim in my political and social analysis, but the education I have been fortunate to receive while it has prepared me to debate issues of deficits and taxation, the advantages of capitalism and socialism, and cohesion and freedom, it has not prepared me to deal with the irrationality of the present reconfiguration of what once had seemed like a balanced Republican argument. The slide from rationality began with Newt Gingerich and was accelerated by Fox News. So, I ask again, what do I read and with whom should I speak in order to avoid my confirmation bias and understand the "other" in today's politically distorted context?
13
If you worked for a company whose CEO intentionally ripped it apart through his actions and words you'd quit and find another job.
When the leader of a country intentionally rips it apart through his actions and words you don't have that same opportunity, aside from patiently waiting for the next election.
I am hopeful, however. When I hear thoughtful Republicans denounce Trump and everything he and his enablers stand for, I will be far more willing to listen to these same folks when they have an honorable Republican candidate to talk about.
6
There has been an intentional and concerted misinformation campaign waged in the country for about 30 years know, with Fox News and talk-radio being the most obvious ringleaders. The internet has accelerated the peddling of misinformation and half-truths which is intended to feast off of the poorly educated and easily influenced. Trump capitalized on this, raising it to new levels, and now we know that Russians pushed it even further in the 2016 campaign. That the rest of us should give this credibility by reasoning with it and compromising with it is shortsighted and lacks merit.
6
If the Democrats want to gain some ground in the Congress and America they should get on board with Trump and push the "Buy American Made"campaign. The Republicans sure are not helping him one bit in this effort.
2
Conservatives and liberals care about America, its people and most importantly, the democratic system and institutions.
What is not normal and difficult to rationalize is a president attacks the very law enforcement agencies that report to him and the list of not normal things seems not to ever end. I think that if a liberal with an open mind and wanting to understand will sit down with a true conservative that will explain his president's policies, the exercise would nor work just because a true conservative does not get Trump either. Conservatives and liberals would understand each other fine without the president catalyzing polarities for his own gain.
2
I have tried to read all the comments on this piece. There are many thoughtful, well reasoned arguments. Then, there are blatantly biased, emotional diatribes written in defense of a preconceived world view that shuns the view of the remainder of the world.
I suggest that both extremes ignore those of us really "in the middle" on politics. While I generally vote R, Trump was not in the top ten of those I chose as a primary candidate. I have always considered him a charlatan narcissist with nothing to offer as a leader. Now, as POTUS, he has done nothing to disabuse me of that notion. So, that begs the obvious question, why did I vote for him? Further, under what circumstances would I vote for him again? The questions have the same answer; I cannot and will not support a candidate that promotes a globalist view. I am praying that someone will come forward that can represent fully the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and non-intervention in the World's housekeeping issues. I will support, donate to, and work for such a candidate, whether they have a "R", "D", or "I" after their name. We need to have real reform of all political institutions; the military, law enforcement, Social Security, Welfare, Education, et al. Our politics has been broken for decades, yet, congress does little that MIGHT help, like term limits and public election financing. (removal of the influence of donors like NRA, Unions and fire-breathing partisans of all ilks).
It is time to act.
8
"Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."
That is certainly true. Civility lies at the core of reasoned debate among reasonable people. But civility does have its limits. Those limits are becoming more apparent than ever. Along with civility, a healthy respect for the facts is essential to reasoned debate among reasonable people. When respect for the facts disappears, civility also disappears. The media provide the forum for reasoned political debate. Unfortunately the media demand civility and without demanding any respect for the facts. At some point journalists must do what Walter Cronkite did fifty years ago.
When it became clear that the government's public statements about the Vietnam War were false, Mr. Cronkite reported the news and essentially said, ladies and gentlemen the government's statements are false and misleading. At that point, any pretense of civil debate about the Vietnam war ceased. The population divided, government openly suppressed dissent outside the Democratic Party's convention and culminated two years later in the killing of students at Kent State University. Sadly, the media abandoned insistence on respect for the facts. The political debate over the Vietnam war degenerated into a shouting match. The Vietnam '67 series and the readers comments show that we still cannot have a reasoned debate on the Vietnam war even though the facts are well known. Everyone can have her own opinion, but not her own facts.
2
Well written. I wish you had drawn some kind of relationship to the problem of the media and government still lying to us today.
I fully agree with Mr. Kristof that we need to listen to other intelligent voices; I will even go as far as saying that we need to listen to so-called less intelligent voices, because those voices come from fellow Americans who are not, by and large, despicable human beings. Ignorance exists, yes, but it is not necessarily to be equated with lack of academic degree; conversely, knowledge and intelligence are not necessarily the product of a so called 'higher education.' It seems to me that there is a two-pronged work to do to rectify the disastrous direction we have taken since Mr. Trump's election: one is to fight for the future of mankind in all the fields that are endangered now, like the environment or human rights or telling truth from fiction, and at the same time to reach out and communicate with all those who are still willing to communicate, whatever contrary ideas they may hold. I may believe that Mr. Trump is misleading the people, but displaying a sense of superiority and manifesting contempt for the Americans who believe otherwise is wrong-headed and unproductive at best. I am afraid that only a slow and persistent labor of reaching out will do the trick.
1
One of the reasons that it is good for Democracy for the House and the Senate to match up -more or less - with the voters, is that it forces compromise. If we are split 50-50 on most issues and the government reflects that, they need to work together.
When we work to assure an advantage - and our system has always been set up to assure an advantage of acreage over population (state by state majorities, the Electoral College, the way we draw districts) we reduce the need for compromise. And if we work assiduously to keep the advantage, we actually promote a fear of compromise.
The right is not always wrong and the left isn't either. They have opinions and agendas set on different worldviews, different priorities, different philosophies. Even different backyards - people who can see their neighbors versus people who live far enough away that they cannot.
Where we are failing, is to understand that we are supposed to resolve those differences through governmental process, compromises, trades, middle ground, negotiation. We are not supposed to be winner take all reversing everything achieved before in a dizzying 180. This is a failure of people and party.
But the football mentality is set in concrete. Wave our foam fingers, cry "we're number one" and crush the enemy.
Is it any wonder that the Russians found propaganda and a disinformation campaign to be brutally effective?
In my discussions with numerous Trump supporters I've found that, absent party filters, we agree quite a bit on things like abortion rights, health care, environmental protections, taxes and even gun control, some of the hottest button issues facing us. The majority of Americans want similar solutions to all of those issues. But the party-first-my-team-mentality keeps us divided so that solutions are unattainable and Republican Party leaders in particular can manipulate public policy to benefit their oligarchy seeking donors.
For this reason it is imperative that Democrats stop with the "deplorables" insults and show basic human respect to people they disagree with because they are members of an opposing members of a team. Insult the policy prescriptons, not the people.
5
When the republicans took their initial steps to obstruct anything that President Obama carried out they drew a line in the sand. When one party refuses to compromise that is the end of democracy. This was not a Democratic position position and it still is not. I'm a person who still thinks democracy is a radical experiment and one the powers that be have every right to be afraid of. But our democracy is being destroyed, once again by republicans, who are gerrymandering away opinions they disagree with, are blocking voters of the Democratic party from voting (and are proud of it) and proclaim that elections are rigged and invite the Russians to undermine our democratic values.
I'd say right about now our democracy is in grave danger. All that justified our wars being fought for democracy and the right to vote have been a lie if what the republicans wish to carry out is achieved. I see no good a political system that has been so easily undermined by a president and party who consider democracy as something to fight against and not to fight for.
2
We have the right to own weapons of mass destruction welded into our Constitution and have mass killings that far surpass in frequency and number killed those reported from any other country in the world. All other civilized nations regulate guns and have rare occurrences of mass killings. How is there any way but one way to look at data like these? How can there be more than one way to figure out what to do? 90% of Americans want better gun control so how can conservatives analyze these data in a different way that doesn't represents an extreme distortion of fact? Any how can the conservative perspective justify banning the CDC from doing even basic gun studies or reporting gun-related statistics? I truly do not need to read their literature to help escape my "bubble."
1
I don't recognize the America described by Kristof in this op-ed piece, divided neatly into two antagonistic sides politically. When you actually talk to people, they typically have a mix of conservative and progressive political ideas: there are some things they want to "conserve" or keep, and some areas where they would like to see "progress" or change.
Then there are those areas where almost all Americans, liberal or conservative, agree. Neither Republicans nor Democrats believe in redistributing wealth, despite some inconsequential talk about growing economic inequality among the latter.
Americans generally share a mystical faith in the goodness of free markets and the badness of "losers" who cannot succeed within them. It is hard for us to understand Muslims who accept the beheading of infidels, but easy for us to accept our fellow citizens doing without life-preserving health care.
In sum, I think Americans are less divided than Kristof makes us out to be, and less different from one another than we perhaps want to think ourselves to be.
If we could accept that Americans, as a whole, elected Donald Trump as President (as we elected Barack Obama before him), we might be on the way to better understanding ourselves. This might sound far-fetched to Times readers, but I think that the DNC easily had as much to do with electing Trump as a few tens of thousands of disgruntled mid-western swing voters.
4
Reagan and the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine under the guise of "protecting" free speech, as demanded by the "conservative" think tanks and individuals. That opened the floodgates for the sludge spewing from the likes of Limbaugh, Jones, Levin, and the Fox "News" Network.
A corresponding loss of civility and rational thinking has resulted, culminating in the modern practice of staying within one's comfort zone inside a bubble of like-minded friends and acquaintances.
The quaint notion that the airwaves belong to the public, not the broadcaster, served our Republic quite well from 1949 until it was weakened by Reagan's veto in 1987, and was totally abolished by the FCC in 2011 during the Obama Administration.
Perhaps an updated Fairness Doctrine for radio and television might be in the best interests of the public, not to mention our Republic.
2
For years I have been able to understand how an intelligent, well-educated person could be fiscally and socially conservative. I'd like to see a balanced budget, too. However, today's Republican Party is led by :My Way or the Highway" extreme conservatives who believe only their own views are acceptable. They ignore the importance of climate change, technical progress and good international relations in favor of the NRA, anti-abortion groups and Trump's MAGA madness. And now we have well-educated, presumably intelligent people like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller who want to tear down our governmwnt, thereby destroying our Constitution and our Bill or Rights. It is very challenging to have intelligent discourse with people like this. And I live in Tennessee, so sometimes in public I just keep my mouth shut.
5
Here in Kentucky if you're a liberal you had better find a way to coexist with conservatives or you will find yourself an isolated individual indeed. I have more conservative friends than I do liberals and I do listen to their views and rationale. It usually boils down to this: yes, there are legitimate issues raised by conservatives, there is welfare fraud, there is medicare fraud, abortions are bad, globalization has cost us jobs, health care is too expensive, etc, etc.
The problem is with the solutions. Less regulation, cut social programs, more military, starve the beast, blame immigrants.
These are recipes for a return to more inequality, more misguided wars, more pollution, we've been down that road, it's a dead end.
I do listen, I respond calmly and rationally, I work hard, try to disprove the negative liberal stereotype, I read Ross Douthat, and I stay away from recumbent bicycles and Birkenstocks.
2
And why, Mr. K, do our "sides" seek to limit data collection and study about issues first? Consider:
- Ag-gag laws preventing workers from documenting abattoir practices
- Doctor gag laws making questions about guns in the home forbidden
- Cuts to federal studies on gun use and gun violence
- Liberals boycotting speeches at public universities by controversial speakers
Those who cannot study issues or discuss them must live them in real time and with real consequences.
1
All Republican voters would choose guns over my son's life. They would make this choice without hesitation, and most of them would even think they were doing the right thing.
That is all I need to know about the values, moral character, and humanity of Republican voters.
8
The merits of your analysis notwithstanding, Mr. Kristoff, you neglect to consider the pivotal role the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan administration that arguably delivered us to this moment. The responsibility for our current state of affairs must be laid squarely on the feet of the right.
2
I'm reminded of the late Sen. Moynihan's famous quote, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts." I think a big part of the problem is the toxic denial of the truth, primarily on the right, and first and foremost by Trump and his "fake news" obfuscation, as well as Fox and its highly selective (at best) reporting or non-reporting. There's nothing on the left that compares with the reality-denial that has become almost universal on the right. And it's driven by one thing -- corruption: the power of money in politics: the financial interest in denying climate change, fighting gun control, etc. It's time to call out corruption in American government, specifically in the Trump administration, for what it is -- and demand once again a government that serves the American people, not just the GOP's corporate masters in petroleum, firearms, etc.
2
Most of the left of center people I know have compassion for the plight of millions of Trump voters. We support extending better access to healthcare to all. When a crazed gunman opened fire on country music lovers in Las Vegas I heard hopeful comments that now, perhaps, we could all agree on sensible gun legislation (most Americans do). I didn't hear anyone even remotely imply that conservatives deserved to be shot. Just as we welcome people of all national origins to our shores, we long for a country free of its paralyzing divisions.
But we can't have sensible discussions of any of the issues we face when only one party seems constrained by facts. We can't have a conversation with people whose views of us are based on lies perpetrated by Fox News and the GOP. The focus of my anger is directed at the latter, not the millions of people who have been taken in by their lies and are being harmed as a result.
3
Walk Kelly's phrase: "we have met the enemy and he is us" comes to mind. I am reminded of President Reagan's famous joke about the most terrifying thing someone can say is I'm from the government and I'm here to help. In a country where self-avowedly, government is of the people, by the people and for the people, we have sure spent the last 40 years demonizing it. And enjoying doing so enormously it seems to me. And so demonizing ourselves -- and polarizing - as we did so.
I find that 80% of the noise is coming from 20% of the people. Most people are not all that emotional about any political issue. They certainly have opinions but they are not so emotional about them. The same, I’m afraid, can not be said about the press. There, emotions run high on both sides. Evidently, fake news sells.
1
I congratulate Mr. Kristof on his efforts to help bridge the societal gap we all have to suffer with. However, "Neither Democrats nor Republicans were interested in intelligent arguments challenging their own views" is a broad generalization that I find hard to accept. I frequently seek out intelligent arguments from the right, and have a hard time finding much. People we once thought represented the right (e.g., George Will) now reside in the center. The problem is the right has kept moving further and further to the right, ever more radical, making it virtually impossible to find intelligent arguments on issues such as gun control, abortion, and now even morality.
2
You're writing about the most important issue of our time the underlying problem that makes all the other problems intractable. This is what I'd call tribalism and what George Orwell would call doublethink. Its pretty simple: We are right and good no matter what we do. They are wrong and bad no matter what they do. Our brains evolved for this kind of intra species conflict and competition. And it has served us well for up to the million years that homo sapiens has existed. But now we need to evolve past it.
1
Mr. Kristof: you write that "there are two Americas." This assumes that there are only two points of view in this country - the right side versus the left side, the Republicans versus the Democrats, the conservatives versus the liberals.
This is too simplistic. While these two sides may shout the loudest at one another, I am certain that there are plenty of us with less polarized points of view - points of view that may be a blend of both liberal and conservative principles. For example, some of us are fiscal conservatives but social liberals - or the opposite. And some of us think the Democrat and the Republican parties are BOTH full of baloney (why was Bernie Sanders so popular after all?).
The notion that if you don't belong to one party's way of thinking all the way, you belong to the other, is misguided and small-minded. Plenty of us think outside these two boxes. Now if only there were more than two (strong, realistic) boxes to check at voting booth!
3
"When we stay within our own tribe, talking mostly to each other, it’s difficult to woo other tribes to achieve our aims." You almost broach the ultimate cause for what you describe: group selection over our evolution. Humans have an instinctual need to belong to a group and will suspend reason whenever its implications threaten the hierarchy of the group.
If we were all aware of how humans evolved and assimilated its implications, people would become more empirically inclined.
1
I applaud your attempt to implant the element of reason and fairness in our divisive climate, and yet am not surprised at the emotional response of many readers who resist that effort. Both liberals and conservatives have long moved beyond logic into angry positions, lobbing flaming language into each other's castles. Mr Trump speaks to the more primal and tribal part of our country, and while he's in power his rhetoric will further inflame liberals -- just as Obama silently enraged conservatives.
I wish that speaking reason and fair play to emotion worked. It just doesn't seem to in most cases. It may be students rising up angrily after the most recent shooting in Florida who will be the catalyst for more aggressive gun laws finally, for example, not the stalemated rhetoric of adults.
Bottom line: we are in for a long, gradual decline, one with an outcome that is impossible to predict. I sorely wish empathy, understanding, seeing the other person's perspective, and reason could play major roles -- I don't know how much they ever have historically.
"Civility" is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization." This is a powerful and thought-provoking statement. I offer this addition. It doesn't matter what political party one aligns with... "Civility" also requires humans to strive to live their lives with honesty, respect, accountability and empathy. It is not one's choice of political party or which "bubble" one occupies... It is our avoidance or refusal to strive to actively work to live... and teach our children to live their lives with honest, respect, accountability and empathy that is tearing our social fabric.
1
I think we should revise the laws which govern the media that made Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and similar shouters possible. I think we ought to require that facts be the basis for any public communication not labeled Opinion or Fiction. I think the League of Women Voters should run all debates pertaining to public office. From the top of our public officials down, we ought to respect each other. Finally, TV newscasts should not be part of an entertainment division.
1
I am a conservative. I agree with Mr. Kristof's observations in this column. I read the NY Times each day, not just for the obituaries, but also to see what the arguments (and often emotions) are from the left/progressive view. And I'd recommend that commenters here also read the RealClearPolitics website, where each liberal article is balanced by a conservative one.
8
We all have to mingle with and tolerate those with political beliefs opposite from our own. At work, in school, in our families, at church, and in other social groups we rub shoulders with people from the far left to the far right. And, generally, we manage to get through our days without resorting to fistfights or name-calling. The divide is not as large as some would have us believe, and as some try to encourage. There are those who try to stir the pot, but in my own life I find that people on each side of the political spectrum get along much better than the media would have us believe. My parents taught me that it was not polite to discuss religion or politics in public, and that it would benefit me to keep my beliefs private. I've tried to do this and seem to be acquainted with a lot of people who do the same, because politics rarely comes up in the groups I find myself in. I have an inkling where some folks fall on the political spectrum, but find it's easy to get along with the other side as long as you stick to other subjects. Then you can find what you have in common, and discover that you can actually like someone without politics interfering. Life is about so much more than politics.
8
Ah, yes! Civil discourse. I remember that.
It would be interesting to compare the Nixon-Kennedy debates with the Trump-Clinton debates.
I have no problem listening to someone with an opposing viewpoint who uses relevant facts and logic to support their views and is willing to consider other facts that they may not be aware of and challenges to their logic and their assumptions. I can be persuaded.
But so much of what is happening now is the opposite. What passes for argument is shouting, insults, cherry-picked facts, non-sequiturs, taking quotes out of context, irrelevant gotchas, Gish Gallops, talking over one another, not answering the question asked, and occupying the time allotted to prevent the other from speaking.
