The Worst Mistake People Make in Political Arguments

By Daniel Miessler on April 4th, 2010: Tagged as Politics

debate

The worst mistake people make in political arguments is assuming that the other side is not trying to do the right thing. This simple oversight makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

The only way to have a real discussion is to realize that both parties think they are doing good, and that the question is one of perspective on right and wrong.

For liberals, consider that Bush didn’t wake up every morning thinking he’d get rich and make the world hate us. No. He woke up thinking he’d help the world, and that people would love him. Conservatives should consider that Obama doesn’t wake up thinking of how to destroy America; he genuinely believes he’s improving it.

So call them stupid. Call them foolish. Call them misguided. But don’t call them evil, as true evil requires the desire to do evil.

The moment one starts believing the other side intends to be evil, the conversation is over. Instead, you must accept that both of you are trying to achieve what you believe to be good, and so the goal should be to determine–in objective terms–what right and wrong actually are, within the context of our shared human struggle.

Until we can work from within this type of common moral space we have little foundation on which to form a productive political debate. ::

  • CarlM

    I agree, and I'd add that another mistake that people make is believing that there is only one way to achieve an objective.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • http://maxolasersquad.com/ Maxolasersquad

    One thing that can really cause problems is what good and evil actually mean. The divergent can sometimes be that the two sides have a different basis for defining good and evil.

  • Paul_in_MA

    “true evil requires the desire to do evil” is false. Read about the banality of evil:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_banality_of_evil

    Great evils executed by ordinary people who view their actions as normal. They don't see themselves as evil but they are doing evil.

  • Paul_in_MA

    “true evil requires the desire to do evil” is false. Read about the banality of evil:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_banality_of_evil

    Evils executed by ordinary people who view their actions as normal.

  • http://myopera.com/dapxin dapxin

    Hmm. But the idea here, forgets the fact that the actual intention or the perception of it is what might actually be evil, and not what is said of the intention.

  • http://myopera.com/dapxin dapxin

    Hmm. But the idea here, forgets the fact that the actual intention or the perception of it is what might actually be evil, and not what is said of the intention.

  • Guest

    sorry, this is naive. of course there are too many people out there who just-give-a-damn on things you thinl are important. they think what is good is to make themselves and their friends rich – killing the whole planet. this is not a way of “doing things right”. There are also too many people that are still believing, that something like a “political debate” is going on – in fact that is all brainwash. things are much more easy, my friend. weapons are the best selling product ever and people who sell them have no interest in political debates – they just want to make money. you are in fact a moral believer, that is really nice, but with this conception they will fool you.

  • guest

    Here is something people don’t always consider when observing a political debate: the ends are rarely fought over – the means are what we disagree upon. Conservatives and liberals alike can agree that we want unemployment to go down or we want better health care, what have you. These issues are not up for debate. What is worth arguing over is how to achieve these goals. And understanding this, we can tell that the worse mistake people make in political arguments is this: objecting to the means does not equal objecting to the ends. Just because a conservative does not want the government paying welfare to people who don’t work, does not mean that that same conservative doesn’t want the poor person to improve his situation. He merely wants to go about it a different way. Listen closely to the political bantering especially during election seasons and you will hear the mud-slingers (on both sides) make outrageous claims based on a voting record. Devising the means is the difficult part.

    However, the notion that each side thinks they are doing right is somewhat naive and short sighted. I think any politician will tell you, one do not always get to do what one thinks is right, and sometimes must do what one knows is wrong. Even when one is allowed to do “the right thing”, the question must be asked, the right thing for who? The country? Their constituents? Themselves? These parameters must be defined before we can claim that both Bush and Obama wanted to do the right thing.

    Furthermore, evil doesn’t always demand a desire to do it, but merely allowing it. Evil can be achieved by doing something, or nothing. Edmund Burke said that all it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

  • Jonathon Smith

    I think this is a very helpful insight. I also think it meshes nicely with the unnamed guests comment, where he/she states that often the goals are the same, while the disagreement is in how to achieve those goals.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs