I worried over this headline, because I’m drawn to clickbaity things and therefore assiduously seek to avoid them. But here I am giving you the clickbait and switch, so I’ll tell you up front: no, I’m not stepping away from writing, and this isn’t about that topic. Forgive me if you clicked in the Vorfreude of the moment, anticipating my retirement writ large. But now that we’ve gotten past the apologies, let me explain why I used that headline.
I love seeing when people engage each other, not to convince others to adopt their point of view, but to understand and appreciate why the others believe what they believe, and learn from it. Duke University professor and philosophy author Walter Sinnott-Armstrong contends that “The best way to argue is to take on your opponents’ strongest arguments, not their weakest ones.” This is popularly known as “the highest form of disagreement,” and it acknowledges the best aspects of your debate opponent’s arguments and assertions. The best way to make your own argument is to tell others “you have a point.” Otherwise, you’re really just talking at them, not to them.
There are two small steps away from polarization and the Balkanization infecting our country, that I want to highlight today. One is a fairly random post on Substack notes I read where user “Bo” voices his agreement with pot-stirrer Matt Walsh.
…I’ve seen people try to say that what Matt actually said in his post is that “brown people are bad” or “ethnic enclaves are bad” but both of these things are simply not true (even if he may believe those things or say them elsewhere).
What Matt says is that the specific things happening in Dearborn (5am calls to prayer that wake everyone up and violate the cities own noise ordinances or naming streets after terrorist supporters) is bad and it’s not what we want for our country.
I agree! Religious extremism is bad and it doesn’t matter if it’s Islam, Christianity, Mormons, Jews, Hindu’s or whatever….
I edited out the parts where Bo makes clear his disdain for Walsh and hurls a few invectives in the process. Now I’ve read a lot of Matt Walsh and have followed him for a decade, from when he was just a mouth on the radio. Walsh used to make very detailed, reasoned conservative arguments, and I agreed with many of them. He then took his platform and turned it into a churning cauldron of rage bait, which I think speaks negatively of his character. It speaks more negatively if he actually believes the venom he dispenses, which honestly, I think he doesn’t, which merely makes him another disingenuous remora feeding off the populist Great White MAGA Shark.
Bo realized who Walsh is and what he’s about, but stands up and agrees that the Islamic takeover of Dearborn, Michigan, in its levers of government and fair society, represents a break from the ethos of American culture. We’re not talking about Blue Laws that force liquor stores to close on Sunday. We’re talking about Dearborn Heights proposing using Arabic script on police badges—an idea that sparked enough public backlash to earn the dustbin. That was in the name of diversity, they said. Imagine if the NYPD decided to offer optional Hebrew badges for officers serving in the 77th precinct, which covers Crown Heights.
And naming streets after Muslim leaders with ties to terror, then the mayor telling a Christian who objected he is “not welcome here,” is not what any of us should consider the American Way. That is a far cry from George Washington’s letter wishing Jews peace and quoting the Old Testament.
Many so-called conservative bloggers and podcasters have made hay off this Dearborn thing, and Matt Walsh is in the top tier of red-meat rage baiters. The fact that Bo took the time to voice agreement on one small point is, if not admirable, it is desirable, as one small step out of the pit of division, recognizing someone with whom we disagree has a point. I mean even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but actually Bo is engaging in the highest form of disagreement, taking Walsh’s strongest argument and acknowledging it, in order to dismiss all the trash that Walsh posits along with it.
The other example is much better read. Nicholas Creel, an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University, is the faculty advisor to the Turning Point USA chapter on that campus. I know something of this place, though I don’t know Creel. GCSU is in Milledgeville, Georgia, off the beaten path between the Atlanta metro and Macon (as in, it’s not on I-75). Milledgeville has history as the Civil War capital of Georgia, which General Sherman decided not to burn in his march to the sea. It is also known for being host to the state mental hospital for many years, until that facility closed. GCSU is one of Georgia’s oldest educational institutions. I personally know a faculty member there, having spent 26 years living in Middle Georgia.
Creel is a self-described liberal who took on the TPUSA advisor role simply because the group needed an advisor to have official status on campus, and other liberal-minded professors refused. Someone had to do it. The essay he penned in the New York Times is worth reading. It shows what a person who puts aside political and philosophical differences can learn in the process about people.
My T.P.U.S.A. students have shown that people can hold strong political convictions while still having respectful conversations with those who disagree.
They’re showing that the messy work of democracy can be practiced, not just preached.
Democracy is messy at its best. When we disagree and argue in a civil way, it can appear very messy and disorganized. But when we organize into separate camps and oppose each other merely on membership, like gang colors, it gets even messier, and violent.
I applaud these two examples of engaging at a higher level. It’s what we need to be about: stepping away from the pit of polarization, back into the light of reason.