We increasingly do live in bubbles, the Fox bubble, the MSNBC bubble, the CNN bubble, the NPR bubble. How to break through the bubbles is the challenge of our era.
10
Thanks to Mr. Kristof for this thoughtful column. I am reminded of the speech that Judge Learned Hand gave in Central Park in 1945, at a swearing in ceremony for new United States citizens, when he said "The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not sure that it is right". I try to think about that every day.
10
Intellectual arguments or discussions between members of opposite parties would be great if both sides agreed on the same set of facts. That the majority on the right tend to live in a world of alternative facts makes debate impossible. Sure that has probably led to a narrower world view and glossing over inconvenient truths by the left but until the right returns to reality intellectual debates are not an option.
15
The article is correct but it should also have mentioned the one issue voter. This voter is a danger to Democracy.
24
There was a time, pre 1980s, that Democrats and Republicans could work together and did and the country progressed. What the Democrats need urgently to do is take a lesson from Ross Perot. The leadership must create a flipchart of 10 simply expressed facts and charts about the issues that we know Americans care about. Income inequality, the historical record on economic performance under Ds and Rs., te effects of the Bush era and new tax reforms, the plight of the minimum wage since 1968, the divergence of productivity and average worker wages, how the growing economic pie has been shared since the 1970s, bankruptcies due to lousy health insurance policies (not lack of policies), the effects of the Clinton reforms. The number of businesses created and employment generated by immigrants, and so on. When the economic pie grows for everyone, prejudices start to erode. This happened in post WWII US.
Candidates need to agree to not attack one another in the primaries but stick to the messages. They can clearly lay out how they perceive their particular policies proposals to work, what their qualifications are, etc,. but refrain from any attacks against primary opponents. They should sign an ethical statement that they will not attack other Dems and party money withdrawn from their campaigns if they break their pledge.
12
While I consider your effort in this column to be thoroughly well-intended in trying to bridge the extreme ideological gap that now threatens our democracy, I also encourage you to follow it up with a column devoted to detailing and validating with hard evidence the positions of the GOP to which progressives are refusing to listen. As most readers of NYT tend to be progressive, I think you will find a ready audience for such a column, myself included. Like many other regular NYT commenters, I have tried to engage in what I, as a retired engineer/MBA, consider to be a reasoned, dispassionate discussion of key issues, but invariably these efforts have degenerated into unreason, emotion, and non-fact, and ultimately, as these discussions were with friends and family members, to an agreement to permanently suspend our effort. I read broadly, and am currently reading "Strangers In Their Own Land" in a private effort to gain insights that might help me find areas of general agreement with those who continue to support this administration. But, so far at least, I see only the narrow minded, parochial clinging to paranoia, religious cultism, and, yes, racism that I saw first-hand growing up in '50s South Carolina. And, like it or not, that is not where this world is headed. So I look forward to such a column in the hope that you will open my mind and show me what I am missing, and where I have gone wrong.
62
Americans have always disagreed, but until recently they did not have the "fight club" mentality that seems to prevail in today's world. I am fascinated by the Facebook page for Meet the Press, by the comments that apparent readers of the site make there. Many of the commenters seem unaware of the topic being discussed and these respondents offer only negative views about the site itself and they often greatly outnumber other respondents who offer questions or counter arguments or their agreement with what has been said. Their whole purpose seems to be to demean the site and those who might find it a useful source of news. I believe that this says a lot about the fact, to me, that many Americans no longer have the courage to live in a democracy.
15
As a lifelong educator, I have watched over time as successive generations of students became increasingly self-absorbed. Relevancy to one’s own interests was the determining factor as to whether or not information or opinions carried any personal merit. We became a nation of spoiled people, feeling entitled to reap whatever benefits were available to satisfy our particular desires as a consequence of living in a nation of over-abundance.
This social selfishness has been kindled in recent years by the advent and embracement of social media, which has provided an effective tool for personal isolation. When I would walk into the dining hall filled with students, there was an eerie quiet as scores were focused on their devices and not one another. The “Daily Me” is an apt descriptor. We don’t have two America’s. We have millions of America’s as now defined through the individual lenses of our own self-interests.
It seems that the best way to counter these centrifugal forces is to have a central government committed to rationally find common ground among our disparate interests and embrace those core values that bind us as a society. But we, the People, have failed miserably in electing people who would do that. Instead, we elect those that simply perpetuate our selfish desires.
22
I believe the heart of the two America problem stems from its founding. We are a nation built on Enlightenment values with strong anti-Enlightenment undercurrents. Most progressives hold to the values of political liberalism, at least formally, while many conservatives do not. Much of the home schooling and private school movement stem from anti-intellectual views that see math, science and engineering as anti-God and seeking to destroy the faith of their children. It is difficult to engage in a rational discussion with a person who rejects rationality in favor of a narrative they learned in Sunday School as literal truth. Curiosity keeps many of us open to the likelihood that our beliefs and understanding our our world are wrong and in need of significant correction. I'm not sure this is the case in the conservative mind.
38
Jack, thank you for reminding us of the historical rise and fall of political factions. I came of political age at the same time as the John Birch Society and have learned from a lifetime's observation "there is no new thing under the sun."
I don't agree with Mr. Kristoff's appeal that we listen to and learn from views directly opposite ours, even while questioning whether that proves I'm helplessly stone-minded myself.
I think we're better off re-centering our country when it appears to be edging off track as we Americans have always done: at the ballot box. I believe we'll start seeing the course correction beginning in November 2018.
The fundaments of public education are undermined completely by religious extremists home schooling and isolating their kids. They are a cult. Kids have a right to strong public schools free from their parents and relatives influence. Children are individuals with rights, they are not the property of their family. This public education is what gave a couple generations the power to lift up the USA in the 1950´s. Its gone now. I see every day as a resident of Mexico the immense value that free universal education through University, including medical and dental school. has created here. Its transformative. Universal health care also. The USA has become captive to corporate interests and is rotting.
2
All I can say is that it is extremely difficult for me to respect the views of those who are willingly uninformed. It is much easier for them to get smarter than it is for me to get dumber.
67
Maybe for you but for the majority of humans it is more difficult to learn something than to get dummer.
Politics became personal for me on election night, 2016. A mad man was elected. I cannot be civil to anyone who supports a mad man.
77
"Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization."
Yes, it is, but try telling that to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the Fox & Friends crew. They've been demonizing Democrats, liberals, and progressives for more than twenty years. Rush recently proclaimed that his raison d'etre is to anger the left.
The Republican Party has committed treason on a fairly regular basis going back to 1968 when Nixon sabotaged LBJ's peace talks with North Vietnam in order to take the White House. Reagan cut a deal with Iran to beat Carter in 1980. The GOP stole the elections of 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio.
I normally respect Mr. Kristof's opinion, but not this time. His "both sides do it" meme in this column is just nonsense.
117
Agree. Analogous to the Syrian War, this new information age requires social diplomacy, not airstrikes on the other side of the Euphrates.
4
I never claim to know what God thinks because I don't do to others what I abhor having done to myself. It would be nice to get reciprocity for that.
8
If posted, use this corrected version.
Kristof: "In each America, people who inhabit the other are often perceived as not just obtuse but also dangerous."
I have frequently considered those in public office as dangerous, and, because of that, adversaries; but have seldom thought of them as obtuse. I think most of them know exactly what they are doing, such as those addressing mass killings with "thoughts and prayers" while choosing to do nothing of substance. The problem we have is not so much stupidity but bad faith.
21
"But I do believe that all of us, on both sides, frequently spend more time demonizing the other side than trying to understand it..."
sad but true, sadder still that you, the media and especially you, a times guy with such a platform,
are rather a part of the "us," wearing your "ideological blinders" than a force for fair and cogent "hear(ing) out the other side," parsing a fast-moving world with the rhetorical skills of logic and argument that might rather illuminate than inflame it.
until you get there, your self-identification as a "progressive" is maybe too generous, puzzling to true progressives, truly committed to promoting "the general Welfare."
even in the call to fairness, you blast fox and let cnn go free, chide the "leftists" who praised mao and pass by those who bothered to actually read mao and refute his "great leap forward" and "cultural revolution," (though aware of the ways his ruthlessness mirrored our own journey from from farm to factory) and who, btw, also warned of his "cult of personality" a condition that now afflicts "us" (!)...the same folks who sided with mlk and saw the truths of malcolm (who scared the apple martini left).
there is no light in the smoldering antagonism of the advocacy press, only alienation, and in this, alas, no grasp of the damage actually being done, which will be clear after trump, the easy scapegoat, departs and we are left with the
"biased approach to getting the news" that "actually makes us dumb"...and dumber.
3
The big difference is there is way more purposeful misinformation coming from right-wing media.
19
Points well taken. But, there is such thing as greediness, corruption, propaganda, and abusive of power. Much of the right-wing spin doctors prey on opportunities to exploit ignorance, patriotism, patriarchy, racism, misogyny, and Christianity. There are times to listen to the other side when it is rational, but when its leaders are corrupt and abusive, attempting to exploit ignorance, you call it for what it is, lest one becomes an enabler. There are times when one a "side" is wrong -- truly wrong -- and the other side is right. And I think it's irresponsible to conflate and equate truth and lies, right and wrong, good and bad. For example: Black Lives Matter is not the same as All Lives Matter; one is a pure movement aimed at equity and fairness, the other is corrupt aimed at degrading that pure BLM movement. Examples of this abound. From #metoo, DACA, the immigration wall, equal pay, gun control ... there is a sinister alt-right, and even Fox News right, that attempts to stir what is bad and wrong, so the status quo is not disrupted. We should call it what it is when we see it. Tell the truth, and don't succumb to corrupt spin in an effort to get along.
23
When confronted with the, “Well ‘what about’ Bill Clinton?”response in discussions with Trump’s supporters concerning his serial sexual predator behaviors, I always say I thought Clinton should have resigned after the Lewinsky affair came to light. I’ve yet to hear one Trump supporter say Trump should do the same. It’s funny that behavior one finds so reprehensible in the other party, is ok in yours because the other party did it too.
7
Donald Trump was elected President in accordance with the long established election procedure specified in the US Constitution. He was NOT “partially elected by Russia” as you state. Nobody is claiming that anyone other than legitimate American voters cast ballots for him. There was no evidence of coercion, vote stealing or ballot box stuffing. Although you may not like it, the election result is correct. Please cease claiming otherwise.
6
There was and is evidence of false propaganda, lying and illegal interference by a foreign country in our electoral process. No one will ever know if minds and votes changed as a result of that interference, so you are right, he was elected per our Constitution. He tends to duck the Constitution now that he is elected and has not read it. That makes him a bad leader. He seems to be in the pocket of the Russians; he never criticizes Putin, nor has he imposed duly voted sanctions, and up until now has been the only person in the government who believes Russian interference to be a hoax. There is a difference between "correct" and beneficial. Trump is a traitor and a thief in my opinion, and no amount of Constitutionality surrounding his election has changed that.
21
The "partially elected by Russia" was clearly meant as an example of the world view held by one of the two Americas Mr. Kristof is referring to, and as such, part of a stereotypical bundle of ideas espoused by one of two groups unable to see beyond their biases. The fact that you chose to select that one phrase which is in no way supportive of the point the writer makes, and allow your focus on it to prevent yourself from considering the ideas he presents, indicates you are part of one of those two Americas, both of them blind and stumbling in the dark.
1
There may be two Americas or at the very least two polarized partisan versions thereof, but there is only one truth.
11
Mr. Kristof is undoubtedly a bigger, kinder man than I am because I believe it’s a naive fool’s game to try to find common ground with the deplorable minority who adore Trump even as he tears your country apart. Therein lies the path to doom.
My feeling were brilliantly summarized by Fran Lebowitz in an interview with stranger.com earlier this week:
“One of the worst things about the present political situation is, and not just some sort of media situation but the actual situation, is that—I said this to someone the other day. I said, "You know? I didn't used to hate Republicans. I disagreed with them." You know?
If Republicans were like Nelson Rockefeller you disagreed with them because they didn't think there should be taxes on capital, and they were opposed to unions, and these were things that I feel very strongly about. I disagreed with them, but I didn't hate them. I hate them, now. I mean, I actually hate them. I don't care what they say. I don't believe them, and I hate them... People who in their own advertising for themselves talk non-stop about the most unfettered kind of gun ownership that it makes your hair stand on end, who are very clearly racist, misogynist? I don't care what they think. I'm not even going to pretend to care what they think.”
72
When the fever is running high the patient tends to be delusional.
If you want to read a well written scholarly defense of slavery, and the American Civil War, Google, South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.
5
South Carolina's declaration of secession is, like those of its secessionist brethren, in no way a "scholarly defense of slavery." It is merely a diatribe against those who sought to abolish slavery - the political, economic and social mainstay of the South. From about 1830 on, Southern thinkers, writers, preachers and politicians wasted untold man-hours in attempting to create a "scholarly defense of slavery" - to no avail.
I've been watching this situation develop for some years; before Citizens United sealed our doom for the immediate future, at least. The answer is complex, yet amazingly simple!!
Capitalism/corporations have a "take no prisoners, get every last piece of wealth that's available" philosophy. To facilitate this, they have to control the government and the people. So these forces slowly made a "hostile takover" of the Republican Party. Those who want to get elected as Republicans must toe the capitalist/corporate line. If not, money will be used to "primary' them on the next election. Once elected, they take an all-or-nothing, my-way-or-the-highway attitude; the business model they talk about. Democrats spent a lot of time backpedaling, acceeding, trying to compromise, but it was no use.
They finally said two must play this game, and now we have gridlock.
Of course, we can see this hurts and destroys the government. But that plays right into the hands of those who've taken over the Republican Party. If they can't control the government (and thus the people, profits, "regulations"/protections, etc.), destroying the government works just as well for them. In spite of constantly giving lip service to freedom and democracy, and those little flag lapel pins, they want the government the same as their business model: a dictatorship, rather than democray.
Look up Sen. Prescott Bush, George's grandpa, and Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, 1932 attempted overthrow of US government!!
6
I will confess, when the Congress wants to pass something I think is bad, I hope gridlock will prevent it. When they want to pass something I agree with, I hope they can reach compromise and pass it. Our government was set up to have checks and balances between and within branches. When we have gridlock, or lack of progress, how it looks depends on what is being pursued.
2
A Republican President, Republican Governors. Republican state houses, Republican Senate, Republican House.
I don’t see a divided country. Looks like the opposite, would you be complaining if all of these offices were Democrat? Obviously not so to complain is just being a partisan hack.
4
But Nick, your conservative colleague is writing today to suggest age restrictions on teenagers’ gun purchases to curb gun massacres as a solution when the worst massacre in US history was perpetrated just months ago by a man in his 50s. How can willful ignorance and specious arguments lead us to negotiated truth?
9
The solution to gun violence is not just one thing. If we could curb gun buying by young men such as Cruz, there would still be other issues. Apparently your solution is do nothing because we don't have each and every answer. Related to gun violence, we need to address mental health issues, safer school campuses, better background checks, the kinds of guns that civilians can own, how they are licensed, and how they are stored. Those are not all of the possible things that could be addressed. Steve, suppose the Las Vegas slaughter occurred but the one in Parkland did not? Answer: At least 17 young people would be alive today who instead were mowed down. All criminal activity will never be prevented but we can try to lessen it. We have laws against murder and manslaughter, but people still kill. Should we repeal those laws because they are not always followed?
7
More naive thinking that the right will find very amusing. There cannot possibly be better anything as long as the NRA gives politicians, almost all Republicans, millions of dollars. They gave Donald J. Trump $30 million. Think about that when you imagine that Trump and his minions would ever do anything to curtail or control the gun culture. The US is a country controlled, not by morals and principles (however much they get trotted out for the cameras), but by money. Lots of money.
2
Believe me, I've tried to discuss and understand why:
1) The "right to life" doesn't include all of us who are on a campus, in a movie theater, attending church, enjoying a concert, or shopping in a mall.
2) Your life is only "sacred" if you still haven't been born.
3) Science is suspect unless it can keep a plane flying in the air, provides a cure for pneumonia, enables a premature baby to live, or helps an inspector close down a bad restaurant following an outbreak of e-coli.
4) Only one faction of one religion wants their views reflected in stone, on plaques, in textbooks and in prayers within public institutions that everyone supports through tax dollars.
5) Education - a surefire way out of poverty for many - is being denigrated as a waste of time, useless, and inherently "liberal and elitist."
6) Laws against certain kinds of guns will never work, but laws agains abortion and marijuana will, of course, catch on quickly.
7) The kinds of immigrants we're getting now are not the kind we want, and instead we should wish for Norwegians or Australians to come and pick crops, clean hotel rooms, or work in construction.
8) A man supposedly born in Kenya to an American mother is somehow a worse choice for president than a man born in New York who won the election with coordinated and clandestine help from Russia.
I've given up. Trying to solve differences and understand one another is a two way street, but right now it's the road to nowhere.
40
I agree, furnmtz. You forgot, why is it okay to resume polluting our air, land and waterways?
5
No. There are dividing lines. My late mother told me that Joe McCarthy, a drunken liar who created the same sort of “you're with us or with the enemy” mentality, was such a dividing line for her. Friends, good friends, and even some family members were cut off for their support of such a hateful and hate-filled figure.
Trump and his ilk are the dividing line for me. They don't want anything to be “great”; they want to vent grievances, real and imagined, and go back to a far darker time in our history.
We don't need to engage them. We need to organise and defeat them at the polls.
[Footnote: it's amazing to me that even McCarthy is making a comeback thanks to the deplorables. You can find plenty of people who actually believe there *was* a list of communists in the State Department, but that the “deep state” got to those who had it. Incredible. One long stream of delusion and paranoia.]
19
Good intention, Nick, but there is simply no equivalence...
10
Civility is a sign of civilisation because it acknowledges the fact that its citizens take responsibility for recognising the rights of each other. The NRA has hijacked Americans first and second amendment RIGHTS to feed their avarice. Until Americans take ownership of their RESPONSIBILITIES to their fellow citizens, massed killings in the USA will continue.
2
Nicolas, I think it’s ironic that you are writing this. Because only a liberal would be empathetic enough to see both sides and inherently want to reach across the isle in circumstances like these. You have, in previous writings, continued to make the case that both sides do it, so therefore there is a middle ground being missed. This false equivalency debate, I think makes you lose credibility. FOX News literally lies. They are a propaganda outlet. I turn it on once and while when something big happens and they either entirely discredit facts or just don’t cover it at all. They are the educator for the right. So to say this is a 50/50 argument is ridiculous. It’s more like 90/10. Write more about animal welfare issues please, thats why I started following you in the first place.
12
In order to engage in meaningful conversation across partisan/ideological boundaries, both/all parties need to engage in good faith. There are plenty of people who are willing to do that but there is a hardcore subset, particularly on the right, that do not.
I grew up in the Bible Belt and there is a strong bias against really engaging with and understanding differing view points there, and not just political. There is a conflation between understanding and agreeing.
