Annual CPAC meetings generate
quite a bit of talk around the Beltway where politics, policy and lobbying are popular
sports. You or I may even be that eager person who
often slides into these easy conversations. They may start out on sound grounds
say gun safety policy or the boundaries of religion and politics and slide into
surprisingly murky concepts. One often finds
emotions rising and sound reasoning banned from the area.
CPAC seems to have more of this than some other meetings and it does attract media attention.
Did an
audience member at the Conservative Political Action Committee panel on Republican
minority outreach really defend slavery as good for African-Americans? Something like argument arose when
Frederick Douglas was noted as forgiving his slave masters. Forgive them for
what?
“Shelter, clothing, and food?”
Boy, is this an ahistorical summary of slavery, but perhaps civics classes aren't what they once were. It was reported that several people in the
audience cheered and applauded the comment. Well, what does one say to such seemingly affirmatory bias thinking that tramples on
reasonable understanding?
There have any number of practical guides generated by
people of experience to better handle these situations where entrenched interests,
affiliations, identity, ego, debating habits and ideology all play a role.
One I saw recently was called “How
to Talk to A Conservative” by Courtney Horne. Her topic was “drug testing welfare
recipients” but the points are a bit more general than the examples used. To be
sure there are entrenched interests like the lobbying of drug testing groups,
but they have analogs elsewhere such as the NRA for gun safety discussions.
In either case grounding a discussion in facts rather than
arguing abstract points may be useful. In Courtney’s case she went to the cost
of the policy, evidence that it wasn’t effective and implications for the idea
of “welfare” and what we know about the working poor. I’m not sure that any of
this would actually have worked with the CPAC audience member who may have
opinions set in cement. Asked by a women about his claimed Republican
Party’s roots and his demographic claims, he is reported to have responded:
“I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican
Party included women correcting men in public.”
Arg! Well what does one say besides some people are ready to
argue, but not to discuss? At least exposing such things to the light provides some perspective of the challenges we face.
This is free opinions without what Paul Kurtz described as the new paradigm of free inquiry here beliefs are treated as hypotheses to test.
We are increasingly in a fact-free zones where any opinion is equal to any other opinion and facts and skeptical stances are given the day off along with critical thinking & reasoned argument.
Images
CPAC from CPAC site
