Maybe we need to re-think things. After all, it is the 21st century. Some of the old ways don’t seem to be working.
Take politics. (Please.) Consider: Should we still be hanging onto such a time-consuming, fact-based and, let’s face it, stale and boring political debate style? Aren’t we beyond that?
Oh, it may have worked in the old days of telegraphs and top hats when Robert’s Rules of Order and gentlemanly parliamentary procedures were expected. But in our warp-speed, social media-driven world of 24/7 mind-numbing political TV attack ads, who really worries about dignity, decorum and factual information? Perhaps we should develop new models of argumentation, new debate protocols that mirror today’s society.
What might this look like? Well, we could start by making our arguments secondary to the true goal which is winning the debate. Make them less complicated. Keep them emotional. Forget spending inordinate time and effort marshaling facts and presenting them in an organized manner. One way to think about arguing in this limited-attention-span, youth-oriented world is to harken back to our younger years and consider some techniques we used to great success on the elementary school playground. We could start by arguing like third-graders.
Imagine. Your opponent is charging you with being corrupt or hypocritical. Sure, you could try to rebut the charges with facts and evidence, or you could come back with the classic: “I know you are, but what am I?” Think about it: In a world of instantaneous information contagion, will your opponent’s comment or yours be remembered? And don’t forget, there are several variations on this zinger including, “Takes one to know one,” as well as the wordy but effective, “I’m rubber; you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.”
If your opponent tries to get specific and proposes some Grand Plan to solve a current crisis you simply counter with: “If you like it so much, why don’t you marry it?” That should render your adversary speechless.
On the off chance that this riposte does not, in fact, leave your foe speechless but instead causes him or her to continue spouting more words, arguments, and blah, blah, you should put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and begin chanting, “La, la, la, la, la, Can’t hear you.” Who could counter such a powerful response?
Now, in the off chance you find yourself out of cutting remarks and snide comments, or if you find yourself in a verbal corner with no escape, you can always fall back on that tried and true threat, the warning that puts the fear of authority figures in them every time: “I’m telling (Mom, the teacher, whoever)!”
Seriously. Politics deals with many issues that are important and deserve thoughtful consideration and debate. So why is it that so many of today’s political arguments seem to be designed to stoke our fears and appeal to our lowest instincts?
Maybe it has always been that way. Maybe because of modern media, technology and the 24-hour news cycle we feel we are constantly drowning in crisis after crisis, and we live with the foreboding sense that each moment’s news is of existential importance.
It makes me wonder: What if the world is not as scary a place as we are led to believe? What if we worried less about the getting of power and more about the giving of ourselves? What if we could calm down just a little? What if we simply tried to be kind?
Surely, even a third-grader could see how that might make a difference.
Norman Knight, a retired Clark-Pleasant Middle School teacher, writes this weekly column for the Daily Journal. Send comments to [email protected].