And the devil shift is regularly employed. Not unique to the right but the right is certainly more prone given the overlap between people who believe in the actual, literal being of Satan who actively temps people and the people who identify as political conservatives.
It is not enough to just disagree, possibly chalking it up to the other position(s) as misguided/misinformed rather than differing but valid priorities or perspectives. People who hold other positions are bad, possibly, evil people. Seeking to be understood, not even to persuade, can be framed as efforts to tempt one into straying for the right path.
I think that the only solution is to be in relationship with those people, to demonstrate you are not, in fact, an evil person. But hashing out your thoughts on guns, immigration, etc. is fruitless in the near term. Even in the long term, my in laws think I'm going to hell... after 15 years of showing up, doing the dishes at Thanksgiving, driving people to the airport, etc.
4
The point made by Nicholas Kristof about confirmation bias in America and the diminishing ability of a conservative and a liberal to have a civil discourse these days on political subjects is absolutely true.
Anyone who does not see that reality either lives in a cocoon of like-minded people or is a hermit or is too dense to converse with anyone about any complex issue.
Civility does not mean that we must meekly agree with someone who voices an opinion totally at variance with our opinion. Just the opposite. If we believe that our view has merit, we owe it to ourselves and to the person whose opinion differs so much from ours to speak frankly.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m sorry that I am unable to persuade you that you’re wrong about this. You are accepting false data as facts, and you are not applying the logic which I’m sure you utilize every day in your business and daily life.”
3
Let's meet the climate change deniers halfway, send half the DACA people into oblivion, build half a wall, and go with 50% less school shootings. Social Security could be a lottery, where only half the population receives it, but to keep it fair, congressional pension plans should work the same. (--just kidding, that last idea will never fly.)
There was a time when slave owners were willing to compromise. Just think what would have been achieved if the abolitionists hadn't been so close-minded.
9
I have lived in places where most people didn't share my views. And I have had a family that was of the opposite opinion on almost all political or social matters. What happens is that parties and other gatherings are no fun. The church denomination you might want to attend, because of its familiar music and liturgy, feels alien in this place. You begin to hide who you are. Finally you do what you have to (including changing your job) to get the hell out of there. And so we are continuously sorting ourselves out. Humans evolved in groups, and our tribalness is deeply embedded in our operating system. The more threatened we fell, the stronger the tendency to sort. The solution to that is probably centuries away.
2
As a passionate "libtard," I completely empathize with the indignant comments here that protest being equated with climate deniers, rapacious billionaires, and the viewer base of Fox News.
But, Houston, we do have a problem, and it is much, much bigger than the troll in the White House and his roving band of grifters, hangers-on, and mega donors. There are 60 or so million of our fellow citizens who cannot all be mentally deficient yet who somehow still approve of this presidency. There is no getting around that. We simply cannot move forward as a democratic society with this kind of permanent split, or we will self-destruct.
We have to figure out how to talk to each other. We have to figure out how to listen to each other. You have to find the teeniest scrap of common ground with someone on the opposing side and start from there. Do it.
2
Some of us are exhausted. I would start, however, with what we want to accomplish. We all want safe schools, good jobs, clean water, healthcare, and fair rules (at least I think we do). The rub is what laws and policies will actually get us there. There's are divergences of belief about many things. Immigrants are either robbing us blind or contributing much to the economy. Treaties either are creating more business and jobs or they are ruining our country. We need agreed-upon reality before we can debate what to do about anything.
1
As an educator, I'm part of a movement toward proficiency based learning. The main characteristics of the movement are definitions of what we want students to know and a search for what works, with data collection to show our effectiveness. Government can be the same way. Is that agency effective in it's mission? What can we do to reduce the amount of gun deaths? What can we do to reduce the number of abortions? What can we do to reduce the number of people in prison? What can we do to create jobs? What can we do to pay down our debt? What do we need to be safe from foreign adversaries? What would truly prepare us for environmental challenges to come? The answers to these questions can be found, not in adhering to a cult of personality, but in dispassionate, data driven analysis. Advances in technology are making this type of government possible. I think the first step toward getting past our biases would be public funding of elections. We need to reign in those with a financial stake in holding us back, who appeal to our emotionality as opposed to our reason.
6
But wherever we stand on the spectrum, there are sane, intelligent voices who disagree with us — and too often we plug our ears to them.
One silver lining of the Trump Presidency is that I have realized that there are many rational and sane Republican's I formerly dismissed out of hand without considering their views more closely.
John McCain, Muller, Christopher Wray, Rod Rosenstein Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, David Frum and many others. Even George W Bush. Even though I disagree strongly with Bush W on most things, none of these people including Bush were purposely malicious or malevolent the way Trump or Bannon are.
I really have come to the conclusion that there are many good, honorable and sane Republicans that I previously underestimated and did not give respect to.
On the other hand, Trump and most of his enablers have few if any redeeming values. Really, I find them extremely unintelligent and their outlook is positively toxic to America.
For example, how can one possibly find common ground when a small minority of Republicans insist that their right to own a gun is more important than the safety and lives of the many thousands of American's that die from Gun violence.
When I look at all the victims of the mass shootings in the United State I can only have profound sadness AND ANGER at their family's and communities loss. It is selfish stupidity at its worst. How can you find common ground with the NRA?
11
I am a big Kristof fan but I think he missed the mark today. There can be no rational discussion of the divided America without also discussing the death of facts.
8
The writing and thought on this subject are improving. Advancements are noting each side caricatures the other, it hurts liberals’ causes to stay in their echo chambers, but it’s too “glib” to say we’re always there, and we don’t want confirmation bias about confirmation bias. Having written eight articles on this topic, here is some of what I’ve learned from others or figured out about having these discussions: (1) It would help if a conservative would write a similar column; (2) don’t equate trying to reach out with condoning (most) views, or think you have to stop practicing “Resistance” elsewhere; (3) for attempts to see the others’ perspective, try to make a distinction between those issues which are truly black-&-white, versus those which are grayer, and focus on the latter; (4) can the insults even outside of the discussion even if you still can’t stop thinking some deserve it; (5) show respect and aim for empathy, and if isn’t returned, try elsewhere; (6) early on look for the humanity in the other; and (7) while you certainly don’t have to “dialogue” with hate groups, don’t give up on some of their individual members. If you do restore some civility, which will likely take some tries but is a significant accomplishment, then you could aim for the other hard part: figuring out how to mutually address the actual issues tearing our country apart. You might find others have ideas on that, as well. Hopefully, Kristof and colleagues will write about these efforts.
2
When a govt treats its citizens like dirt, to use a nice word, what’s the civilized response, Mr. Kristof? Hear them out, yes, then what?
But the stakes are so high if what's at risk is our basic safety, financial security, jobs, health care, affordable education and retirement. With phony excuses of American Freedom from ‘Big Govt’. But govt is us.
Polls show the majority doesn’t have much chance to influence policy affecting our lives. The US lags other nations in the intl Gini Index of economic equality. How’s your health insurance & retirement, Mr. Kristof? Good enough to prevent you’re being uncivil?
The Center for Disease Control is prohibited from researching gun violence to compile realistic statistics so we can meet the threat. Thus we’re all at risk. The corporate lobbies are supplanting our elected govt’s ability to protect its own citizens. What’s the civil response?
Trump/GOP has censored 7 words from CDC’s budget papers: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based, science-based. Meaning? What about our human rights?
Just how much ‘civility’ is suitable to combat this authoritarianism masquerading as a democracy? Let’s not treat our rw extremists too rudely?
No more generalizations----now write a column telling readers some appropriate wording of responses to specific Gop/Trump attacks on our rights and democracy. Teach us. Or, to put it politely, will you face reality a little more?
8
We in the US live today in interesting times. We in the US live today in difficult times. Two groups have emerged with different reality models. The result of this is extreme polarization of the realities of the US electorate. It is very difficult for adults to change their model of reality, but some do so. Classification of these two groups as liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats misses the point. I prefer to label them by name as the group failing puberty and the group embracing data and observations (GEDO), while realizing it is much more nuanced that mere names can describe.
We have a problem if we want to live in a civilization. I do not want my Sapiens tribe genes to lead the movement to go back to living in caves and spend their short time here just killing the “others”. For example, I try almost daily to “walk in the shoes” of climate deniers but must confess I also fail daily to do so. I am in the GEDO group.
I see no other route to improving our country other than increasing both the safety net and education for our young children. If we continue on the path of getting more and more means to kill all in opposition, it will be soon too late to get off this most destructive road.
1
I grew up with working-class Democrats, many of whom are today Trump voters. My own politics were shaped in the Vietnam era; I am a progressive Democrat and, drawing on my family history, an unreconstructed, unrepentant New Dealer. I believe that the federal government plays a critical role in democratic process, by acting as watchdog on the environment and financial community and working to ensure that all Americans are housed, clothed, fed and have health care.
After graduating from law school, I worked for several years at a large, hi-end law firm. For the first time, I met Republicans and conservatives. I agreed with them about nothing, but thought that they were reasonable, intelligent people, not villains. Many remain my good friends. Not one voted for Trump.
The people to whom I am not listening are not my GOP friends; they are fundamentalist extremists, anti-government zealots, crackpots and - my family members who are Trumpsters - poorly educated, unworldly tribalists who’ve spent their entire lives in a segregated, suburban, ethnic blue-collar culture. I am not listening to these people, because they are illogical, uninformed and prejudiced. They say nothing worth listening to; it’s FOX or Trump all the way.
When I hear smart arguments from informed people, I listen and debate. When I hear Trump, I hit the mute button. If we are divided, it’s because the GOP has fallen into the hands of crazy people. When reason speaks, most reasonable people listen.
691
Your analysis is correct I believe, and your behavior and choices laudable and admirable.
I spend a great deal of time in a red, uninformed state like you describe where your family lives, and I can only hope that I can have your level of maturity and reasonableness.
I fail most of the time, as I am of the mind that we have to confront ignorance straight up, conspiracy nonsense straight up, and we have to do so in a way which leaves people little room to navigate in the land of the make believe they inhabit.
6
Around half of voters went for Trump, and 30-40% of Americans still support him, that means around 100 million Americans still support him. Are you saying all these people are "fundamentalist extremists, anti-government zealots, crackpots."
I fully agree with the argument of Mr. Kristof. These people need to be understood, even if only to state disagreements an unmask prejudices.
3
Mr. Kristoff is correct. Confirmation bias is practiced by both the left and right. And while there are facts, facts don't interpret themselves. We decide which facts are relevant and significant and which are not. This decision is based on many different filters through which we view these facts: filters of culture, ethnicity, race, age, gender, socio-economic status, education, background experiences, upbringing, worldview, ideology, politics etc. Each of these filters influences our view of the world, others and ourselves. To blindly assume that we are individually or collectively, sole possessors of "the truth" is dangerous and the height of human hubris. The current echo chambers we have created through social media could further polarize our nation with tragic consequences possibly leading to our self-destruction. The greatest threat to our nation comes not from Russia, China or North Korea. It comes from ourselves. The moment we stop listening and attack each other because of our differences is the moment we begin to endanger the democratic republic we call America. As Martin Luther King, Jr. observed decades ago, "We can either live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
5
Mr. Kristof, after your initial disclaimer about your own political preferences, you have practiced a sophisticated form of what used to be called high Broderism, and is now labeled both-siderism by one of your astute fellow NYT op-ed columnists. I wish things were as simple as listening attentively to arguments on the other side to come to a position of sagacity and reconciliation. I don't believe that anymore, particularly after the election of Donald Trump. Your column hasn't made me change my views.
2
Thank you for this article! I read the NYTimes and LA times thoroughly daily and especially enjoy reading the comments.
I spent 8 years listening to my conservative friends and relatives froth over Obama (antichrist anyone?) and now I hear my liberal friends and relatives (not to mention a fair number of NYT commenters) froth daily over Trump. Sometimes subjects produce such vitriolic comments that I feel the need to go to the FOX Facebook page and read the comment sections where I find the same degree of venomous anger toward the other side on display. I want to know what both sides have to say. There are certainly many degrees of extremism on both sides and a lot of shouting past each other.
It’s really hard to find an unbiased news source (every media outlet seems to spin the headlines to make them attractive to their core readers).
When I was younger I loved to play the devils advocate and take up the opposite side of the argument when discussing politics but in today’s polarized environment I prefer to mostly just listen even when I disagree. If you’re anywhere in the middle it’s easy to find yourself being demonized by both sides.
A lot of the discussion is in black or white and many people like it that way-they hate shades of gray. Everything is either the TRUTH or LIES.
I find many topics not only neither black nor white but downright paradoxical.
2
Dear Mr. Kristoff,
I share your desire to work to understand each other and to find common ground across the aisle.
In my attempts to understand the other side, I try to read articles from the Daily Caller, Town Hall and the Fox News website only become more disturbed. The Fox News website's headlines are often misleading and inflammatory. The day of the school shooting in Florida where CNN, WaPo and NY Times had immediate headline coverage of this atrocity, these websites did not or if they did, it was minimal. It is as if they want to gloss over what happened because it would mean facing the undeniable fact that there is no reason for any civilian to owe military type weapons.
I have also done some reading on the more radical evangelical websites, again I am deeply disturbed. That half of the White House cabinet is made up of people with agendas that are seemingly such departures from, what I believe to be, the teachings of Jesus and the tenets of American democracy is frightening.
6
Mr. Kristof, I tried this on two occasions...
In the first, the person I was speaking with became so enraged over the issue of Muslims in America that I thought I was going to end up in a fight. To protect myself. In my own home.
The second time, I was dumbfounded.... and the conversation ended... when the person said to me, "Don't you think it's better that a man and a woman raise a kid?"
I have a buddy who constantly sent me insulting emails and cartoons about President Obama. You can imagine the variety. Since our current clown President, I've had one email from him (comparing how nice looking Trump's daughters were compared to Clinton's (??)), and not a one since.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kristof, but it's a constant case of "Am I going to believe Republicans, or my own lyin' eyes?"
9
There are facts and there are opinions. In general the so called "facts" spouted by say Fox News on the right are generally mis-representations of the facts. The one greatest so called "fact" which is believed by billions, is religion. The presence of a superior person who controls everything is not a fact. It is purely something everyone is brainwashed as a child to believe. Science is mostly factual. Yes there are some who distort science sometimes but most scientist base their conclusions on facts and reasoning. Politics is mainly opinion and I would consider someone who believes in left or right just as I would in someone with a different religion or no religion: If your opinion does not hurt me but helps you to be a better person, then more power to you. I hope the other person feels the same about my opinion.
2
I don't know. I read the Times's right-leaning columnists. Sometimes I even learn from them. Once in a while, I actually agree with one of them about something (most recently, Bret Stephens on Woody Allen). But... it's hard for me to imagine living anyplace in the US that isn't Berkeley or Cambridge. (Maybe New York, my home town, if I could afford it.) It's /not/ that I want everyone around me to be just like me. And, contrary to popular opinion, my neighbors in Berkeley aren't exactly cookie-cutter. But I do need certain social supports. I need a university, and its library, and a great public library. I need bookstores, big general ones and musty used-book ones and science fiction ones and the great University Press one that sells books from all the university presses, not just the local one. I need theaters! And museums (New York has us beat there, I admit, except that right across the Bay is the Exploratorium, the best museum on earth.) And repertory movie theaters. (When I was a kid, my parents took me to the Thalia a lot, one of those no-longer-existing repertory movie theaters whose death the Times was mourning the other week.) And, yeah, the neighbors don't think my political views are crazy. And they don't want to stone me for being an atheist and a communist. And they don't pass laws about who can use which bathroom. So, yeah, “it’s important to me to live in a place where most people share my political views.”
2
Hey! Wake up. Real lives are going to be ruined by the Republican efforts to shred the safety net. Real people will die as they gut medicaid, medicare, and social security. Real hopes and dreams will be smothered as they slash help for college tuition. This is not a moment for collegiality and politesse.
We are up against the wall. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck. The slightest setback spells disaster. They are intent on hurting us - wiping us out. This is not a moment for genteel gestures. Fight back. Please!
5
Kristof you write another brilliant article. My fear is that we are so caught up in this "Daily Me" syndrome, we don't strategically plan to address the biggest dangers facing our democracy, which I think is fundamentally our growing inequality, our lack of knowledge / reasoning skills, Russia's attack on our democracy, and our lack of voting. For example, if we continue to focus on every stupid thing Trump does, we won't win back Congress and the Senate, which is crucial to saving our democracy. How do we get more people to vote and vote for those who will address these issues? Is it fighting for the Dreamers? As much as I believe this is a great cause, strategically it is simply stupid. We need to focus on strategy and mass appeal, and this starts by listening to the other side, and clearly and simply describing our platform. I'm so afraid if we don't do this soon, it will be too late.
2
Let's face it. The polarization of our society can be traced to the rise of FOX as a "news" source and the permeation of the internet into all aspects of our life.
6
I think the problem is that Trump supporters act and talk like they are in a cult. They are in effect cult followers and there's just no talking to them, or listening. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone in a cult? It's simply impossible. What to do?
5
I would be very interested to hear from people who have managed to save and extract their loved ones from the grip of a cult. That might provide an instructive pathway.
1
This is the specious reasoning that caused the media attention that legitimatized Trump as a candidate. Find me one person who has a reasoned argument for deporting productive young people, severing families, justifying mysogeny, depriving the elderly and infirm from receiving meals, selling firearms to the mentally ill, belittling foreign leaders, pandering to our enemy, praising white supremacists, refusing to enact sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress, interfering with & miscasting the expression of 1st Amendment rights, disrespecting the people of Puerto Rico, insulting a host of countries and their citizens, labelling members of Congress as traitors for refusing to kowtow, and I will gladly engage in civil conversation. Until you can do that, please refrain from citing lab experiments as our country falls apart. We were much better off when bigots and haters were not encouraged to speak up as if theirs were legitimate ethical points of view. Better to focus on our failure to educate citizens in how to live in a diverse society with competing interests. Better to educate men to respect their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. Better to keep assault weapons off the streets, and help communities keep children safe. Better to teach the importance of diplomacy. Better to explore why it is that people with more than enough want more. Trump is rotten to the core. His supporters in Congress irresponsibly opprtunistic. Those around us miguided, mean and poorly educated
478
I'm not really comfortably witnessing Nicholas Kristof draping himself in the laurels of "progressive" intent. From my perspective, Kristof represents a traditional liberal tendency wearing cloaks dyed in the baths of post-Reagan democracy. In other words, Kristof is a neo-liberal with a particular humanitarian slant, not a progressive.
I've noticed this trend recently. Every left-leaning figure wants to wear the progressive cap but no one is willing to define the term. Kristof, along with many others like him, are clearly not progressives in any historical sense. Their version of liberalism has not changed. They are simply a minority now. Therefore, progressive means more or less a continuation of the past but with a return to former ideological predominance. By definition, not progressive.
3
What I love about Nick's style is his authoritarian instruction READ! Because, really, we'd rather take it in as an I.V. So thanks Nick!
