Generally I don't like talking politics, but politics and persuasion go hand in hand. In the old days, there was no internet or television, and people did not have much knowledge about political issues. These people would go to debates, ask the candidates questions about their policies, and side with whoever had their interests in mind. Those people were genuinely persuaded. This was possible because they did not go into debates knowing the ins and outs of each candidate’s arguments.
Fast forward to 2009. Due to mass media, people can read up on issues whenever they want. By the time anything important pops up, everyone has already taken a side. At this point persuading someone from one side to join the other is impossible. Instead, politicians now focus on persuading people from their own side not to switch to the other. That’s why we have people such a Rush Limbaugh spouting out crap. He wants to get the wavering republicans from slipping into the middle where the democrats have the opportunity to persuade them. The thing is, the democrats wouldn’t persuade these people because they too are busy trying to prevent people from switching sides. Both sides are more obsessed with keeping people as far to their side as possible that they no longer even persuade undecided people.
It’s unfortunate that this is what persuasion in politics has become. That’s why anyone with half a brain realizes how much of a joke presidential debates are. A candidate is asked what he thinks about problem A and he goes on to talk about why he wants to fix problem B because problem A isn’t on his talking points. It’s total bullshit. You know what each candidate is going to say about each issue, and you know that they will deflect controversial questions and get back their talking points. The candidates aren’t worried about taking a stand and persuading undecided voters, they are concerned making sure they don’t screw up and alienate any of their supporters. Their lies the root of the problem. Politicians nowadays are more worried about losing support than gaining support from someone who is wavering. Persuasion has become a defense instead of a weapon as it should be.
Those are the facts of life and they probably will not change anytime soon. That’s why I try to stay out of politics as much as possible. The whole system is so screwed up that it isn’t worth my time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you right from the start of your little rant here. I hate talking politics. Plain and simple. I dont like it because for one, it starts lots of unnecessary animosity between two people who would probably get along otherwise. I have been to a few social gatherings where two people decided to get political and then unfortunately tried to get physical.
ReplyDeleteBut getting back to the main point, persuasion in politics is currently on life support. It just doesnt work as well as it once did. Take for example our 27th president, Howard Taft. Most people know Taft as the guy who needed six White House aides and a few gallons of butter to get him out of the bath tub. While that is rather embarrassing and completely true, there is one other thing Taft is known for. He is known for being a successful president who was elected to two terms through his great conviction and ability to persuade citizens. When he made his points felt to the public, they believed what he said, regardless of his obese stature. Now, as you said, fast forward to 2009 and what are the odds that a 300+ pound man could make a successful bid for president? I would say you have a better shot of fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Between the advances in mass media and the incredible amount of information citizens have access to, it is difficult to be persuasive. Citizens have become very strong in their convictions and barring a miracle, don't like to see the other side of arguments. And rightfully so, it may be because people don't like to be proved wrong. That being said, it is very difficult to persuade now a days and politicians are coming up with new ways to try and recapture the art of persuasion.
Finally, you bring up a point that I am a big supporter of. In the sports world, the cliche is, "Play to win, don't play to not lose." Well you bring up the political equivalent of this when you say that politicians are not looking to gain support, only looking to not lose support.
Luckily for America, Obama has found a new way to persuade and reach Americans. He made it seem as if it is cool to vote, cool to be interested in politics, and cool to engage ones self as a civil servant. In turn though, Obama may have been ruining the idea that he was trying to save. One could see Obama's tactics almost as propaganda rather than persuasion. He was not informing the public on being a civil servant, rather telling them how important it was, and in turn most likely gaining a vote. I guess persuasion is kind of a catch-22.
Lastly, I want to leave my point. In the movie Scarface, Tony Montana utters the following line to a potential business associate, basically trying to persuade him, "All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one." My apologies for not keeping it clean but quite frankly, I wish politicians would adapt this attitude. Maybe we would finally see the art of persuasion come back to America.
I refuse to accept the proposition that persuasion is dead in America. The art of persuasive speaking has been a staple of human interaction for our entire existence. I propose that persuasion is just limited to certain subject matters. In my opinion, for many of the important issues in today's political realm people are so grounded in their beliefs that they become deffensive and refuse to accept the arguments of others -- and this isn't necessarily a bad thing!
ReplyDeleteAt a certain point individuals have heard the arguments being made by both sides on the issue and have just made up their minds. A person only needs to hear the pros and cons of capital punishment a few times before they know what they think about the issue. Therefore, people are being persuaded, but only once. They hear the pitches made by both sides and stick with their decision. I observed an example of this on Tuesday at English 201 class during a literary discussion. Questions were posed that people had previously been thought about or discussed. As a result there was a great deal of persuasive dialogue taking place. Although nobody had a stance on the issue prior to the discussion, if the conversation continued for an extended amount of time, such as half an hour. People would get more and more polarized about there views.
What is more, for some of these issues (such as capital punishment) the pros and cons have been evaluated for hundreds and hundreds of years. At a certain point new information just doesn't become available. It would be nearly impossible to come up with an argument on one of these subject matters that hasn't already been made. Therefore, it follows that people pick a side and don't waver. They have heard the arguments, picked a side, and with no new arguments coming don't change their minds.
Persuasion isn't dead, our society just provides an overload of information on certian issues. So yes, for the maybe six or seven hot button issues (such as abortion, health care, capital punishment) persuasion may be effectively dead. But it isn't accurate to claim that the art of persuasion is dead just because people have already been persuaded on these issues. There are an infinite amount of subjects that very few people have defined stances that are very open to persuasion.