"Explaining Deadlock"

“Explaining Deadlock”

By: J. Hunter

  

Two weeks ago, I engaged in another knock-down, drag-out debate with my liberal parents. (As a bit of advice to my fellow conservatives who feel the need to engage with liberals, make it a point to learn as much about as many issues as possible—liberals have a tendency to change the subject when their talking points crumble under the weight of reason.) Accordingly, my parents and I argued about the Occupy Wall Street movement, Herman Cain, public employee unions and the role of government. I found much of what they said to be disturbing, but nothing was more bewildering than their simple proclamation that they were angry about Congressional deadlock. My mother’s face was red and glistening with sweat as she struggled with her grown son with the same intensity as she did when she delivered me as a tiny rebellious baby.

Arguing (pic1)

“We didn’t send Congress to Washington to do nothing,” she yelled. “They need to stop talking and act! We’re sick of the arguing and debating! Just do something!”

My father seconded her, and I couldn’t help rolling my eyes and being overdramatic.

I threw my hands and face skyward as if pleading to God and exclaimed, “I’ve been blown away by your simple-minded arguments, but that is the most juvenile thing you two have said all day!” (I’m straddling The Fifth Commandment, here.) I made my case, but to no avail—my father tilted his head like a puppy does when it encounters something for the first time. My mother stared at me blankly, and their expressions worried me. Considering that they are liberal, and that there is a correlation between the amount of television one watches and political leaning, where liberalism correlates with higher television consumption than conservatism, their confusion made a little bit of sense.[1]

When you consume mass media—especially television media—you hear a lot of half-baked ideas bandied about between commercial breaks. There is no debate. There is no explanation of ideas, and as a result, consumers walk around with sentence fragments, slogans, talking points, non-sequiturs and random images floating around in their head. They constantly hear that the current Congressional deadlock is unprecedented, not that it is inevitable—or even preferable. I took this opportunity to clarify what I believed to be a no brainer.

This is how I began to explain the deadlock to my parents:

Republicans vs. Democrats

Republicans v. Democrats (pic2)

Congress is divided between the Democrats and the Republicans such that neither side can enact policies unimpeded. To make matters worse, the two parties are diametrically opposed. Republicans believe that government engages in too many activities that are best left to localities and individual citizens. We believe that when government interjects, it makes matters worse and at a high fiscal cost. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that government intervention and manipulation ensures fairness and is the best way to care for vulnerable citizens. These views are difficult to reconcile, but the most recent elections made the gulf even more unbridgeable.

The Democrats who survived the 2010 elections were those who represented safely liberal districts—that means that they were rewarded for holding fast to their ideological viewpoints. On the other hand, the populist conservative movement known as the Tea Party, swept in Republicans who were more committed to conservative ideology than were past Republican politicians. In fact, moderate Republicans were jettisoned for more conservative Republicans. The result is a Congress full of ideological purists—deadlock.

Advocates vs. Arguers

Because Congress contains more lawyers than businessmen, doctors or other professionals, there is more deadlock than usual. That is because lawyers, by trade, are advocates, not arguers. Advocacy and argumentation differ in one very important way—true argumentation is an activity meant to persuade in light of all known facts. Arguers engage with each other readily accepting that their arguments may be defeated and that they may walk away believing something that they did not before the argument began. This attitude is conducive to problem solving and negotiation. Advocates, on the other hand, are concerned only with convincing the unconvinced that their cause is just. They may do so by suppressing contradictions in their stance or by minimizing evidence that weakens their position. Lawyers, professional advocates, earn a living promoting narratives that they may not actually believe themselves. (Just think of criminal defense attorneys who employ advocates’ tactics to let guilty men free, and justify their efforts as necessary to defending an individual’s rights, not actions.)  Lawyers are known to advance the supremacy of one set of principles in one case and an opposing set in another. They, as advocates, walk into negotiations with a viewpoint that they must uphold at all costs. In short, advocates cannot negotiate. They can only engage in deadlock.

Push Media vs. Pull Media

Push v. Pull (pic3)

Finally, before we place all of the blame on our elected representatives, we must examine the stimuli that inform us before we call our congressmen and insist that they take one position or another—media consumption. Push media refers to the media that existed before the explosion of multiple cable channels, back when the television stations would simply turn off at a certain time of night, before the internet, blogs and 24-hour news sites. In the era of push media, virtually every American was force-fed one viewpoint unless he ventured off the beaten path to find an alternative. The obvious downside to this reality is that certain assumptions can be fostered by limiting public exposure to debate; indoctrination, propaganda.

Today, with news available at all times of the day in many manifestations, with a conservative media that flourishes alongside a liberal one, with blogs that advocate one viewpoint over another, consumers can choose what news they wish to internalize. This is called pull media. The advantage to pull media is that there are more avenues for consumers to receive messages tailored to their interests, and there are more sources that can help safeguard against indoctrination. The downside is the proliferation of media echo-chambers—Republicans choose to consume a steady diet of republicanism and Democrats, a steady diet of liberalism—never the twain shall meet. In one sense, it is self-indoctrination.

When we exist in these echo chambers and call our congressmen, and participate in polls, and threaten politicians with our vote, we may be doing so from a position of hardened ideology. To save their jobs, politicians respond to our stimuli and thusly, justify adherence to rigid ideologies. The result—deadlock.

This concept could not have been more plain to me. Why do we decry, instead of expect, governmental deadlock? Despite my explanation, my parents were not convinced. They looked at me with those aforementioned blank stares and simply shrugged as if I were speaking Yoruba. In a last ditch effort, I decided to pull out the sock puppets:

Sifl and Olly (pic4)

“Mom,” I said, “one man calls for hanging all black people and another argues against it. You are saying that the two should simply stop arguing and just act. What exactly should they do? Isn’t their deadlock understandable?”

My provocative, silly, example got her attention, but she still feigned ignorance. (I’d like to believe that she was feigning.) In the end, she simply waved her hands at me dismissively. I left, pretending not to be utterly annoyed at allowing myself to be dragged into another argument where we simply yell at each other like kids.

On the car ride home, I replayed the conversation in my head—as I often do whenever I debate. Why couldn’t I convince them? What could I have offered that would have been more compelling? Why the deadlock?

It wasn’t long before I found the answer in my own example: my parents were not arguing with me, they were acting as advocates for the Democratic Party and as ideologically committed liberals. Considering that I represent, to them, the embodiment of political evil—a happy, active, erudite, shameless conservative—they were also advocating on behalf of their own egos. I could not have convinced them with a burning bush. Besides that, my parents consume a heavy regiment of MSNBC virtually all day long (they’re retired), whereas I read the New York Times and other liberal media in preparation for writing a blog piece each week. Deadlock was more than likely—it was inevitable.

Article Sources:

[1] http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/03/sports_viewers.php

Photo Sources: Pic1 from http://blog.self-improvement-saga.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/communication-skills.jpg; Pic2 from http://www.squidoo.com/my-teams-better; Pic3 from http://liveinaustin.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/push-pull.jpg; Pic4 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Sifl_and_olly.jpg/250px-Sifl_and_olly.jpg