Listening to others is important. But listening to Fox News, Breitbart, or right wing talk radio (the most popular and influential conservative voices today) is a waste of time. Whereas the “liberal” MSM usually does a decent job of informing our citizenry.
Compromise is essential. But the GOP proudly campaigns on a refusal to compromise, even if they get 90% of what they want. Whereas Democrats bend over backwards to compromise on everything, and are despised for it by their “partners” on the other side of the aisle.
Confirmation bias is a real thing. So is the threat posed to the country and the world by Trump’s presidency and its enablers in Congress. Whereas liberals and the Democratic minority just want liberty and justice for all.
2
The two major political parties in America each think they're so right and that the other party is so wrong on so many things?
America has essentially descended to two forms of attempted totalitarian control of the country. You can try to argue all you like against this, but people's behavior and speech betrays the fact. Obviously in a nation of millions upon millions and increasing, and these people of various race, religion, ethnicity, cultural origin, all of education just about and public life has descended to behavior control and modification, that we must "all be safe", that "we are all in this together', that "we must have values", etc.
It's an appalling time to be for individuality, quality, higher order thinking. Any parent with any sense with a child with above average I.Q. will not allow their child to attend a public school. General education is not much more than sheer crowd control today, a process of getting "everybody to respect everybody else". And people say immigration is not a problem! The nation should shut off immigration entirely except for highly qualified people.
Virtually all intellectual life in America today is some form of banal morality, some form of getting people to conform, and technological trends are toward totalitarian control, everything from self-driving cars to internet surveillance. Elon Musk has it right, he has own education system for his own kids. America can't even articulate a quality education, quality citizen today.
1
Nearly 80 years ago we engaged in a great social experiment in which people from all backgrounds and areas were mixed together and then placed in a situation where their lives literally depended on someone quite different from themselves. It was called the draft. (The big failure was that Blacks were still segregated in the armed forces at that time, which may in part account for the persistence of racial barriers.)
The result was a period of American unity (again, excluding race) and prosperity.
I do not suggest that we start World War III. But one or two years of compulsory national service, where 18 year olds from Kansas meet those from San Francisco, just might work.
2
Our social fabric is torn? That cliche means that our country's basic structure, way of life, traditions, customs, and beliefs are in danger. I disagree. Our social fabric is whole as it ever was.
The problem is more minor: some people don't like the way Donald Trump says things and they let it get to them. They think his Twitter tweets and off-the-cuff remarks show him to be a racist, sexist, insane, criminal, anti-gay, pro-Russian, authoritarian bigot who besmirches the presidency.
Those are just words, though. Abstractions. If you focus on what Donald Trump does, it's hard to make that case. In fact, it's impossible. His actions don't match up with what his detractors say about him.
Why is that? Because he uses the ancient rhetorical art of hyperbole. Or as he puts it himself:
"The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion."
So calm down and focus on Trumpian deeds, not Trumpian words, and you will feel better. Donald Trump is pretty middle of the road -- not conservative, not liberal. He's simply offending some by his words while his deeds leave the social fabric untorn.
1
Here’s a book more enlightening than lectures on civility to those trying to trash our democracy.
“Exceptional America: What Divides Americans from the World and from Each Other” by Stanford Law prof Mugambi Jouet... "of Kenyan and French descent, analyzes the US, based on it’s unique history, and from a comparative international view."
He quotes political scientist Seymour Lipset --- " It is impossible to understand a country without seeing how it varies from others. Those who know only one country know no country." Does Kristof, an international journalist agree?
Jouet looks at the ideological evolution of US conservatism, which long predated Trumpism.
1 example: Europe didn’t have a large % of racial minorities at home as the US did. After WW2 and independence, some former colonials emigrated to the former colonial power countries. But their universal health care had been already supported by all when their nations were more homogeneous. That tradition has held. We still don’t have it as the GOP for decades has stoked racial competition for basic economic security using it to win white votes.
Other causes of the American political divide not so common in other advanced nations are US anti-intellectualism, conspiracy-mongering, a visceral suspicion of government, Christian fundamentalism, and distrust of science ---far more common in America.
And add our Fox News Monopoly, a media megaphone allowed to grow for the GOP rw, not found in other democracies.
1
Mr. Kristof has written an admirable column, and the comments posted demonstrate why admirable columns are so ineffective. Of course part of the pleasure of posting comments is to ventilate one's personal views and see them in print, however little may be their impact or readership. Clearly,
neither readers and those posting comments here in the New York Times, (or on Breitbart), have any intention of giving up the fight. Insulting the intelligence of one's adversaries is fundamental to all this snark. Part of the problem (and the comments posted to this op-ed demonstrate it), is the endless obsession with Donald Trump. Our cultural divide was deep and difficult before Donald Trump appeared in our political life, and will remain deep and difficult after he departs. I am conservative in my politics, evangelical in my religion, and I was valedictorian at law school. But the first point of departure I have with any liberal, democrat or progressive is the notion that whatever outrageous thing Donald Trump said last, should take all the oxygen out of the room. Whatever the value or justification is for being outraged, indignant, etc., it doesn't leave much space for anything else.
1
Seems we didn't learn some lessons from the '60's. While those times liberated protest speech in good ways, it is also true that while John Lennon invited us to imagine, he also admonished, "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow..."
And Stephen Stills, of course:
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
...
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say 'hooray for our side'
Have we lost the need to convince the undecided because there no longer IS an undecided? No one who deliberates? Lost the middle because there is no longer a middle? I think most folks think their position is the reasonable middle. That's how much blind demonization of the other has become so routinized in our politics, how polarized we are. Partly by design and manipulation, partly because our society, our species is so stressed. We'd better figure our way...
The Daily Me results in the conviction that because you feel something strongly it MUST be true. It is the opposite of analysis and the triumph of emotion over reason. The TV news channels too, are partly too blame; the endless repetition of the same piece of news leads the human brain to believe it eventually, even if it started off with a dose of healthy skepticism. The exceptions to that are the forensics offered by a Rachel Maddow and a John Oliver.
2
Enough with the false equivalency. We should be civil to a minority trying to subvert our liberties, erode the rule of law, degrade our environment and foment distrust and division within our society? We should turn our administration over to a gang of corrupt petty mobsters controlled by a hostile foreign regime? We should live with lies and not truth? Just think what our founding fathers would say about that!
5
Mr. Kristof, when Barack Obama was president, he never demonized the Republican party or their nominee who emerged from the dark shadows of a past that America would like to forget. During the ugly 2016 presidential campaign, President Obama urged people not to boo but vote, nothing more. During the ugly 2016 presidential campaign, Breitbart News became a media player of note that was as virulent as was Fox News in their hatred of the
Democratic president and their party nominee, Secretary Clinton. During the ugly 2016 presidential campaign it was the GOP nominee's toxic and divisive rhetoric that tore apart America's social fabric that he promised to mend and make America better.
Democrats and Republicans are polar opposites on the issues of today, which is why there are two Americas. The president has the bully pulpit so he believes that what he says is right, and Congressional Republicans are in lock-step with him, while 60% percent of Americans disagree with him. There is no centrist point of view coming from this White House, which is a nod to the president's base. They believe him when he says that a "deep state" wants to undermine his presidency.
Today, there is no middle ground, just another civil war like the one that divided Americans in 1861 and ended in 1865, but without the cannon balls and muskets. There seems to be no end in sight for what divides America today.
3
Is this an example of the "irresponsibly balanced" news anaylsis Krugman warned us of the other day.
Republicans are off the rails in gerrymandering, court stacking, voter suppression, two-faced lying, distraction, and utter hypocrisy. Trump is an unmitigated disaster, undeserving and unfit for his office. Period. These defects are exactly WHY the Russians could successfully massage their willfully malleable voters. Full stop.
1
Mr. Kristof,
You've presented a false dichotomy here: One side accepts science, evidence, truth, and facts. The other side denies them. These positions are not equal. Even in a "You're stupid!" "No, you're stupid" shouting match, all the evidence tells us that one side is right and the other side is wrong.
When you refuse to acknowledge this salient fact, you become part of the problem.
1
It seems logical enough to accept science, evidence, truth and facts until each one is conveniently distorted to fit ones narrative. This is what both sides conveniently like to do but more prevalent on the left. Some issues require a nuanced kind of thinking before getting to the truth and a solution. It’s less important to rely on the clear evidence of something like science but more important for people to learn how to compromise for a solution based on that evidence.
At some point, Reality and Common Sense may appear center stage beside Civility to declare there is wide-ranging Evil in our midst.
Should we compromise with Evil?
That is a question.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
Debate is useful and even necessary when facts are in question, but it merely serves as a dodge when the facts are well established. Take climate change, surely the most pressing issue of our time. Do we concede that both sides have a point, or do we defer to reputable science and correct a course of action that will doom our human future? A similar logic applies to Trump's activities. He either did or did not commit the crimes of which he is suspected, but this must be determined by impartial inquiry, not by party loyalty. But try telling that to the people at Fox News. Liberals love to hang their heads in shame as a sign of conscience. But for once let's stick to the facts and hold our heads high.
1
As a life long conservative who has on rare occasion voted for a democratic candidate,
I discovered long ago that properly solidifying my opinions came from the need to have smart conversations with those who differed from my own. That began to change not to long ago when, while discussing the math challenged numbers of Obamacare (which have since turned out to true), my liberal, well educated relative simply called me a racist....end of discussion. While attempting to still seek out the truth in today’s convoluted world I have become very comfortable in my “conservatism” given the fact that the progressive left has no use for Western civilization anymore, nascent human life (as valueless as a painful tooth) and a willingness to teach young white kids in our schools that they are racist and entitled by default. On our college campuses free speech is only free if you are left of center.
Still, there is a lot to be learned from watching FOX, MSNBC and CNN, in small amounts, and digesting The NY Times and the WSJ, when people are willing to engage civilly, uncomfortable as it may be. Even Mr Kristof acknowledges this.
3
For what its worth, on twitter I follow those who share my views; and those who follow me tend to share mine. It's a big echo chamber. But I'm repelled by the craziness of the "other side." I don't know how to bridge the chasm, and don't try. I think this state of affairs is very sad, and potentially tragic for our democracy.
"Progressives" can learn from conservatives. I'm still a bit stunned by Bret Stephens' column calling for abolishing the 2nd Amendment. I don't know if I agree with it and certainly don't see it happening in this generation, but it was brave of him to say it.
2
Kristof is right; there are two Americas. But I do not view those who live in the "other" America as "dangerous" but as gullible and simple minded. They have access to FB via which they spread one conspiracy after another at lightning speed. They are largely uneducated, not in the sense of not having a college level education, but in the sense of being incurious about science, technology or global affairs.
Many Americans go to other countries as part of a cultural exposure and experience. Maybe we should spend more time with those Americans who live in "MAGA" America as part of improving our collective understanding.
1
I actually think there's been an exhaustive exercise in understanding the concerns and motivations of the "second America" that you describe. Including the legitimate concerns regarding loss of opportunity and failure of government to address this loss. Yet, the continuing search for understanding will never rationalize the reality that a truly vile and entirely self-interested person occupies the Oval Office, and therefore the interests of no Americans are well-served. The equivocation only draws the country further into the abyss.
1
"It should be possible both to believe deeply in the rightness of one’s own cause and to hear out the other side."
The "other side" has a written political platform that includes criminalizing abortion, deporting millions of Americans who have never lived anywhere else as adults, and deliberately imperiling the health of every American by eliminating commonsense regulations on air and water pollution.
It has an unwritten political platform of suppressing minority voters, shrugging at naked corruption, and giving away as much of our money as humanly possible to those few Americans who already have the most.
It also has a record of lying about literally every single major policy it has tried to enact into law (the Iraq War, both Bush and Trump's tax cuts that supposedly were aimed at the middle class and won't increase the deficit, Bush's abandoned plan to privatize Social Security, etc.)
The onus is not on my to "hear them out" or defer to my fellow citizens who support this catastrophe of an agenda. The onus is on you, and your peers in the media, to remind people that one of our political parties lies about everything, views and treats a huge percent of the population as un-American, and has in the last thirty years torn apart every tradition and norm that once guided the federal government's operation.
Instead all we get is this pap.
2
In a recent bit in the WaPo, it was pointed out that the claim that there have been 18 school shootings this year is simply inflated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shoo...
The responses fell into three categories. Some said inflating the numbers was wrong, some said it was o.k. because guns are bad anyway, and some seized on it as proof that everything from the left was a lie. A good illustration of the point of this article.
In science, we see the same thing. Evolution really happens and has for 4B years. The Earth really is 4.5 B YO. This is unacceptable to a large minority of Americans and nothing can change their minds. The specifics of the process are open to debate but not the process itself. In the comments, there are the same divisions, just like with guns. Ditto for economics, climate change, sexual assault...take your pick.
All any of us can do is try to be aware of our own biases. It is also true that sometimes people are just plain ol' wrong and there are no 2 sides. Making that distinction - that's the tricky part, isn't it?
3
Soundbite democracy (or non-democracy as it were) has morphed into "word bite" democracy aka the Tweet. 140 characters of goodness. Now that it is 280 characters that must make us twice as smart. Websites inform readers of "long reads" when more than 200 words are involved. People just don't have time for any of that reading and listening!
Citizenship, let alone democracy, require a little bit of effort. The US media has created the 9 second sound bite, and everyone went along with it. "Tell me everything I need to know. You have 9 seconds." In Europe, political debate and discord is a sport, at cafés and over dinner, where people argue passionately, then kiss, hug and move on. Fostering hate for "the other side" is not unique to the US, but unfortunately in this arena the US is a world-leader.
And lastly, thoughtfulness, openness, dialogue, debate and civility needs to come for the top. As I write this, I just checked yesterday's tweet-collage from your President, and felt sorry.
Pragmatism used to be both the way ordinary Amrericans and American institutions approached knowledge. America was successful because we demanded results that worked.
Today you see people setting up rationalistic systems: from Ayn Rand to the latest conspiracy theorist. Maybe it's too much knowledge about computer programming so that people think all you really have to do is set up premises and reason to results in order to know anything. A little computer learning may be a dangerous thing. True computation experts know "Garbage in; garbage out."
Creating a valid argument is not the same thing as reasoning from real-world data or "facts" to conclusions that also fit experience. What did one see with Communism but a continuing insistence that the system was validly reasoned so one could ignore the fact that it was just not working as promised
It has become so bad in America that just 8 years after the Republican economic policies led us to near disaster people voted for the same failed policies again.
What is more scary than people not getting a wide variety of information is that we don't know how to process it and act upon it if we do. You need only look at the Rightwing ideological denigration of science to see that they are trying to indoctrinate robots.
4
As a liberal, I know many conservatives who are good, "nice" people. But I also know that there is a limit to how close I could get to a today's Republican. 20 years ago in such quaint times I didn't think like this. It never really crossed my mind. But now I see that there is an essential way that we look at the world which is profoundly different. I see an innate selfishness in conservative's viewpoints. I see a profound hypocrisy in them. I see a huge naivete in them. And I see an anger, though wildly misplaced, that cannot be soothed. And I am sure that by saying these words, Republicans will be offended and accuse me of "looking down on them". If only there was a simple solution to this divide. Or even a difficult one. I have no clue.
5
I am a self-described liberal Democrat, yet I own about 20 firearms. Go figure. Among my friends and extended family are unrepentant Trump supporters. They are still my extended family and my friends. Raised in the Church of Christ, from my earliest memories of religious dogma, I was taught that Catholics were the spawn of Satan. I am in my 27th year of marriage to a wonderful Catholic woman. Again, go figure.
It is wrong, as NIck points out, to automatically demonize those who voted for Trump and who continue to support him. I know this from direct experience. Yet, I do it on a daily basis. My mother was wrong to reinforce the lies taught to me in church. She died before I entered this marriage, but she accepted my first wife, a Lutheran, Catholic-lite, with an open heart. I believe she would have done the same with the woman who has tolerated and loved me for the past quarter+ century.
But politics, the Trump phenomenon in particular, has altered good and strong relationships, just not in a positive way. Conversations become stilted. Subjects once open for some combination of serious discussion or good-natured ribbing are now avoided. Offense is taken on a personal level that once was unimaginable.
Civility is maintained, but only at the cost of silence where there once would be a friendly riposte, followed by a tit for tat response and an offer for a refill of the empty glass of Scotch or another bottle of beer.
These are, indeed, interesting times.
7
Academic studies aside, the practical problem is not in the interpretation of data but rather when the actual intent is not the same as the stated one: they lie, call it rhetoric, and con the public into believing one set of values so as to enable another. Not only is the data wildly selective, but it often supports an argument that more convenient than relevant, a smoke screen.
In fairness, it should be said that conservatives sometimes do that too.
1
Appears to me that most Republicans in the House and Senate don't really care if we believe in what they are doing or whether or not they are right or wrong about anything. They work for their wealthy donors and obviously care highly about what they think not what is best for the people they serve. Talking points? What talking points? Their actions have shown time and again they are dead set on lavishly appeasing their donors and throwing the rest of us under the bus whenever and however they can. And they are not done yet.
3
There's a concept from ecology that's worth keeping in mind: "vulnerable to predation." The lamb might like to lie down with the lion: but the lion prefers the lamb chop. A fanatically unshakeable need to see all parties as acting in good faith leads in this world to a poor prognosis.
Who can afford the comfort of such pretense? And for how long?
I agree with Nick. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Brooks, Mr. Douthat and the other conservatives who write for these pages. In fact, over the years I have also read a fair amount of conservative scholarship. The Chicago economists, for instance, are interesting. And everybody can learn from folks like Mr. Hanson who writes about democracy and the early Greeks. The right wing hardliners have claimed him for their own but why should they get to determine our reading habits? In fact, I had never been involved at all in politics until the last election. The racism and misogyny were unacceptable. The Republican candidate was too unfit. There was too much dishonesty. Too much bottomless bad faith. All in all, my participation itself came about for reasons that were essentially nonpartisan. I believe decent and reasonable people of all political persuasions should have come to the same conclusion.
Actually, liberals are very interested in understanding Conservatives. There is a growing set of books by people like Arlie Hochschild and Jonathan Haidt that offer a view of Conservatives that is both empathetic and considered. The diffference is simply that no Conservatives are interested in a similar attempt to understand Liberals. Liberalism has a built in belief in perspective-taking. Conservatives, on the contrary, equate perspective-taking with contamination.
2
Mr. Kristof,
I am a bleeding heart liberal but admired and respected the compassionate conservatives in the past. But now, this political and ideological polarization is moving too far too extreme. The columnists on the left and right are just inflaming the sound minded people on the right and left. When one columnist on the left started to call the President of the United State by the names, I had to write comments stating that he should not be so emphatic. Of course my comments were completely ignored amongst the hysteric reviewers that agree with him. Speaking strictly on the racial issues, being proud of the White or Black or Hispanic or Asian backgrounds does not by itself make them a racist. I understand that each of us should be on guard against bigotry but we also should be proud of our own heritage. Are we going to behave like Gandhi or Mandela, or Malcom X? So much hatred out in the open nowadays.
