While I really like BA, I'm not sure it actually solves anything. As long as we -- as a nation -- insist on solving "mostly" everything at the national level, we're going to be at each other's throats. I don't see consensus positions on (to name 2 issues, I could probably name a dozen more) abortion or gun control that won't leave half the country mad as hell. To pick on Glenn; I might really like Glenn, but when he comes for my guns, it sure feels like he's my enemy. When he wants to restrict my right to an abortion, it sure feels like he's my enemy.
We can empathize all we want -- but laws get passed which favor a particular position -- and it's not clear that there's enough overlap to make "acceptable" compromise possible.
Ultimately, I think a key part of the process has to be Federalism -- stop trying to enforce nationwide decisions on a incredibly divided nation. Let California and Texas (and Illinois and Iowa....) do their own thing.
Speaking as a participant in many Braver Angel workshops (not yet a member), my hat goes off to John Wood Jr. for giving an excellent account of what BA does and hopes to do. If you are interested in an inside view of the process from one Blue and one Red, read Finding Common Ground on Race and Education in Polarized Times - Times of San Diego
A second point is about what BA misses in its "depolarizing" trope. Sure, that's important, but leans, along with the majority Blue membership, into emotional considerations. John displayed that leaning in when speaking about illegal (or undocumented if you prefer the euphemism rather than what the law states) immigration. He gave the example of leaning into the sentiment that a little bit of illegal entry is OK (while not saying that expressly) since folks have good reasons for doing so (like reuniting with family). So, my take is that depolarizing needs a qualifier for our times. Clearly, the Civil War couldn't be depolarized without a win for the moral position of equality. We are not in that context. We can still change bad laws without skipping over them for reasons that tug at the heart or lean only into the hard hearted. So, John is correct in calling for a spiritual transformation. This is where we start praying.
Haven't yet listened, but I'm very excited about this. I'm a huge fan of Braver Angels in general and John Wood in particular. His November 2020 essay about MLK had a huge impact on me:
I repreat this simple philosophocal mantra. Make lemonade with the 'lemons' you inherit and don't concern yourself with the QUANTITY, stay focused on the QUALITY". If you want to argue the odds, take it up with GOD. On the other hand it is useful to be informed by the 1971 John Rawls 'Theory of Justice'. Extract, "Rawls ranked his principles of social justice in the order of their priority. The First Principle ("basic liberties") holds priority over the Second Principle. The first part of the Second Principle ("fair equality of opportunity") holds priority over the second part (Difference Principle)." It is a simple theory but very complicated.
As long as politicians and academics stay invested in the "victim", "oppressed vs oppressor" narrative we will remain severely divided. Democrats can't grasp their culpability in the rise of Trump and Republicans can't make any logical arguments without evoking religion or what they call "Christian values"
I am a participant in Braver Angels. It's a great idea. But I see little effectiveness. I don't see anybody moving to the middle, including me.
A big part of the problem is that Braver Angels seeks out democrat and republican faithful. That's a mistake. They should seek out the 'unfaithful'. The 'unfaithful' are the people who have never bought into the idea that political parties are more of a solution than a problem. It's a little bit like thinking that if you get Hitler and Stalin into the same room, they'll turn each other into moderates.
The discussion stayed too abstract for my liking, even though Glenn tried to ground it. That very concept of Democrat and Republican faithful is what I would hope this kind of effort should try to address and move beyond. After the recent happenings and party operations over the past few years, it's tough for me to understand how anyone who has spent time to question and look deeper could truly feel this identity. What is it they have faith in exactly? Certainly not the party machinery? I'm thinking it's some sort of mapping of values and perceptions of one's social group onto the parties. And since it's binary, there's no room for nuance. For my social upbringing that seemed to amount to Democrat: good, caring, positive progress, informed - Republican: bad, greedy or uneducated, controlling/strict. Since 2020 I realized just how much was lost by summarily accepting by default one of two options. Disagreeing on many key points but still reverting back to this binary worldview (a la John McWhorter) I think is disastrous to the health of our political discourse.
Even in John's language, there is this conception of Democrat or Republican as an identity, and an effort to get the two groups to talk to each other. We all need heuristics to cut down the complexity of the world, but this seems to be giving up before even starting. What is the import of John being registered Republican, and voting independent? The reduction to the 2 party system seems to me to be at the core of the problem. It's a high stakes game and every 4 years the new "most important election ever" will be framed by either party as existential; you must pick your side to save the country. In my ideal world, there would be a reframing so people seriously consider: what are the values most important to me? What is my relationship to truth - how does my conception of reality compare to theirs - what do I prioritize? The default moral valence assigned by your upbringing and social group to the Democrat/Republican reduction makes it easy to disregard this kind of examination.
