Get over it — we need to practice goodwill in politics

The assumption that our compatriots are trying to lead us to better places binds Americans together. The country, its culture and its institutions are stronger with goodwill.

When two people disagree, that’s a sign that one or both has made a mistake in reasoning, or that both come from incompatible assumptions. Not to worry; it’s possible to work these issues out. If, however, you assume that disagreements stem from malice, then it is a signal that the other person — and always the other person — is not just wrong, but evil.

{mosads}Assuming bad will in politics makes it difficult to work with people outside of your group. It’s a challenge to organize your kids’ bake sale with someone that is trying to ruin the country.

It’s common to inoculate against this effect by keeping our politics to ourselves, or asserting that it’s bad taste to share your opinions, except in political meetings and newspapers. This is a bad practice. We ought to be able to productively talk about politics.

Goodwill is the key. It allows for people to respectfully talk about controversial matters, rather than fruitlessly speculate about each other’s hidden and nefarious motives.

Respectful conversations also foster the social practice of toleration that is needed to keep the country together. And toleration won’t develop socially until we each practice it in our daily lives. But it’s hard to do that, as the late cultural historian Jacques Barzun points out. Those who practice toleration and “live and let live” are decried as lacking in principle, for, he says, “[T]he human intellect is imperialist. In spite of the occasional, perfunctory ‘I may be wrong,’ all asserters defend their positions like wolverines their cubs.”

It is perfectly acceptable to believe that your ideas are right and that other people should think as you do. Accept that others have the same tendency, and use goodwill to make a bridge between the two opposing thoughts. Using goodwill needs to be practiced, and here are some tips to make it a habit:

• Argue with actual people.

It’s easy to fill a political discussion with caricatures of one political view or another, to expose its hypocrisy. The straw men we create can’t defend themselves.

Coming to terms with how real people operate, though, reveals that they can be more consistent than they first appear. They work with assumptions and frameworks that aren’t your own, but which can make their point of view coherent. Your goal in a political discussion shouldn’t be to score points, as in a televised showdown, but to understand the issue the way the other person does. Some people speak of Two Americas and others emphasize The Land of Opportunity, for example. There are different views that shape both phrases, and it’s important to understand what is meant by them.

Once you’ve understood that, you should convey that you’ve understood it. This develops trust. After all, it’s a courtesy that you want your interlocutor to give you as well.

• Talk about what is happening before getting to solutions, let alone politicians.

Agreeing on where we are first can identify facts and trends that upset both Republicans and Democrats. For example, a nonpartisan agreement that America’s prison population is an outlier among nations encouraged bipartisan support for national prison reforms.

Agreeing on where we are is harder than it should be. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt pointed out, when we are presented with information that we want to believe, we ask, “Can I believe it?” The answer is always yes. When presented with information that we want to disbelieve, we ask a different question: “Must I believe it?” The answer is always no.

Are you concerned about the dangers of genetically modified food? Then you’re inclined to believe stories that confirm that fear and disregard those that don’t. Think that illegal immigration is a national threat? Then you’re inclined to believe information that confirms the fear and disregard stories that don’t. The inclinations often overrule high-quality information.

You can use this insight to know that you’ll have a knee-jerk reaction to your opposition’s points (an action that will be reciprocated). So get over it. Take the next step beyond that reaction, together with your opposition, and maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Getting to the facts and understanding each other can build trust. That trust can foster the tolerance the country needs to deal with controversial matters.

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan. Follow him on Twitter @JamesHohman.