Great job Mr. Kristf! Liberal democracy must include an opposition. All sides must commit to minority rights, our Bill of Rights, a basic safety net, civic culture, a commitment to civil discourse, protection of private property and equal opportunity. More like northern Europe and less, much less like our current situation.
Like many of your comment writers I'm a progressive (liberal) and got into my first disagreements with Republicans during the Vietnam war. I was drafted and spent 69-70 in President Peace with Honor Nixon's Vietnam. At that time I was sickened by the moral majority or silent majority as they were such war hawks. In my view this is where the demarcation point began between our two sides. Trump supporters are clearly more strident then Nixon supporters and at least Nixon did do a few things right - namely the EPA and opening up China. I see only hate coming from Trump and his zealous backers. I too am tired of trying to understand their point.
4
In college, I took a political philosophy class with Allan Bloom who had just caused a stir with his book, The Closing of the American Mind. He was a conservative and had some distasteful opinions e.g feminism was vulgar and that rock music was corporate opium for the masses (not popular with a young liberal). I'm probably making a hack of it but his theory was that elite academic institutions were failing as it was producing students who only aimed to be "open-minded" at the expense of truth. That relativism would deem all judgments of equal value -- leading to nihilism and danger for society at large (as these same students would one day be leaders).
He was not shy about telling us that we were "stupid" as we were too specialized and unthinking compared to back when everyone aspired to be an artist & scientist. In his day, they engaged in lively and difficult debates while we spout unquestioned dogma. His less than palatable messages were mitigated by his persona -- he would walk in, throw his fedora and suede trench on a chair and start lecturing on Nietzsche & Tocqueville while chain-smoking.
With some glee, I wondered what he would have thought of the crude fact-free shock jock culture that has hijacked the GOP. But, more and more, many liberals are raising the same red flags for me. It's somewhat even more disconcerting as my expectations for conservatives had been lower (due to my own prejudices).
The Closing of the American Mind, what a prescient title.
2
It's about emotion; not logic. There are two ways to sell: inspire hope & love or inflame fear & anger. Hope for a better future; fear of what you may lose. Fear is stronger, but has toxic side-effects. Trump was effective at inflaming fear and anger at foreigners. Fear of criminal immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of losing one's job. He told people their fears were justified, and that he was tough enough to do what other politicians would not. Those people who shared these fears saw him as a change-maker, and they still see him that way. For many other people who did not share these fears, he was seen as a fear-monger and a divider, and he disgusted them. You can't discuss these emotions away.
Remember this about change-makers: they may be competent, or they may be incompetent. The best change-makers see the problems clearly, develop a truthful vision of the needed change, have high moral character, are compellingly persuasive, are motivational, and are relentless. Incompetent change-makers may see the problems clearly and are relentless, but their proposed changes are ill-conceived, they get sidetracked by their own character flaws, and their ideas are both poorly and insultingly explained. They create victims where none were needed.
The fix is a leader who can validate the fear, but persuade followers that there is a better path.
2
It's not satisfying to call the other side "bigots" - it's actually quite horrifying. And while the left and the right each have their bubbles, I think it's quite clear that there's more of a tendency on the left to deal in science and facts.
This isn't a matter of trying to understand a view that says "let's put more money into the military than into domestic programs", or a view that says that the Federal government should be quite small and anything outside of international affairs should be left to the states. Those are certainly debatable.
When many people on the Right either directly or indirectly support racism, sexism, anti-semitism and Islamophobia and also support those who believe it's valid to violate the precepts of the Constitution either in regards to a free press or in regards to endorsing strategies to prevent those who would vote for a Democrat to register or when they choose to ignore Russian involvement in our elections and when many on the Right choose to willfully refute or ignore science, there can't be any discussion because there's really nothing to discuss.
And perhaps there always were two Americas, but the faked dignity of our past political leaders make us think there was one. Segregation in the 1950's, civil rights and Vietnam in the 1960's and 70's certainly split this country. And the split has been bubbling under the surface ever since, hidden by the phony trivial issues that politicians and much media promotes.
140
The split in this country has been alive and festering ever since before the Civil War. It is the same regressive, non-democratic, authoritarian thinking that promulgates domination of other humans, be they workers, slaves, people of color, or women.
3
I think one of the most insidious trends is the need for our news sources to present themselves as "fair and balanced" (to coin a phrase). This leads to a lot of "what-about-ism". Sure, this guy cheated - but so did the other guy. Differences in degree, in type, and in pattern are glossed over. Hence we get Trump's racists statements, but Hillary's emails. One incident where a homeowner shoots a threatening thief somehow balances out the dozens of gun homicides we have every day. This false equivalence, the false presentation of 'both sides are equally bad' even when one side clearly is much worse, has a much more negative impact, or is much more frequent in its trangressions. We drift along, unable to choose a definite moral direction because we see every choice as equivalent - and the choices are not all equal or neutral in their outcome. There *are* greater goods, and better choices, and some things are not the equivalent of others, even when the news presents them both with equal weight and visibility. Editors have a right to make moral decisions, and an obligation to call a crime a crime, a lie a lie, an evasion for what it is, and a distraction a distraction. Lies, presented unchallenged, are not good reporting, nor is giving them uncritical exposure 'fair' or 'balanced'.
1
Thank you.Your columns are always provocative.We live in Teller County, Colorado near Colorado Springs, as red as red gets! We moved here 5 years ago to retire after stints in West Hartford, CT and Des Moines, Iowa. Our area is highly conservative- high gun ownership, many retired military people, overwhelmingly Republican, lots of evangelical churchs, etc. My wife and I tend to be Progressive in some, but not all areas. Mostly, we try to listen.Its too easy to be dismissive of folks who have different political perspectives and much harder to listen and empathize. We too often turn disagreement into enmity, which is hugely dangerous. The writers of How Democracies Die talk about this and it’s a problem we all share- and have to work to change.I rather like living in a place in which many people are politically different, but, they can still be my friends. It’s like an ongoing seminar at college, I was exposed to many many differing views and perspectives. Conservatives have many legitamate concerns about how they see our country. We need to hear them and get rid of the noise.
I don’t watch TV; I read The NY Times and WSJ and try to figure out what I think. I read other curated sites. I admire Nicholas Kristof and Bret Stephens! I try to read about my neighbors and understand without the noise of the President. I don’t have to live next to Trump, but I need to live next to and in harmony with my neighbors. Recommend Stranger In Their Own Land by Hochschild.
1
There are many practical issues where the bias you write about impedes effective government. Too many critically important issues are decided along party line votes. Trump at one point suggested a return to bench marking for breaking deadlocks. I'll support you this which I hate if you'll give me that, which you hate. For instance, in negotiations for the tax 'reform' bill, my fellow progressives could have gone along with a reduction of top corporate rates from 35% (which most companies never paid anyway) to 23% instead of 20%; in return they would have followed through on their promises to eliminate carried interest and would have to keep individual rates at their present level. The result would be less satisfactory to most of us, but much better than the monstrous result we got. That would possible in the less polarized days when we (and our representatives) all watched the same news programs and socialized with those who hold political views different from ours. It isn't possible in politics today, and if things don't change, we may end up deteriorated into an all or nothing kleptocracy like Russia.
2
I would like it if all people shared my political views, but I know that is not likely to happen.
I just wish people (ie legislators) would be fair and consider both side and try to find a compromise. That is what the government is supposed to do and has done in the past. Without considering compromise, all those Congressmen and President (and Supreme Court Justices) just care about is money, power, greed, and throwing meat to their base.
Good example: Obama according to the constitution should have been able to have his Supreme Court Justice given a chance.
Another example: The DACA children should not be penalized (blackmailed would be a better word) because someone is unwilling to compromise (think trump). Accept DACA children, but eliminate family migration. Nice little compromise.
1
From reviewing some of the comments here I find that I myself would probably not enjoy talking with them about politics either. I talk with many different people often. Sometimes I will ask if he or she voted from Trump. When they yes I respond by saying, "He had some good ideas." No cuts to Social Security and Medicare, tax cuts for all, etc. But I am very patient and when I encounter that person again, it's a friendly meeting. Most people are not up on any kind of reading about global warming, Piketty or neo-liberal economic policies. To have a meaningful dialog with anyone you must begin with respect for the other person and for his or her opinions. On a friendly basis then a serious discussion can ensure. Even when you are not agreed with, the person is left with a positive view of the conversation. There really is no quick fix for this. It takes commitment, patience a a real desire for change. As the saying goes, "Don't believe everything you think!"
1
This column is timely because if Congress is to get anything done on gun legislation, immigration, or any other pressing concern, it needs to compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word, but as Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said a few days ago, it is simply how things get done. Yet, both sides of the aisle often refuse to even listen, deeming the other side a hostile foreign power. I don't agree with many Republican arguments, but in order to prove them ineffective, I first need to read and listen, and then calmly find the evidence to prove my point.
Kristof: "In each America, people who inhabit the other are often perceived as not just obtuse but also dangerous."
I have frequently considered those in public office as dangerous, and, because of that, adversaries; but have seldom thought of them as obtuse. I think most of them know exactly what they are doing, such as those addressing mass killings with "thoughts and prayers" while choosing to do nothing of substance. The problem we have is not so much stupidity by bad faith.
1
Let’s consider Republicans and Democrats since they are the only two viable political parties in the United States. My question: If Republicans were to drop off the face of the earth, would our country be in any worse shape?
I would say no, for anything that matters to me: the environment, climate change, public education, health care, the social safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare), infrastructure, gun control, immigration, wealth and income inequality, racial equality, gender rights, free speech and freedom of the press, foreign interference in our elections … and the list goes on.
If we had two competing parties that each sought to foster the common good, we could have some interesting and nuanced conversations. But we can’t do that because the two major players are diametrically opposed with one wholly consumed with its own needs and interests and in no way subservient to those it is supposed to be representing.
You can argue with a creationist about evolution, but where do you expect to go with it? Evolution has held up to the most intense scientific scrutiny for over 150 years, so why give opponents “equal time” for their views? How about general relativity? Should flat-earthers be given perpetual unbiased “balanced” time to air their grievances for what is essentially scientific fact that has stood for more than a century?
My answer: Where do we draw the line? I would say we draw it here. And now. We are a joke to the world.
2
A young Trotskyist in the Sixties, I used to read the scorned liberal, right-wing, and religious stuff in order to know what the other side was doing. After some time, I found I preferred my study pattern to the mutual support society of our party educational discussion.
I'm going on sixty-five years of being a leftie, and shall probably die one, albeit no longer much of a Trotskyist. But, because of my focus on the ideas of my enemies, I have become a sui generis Red. For example, my main man is St. Thomas Aquinas.
Kristof is right on. Whichever side you are on, study the other ones. That's not to be nice to them, but to do yourself a favor.
Half a century ago, I discovered for myself a surpassingly important principle: I always learn more from my opponents than from my friends.
1
This is not a fair argument. Liberals are by nature open to new ideas and different people and opinions. Conservatives are by nature less inclined to new ideas and people. I would agree it's good to know the arguments in favor of the opposition's agenda. It could be we might agree with them or alternately, we might find a better argument for our own agenda. But let's face it, in the present environment, with conservatives championing a racist prez, racist immigration agendas and a clear plan to gut the New Deal, Medicaid and Medicare, there is no middle ground between the C's and L's. While Americans by historic voting patterns are probably more conservative, on individual issues, such as the preservation of Social Security, legalization for Dreamers and others, voters will prefer the liberals' position. While liberals might agree that corporate tax cuts are in the interest of boosting the economy, after all, corporations are the engines of the economy, covering the lost revenue with a boost in taxes on the upper middle class and borrowing the rest was certainly out of line when raising the tax on dividends and capital gains could have recaptured most of that lost revenue and would have taken the bold faced lie out of the claim that the tax cuts were aimed at the middle class.
1
The awful thing is that "reason" is now looked at as optional. Not an agreed upon foundation for discussion but just one way of thinking.
1
If people in your own world view start to see things differently because they have seen clear evidence of something different and you still will not at least look at the evidence, you have a problem. Six of our leading law enforcement directors presented Donald Trump with clear evidence in the form of indictments against Russian agents that there has been meddling in our election process by a foreign power. Three of those directors were put in place by Trump. Trump still seems to deny the need to change our practices as it favors him not to do so and his followers still go along with Trump';s denial of clear evidence saying it is a Democrat plot.
Of course our Republican and Democrat camps often attack each other mindlessly. It's like two gangs claiming territory. But the reality of situations is clear enough to make statements. That Republicans will favor budget deficits when it suits their political needs and denounce them when the political situation changes not for the benefit of the country but only for their political needs is a pattern that can't be ignored. That Obama care was once Romney care is conveniently overlooked by conservatives. I am sure that Republicans can present things like this done by Democrats and Democrats will do lots of soul searching. The bottom line is that we need to talk and listen more, but first we need to agree on the facts and what they mean, something that only open minds will cure.
Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization.
Well said, and degrading of common decency and civility will lead to grave consequences that many in the US seem not to understand.
Oh, Nicholas, there're no votes, campaign contributions or spin consultancies to be gained from rational civil discourse, from actually talking and listening with each other respectfully. Our political culture has devolved to the bilious base level, pushing poll-tested hot-button issues with ten-second soundbites, twitting up a storm (yes, I used "twit" deliberately), dueling spinmeisters, and commuter congresspeople many of whom aren't even in town from Thursday evening until Tuesday noon, much less engaged on a human conversational level with colleagues of different aims and philosophies. It's no wonder our politics have left the people, the citizenry, high and dry. And surrounded by swamp.
2
I am really getting tired of this 'there are good people on both sides' argument. I don't really care that 'in their hearts' the Right wants the best for America (which I really doubt for the Right-wing elite anyway), the fact is they are destroying America. And charging the cost of dismantling it to us. And, no, I'm not going to be "reasonable", no more that I would be reasonable to someone killing my child and burning my house down.
4
Military assault weapons should not be available to anyone except to the military. There are no two sides to this.
Mr Kristof is correct as usual. But this is not a remotely normal President nor a normal political party supporting him. And the flavor of “equivalence in this piece is simply, objectively, and profoundly wrong. Civility is fine but we must not forget the profoundly deranged man we are up against, nor his extreme and cult-like followers. Maximal peaceful resistance is essential.
This is a better than average essay by a pundit I usually disagree with. My reaction is: Both sides in an argument can be wrong. We live in a world dominated by grays, not black and white.
The message I feel that liberals don't get is that there are many poor who are suffering in America, and they seem to be forgotten.
I can't understand why the NY Times, for example, spends so much time on what in the end may be peripheral issues, like whether Trump actually colluded with the Russians, and almost no time on the issues that really matter to the poor.
Why, for example, were the Democrats in power for eight years, and yet could not put together any sort of proposal for a path to universal health care in the US, for example? And why is so little effort devoted to getting Americans who are underemployed into gainful employment?
These were issues at the center of liberal orthodoxy in the past, but seem to have been forgotten.
1
It may also be the case that you will have fewer friends if you are not mostly in one "camp". On various issues, my positions are both liberal and conservative - not necessarily middle of the road on any particular issue. I have lost several friends and potential friends because of political differences over the years. If your outlook does not align with one side (or a side), then all sides reject you.
3
The very first thing we need to agree on is that democracy is important to us, We must all acknowledge that we don't want to live in an autocratic country in which people have little or no power in how their government works or what they are forced to do. The next step is to come to the realization that in order to keep our democracy (or the democratic nature of our republic because we are not a pure democracy), we must learn to work together to use ideas from the left, right and middle of the political spectrum. If the people of the United States can't manage this learning and don't stop putting the lion share of their effort into hating one side or the other, they will find themselves in the clutches of an autocrat or dictator and eating at the trough of powerful and rich controllers. Unfortunately, none of this is part of any learning support system, we simply fail to teach people how to respect, communicate, cooperate, and compromise as equal members our democratic republic. Either people must learn to work together, understand one another, and trust each other, or they will lose the power they have any say in their government. The power of the people is in these very days quickly diminishing; all the warning signs indicate we are sliding into plutocracy. It is time to learn to be citizens and become one people within our own government or prepare to be members of fractious tribes with dictatorial leaders needing to control us.
Listening to reasonable voices on the left and the right is important but it's naïve to pretend that there is symmetry between the two sides. In what passes for the political right today there seem to be no easily identifiable guiding principles other than achieving and maintaining political dominance at all costs. Whatever they purport to stand for is subject to change without notice as necessary to achieve victory. While the left may occasionally look at actual facts and draw arguably wrong conclusion, the right is far more prone to manufacture "facts" as necessary to counter reasoned arguments by the opposition. For too long the media, in it's attempt to appear neutral, has failed to call out right wing crazies on their distortions and outright lies. This has allowed them to drown out reasonable voices on the right. There should never be any equivocation in dealing with these liars.
265
I'm a raging progressive, but when you say:
"In what passes for the political right today there seem to be no easily identifiable guiding principles other than achieving and maintaining political dominance at all costs."
I am struck by how much of the conservative right believes exactly the same thing about the left. They sincerely believe that Democrats keep poor people and minorities in less fortunate positions, through policies and programs that don't work, so that those demographics will continue to vote Democractic and keep the Democrats in power or at least with some relevance.
I'm not commenting on the sanity of this perspective, but I do want to point out that it seems just as firmly held by the right as the similar view is held by the left.
While those of us on the progressive left are probably alternately horrified, befuddled and astounded that conservatives could think that their description is an accurate portrayal of our motives, perhaps we should show more rigor when we try to describe their motives?
5
Exactly with too much empirical evidence to list. Put another way, there is really only one "tribe," republicans that use media to excite the limbic brain for decision making. Their emotional security is aroused by media reflecting violence, hyper sexualization, and fear of perceived loss (hunger in the limbic,prehiistoric brain). Their collective response to fear is to commit mass suicide. They currently reside in that zone best described by misery loving company. There can be no false equivocating. Only resistance by those that know that tough love based on reality can conquer all but most especially the ills created by man.
6
The political right's false equivalency drives me nuts. The GOP has clearly engaged in a campaign of false information, denial, suppression, and bullying. It's rare to have a thoughtful discussion with my GOP friends because they are deniers. For instance, why can't they address the "militia" phrase in the second amendment? They just ignore it and change the discussion. That also happens with most topics. Frustrating...
3
The column underscores the need to find a new coalition of interests that can change the narrative. That coalition may in fact be best formed between traditional conservatives with an interest in values and accountability and center-left liberals who think a unified cultural narrative can also be inclusive. The narrative will stress importance of family-friendly programs with evaluation of the interventions' worth in qualitative as well as quantitative outcomes. It will make room for faith-based interventions that rely on sound science and do not seek to impose narrow theological doctrines on everyone else as the price. It will be accountable, furthermore, to diffuse interests and not only the concentrated power of well-healed corporations and individuals who always seek just a little more for themselves at the expense of the broader public interest. The tone will be something in incentives for enterprise but also something for the people.