I see what you're saying, but as a practical matter, it's possible that Braver Angels would encounter more resistance if they asked potential members to check their political affiliations at the door. "We welcome Democrats, Republicans, independents, and anyone who wants to come to the party" might be an easier approach than "No more partisan affiliations of any kind." As I understand it, John is saying, "You can have your affiliations if you value them, we just want to turn down the temperature on the conflict. We're not all going to find acceptable middle ground on every policy, but we can't continue to dehumanize each other."
You make a good point. I've been going to meetings for about two years, and we are encouraged, but not required, to identify as red or blue. It would be better if we were encouraged to NOT identify by party. Then people might be more inclined to speak from their own opinions and not their party identity.
It would be great if there were more 'independents', but the Braver Angels just doesn't attract them. We would all do well to remember that tens of millions of people wish both parties would just go away.
I'm all for that, and I don't really have a strategic intuition on the most pragmatic way to engage more people with a goal toward constructive dialog. I guess my point is that even if you tame people's more caustic emotional reactions toward the other side, they will remain resolute on their unexamined beliefs, and I don't think a constructive dialog can happen; the underlying worldviews aren't changing because they aren't even discussed.
Instead of checking political affiliations at the door - maybe - own those affiliations! Be proud of them, if you are, but examine that. What does that mean to you? Why? Then imagine why someone may have the opposite affiliation, and examine in good faith why they could be coming in with that. You can dispute the "facts", but often that reduces to an interpretation, which again points back to value systems and outlooks that I would want to focus first on for constructive conversation.
What you've said reminds me of what I've noticed on Substack: I learn a lot, meandering around Substack. The depth and breadth of knowledge here far exceeds the MSM, regardless of which side you consider.
Yeah, I agree, and I think that's in line with what he's saying. I can speak from personal experience and say that working closely with good, smart people who I really like but with whom I strongly disagree on important issues has made me think harder and more rigorously about my own beliefs. Some of those beliefs have shifted slightly, but I haven't changed fundamentally. I certainly understand "the other side" better than I used to. And I do find myself trying to convince my friends and family that it's better to try to understand them as they understand themselves rather than write them off, which, frankly, doesn't really work.
But that just tells me that you need to actually engage at a human level. Some liberals are actually afraid to make friends with conservatives because they don't want to humanize them too much or have to feel sympathy for them, and vice versa. That just seems like a bummer of a way to live. If an org like Better Angels is too much, I recommend joining some kind of local rec league. I play on an APA pool team, and I've met a lot of great people. Even though most of them are probably "like me," some definitely aren't. But it doesn't matter, because we're all just there to shoot pool and have a good time and no one EVER talks politics.
The idea of Braver Angels isn't to get people to move to the middle (or to change their opinions in any way). It's about encouraging folks to see people they disagree with not as enemies but just as people with who they disagree but can still communicate with constructively.
But we need to do more than that. I can't help noticing that the participants live similar lives with similar values; it's ONLY the parties that drive us apart.
I hear you TRI. But I'm not sure I would describe it as the parties driving us apart, as much as our identification with the parties. So even though we would probably would (and do) get along with people just fine outside of the context of politics, if we find out that they support the "other party" we suddenly view them differently. Ultimately, I think we're to blame (though I do think that the dynamics of social media do a huge amount to make the problem worse).
Of course, it's easier to diagnose than to fix. Despite the fact that I'm very aware of this dynamic (and have a lot of my self-conception tied up in not falling victim it), nonetheless definitely find myself at times getting extremely frustrated at people on the "other side". Really have to remind myself to think outside of politics and remember that I know they're good people too. But it's not easy.
Agree. People have referred to the parties as tribalism. I think that's accurate. Tribalism manifests itself in religion, in sports, in neighborhoods, etc. It's normal and it can be beneficial, or at least not dangerous, as long as people recognize it for what it is. Unfortunately, even some 'educated' college graduates come to believe that their tribe is inherently superior and entitled. "Lord of the Flies" frequently comers to my mind in that regard.
Great initiatives by Braver Angels!
(I've been a BA member for over 3 years.)
