My friend Robert Bidinotto has written a lot at http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/ on the
importance of narrative in today’s politics and that the group that controls
the narrative tends to win the debate and elections. I found an interesting
ebook by Arnold Kling called The
Three Languages of Politics that talks about the kinds of narratives
liberals, conservatives and libertarians favor. He claims if you listen
carefully liberals, conservatives and libertarians each have a favored language
that centers on a different axis. Liberals talk about oppression versus the
oppressed. Conservatives talk about civilization vs. barbarism. (I'd say their
reference to tradition translates into preserving the collective knowledge that
establishes laws and rituals that preserve civilization.) Libertarians focus on
freedom versus coercion.
I think he is onto something and that it explains the
acrimonious, usually unproductive cross talking when people argue. (I know many Objectivists strongly disagree with libertarianism. I'm not going to get into the argument some have with the issues they have with libertarianism as a political philosophy. I think it's fair to say that in general Objectivism shares the libertarian opposition to political coercion and support for individual freedom even if they arrive at this conclusion from a different philosophical approach based on rational self-interest.)
Kling gives some examples of this in his book and on his blog, http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/.
Most recently he predicted how the narrative about the shooting in Ferguson
would play out. The media and the left would try to portray Brown as a victim
of oppression. The right would say that the ensuing riots show the battle
between civilization and barbarism and the need for strong order. Libertarians would decry the use of
coercive police force as threatening our freedom.
The more I listen to the different spokesman of the three
sides the more I see confirmation of Kling’s model. I'm not saying it applies
all of the time but I think he has identified generally valid patterns. He
doesn't try to explain why people gravitate to one language, only that they do
settle on one language and can’t understand why someone who disagrees with them
can’t see the blindingly obvious truth of their position.
The link below has a nice, almost hour long discussion by
Paul and Diana Hsieh on the details of this model and some ideas on how to apply them when
talking with people who disagree with you. While Paul’s preferred language is in the
libertarian axis (as is Kling’s) I believe anyone in the three groups
could benefit by giving Paul’s talk a fair hearing.
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/podcasts/2014-07-03.html
Here is the general outline of points in the pod cast.
- About the "three languages of politics"
- The differences in the three languages
- The difference that the three languages make
- Examples of the three languages
- Conflict between camps
- Alliances between camps
- Political argument between camps
- The debates over the Hobby Lobby decision
- Using the three languages to become more persuasive
- Caveats and cautions
- Three take-home points