Mr. Kristof advocates civility and we were all, I suppose, raised to value good manners and polite discourse. However, there come a point where civility becomes surrender. Good manners did not eliminate slavery, for example and neither did compromise. In the early days of the struggle for LGBT liberation, the Matachine Society acted politely and with impeccable manners. No one paid the slightest attention. Not until we began behaving very impolitely indeed - at Stonewall and with Act Up did we gain traction. Likewise with an issue such as gun control, we have been civil more than long enough. As a teacher I have to face the fact that what happened at Parkland and other schools could very well happen to me and my students. I am no longer willing to politely listen to the arguments of the gun advocates to the effect that citizens have a right to own assault weapons. I will not accept with civility that my students should be endangered. The NRA is wrong - period - and it needs to be demolished, not accorded the respect of civil discourse. It has enjoyed that respect for too long and look what it has done with it and where it has gotten us to - wholesale death of our children. That is simply NOT negotiable.
115
Nick, I certainly applaud your desire to listen to differing viewpoints and trying to understand the "other side." That is the essence of intellectual growth. However, there is also a point at which this no longer becomes possible. For example, how do you listen to or reason with someone who utterly refuses to accept the science and evidence of climate change because doing so would require accepting a larger regulatory role for the government and spending on climate change mitigation, things to which that person is ideologically opposed? In this case, being open-minded has existential consequences. Similarly, how do you talk to someone who refuses to accept the evidence that trickle-down economics never works? Or who opposes immigration because he/she just doesn't want change? Stephen Colbert, I think, once said that "reality has a liberal bias." That is often the case. While both sides may get equally emotional, my observation has been that liberals generally tend to be a lot stronger on the question of having empirical support for their beliefs. There is a reason that the better-educated tend to be liberal. Yes, there are some conservative intellectuals who do raise genuinely uncomfortable questions that liberals cannot easily answer. However, those people usually do not dispute or deny the evidence; they interpret it in an anti-liberal way. That is quite a different argument.
53
An American, one whose ancestry goes back to the first Governor of Virginia, Richard Bennett, my parent in France used to send heaps of blue-prints my way. Her son, the child of the first bed, used to shout about this. A favorite expression at a late age now is 'Alas, is not a place where I live'.
I never did pay attention to 'The Tea Party' but my friend from Africa did, and she watched many political programs. Don't you read the News, she would ask on occasion, don't you say prayers.
It was never a question of Our being Right or Wrong. It was a question of respect and gratitude, of listening and of acting, of manners, and showing an interest in family. She was always there for this American in some way, while I supported her dreams and told her to makes these into goals.
She would pray and I would go 'Irish', and somehow there was a positive breakthrough; a promotion in the Humanitarian World; a child of hers might graduate on scholarship at one of the finest colleges in America.
America is not going to unite in this Dark Hour. We are in a rut. My spouse once declared being 'Right' does not make one happy. He was right in this sense of needing to be-in-control on all fronts was shriveling.
'Civilized' used by Paris was to describe The Last President, while remaining quiet about America. Renewing my pledge of alliance to Mr. Obama, The Pope, and many good Americans who know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of Party Affiliation.
3
As apposed to observations (There is water on our window), hypotheses assert cause-and-effect relationships (The water on our window is caused by rain). Both observations and hypotheses can be tested for accuracy. The crucial question is what is the source of our hypotheses. I confess that my source is the scientific community. I believe that today's Republicans do not look kindly on hypotheses thus supported. I believe that increasingly Republicans depend on tradition and religion, as opposed to science, as sources for the beliefs they hold. Think about global warming as a case in point. My concern is that our voters are much to inclined to adopt hypotheses pushed by big money as opposed to the scientific community.
18
A lot of political posturing has more to do with emotions and intuition than with logic or facts, which causes people distort or cherry pick facts. I can get in trouble when I am completely sure of something, erroneously, and fail to see it for a long time, if ever. I can be reached, however, and remain teachable. I try to keep an open mind. I meet some people (Trump supporters come to mind) who are impervious to facts. It seems there is no chance of reaching them or that they will become enlightened on their own. Some Americans are deeply hurting and I guess they hear hope and get that hurt expressed in the simplistic ideas and angry tweets of Donald Trump. In my opinion, their trust in him is misplaced. Based on his track record, I think he is a liar and a con artist who will make things worse, not a savior.
12
Nice try at "balance" again. Perhaps you could argue for balance in more normal circumstances with differing political views, but the situation now is outrageous and extreme, and not entirely because of political viewpoints. You can't justify support for Trump no matter what, even if 38% of the public supports him.
37
I would suggest a modest starting point would be to agree on a set of facts from which to argue our various views. As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own designer-shopped facts.
17
The conservative columnists at the Times can be talked to, although the conversations between Gail Colims and the conservatives show the
Iimitations of the format. These conservatives will discuss and sometimes defend the Donald, but not in a Trumpian manner. The Times has no one who represents Trump's freedom with facts and ultrasimplistic logic. He wins discussions by agreeing and then forgetting or ignoring what he agreed with.
This is not dissonant information, but rather Alice's rabbit hole.
23
I hope it is true that "most Americans still are regularly challenged by dissonant information." That statement of researchers' findings makes me wonder how many of us are --and are not -- challenged by/searching for dissonant information, and whether the number who are comfortable with dissonant information will hold steady, decline, or increase over time.
3
I appreciate this piece and that given how polarized America is right now, it's really hard to write a piece like this and have it be fully received. Dialogue is important on many levels (when possible)- even if only in an effort to understand the mindset of those we staunchly disagree with so we know what we are up against. In some cases, hearing out the other side helps us learn what we can offer - e.g. consciousness raising programs (for those on the fence ) to attempt to shift people's rigid beliefs that lack much ground other than fear of loss of identity (as seems to be the case with the current administrations and its supporters and everyone attached to the archaic patriarchal way).
4
Mr. Kristof is absolutely correct when he recommends that we need to listen to and respect the other side, and that, to paraphrase, being civil is very much a part of civilization...in fact, the root of the word. But while reading over some of the comments, Father Larry brought up a good point when he quoted Moynihan's assertion that although we are entitled to our own opinions, that is not the case with our own facts. That brings me to the difficulty of engaging in an honest debate in today's political paradigm. What I read in the Times or like sources of accuracy, my neighbors and, unfortunately, many relatives rely on FOX news, or Face Book (and we all know how THAT turned out) for "knowledge and truth." Whatever I say is moot or met with the comment, "You're reading the wrong stuff." Or I am living in a bubble.
What I am saying is that I personally now avoid conversations with those who are 180 degrees of my political philosophy. If one persists, I simply change the subject. Perhaps, the best thing to do, and understanding this is "polarized", is to converse with those of like-mind. And that is not to lament or express anger or angst, but to plan how to become proactive together. Because the more of us there are with strong voices, the sooner we can help get this nation back on track where WE count...not the Russians, the bigot, the wealthy, the misguided.
42
Perhaps intelligent discussion between people of opposing views would be possible if our school systems went back to teaching students how to problem solve, rather than teaching to the test. When I was in high school (in the 60's) our English and Social Studies classes included learning how to think critically. I don't see that happening today.
26
You can't think critically if one chooses to ignore facts. And many people have chosen just that. A large part of our population doesn't believe in science and a recent poll stated that a majority of Republicans believe that higher education is bad for the country. This has nothing to do with "teaching to the test". This has to do with a culture that no longer believes in being educated and knowledgeable. We are becoming fundamentalists just like some of the third world countries we purport to hate.
My own experience with trying to talk with people on "the other side" is decidedly negative akin to talking with someone who believes the Earth is flat or that there is convincing evidence and therefore the jury is still out on that topic.
It starts out neutral, then my bewilderment increases with their utterances. At the end of the conversation, I'm doing mental calculations about their likely IQ-number and I always leave the conversation in a state of relative shock.
Lately, I just stay clear of any political discussion.
It should not surprise any one that we all have biases that will color how we interpret facts. However, as Carl Sagan said, it is important to keep an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out. I would rather be biased believing that a humane solution to a problem is possible than accepting that harsh measures that hurt innocent people in order to eradicate evil ones can be the most efficient way to solve a problem. I admit to bias in accepting that experts in a particular field are likely to be better informed than I am and of being skeptical of those of whom I have no reason to trust that they know what they are talking about. This applies to climate change deniers, evolution deniers, claims that making more guns available to law abiding citizens will reduce gun violence, etc.
29
In Cincinnati Ohio about 3 years ago a group of attorneys, judges, citizens, business men and women formed a group called Beyond Civility. There purpose was to bring discourse between opposing parties, individuals, structure, and all manner of ideas, directive, policies and laws. For example if an evening's discourse brought political leaders of opposing parties together, each would define and defend not their own position but they would have to define and defend their opponent's position - switching parties for the debate. It uncovered a simple truth - even though each had a different goal they wound up being able to defend the opponent's position. The entire effort each time an event was scheduled the audience began to learn about many points of view.
The most recent one's were about racial justice, and the last one was exposure of the three newly elected council persons - a Republican African American, A Charterite and a Democratic African American woman. They genuinely enjoyed the company of each other and offered their points of view in a reasonable, low key voice. It will be entering its fourth year and all who have attended have this sense that their is a path to civility in this country. And as Nicholas said: Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization.
37
I became an environmental activist at age 22, over 40 yrs ago. Taking on specific projects such as land-use planning, the building of coal-fired power plants, etc we had to come up with compelling arguments to counter the status quo - like in a court of law. The arguments of our opponents (utilities, existing patterns and plans for sprawl) had to be very specifically debunked, one by one, to encourage public officials to "make a leap of faith" to a different future. It was great training for becoming effective. I later noticed in the classic Environmental Handbook produced for Earth Day 1972 the same advice - hone your arguments to be highly professional, razor sharp, in order to win. The media "echo chambers" of social media don't provide much of this training; I encourage people to actually take on a project they don't like and prove they have a better idea. That's the heart of democracy's "marketplace of ideas" approach. I've always loved Obama's approach, which I've also used for my own integrity and self-esteem: "I've got my idea....if you've got a better one, I'll take it."
25
There is a bigger gap: between those who use contextualized sources of news and those who don't.
Many millions in America watch headline news on TV, check Facebook, and post on Twitter all before breakfast.
A smaller fraction of U.S. residents read newspapers, books, from multiple angles, watch documentaries all the way through, do research by checking debunking sites like Snopes, and think about what to say before saying it.
When I say a smaller fraction of U.S. residents approaches information in context, I mean that I'm getting the growing feeling it might just be me.
32
We always lived in two Americas, the two Americas clashed in the civil war openly. It did not end with a defeat of the South but a truth that allowed racial discrimination to continue under one party rule that ensured white supremacy and established a quasi apartheid system in the confederate states. Along this fault lines the country broke in two pieces again with the end of segregation and full civil rights for black citizens. We see this polarization in full display now, the two Americas are at war on abortion, gun control, religion, immigration and race. One America stands in the tradition of a pluralistic liberal society and the other America has its roots in an authoritarian system where one race dominated and prospered on the backs of others. We are two Americas and we need to come to terms with it before we can attempt to become one.
22
Nope. My best friend is a devout conservative, and even he admits that Trump and his cultists are, to quote my friend: "Just hideous people." This from a man who has framed pictures of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in his study.
56
The hard core right are so convinced of the moral turpitude associated with the liberal agenda of economic equalization of the playing field, and so brazenly paranoid about the federal bureaucracy required to administer these programs, that they, at some level, accept untruths in the media and an Orwellian reality as the cost of doing business- what it takes to win against what they consider evil. It is this prejudgment of a liberal as depraved, without fully analyzing the necessary arguments, that sets apart the far right. They have no compunctions about misrepresenting reality to get what they want. Those on the left have to realize, to beat them at the polls you don’t have to stoop to the level of a bully, but you have to bring all legal weapons to the contest.
31
How do you reason with a birther?
How do you reason with gun rights activists who won't give an inch on sensible gun control?
How do you reason with people that won't budge on sensible immigration policy?
How do you reason with people that want to strip millions of Americans of their healthcare?
The answer plain and simple is: Don't waste your time.
When people are unreasonable, void of common sense, lack knowledge or can't process it properly and are Missouri Mule stubborn, trying to have a constructive debate is an exercise in futility.
Mr. Kristof:
If you can break that code you should win a Nobel Prize for Cultural Achievement.
256
I think Kristof is trying his best to be open, flexible, and reasonable, which is usually a good idea. But, as you point out so well, this is not one of those times. You can't argue with a rattlesnake; it just ain't on the menu.
These people are low-information voters, brainwashed by FOX, and treat politics like it's a sport: Someone wins; someone must lose. Tie games don't exist in this league. And compromise is a curse word, used by losers.
Kristof, a very sharp cookie, knows this, but he wants to make sure that he's not overlooking anything. He isn't. The dye is cast; the bell can't be unrung: We are between a rock and a hard place, and no pleasant solutions exist, much like before our Civil War. It's an awful place to be. All we can do, I think, is continue to stall and kick the can down the road as long as possible before everyone's patience is gone and the beast inside us takes over.
Maybe China will attack California and we'll then unite. Desperate times, desperate solutions. None of which are pretty.
Something might intervene, but it didn't last time we were here. And the best predictor of the future is the past, and ours was awful; we're still not over it.
4
"How do you reason with a birther?"
How do you reason with a truther?
"How do you reason with gun rights activists who won't give an inch on sensible gun control?"
How do reason with an abortion rights activist who won't give an inch on sensible abortion control?
"How do you reason with people that won't budge on sensible immigration policy?"
How do reason with people who call you racist anytime you suggest reasonable limitations on immigration?
"How do you reason with people that want to strip millions of Americans of their healthcare?"
How do you reason with people who want full access to health care as long as someone else pays for it?
"The answer plain and simple is: Don't waste your time."
Or the answer is demonstrating as Kristof does that both sides are guilty of myopia, intolerance, and intransigence.
2
The Pew survey is from 2014. I wonder how the numbers would look today? We seem to be more stubbornly divided than in 2014.
I honestly am not pleased when I see neighbors plaster their homes with election posters for local “Republican scoundrels”. It never bothered me before this awful election.
I’m not very happy to admit it, but it’s true.
6
Before Gutenberg and his printing press came along people had too little information; the internet has given us too much. We now live in the age of affirmation, not information. I feel like I'm in an episode of Black Mirror. It's proper to advise us to listen to those with whom we disagree, but how many of us are really going to do that? Perhaps the methods the Russians used to hijack our election will provide food for thought for affirmation junkies.
9
"The best forecasters, the people able to make the soundest predictions, P. Tetlock finds, are not experts or even intelligence officials with classified information, not liberals and not conservatives, but rather those instinctively empirical, nonideological and willing to change their minds quite nimbly. The poorest marks go to those who are strongly loyal to a worldview."
Interesting if this is true. I have thought for quite some time that my best thinking has been born of wide reading, deep appreciation of music, and in general the willingness to enter the total paradigm of another thinker, artist, culture, etc. This type of thinking is common of course among chess players, artists, all profound thinkers. You do not get locked into a particular paradigm and get minute about such, but increase your capacity for paradigms, total systems of play, you grasp how if you change one thing the entire line of proceeding changes, it's a complete shapeshifting type mentality.
You want to stretch your conception of time and space. For example read books of all possible type from every time and place of human history--enter totally into the way of seeing of writer of time and place. Learn about ways of the strangest artists, scientists, thinkers of your own time. You want as many ways of ordering the world as possible in your mind. When you get good at it it's like being a chess master just walking past a novice. You see instantly opponent's form and just reframe and bypass to win.
7
Being a conservative or a liberal or an independent ought to be a flavor of being an American, a philosophical preference. What is being sold over at Fox and the right wing media is not factual, it is a tribalistic hatred of other Americans and a quasi-religion.
140
Point of view is one thing, lies are another. You cannot discuss anything, much less hope to change minds, unless both parties respect the facts.
137
Agree totally Ms. Law. It is hard to have a conversation when you have to spend 20 minutes explaining the truth of each 'fact' stated. A hour goes by and you are still on the first sentence.
1
Civility is what happens when we over-ride the base human instinct to male factions and group violence, which is why the Rule of Law is the cornerstone of our civilization.
5
Mr. Kristof,
No number of well-meaning essays you may write about "reaching out" to Republicans will ever convince me to do so.
Why? Because Republicans don't disagree with me because of what I believe, but because of who I am. Republicans now believe that I, a native-born American citizen and ethnic minority, am not an equal citizen to white Americans. Republicans are now the party of white identity politics, and show absolutely no interest in denying it. Their agenda of targeting brown-skinned Americans is one they are proud of.
Republicans believe that I, as a woman, should have had no right to enter a male-dominated profession (practice of law in the 1970's), but instead, should have subjugated myself to a man. Republicans -
even Republican women, from their votes - believe that as a woman, I should tolerate, even expect sexual assault, as is their men's prerogative.
Republicans believe that I, a citizen with Middle Eastern ancestry, have no place in the country I was born in, more than sixty years ago.
And in this current climate, Republicans have absolutely no concerns about targeting religious and ethnic minorities. In what universe would an American citizen like me ever reach out to them? Trump voters would be thrilled to see all of us native-born American citizens of my ancestry rounded up, and either deported and put into camps. Their "president" has said neo-Nazis and the KKK are some very good people. And you ask me to listen to them? Not now. Not ever.
223
Your sentiment may be honest, however your assumptions cast a "stereo-typing" err opposite of your beliefs.
Perhaps not the best example, however there is a former female judge of Middle Eastern heritage that many Republicans embraced during the 1970's through the 1990's...
1
In the real world, I’m a moderate. Although I am not a gun owner and I am no longer a church goer, I’m not anti-gun or anti-religion. In the real world I am a middle class tax payer. I’m a concerned mother and a wife. I try to be a good neighbor and a good citizen.
On these pages and too often in the media, I’m just black. I don’t even get to be a woman - unless it’s as an angry black woman or my favorite - the least desirable of women. On these pages I read how White voters need to be listened to. I get to read all about how the Alt-Right are people with 1st world problems too, meanwhile the media keeps me a caricature.
But I read it all because I have to know what you’re reading and what lies you’re being fed about me so I can go out into the real world and survive.
103
I'm a therapist. About a third of the time I'm a couples therapist, no less. I spend every day practicing empathic attunement -- it's my job -- and often I need to extend empathy to two people who have vastly different ideas about what has happened in their own relationship.
But I am losing patience. Seventeen people -- most of them children my daughter's age -- are dead. We have a president who breaks every democratic norm every day, whose behavior would have him fired in a minute if he worked for any major organization or corporation in America. We have the Russian government actively working to destroy American democracy and neither Trump nor the GOP Congress is doing anything about it. We have a party that actually represents a minority of the American people governing as though it had absolute power (not all that different from the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union) -- a Congress that's making it harder to fight climate change, who just gave away millions to filthy rich people while destroying our tattered safety net for people who need it desperately.