While I really like BA, I'm not sure it actually solves anything. As long as we -- as a nation -- insist on solving "mostly" everything at the national level, we're going to be at each other's throats. I don't see consensus positions on (to name 2 issues, I could probably name a dozen more) abortion or gun control that won't leave half the country mad as hell. To pick on Glenn; I might really like Glenn, but when he comes for my guns, it sure feels like he's my enemy. When he wants to restrict my right to an abortion, it sure feels like he's my enemy.
We can empathize all we want -- but laws get passed which favor a particular position -- and it's not clear that there's enough overlap to make "acceptable" compromise possible.
Ultimately, I think a key part of the process has to be Federalism -- stop trying to enforce nationwide decisions on a incredibly divided nation. Let California and Texas (and Illinois and Iowa....) do their own thing.
Speaking as a participant in many Braver Angel workshops (not yet a member), my hat goes off to John Wood Jr. for giving an excellent account of what BA does and hopes to do. If you are interested in an inside view of the process from one Blue and one Red, read Finding Common Ground on Race and Education in Polarized Times - Times of San Diego
https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2022/05/23/finding-common-ground-on-race-and-education-in-polarized-times/
A second point is about what BA misses in its "depolarizing" trope. Sure, that's important, but leans, along with the majority Blue membership, into emotional considerations. John displayed that leaning in when speaking about illegal (or undocumented if you prefer the euphemism rather than what the law states) immigration. He gave the example of leaning into the sentiment that a little bit of illegal entry is OK (while not saying that expressly) since folks have good reasons for doing so (like reuniting with family). So, my take is that depolarizing needs a qualifier for our times. Clearly, the Civil War couldn't be depolarized without a win for the moral position of equality. We are not in that context. We can still change bad laws without skipping over them for reasons that tug at the heart or lean only into the hard hearted. So, John is correct in calling for a spiritual transformation. This is where we start praying.
Haven't yet listened, but I'm very excited about this. I'm a huge fan of Braver Angels in general and John Wood in particular. His November 2020 essay about MLK had a huge impact on me:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/remember-martin-luther-king-jr
Me, too!
I repreat this simple philosophocal mantra. Make lemonade with the 'lemons' you inherit and don't concern yourself with the QUANTITY, stay focused on the QUALITY". If you want to argue the odds, take it up with GOD. On the other hand it is useful to be informed by the 1971 John Rawls 'Theory of Justice'. Extract, "Rawls ranked his principles of social justice in the order of their priority. The First Principle ("basic liberties") holds priority over the Second Principle. The first part of the Second Principle ("fair equality of opportunity") holds priority over the second part (Difference Principle)." It is a simple theory but very complicated.
As long as politicians and academics stay invested in the "victim", "oppressed vs oppressor" narrative we will remain severely divided. Democrats can't grasp their culpability in the rise of Trump and Republicans can't make any logical arguments without evoking religion or what they call "Christian values"
I am a participant in Braver Angels. It's a great idea. But I see little effectiveness. I don't see anybody moving to the middle, including me.
A big part of the problem is that Braver Angels seeks out democrat and republican faithful. That's a mistake. They should seek out the 'unfaithful'. The 'unfaithful' are the people who have never bought into the idea that political parties are more of a solution than a problem. It's a little bit like thinking that if you get Hitler and Stalin into the same room, they'll turn each other into moderates.
The discussion stayed too abstract for my liking, even though Glenn tried to ground it. That very concept of Democrat and Republican faithful is what I would hope this kind of effort should try to address and move beyond. After the recent happenings and party operations over the past few years, it's tough for me to understand how anyone who has spent time to question and look deeper could truly feel this identity. What is it they have faith in exactly? Certainly not the party machinery? I'm thinking it's some sort of mapping of values and perceptions of one's social group onto the parties. And since it's binary, there's no room for nuance. For my social upbringing that seemed to amount to Democrat: good, caring, positive progress, informed - Republican: bad, greedy or uneducated, controlling/strict. Since 2020 I realized just how much was lost by summarily accepting by default one of two options. Disagreeing on many key points but still reverting back to this binary worldview (a la John McWhorter) I think is disastrous to the health of our political discourse.
