I agree, but let's acknowledge that this distrust of the "left's" rhetoric is not a naïve response. It is has been taught by people who want to use the response to achieve power.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think there are some basic differences in communication style as a result of personality, culture and education and over the past 50 years those styles have become more correlated with party and we have fewer personal relationships with people who have the other beliefs and communication style that could help us understand each other across that gap.
That underlying change -- plus the disintermediating effect of social media -- left us uniquely vulnerable to ideologes and grifters who were willing to stoke tension and exacerbate misunderstanding for their own benefit (though no doubt some of them believe they are serving some higher purpose).
I emphasize the underlying change because it's what is unique. Want to be demagogues, hate mongers etc etc are older than our republic. They've always been there what's changed is their ability to succeed.
--
To be fair it's not as though there aren't any figures on the left who stoke tension and misunderstanding. But they much more rarely do so with intentional deceit.
That's not because I think left wingers are just inherently more moral. Rather it's because the left inherited the institutions that help check clear factual inaccuracy (journalism/academia), tends to place less weight on conformity/loyalty and **most importantly** most of the leaders on the right were educated at and are comfortable in left wing circles.
In other words Vance knows exactly how much he is lieing while on the left it's more about not correcting a misunderstanding or genuine misunderstanding.
Nominating people like Wallz is a good start. More generally, I think it just comes down to realizing that its important for figures on the left to be more openly critical of views on the left they disagree with.
The natural temptation is to avoid causing trouble and minimize any disagreement/criticism. It's fine to just say you don't support bans on fracking or nuclear power or whatever and avoid antagonizing people on your side by calling them horrible or silly or whatever. But you have to treat social/cultural issues differently.
I think what the left needs to learn when cultural/social issues come up is that to people who lean right silence roars. Particularly if there is any implication that it makes you a bad person to have a certain view that's widely held.
The most importantly part is to be super clear that you don't agree that everyone who thinks/worries about X is a racist/sexist/etc. Go ahead and explain why you think it's mistaken but the goal is to persuade people and until you have a supermajority calling people names never helps. And yah this is kinda obvious to people on the left but I think it's necessary for people on the right to hear obvious points about what most people on the left believe because it's too easy to miss it because most people don't like to too openly attack their own side in certain ways.
In short democrats need to be less polished and more honest in public about when they disagree with moral accusations hurled by their side.
---
None of this is to say the right isn't equally or more guilty but I don't want to help them so I'm not advising them.
I think this is basically correct, and your guys' dialogue is exactly what I would love to see more of. I'll also plug @DefenderOfBasic because he's also riding this particular hobbyhorse:
Have you read The Righteous Mind? Jonathan Haidt claims that conservatives are better at accurately understanding liberal positions than vice versa because their moral beliefs are split more evenly along different areas than just care/harm. It seems like that would align with your theory here.
I agree, but let's acknowledge that this distrust of the "left's" rhetoric is not a naïve response. It is has been taught by people who want to use the response to achieve power.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think there are some basic differences in communication style as a result of personality, culture and education and over the past 50 years those styles have become more correlated with party and we have fewer personal relationships with people who have the other beliefs and communication style that could help us understand each other across that gap.
That underlying change -- plus the disintermediating effect of social media -- left us uniquely vulnerable to ideologes and grifters who were willing to stoke tension and exacerbate misunderstanding for their own benefit (though no doubt some of them believe they are serving some higher purpose).
I emphasize the underlying change because it's what is unique. Want to be demagogues, hate mongers etc etc are older than our republic. They've always been there what's changed is their ability to succeed.
--
To be fair it's not as though there aren't any figures on the left who stoke tension and misunderstanding. But they much more rarely do so with intentional deceit.
That's not because I think left wingers are just inherently more moral. Rather it's because the left inherited the institutions that help check clear factual inaccuracy (journalism/academia), tends to place less weight on conformity/loyalty and **most importantly** most of the leaders on the right were educated at and are comfortable in left wing circles.
In other words Vance knows exactly how much he is lieing while on the left it's more about not correcting a misunderstanding or genuine misunderstanding.
Nice reflection. I guess the real question is how can the :left" become less threatening to the Right in its communication style?
Nominating people like Wallz is a good start. More generally, I think it just comes down to realizing that its important for figures on the left to be more openly critical of views on the left they disagree with.
The natural temptation is to avoid causing trouble and minimize any disagreement/criticism. It's fine to just say you don't support bans on fracking or nuclear power or whatever and avoid antagonizing people on your side by calling them horrible or silly or whatever. But you have to treat social/cultural issues differently.
I think what the left needs to learn when cultural/social issues come up is that to people who lean right silence roars. Particularly if there is any implication that it makes you a bad person to have a certain view that's widely held.
The most importantly part is to be super clear that you don't agree that everyone who thinks/worries about X is a racist/sexist/etc. Go ahead and explain why you think it's mistaken but the goal is to persuade people and until you have a supermajority calling people names never helps. And yah this is kinda obvious to people on the left but I think it's necessary for people on the right to hear obvious points about what most people on the left believe because it's too easy to miss it because most people don't like to too openly attack their own side in certain ways.
In short democrats need to be less polished and more honest in public about when they disagree with moral accusations hurled by their side.
---
None of this is to say the right isn't equally or more guilty but I don't want to help them so I'm not advising them.
I think this is basically correct, and your guys' dialogue is exactly what I would love to see more of. I'll also plug @DefenderOfBasic because he's also riding this particular hobbyhorse:
https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-an-internet-argument
Have you read The Righteous Mind? Jonathan Haidt claims that conservatives are better at accurately understanding liberal positions than vice versa because their moral beliefs are split more evenly along different areas than just care/harm. It seems like that would align with your theory here.