I'm sick of understanding the other side. I'm sick, especially, of Trump, of Ryan, of McConnell, of the NRA, of the GOP, and frankly, of all the "nice" white people (and I'm white) who refuse to see what's going on.
I don't want Trump, the GOP, and the NRA, just to be voted out of office. I want their power destroyed, and I want Trump to spend the rest of his miserable narcissistic life in jail.
786
From your lips to God's ear, sir. I couldn't agree more; defeat at the polls is no longer enough.
4
LNL,
Do you really want Trump to spend the rest of his life in jail? There is a lot of talk about 'Christianity' these days, and less about forgiveness. Whatever happened to tit-for-tat, asked a staunch Republican this summer last. You are referring to the Old Testament, I replied, 'An Eye for an Eye and the World would be blind', a quote from Gandhi came to mind.
Until clear that this Government is not contaminated, our Voters' Trust not abused, and America is not being kicked in the Face by these allegations of foreign interference, Trump and The White House might better serve our Country, if placed under National judicial law and surveillance, until further notice.
Wow! This says everything I am feeling, but it is expressed more eloquently than I can write! We have been in a fight for the soul of our country since the Reagan/Gingrich revolution, and it is getting worse by the month. False equivalencies is not the answer. The right must be defeated in any way possible!
3
I'm happy to listen to conservative viewpoints on economics (as long as it's fact-based and not some ridiculous clinging to trickle-down nonsense), trade, security and more. I am NOT willing to listen to them on racism, sexism or xenophobia. Unfortunately, the days when Republicans actually had anything intelligent to say are long gone (RIP Bill Buckley and his generation). And please spare me the need to "understand" white Trump voters. Just stop.
56
Blame Ronald Reagan for “fair and balanced.” That’s the gateway to Rush Limbaugh; Ann Coulter; Alex Jones; Breitbart; Fox Noose and all the other awful things struggling (successfully) out from under the rocks that once stood as the guardrails of civility in the news dispensaries of the halcyon days of pre-1980 Reagan.
The Contact With America, Newt Gingrich’s single-handed severence of political comity (if not naive amity) told Red States to rebel against the Democrats as if they were the oppressive ante-bellum North.
Fact is, sir, the America of today is a carbon copy of the nation between 1860-1865. Lincoln was assassinated; the North “won,” formal slavery ended to be replaced with Jim Crow, a far worse state of affairs for “free” blacks. Red State residents can’t even let go of Northern “aggression,” and men like Richard Russell; Strom Thurmond; James Eastland; George Wallace; Richard Nixon; Ronald Reagan; G. W. H. Bush; W.; Lee Atwater; Patrick Buchanan; Grover Norquist; Tom DeLay; Dick Armey; Mitch McConnell; John Boehner; Paul Ryan; Mike Pence; and Donald Trump (and his Secretary of Information, Sean Hannity) have brainwashed half of America to hate the other half. Whatever the personal politics of Walter Cronkite; Eric Sevareid; Roger Mudd; John Hart; Huntley-Brinkley; Howard K. Smith; these news giants reported the news—they didn’t make it. They did not mold or shape public opinion. We don’t listen to one another anymore because we’re always right. Both sides.
12
When have we ever had a cohesive social fabric? Maybe be at the end of each World War? The only thing that is radically different is that our president is such a nutter who foments disagreement. He is a sadist trying to inflict misery on most of the people in the US.
18
I'd say that the cohesiveness existed during each world war and that it disappeared after the fighting ended, which is when we lost a common enemy.
I agree with your sentiment and, more importantly, the data you cite to support it. As someone who was a Republican for many years and cannot now abide the leadership of that party, I have discovered the freedom from being able and willing to change one's mind.
That said, this is a difficult time to find empirical value in the views and opinions of those who believe our president is doing a fine job. I find it far easier to find fault in progressive views, and that will have to suffice to satisfy my objectivity for the current time.
11
Nick, not to be pedantic here, but I often begin the thrust of my comments with the phrase "I argue" or "IMHO".
I do this deliberately, in an effort to create a space where a dialogue becomes possible.
IMHO, we all view the world through the lens of our individual psychology and cultural conditioning, etc. I fear this is at least partly unavoidable - and yet I also argue that a conscious awareness of this tendency can offer the ability to correct on the fly for this.
We need to restore to American life a psychic space where people of good will can dispassionate discuss important issues, in the hope that a light will eventually shine that each can see.
Thing is, once that light shines, men and women of good will have to be willing to follow it. And that has becomes increasingly difficult in an environment where not all men are of good will - no matter how loudly they proclaim themselves to be - and certain media organizations remain committed to perpetuating the darkness, due to their having a decided financial interest in the keeping the light hidden.
Hence, IMHO, before civility can be properly restored to our national life, we will need to implement a new set of checks-and-balances, like re-imposition of a fairness doctrine on all radio and television, regardless of whether it is distributed over-the-air or via cable, to limit the influence of these deliberate purveyors of political toxicity.
When they win, we all lose.
15
I do not suffer from a cognitive bias. I know a lie when I hear one being told. I know a distortion when I hear one being sold. I am not biased to see mental instability where it does not exist. As a mental health professional of thirty plus years, I know instability when I see it, hear it and am impacted by it.
In the face of the radical dishonesty daily displayed by those who speak for the right-leaning ideology of the Repub party, who serve a stew of lies, denials, distortions and diversions I am frankly insulted by the use of the term to describe me.
346
Satire, I hope. Otherwise, proof of concept.
3
As a "blue" voter, I am too often disturbed by my fellow "blues" who lapse into the type of all-or-nothing thinking Kristof describes (for example, denying the complex issues involved in poverty that Kristof identifies in "3 TVs and No Food: Growing Up Poor in America.") I applaud Kristof for his consistent attempt to find balance. I wonder, though, if any "conservative" columnists have attempted to spread the same anti-extremist message among their followers. If any do, then there is hope.
24
I find that most people, including Republicans, are willing to listen & discuss. They are almost always more reasonable than the Republicans in the media. The insurmountable division isn't between Republican & Democratic voters. The insurmountable division is between the news media & the right-wing media. You won't find a right-wing equivalent of Mr. Kristof on Fox news, advocating that their audience try to listen to the other side. Hatred and anger are their products, and they set the terms of the "debate." Yet the "MSM" continues to treat them as journalists, instead of the people who have destroyed journalism. The whole point seems to be to keep us from talking, to keep us from thinking for ourselves.
149
Currently, sharing political views can be seriously dangerous. Unfortunately, I am too old to foresee a day when when such talks will take place. The existing wall of angry partisanship prevents it. Should we be thinking about a third political party? (Hint, hint, hint)
What I fail to understand is the refusal of our nation to put the foolish need to own guns above the lives of children and citizens. I fail to see why so many greedy legislators succumb to the lure of NRA financial support. I fail to understand what possible motive the NRA can have for stopping any and all bans on killing machines like the rifles used in these school shootings. Where in the NRA's honor?
Partisan politics have turned us into monsters. Can we at least share concern for school children?
11
i am not part of a club. i would not know how to have a side if i did not listen to the other. i am an individual and of sound mind. worldview is such a silly word. i cannot separate my evolution as a thinking human being and my watchful concern for all people. there is a whole view involved. no one would know that better than Mr. Kristof. Peace
2
Your heart is in the right place, as always. And your conclusion is good that we should offer a seat at the table to those with different views. No one will get anywhere without leaving their comfort zone.
But the catch is, one can't find commonality with someone operating not just with a different perspective, but in a different reality. It is one thing to hear out opposing views on gun control, abortion, education, militarism and so on. We need to understand where others are coming from in their convictions. But then there are those who subscribe to conspiracy theories, who treat stereotypes as truths, who would codify their prejudices, who believe only the worst about groups of people. There is no reconciliation.
And what's most discouraging is that the current president encourages divisiveness, which makes ultimately coming together that much more elusive. We need a leader who is a uniter, not one who just gives it lip service.
60
So when (incessantly) self-identifying "conservative" republiclowns applaud passage of laws plainly intended to prevent black and brown people from voting, deny climate change by calling it a hoax, or support the ham handed obstruction of the investigation of Russia's cyber acts of war on our electoral process, I need to say what again?
41
Framing the problem as a difference in world view oversimplifies the conservative vs liberal argument. First, we can't lump people so broadly into the two categories. Second, if we isolate conservative evangelicals, for example, we find they often reject science in favor of faith and miracles. How do you convince someone who believes Noah filled a boat with all the animals that such a thing isn't possible? Reason doesn't work, but most liberals tend to value reason and science. So in many cases we're not just talking about world views, we're talking about sources of authority and methods of persuasion.
We also need always to consider self-interest. Very wealthy, libertarian conservatives believe government is their enemy because it costs them money. They believe they derive little benefit from taxes and are often right to believe so. Appealing to values like equality and social justice doesn't work with many of them because their highest values are liberty and individualism. In cases like this, it's very hard for Ayn Rand libertarians to find common ground with Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists.
No matter how willing we are to "hear out the other side," there's little chance of finding common ground when our higher authorities differ. During the "Age of Reason," there was at least agreement about the means to consensus. Today, in the age of Twitter, we can't even agree on modes of discourse.
19
"...it's very hard for Ayn Rand libertarians to find common ground with Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists."
Don't be so sure. I'm an Independent who voted for Gary Johnson in '12 and wrote in Sanders in '16. Don't look at the differences between them, which are primarily economic, and are admittedly kind of vast. Look at what they have in common.
- Oppesed to war, foreign intervention and regime change
- drug policy reform
- opposed to crony capitalism and corporate welfare
- Libertarians are open borders advocates (they call it freedom, but let's call it what it is, cheap labor. And i only hear from them about open borders one way - in.). Sanders was opposed to illegal immigration, and called the CIR bill congress passed "a massive grab for cheap labor." Both are moving closer together in position.
-Both advocates for civil liberties, limits to government intrusion
1
There is asymmetry between Republicans and Democrats on this topic. Republicans deny facts and reality on a different scale than Democrats. Exhibit A: Climate change. Both sides-ism will not help this problem.
36
I find this US v THEM polarization ridiculous to the point of danger! I'm decidedly left-of-center politically but I have many friends right-of-center - we talk and agree on lots and can understand the other's point-of-view. The problem is that we all have to be Dems or Reps (despite that so many of us are really stripes of Centrists/Moderates) - and those two positions are cast-in-concrete diametrically opposite. Experiments setup as described only reinforce this - and as-used become self-fulfilling.
11
Through part of my college days, then for a few years more, I used to read The Wall Street Journal rather regularly, including the op-ed pages. But my college education was heavily weighted to science. By some time in the 1980s, the Journal started running editorials and op-ed pieces either casting skepticism on, or denying human influence on global warming. Or, even worse, denying that warming was happening. (And it's still happening!) I knew from my education and reading that all that was bunk.
And experience in life led to question or dismiss a lot of what I read in conservative publications on a wide variety of matters.
I have no problem with well-developed arguments from a conservative viewpoint, in fact I welcome them. I just wish there was more writing from conservatives that eschewed dogmatic perspectives and was based on facts.
74
I ignore the op-eds and editorials there (then again i generally ignore them here too), but overall that's a fairly rigorous paper. What they get right is the economic numbers - the business community depends on that paper and they charge a pile for subscriptions, so they can't fudge the data in the way the more mainstream papers do. I'm usually pleasantly surprised whenever i read it, it's a conservative paper that's generally not dumbed down.
1
There are few conservative commenters who respond to the New York Times articles and those who do are often viewed as low information folks and uneducated when in reality they are highly educated. I have experienced this myself as a conservative. I do not write mean spirited things about liberals to whom I strongly disagree but have had vicious and nasty comments directed at me.
I have strong conservative viewpoints such as pro life and traditional marriage and yet am verbally attacked for expressing such viewpoints. They certainly do not win and influence those of us who are expressing our free speech rights. They only further divide us and cause ill will among those who convey differing viewpoints.
Civil dialog is necessary when discussing social and political issues on both the right or the life or you are left in limbo and create chaos. The one thing you must admit that Fox News does successfully is present two opposing views on a topic and let each participant speak. CNN and MSNBC does not allow this to occur which is why their ratings are so low.
Conservatives and liberals should have an equal voice but unfortunately the conservative is often shortchanged in certain venues. This is terribly unfair and must be addressed if there is to be peace in the political spectrum. Listen more to the other and stop shouting over those in whom you disagree. It is a must if there is to be equitable political discussions.
14
You must be kidding. Fox News for the most part does not present opposing views. It basically operates as a political operation (Google "Roger Ailes" and read about Rupert Murdoch) supporting very right-wing conservative ideas. I'd go so far as to call it propaganda. It is by far the biggest propagator of extremely harmful untruths about climate change, gun violence, voter fraud, and countless other topics. With people believing that Fox is really "fair and balanced", how can there be any discussion?
49
Thank you Nicholas, for putting into words what everyone needs to be reminded of! I am a loyal New York Times reader, spent my entire career upholding environmental regulations, and care deeply for the poor and marginalized in our country. I also am an evangelical christian. Some otherwise open minded individuals would dismiss my opinion based solely on the last point. We need to remember that people are not easily put in boxes. And an inability to listen to other opinions besides your own makes you just as poor in spirit as the one on the other side you despise.
11
The truth is most often found close to the middle, Truth has neither a liberal or conservative bent, it just is. We tend to ignore or look for excuses when the truth doesn't fit our narratives but when we look for truth, accept it and carry on we may look back at how easily we had been fooled. I know I was. I left the GOP in disgust about Trump but the more I found what the policies of the party really did the less I could accept them. I am not fond of the democratic party either but at this moment in time I am morally unable to vote for any republican until the party returns to some semblance of sanity and decency which it currently lacks
9
Nick, I make it a point to read widely. Not just to be informed, but also for sheer entertainment. There is NOTHING like spending a weekend evening on the sofa, sipping wine, and perusing the comments for trolls and other trouble makers. Small chocolate rewards ARE involved. Cheers.
10
I have tried to talk to Trump supporters any number of times. When I ask their opinions on some of his positions, tweets or statements I get the expected comments about how he is a "straight talker", unconventional or shaking up the establishment. If I try to engage in a discussion and mention some of the inconsistencies, variance from the facts, or outright untruths I am attacked as being a Trump hater. They are not interested in dialogue or discussion, only defending the president. Even the recent indictments of Russian officials in attempts to influence the 2016 election doesn't dissuade them from viewing it as a "hoax".
I have come to the view that until and unless some Trump policy affects them personally in some way (such as their income taxes going up, their water being polluted due to relaxed regulations) they will never, ever change their perception that Trump is anything but the best president we've ever had.
158
Even if their water becomes polluted or they suffer tax increases they will not blame Trump. Fox News blames anything "bad" on Obama to this day. The convolutions of thinking, or lack thereof, are very robust in the Foxies.
12
One thing that has spurred a lot of resentment towards liberals - myself included - is that we tend to be too smug in our opinions, and to look down upon red-state Americans as backward or uninformed. No wonder they're angry.
When I come across an article or pundit whom I disagree with, I try to take their point and imagine the best possible argument for it. This is a good technique in any debate; and I think it supports one's own opinion when you've held it under close scrutiny.
13
My smartest friends keep telling me that America suffers from terminal dissonance dissonance.
When the Supreme Court overturns a law, or interferes with a presidential directive with which you agree - they’re upholding the constitution. When they do it when you disagree, the Court is overreaching and “activist.”
When the President refuses to enforce the laws with which you disagree - he/she is exercising proper discretion. When he/she fails to enforce a law you like, he/she should be impeached by sundown.
When we take advantage of government subsidies such as tax breaks for home loans, interest payments, 401Ks, child care, etc. - we’re utilizing wise tax laws. When others use tax breaks, it’s proof they’ve bought off the legislators.
When government subsidizes corporations, it’s evidence of corruption, unless of course they’re paying for a stadium for your billion dollar professional team, then it’s a wise investment for the city/county/state.
When the government runs trillion dollar deficits, the party out of power shouts objections to the heavens. When the power switches to the other side, the roles switch.
Americans are incapable of addressing the fact that hypocrisy reigns over all.
12
The President is not supposed to refuse to enforce the law! He can veto a law but if the veto is over-ridden and he doesn't enforce that law, he is breaking the rules of the Constitution. How is that ever okay?
5
You have to look no further than the dossier and listen to Fox to see that one side lies, almost constantly. The Republicans financed the dossier work in the beginning. All or almost all Republicans who do not completely back Grover Norquist and Trump with their votes have retired in disgust. Even Trey Gowdy, who wasn't the most honest person in the Benghazi persecution, which exonerated Clinton.
I would love to argue with an honest conservative on issues of single payer, concentration of wealth since Reagan, war spending greater than the next 10 countries combined, private and public education, and their issues--Social Security, how to reduce Medicare and Medicaid, government waste. I would love for those honest arguments to take place in Congress. That won't happen as long as one side hates government and won't argue how to govern.
90
It is the lack of civility which is so very hard to live with. I (at least from time to time) do make an effort to hear other voices. However, being called an idiot or clueless or un-American or a baby-killer etc., pretty quickly makes me decide that life is too short to bother...
237
Good piece, sir. I'm a broken record here when i say yet again that 40+ % of the electorate are registered Independent. And who don't care about anyone's party or team. And on the off chance i need to remind Democrats yet again - that sticking to the rigid tribal view hasn't worked out so well for you since 2010. I suspect that rigid adherence to party dogma (dictated by donors) is going to work against both parties in the next couple of election rounds.
13
rtj: Please define "rigid tribal view."
3
@Barbara
Rigid tribal view for Democrats? I think for starters their biggest one since 2010 is globalization and all of its manifestations. Immigration in all froms, trade deals, outsourcing, and the notion of a "meritrocracy" that happens to profit from it. And the disparaging and dismissing of any sectors of population who may be hurt by it. Toss in identity politics and you have a toxic brew that lost you some 900+ seats across the country and all branches of federal government. But, it's what the donors - Wall St, tech, entertainment and pharma - wanted, so they're sticking to the story. Even now, it seems.
1
I think you have to read a wide variety of sources in order to make sure you're not being played or manipulated.
Truth vs lie detection isn't very complicated--providing you know which sources are unbiased to begin with.
I remember one of the more interesting (if clearly nutty) memes during the campaign was a statement that Pope Francis was endorsing Donald Trump.
It takes two seconds to hit Snopes and get a yea or nay verdict on truth.
So, I guess it does puzzle me that if something really sounds off, why wouldn't it be natural to check it out?
Or do some just prefer to accept everything claimed by their particular bubble because it just feels so good to belong to something, (anything), truth be damned?
42
That applies to the so called "left" every bit as much as to the right.
4
What scares me are people who do not expand even the slightest effort to think critically and separate reality from hogwash. Too many people are willing to believe _anything_ especially if that anything reinforces their established bias.
Putin and the Russians played us like a piano. If we don't change our ways, we're gonna get played again.