Even in John's language, there is this conception of Democrat or Republican as an identity, and an effort to get the two groups to talk to each other. We all need heuristics to cut down the complexity of the world, but this seems to be giving up before even starting. What is the import of John being registered Republican, and voting independent? The reduction to the 2 party system seems to me to be at the core of the problem. It's a high stakes game and every 4 years the new "most important election ever" will be framed by either party as existential; you must pick your side to save the country. In my ideal world, there would be a reframing so people seriously consider: what are the values most important to me? What is my relationship to truth - how does my conception of reality compare to theirs - what do I prioritize? The default moral valence assigned by your upbringing and social group to the Democrat/Republican reduction makes it easy to disregard this kind of examination.
I see what you're saying, but as a practical matter, it's possible that Braver Angels would encounter more resistance if they asked potential members to check their political affiliations at the door. "We welcome Democrats, Republicans, independents, and anyone who wants to come to the party" might be an easier approach than "No more partisan affiliations of any kind." As I understand it, John is saying, "You can have your affiliations if you value them, we just want to turn down the temperature on the conflict. We're not all going to find acceptable middle ground on every policy, but we can't continue to dehumanize each other."
You make a good point. I've been going to meetings for about two years, and we are encouraged, but not required, to identify as red or blue. It would be better if we were encouraged to NOT identify by party. Then people might be more inclined to speak from their own opinions and not their party identity.
It would be great if there were more 'independents', but the Braver Angels just doesn't attract them. We would all do well to remember that tens of millions of people wish both parties would just go away.
I'm all for that, and I don't really have a strategic intuition on the most pragmatic way to engage more people with a goal toward constructive dialog. I guess my point is that even if you tame people's more caustic emotional reactions toward the other side, they will remain resolute on their unexamined beliefs, and I don't think a constructive dialog can happen; the underlying worldviews aren't changing because they aren't even discussed.
Instead of checking political affiliations at the door - maybe - own those affiliations! Be proud of them, if you are, but examine that. What does that mean to you? Why? Then imagine why someone may have the opposite affiliation, and examine in good faith why they could be coming in with that. You can dispute the "facts", but often that reduces to an interpretation, which again points back to value systems and outlooks that I would want to focus first on for constructive conversation.
What you've said reminds me of what I've noticed on Substack: I learn a lot, meandering around Substack. The depth and breadth of knowledge here far exceeds the MSM, regardless of which side you consider.
Yeah, I agree, and I think that's in line with what he's saying. I can speak from personal experience and say that working closely with good, smart people who I really like but with whom I strongly disagree on important issues has made me think harder and more rigorously about my own beliefs. Some of those beliefs have shifted slightly, but I haven't changed fundamentally. I certainly understand "the other side" better than I used to. And I do find myself trying to convince my friends and family that it's better to try to understand them as they understand themselves rather than write them off, which, frankly, doesn't really work.
But that just tells me that you need to actually engage at a human level. Some liberals are actually afraid to make friends with conservatives because they don't want to humanize them too much or have to feel sympathy for them, and vice versa. That just seems like a bummer of a way to live. If an org like Better Angels is too much, I recommend joining some kind of local rec league. I play on an APA pool team, and I've met a lot of great people. Even though most of them are probably "like me," some definitely aren't. But it doesn't matter, because we're all just there to shoot pool and have a good time and no one EVER talks politics.
The idea of Braver Angels isn't to get people to move to the middle (or to change their opinions in any way). It's about encouraging folks to see people they disagree with not as enemies but just as people with who they disagree but can still communicate with constructively.
I agree. And that is what I've experienced.
But we need to do more than that. I can't help noticing that the participants live similar lives with similar values; it's ONLY the parties that drive us apart.
I hear you TRI. But I'm not sure I would describe it as the parties driving us apart, as much as our identification with the parties. So even though we would probably would (and do) get along with people just fine outside of the context of politics, if we find out that they support the "other party" we suddenly view them differently. Ultimately, I think we're to blame (though I do think that the dynamics of social media do a huge amount to make the problem worse).
Of course, it's easier to diagnose than to fix. Despite the fact that I'm very aware of this dynamic (and have a lot of my self-conception tied up in not falling victim it), nonetheless definitely find myself at times getting extremely frustrated at people on the "other side". Really have to remind myself to think outside of politics and remember that I know they're good people too. But it's not easy.
Agree. People have referred to the parties as tribalism. I think that's accurate. Tribalism manifests itself in religion, in sports, in neighborhoods, etc. It's normal and it can be beneficial, or at least not dangerous, as long as people recognize it for what it is. Unfortunately, even some 'educated' college graduates come to believe that their tribe is inherently superior and entitled. "Lord of the Flies" frequently comers to my mind in that regard.
Yes. This.