48
I'm very glad you wrote this column, Mr. Kristof, and I hope everyone reads it. (Not that I EXPECT everyone to read it...) I read the NY Times and the Washington Post as best I can every day simply BECAUSE these papers print both political "sides," and I can find out what the other "side" is thinking. Some of the arguments are hard to stomach, and others are worth considering.
I do think it is important to find other sources to check on whether any given op-ed writer is using good facts. Even Googling a subject can bring up useful information. It is also important to be able to tell when a writer is using "loaded" words that give a negative or positive impression even before you get to the point of the sentence. Excessive use of such words can bias the reader immensely.
I believe that every school child should have classes in critical thinking every year, so that they can make good choices in the future. By that, I don't mean POLITICAL thinking, I mean CRITICAL thinking. Many people simply don't realize that information is their best friend!
Thank you again, sir!
49
Yes indeed much of what is in these "opinion" pages is incorrect or highly biased. Thus "wrong"!!!
7
Facts are real. Varied opinions are possible about those facts. For instance, if it is raining or not would be a fact. Whether or not that is a good thing depends on whether the rain is needed and coming the right amount or is causing floods. Here in Los Angeles we could use some rain but our weather spoke-persons talk about another sunny day as a good thing. That is a matter of opinion but not necessarily "wrong."
3
True, in either worldview our social fabric is torn. But another self-evident but perhaps more nuanced truth is that Americans (including a fair number of Democrats), in just enough numbers, regarded the priority of finally moving forward again in our governance as more important than mending that torn social fabric … at least for now.
HRC would have been immensely more effective at seeking to mend that torn social fragment than Trump has proven to be so far, but she would have accomplished nothing with this Congress. Trump is not a unifier – other than of his most retrogressive base – but he’s gotten things done that a lot of Americans support (86% of Republicans, over one-third of Independents, and even some Democrats). Clearly, then, moving major legislation for the first time since 2011 is rated as greater in importance by millions of Americans than simmering down and talking calmly about who we really are and what we really believe about ourselves.
Nick’s most useful statement in today’s column is that “rigid ideological beliefs impair our cognitive functions.” Very true. My comments (and I, personally) are regularly pilloried in this forum because I acknowledge that BOTH sides have SOME kind of a case on our most controversial issues, and that both the “right” answer AND the more practicable one is that which seeks and finds common ground. That approach doesn’t strike a sonorous tone in an echo-chamber, but I’ll defend it forever.
10
Rigid ideological beliefs form impenetrable barriers to acceptance that millions and millions of us simply disagree and aren’t about to cave on basic convictions; and that to move forward together we MUST compromise.
Trump still has a lot to do with this Congress (including its Democrats) to make up for years of bootless governance that accomplished nothing on EITHER side of the ideological divide. We may need to suffer a torn social fabric until we elect our next president, who hopefully will be a more effective unifier.
5
Congresses last for two years; the damage they do can last for generations.
There is a reason you are pilloried in here.
It's nothing personal, as I have very little reason to doubt that you are a basically decent human being.
The problem is you often times have a problem with facts.
35
About 10 years ago, my oldest son talked about one of his high school English teacher's lessons - the importance of getting information from multiple sources. Her theory was that you can't resonably disaagree with your opponent unless you have an understanding of how he/she developed a point of view. She was very liberal; my son tends to be more libertarian in his viewpoint. However, he took that lesson to heart, and to this day uses multiple sources to develop his position on an issue.
93
The very structure of "You're wrong, I'm right" underlies most problems, thinking there are only two choices. When the Wright brothers were battling gravity, it was not until they gave gravity everything gravity demanded, that they were able to create flight. The tensions developed between opposing views are the opportunity to bring something new into the world. Find out what is behind other people's opinions and demands. What do they really want? Please don't lie to yourself by saying 'they want me to believe what they believe.' These battles are a much deeper desires for happiness for me, we, and the many.
23
“When we stay within our own tribe, talking mostly to each other, it’s difficult to woo other tribes to achieve our aims.”
I agree that it’s important to have an open mind for our own intellectual well-bring. But I don’t think this is about wooing the other side. The other side will never see things our way, either because of their psyche or their upbringing or their circle of friends. Anything we tell them will also not outweigh what they are hearing from their “news” sources. Nick, it wasn’t always this way. It should never be understated how Fox News changed everything. Itba very bad way.
33
Yes, untouched is Rupert Murdoch, who directs Fox News’ barrage of lies and deception which has successfully brainwashed enough Republican voters to terrorize almost every Republican in Congress.
This man, who speaks to Trump almost daily, sometimes several times, has no loyalty to America, and like Trump, cares only for himself. He is rarely brought to task; yet in reality Murdoch is the pathogen and Trump’s immunity from Congress the resulting illness.
3
I am willing to consider views different than my own. For example, I am awaiting an explanation why assault rifles are readily available for sale in the US.
284
Ok. Semi-automatic rifles that accept magazines (I think this your operating definition) are readily available for sale today because they are legal to sell, and the modern forms have been sold in stores for over 70 years. So, I would suppose legality and precedent answers your question.
Now, a better question would be why these firearms are of comparatively recent use in mass shootings? For most of the 20th century, you could buy a magazine-fed Remington semi-automatic rifle from the local hardware store (not so easy today), but mass shootings were infrequent. No longer. What changed? It's not the guns.
1
While I commend my fellow Oregonian Nick Kristof for advocating participation in difficult conversations across socio-political divides, I can't help but recall the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan's admonition regarding these arguments; i.e., "Everyone is entitled to his (sic) own opinion, but not his own facts." No serious discussion is possible with people who are convinced that Barack Obama is a Muslim not born in the United States, or that Mexican immigrants are stealing jobs from "good" (read white) Americans. I don't think it's intellectual arrogance to insist that people do their homework if they want their views to be taken seriously. There IS a place for research and critical thinking, regardless of the conclusions one draws from the data.
605
We just have to careful not to rush to the assumption that anyone with some conservative views is necessarily a climate-change-denying, birther, racist. And they may have very good reasons for some of their opinions.
3
He's right in principle, no question. But when only one side is ever willing to listen (albeit getting a little weary of being told that we MUST listen and we MUST understand, and apparently part of what we MUST understand is that the other side gets different rules), you've got Charlie Brown, Lucy and that football. How does that ever change when the non-listening side is the one rewarded?
I spent my high school years having real, honest debates/arguments with conservative to the bone teacher. We both enjoyed those discussions and we both learned a lot. I will meet anyone like that halfway, and more. But I'm not going to try to kick that football anymore. It's their turn to listen and understand for a while.
122
Yes, there are advantages for holding an inclusive position within extreme belief systems. Yes, I, too, find civility healing when there is discord. My confusion is this ~ how tolerant or civil to be when one group of leaders is severely damaging the health & well being of the planet, of poor people, immigrants, children, relationships with world partners? We are being called to "win" what the world needs.
20
Categorizing people into boxes and circulating in echo chambers has become too much of the norm. This used to be called prejudice and bigotry. Now, instead of seeing these characteristics as flaws in ourselves, too often these traits are flaunted as "enlightenment".
We have identity politics which presuppose everyone that looks a certain way must think a certain way. We accept the bashing of those who think differently than us. We don't bother to listen to their stories...we assume we already know all we need to know.
Left and right are in a race to the bottom. Michelle Obama's "they go low, we go high" was forgotten much too soon.
9
I am not so sure that the America in a more civil era was any more unified that it is today. What was different was that opposed camps recognized the legitimacy of democratic governance. We held elections. One side or the other won and then it governed, likely to the consternation of the losing side but not to the sandbag of obstruction. Then the losing side would win and life would go on until the next election.
Now, it appears that we define "opposition" as sabotage, preventing the execution of the winning side's will by any and all means possible. In such a setting, constitutional respect flies out the door. When one side assumes power from the other it throws out everything executed by the other side, with glee and without regard for substance. This is one way to lose democracy. We are on a losing streak now.
The forces of partisan inflexibility are strong, persistent and unyielding, but they can be defeated if those who believe in the rule of law exercise a yet stronger will than the forces of obstruction.
30
The following wisdom from Mark Twain must date back to the 1890's:
"We all know that in all matters of mere opinion that man is insane -- just as insane as we are...we know exactly where to put our finger upon his insanity: is is where his opinion differs from ours...All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it. None but the Republicans. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats can perceive it. The rule is perrfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."
I don't know what the issues were back in those days, but surely they were not the same as our issues today. Yet the intensity of disagreement seems to be the same. I don't know whether we should be dismayed or reassured by this evidence that nothing has changed in over a hundred years.
3
I am a liberal democrat but I very much enjoy reading or listening to David Frum, David Brooks, David Gergen, Peggy Noonan, Ross Dougthat and several others on the R side of the ledger. What I cannot stand are the purveyors of the demonstrably untrue who take up the cause for Fox News (and others). I am particularly annoyed about the liberties they take with science about which I am relatively informed since I have taught in the area for nearly 40 years. I am convinced that much of our current problem
stems from the practiced mendacity of those whose understanding of science is informed by conspiracy theorists and others whose grasp of what science is and how it is practiced is, shall we say, tenuous.
431
I read across the spectrum, because I like to see what people who don't agree with me think.
And every day, it is illuminating. On Mueller indicting 13 Russians, for instance, right wing media points out that the amount of money spent by Russia would have to be multiplied by 10 to change votes in a rural NJ congressional election.
I happen to think Mueller is great, and am glad he indicted this group. I think Russia is up to no good.
But I also like to have a perspective. And I like to think reading across the aisle helps me to achieve that.
17
Mr. Kristof's point would be well taken if not for the advent of the lying liar who lies. There are facts and there is fiction. Some facts are, indeed, open to interpretation depending upon the use and depth of context. On the other hand, when you have a president who tells us that his predecessor was born in Kenya and tapped his private phone lines and who claims that all undocumented Mexican immigrants are rapists and all Haitians have HIV- how exactly do you begin to believe in the rightness of his cause or to treat his supporters with a shred of civility? Even if you go looking for specific areas of agreement it tends to become a futile exercise, barely worth the effort that's involved.
412
Stu, let us stipulate that Donald Trump has a fractured relationship with the truth. However, Mr. Kristoff was not encouraging liberals to embrace Donald Trump, but rather to consider opposing points of view, and implicitly this is a call for all of us to be more rational and less Trump-like, to be rooted in facts and objectivity. For example, contrary to your false statements, Trump never said "all undocumented Mexican immigrants are racists." One of the many reasons I did not vote for Trump is that he was a Birther, which makes him stupid, cynical, bigoted, or some combination thereof. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton, for example, grossly mishandled highly classified information and repeatedly lied about it, and liberals are unwilling to acknowledge this. They are in just as much denial as the Trumpists. The Justice Department just announced that no American, much less a member of the Trump's inner circle, was aware of the effort by Russian trolls to sow conflict and disruption in our politics, yet liberals are still pedaling conspiracy theories about how Trump is a Russian mole. Perhaps, I should just conclude that dealing with liberals is "a futile exercise barely worth the effort that's involved."
7
Charles,
You pick on just one charge against Trump "all undocumented Mexican immigrants are racists" and blithely ignore the rest of the enormous mountain of lies and calumny told by Trump. Then you misrepresent the Justice Dept. announcement, saying "Justice Department just announced that no American, much less a member of the Trump's inner circle, was aware of the effort by Russian trolls to sow conflict and disruption in our politics," whereas the DOJ only siad that this particular indictment did not accuse any American, etc. (In fact an American was charged in ANOTHER indictment at the same time as the one you're referring to.) With this level of dishonesty, well....
7
@Charles: You misread my quote- Trump said that all "illegal" immigrants from Mexico are rapists, not racists. And that's precisely what he said (adding only the caveat "except maybe for a few good ones." I have, in fact, asserted that Hillary played fast and loose with the e-mails but, compared with Trump, she's Mother Teresa. The Justice Dept. has by no means cleared Trump. They've merely said that in this particular matter there's no evidence of collusion. The investigation remains ongoing.
3
Beautifully said. This situation is especially acute because we have no leadership pointing our nation toward a common cause. We are in a vacuum, for how long we don’t know. It may be for years until someone - maybe from the next generation now in their teens - steps forward to offer a bright vision of our nation and its role in the world. For now, we teR ourselves apart, much to the satisfaction of our adversaries.
7
P have already emailed several senators from both parties to get rid of the AISLE. It is a symbol of the split in the nation. Alphabetical? Maybe some might even start a friendship with someone they really didn't know before.
As a science teacher in seventh grade, I would change my students' seats so that no one got lost in the back row. It changed my persapective and that of the students as well. Anything different is worth a try.
8
This has been suggested in designing the halls of parliaments; cf. the British parliament which is even more architecturaly divisive that that of the USA.
Not to mention that our information bubbles make it appreciably easier for bad actors like Russian intelligence agencies to engage in the information warfare they are carrying out against us as we learned this week. Being well read across the ideological spectrum is the best way to combat propaganda. I was taught by example by my father to read everything I can get my hands on from as many sources I can find. He regularly read four newspapers, multiple magazines and always had a book or two he was reading. He was a businessman and conservative. I remember him grumbling often as he read things he disagreed with. I tend toward the progressive and do the same although I'm sure not all my grumbles would align with his. I actually seek and enjoy the intellectual challenge of finding a well reasoned discussion of something I might be inclined to disagree with and I appreciate the NYT publishing the ones they choose. At this point in my life (I'm 61) it's become unconscious exercise to build and sometimes ameliorate my argument based on a contrary point of view. All this really came about in the larger context of the lessons by example in critical thinking that my dad was so good at demonstrating and the focus on education he so fervently espoused. Something we as a society would do well to recognize.
16
Great article. I think this is the most important point anyone could make at this point in time. I recommend everyone find one political position on which they can change their view and go out of step with their party. I found this process requires assuming the talking points of the opponent are sincere and profound, and based on something real that I just don’t know about or understand- yet. I’ve done this on several positions in the last few years and it’s like waking up out of a hypnotic trance.
9
While Mr Kristof's points are well taken, we seem to be falling into the habit of seeing our nation as two diametrically opposed tribes, when the reality is more complex.
Pew Research provides one interesting typology and a quiz to discover which group you best fit with.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/the-political-typology-beyond-red...
Parlimentary government may provide better representation of these different groups and account for far higher voter participation.
Our low voter turnout, part apathy and part under-representation, allows political minorities to dominate power and resist the interests of the vast majority on many issues.
Shifting coalitions result in extreme political instability, such as the radical shift from the Obama to Trump Administrations.
I don't know what the whole answer is but a firm definition of unconstitutional gerrymandering, rollback of Citizens United and restoration of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court would be a great start.
The Roberts Court will be viewed as one of the worst in our history.
210
@ Look Ahead. I was about to close the comment section and move on to the next op-ed or article but yours made me stop and comment on your comment. I agree with you fully.
The two Political Party System may have lived beyond its life. What we have now, maybe thanks to Citizens United, a mass of politicians who shape our policies beholden to one business enterprise and their lobbyists willing to spend whatever amount of monies required to get what they want.
They are Democrats and Republicans.
Then we have the fakers/hypocrites who call themselves "fiscally responsible"(aka The Tea Party, you can look up their votes on the recent tax giveaway) but hand over Trillions of dollars to those that funded them and to make it "sweet" carve out exceptions to themselves, so their family business enterprises profit. I include the President and members of Congress here. This is the so-called true swamp.
If people can vote their true beliefs there would be multiple political parties with a lot of sway/influence in a Parliament. It will be messy but no one political party can get away with "murder." What is happening now is beyond political pornography. It is a political "snuff" film.
2
How can America ever accomplish the crucial goal of reversing Citizens United? A movement can't build because it's a dead issue on our media, yet it is poisoning our democracy. Msnbc, CNN cable news talkers and NYT columnists never even talk about it, much less explain how it relates to so many of our problems these journalists report and lament.
There are many groups in many states trying to reverse CU, as I found out from John Nichols book "Dollarocracy". They want to start more public financing, and the media should be interviewing them so a cause/effect sequence can be explained to the polarized and unhappy voting public.
All the reforms we need in health care, taxes, jobs, etc, and especially a sane gun policy, cannot even get off the ground without changing who pays for elections. The Democrats must raise big bucks to beat GOP/Trump. The Times and media is ready to write lots of articles on the funding race, and the political commercials needing billionare check writing. The Kochs will be spending 400 million on the 2018 election alone.
While voters watch the contest, the media leaves out how our democracy is being stolen out from under us. Let 1 columnist on this international paper devote 1 column to how other democracies use public funds & free media for candidates, limit private donations, and ban the privately funded campaign commercials that flood our media for big bucks, and manipulate our voters with fake politics.
7
Exactly. There are so many points of view besides the two polarities of which Mr. Kristof speaks. The media likes to make it seem that way with the gun issue too - the right wants no gun control whatsoever, and the left wants to confiscate all guns. NOT TRUE! Most people want sensible gun laws that have nothing to do with total gun elimination. But the media likes to paint the situation as black and white because it makes a better story. Stop already.
3
I’ve lived through lots of Democratic and Republican administrations, and while they could be at each other’s throats, there has rarely been anything like the current divide.
I don’t feel as though my moderately liberal “worldview” is being threatened. My worldview is subject to change as circumstances change, or as new information is revealed. What frightens me is that my family, by health, my finances, my access to resources, my respect for knowledge and science and my future (what’s left of it) are at stake.
To think that it’s only a worldview that has descended on Washington is to think that your pocket is being picked by a worldview, or that a worldview is blocking access to medical resources.
It may seem unfair to call a large swathe of the population “deplorable,” but the proof of the pudding is in the half-baked, nut-filled administration that we’re laboring under. They didn’t vote for a worldview, since the president clearly doesn’t have one. What he does have are accusers, fraud victims, Playboy models, porn stars, extramarital affairs, thank-you notes from Vladimir Putin and an inability to tell the truth.
If there are people who are scared of immigrants, or need assault rifles to go grocery shopping, or deny science, climate change, vaccinations, civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights and social safety nets, then I’m going to oppose them, and I’m not going to apologize if they're feelings get hurt.
798
Respectfully, in the last paragraph of this comment you have brutally characterized the positions of the opponent in broadly hyperbolic strokes and have received the most recommendations for it. People reading the comment from this paper have enjoyed your point of view which aligned well with theirs, but haven’t really seen the opponents for the human beings that they are.
The point of this article I believe was to highlight this phenomenon and question the certainty that drives it. This phenomenon is very widespread and something I have also participated in so I do not mean to be personally targeting anyone with this reply. I just find it a good example of what the article is discussing.
12
An excellent letter. I couldn't have written a better one myself (although I would not have made the grammatical error in the last line).
I have a Republican friend who keeps feeding me Republican propaganda, and though I keep trying to understand his position, the material he sends me is so outrageous that I sometimes feel I am receiving stuff from Putin's troll network.
18
@Dr. Pete,
Of course it should have been their feelings that were hurt, not they're. That the last time I use a Republican dictionary.
12