Words to Avoid in Political Arguments
Political conversations have a distinct quality to them. They usually take about 10 seconds to get heated. They have a certain trajectory. You go over the same old ground. You talk at each other instead of to each other. Each party is barely listening to the other because they are busy formulating in their heads what they are going to say next. Often one or both parties could probably predict how the conversation is going to go. Both parties are at once trying to persuade the other and at the same time know in their hearts that no persuasion is going to happen because they have seen this all before.
That is true about a lot of arguments. It seems particularly true of political arguments.
Peculiar to political arguments, is that they have a distinct vocabulary. Once you hear the right set of words, you know you are off to the races and you know that the conversation is going to achieve absolutely nothing.
So here is a partial list of these words (I am sure you could add a few more):
Activist, extremist, agenda (always said with a slightly lowered voice to intone “secret” agenda), stupid (and all its synonyms), evil, un-American, anti-American, bigot, racist, fascist, leftist, alt-right, corrupt, scandal, hypocrite, smear, hate speech, weaponize, anything ending in “-phobic”, dog whistle, narcissist, meltdown, rino.
Some of these are specific to the left, some are specific to the right, and some are favorites of both sides. One is specific to conservative infighting: “rino” (Do progressives have “dinos”?). They are popular in the media and among politicians because they are very effective — effective at demeaning the other side, dismissing opposing views, and riling up the audience.
These words are also very popular in one-on-one political conversations for exactly the same reason: They are very effective at demeaning the other side, dismissing opposing views, and riling up the audience. Unfortunately, in this case, they are only effective in the mind of the speaker, not in the mind of the hearer. Furthermore, the speaker is generally riling himself up and it is counterproductive to rile up the hearer.
It’s not that these words are not valid or meaningful or good descriptions of important issues you want to discuss.
Many people are stupid, evil, hypocritical, and corrupt. Leaders who have a large following are often so narcissistic as to enjoy having large numbers of people follow them and to believe that they deserve it. People smear and they weaponize. People who believe in a principle, whether it is racial equity or sanctity of life or capitalism or whatever, believe that society should be governed in accordance with that principle i.e., are “extremists”, and many of them work to make that happen i.e., are “activists”.
The words themselves may be valid. It’s the baggage they carry with them. They put you and the other party in a state of mind that prevents thought.
So, when you hear these words, whether out of your mouth or from the other person, recognize that the conversation is running off the rails (or is stuck in a rut, depending on your point of view).
If it’s you using them, stop. Express what you are trying to say in some other way. It won’t be as succinct. It may not be easy. But it will be better than saying something that you know will be ineffective.
If it’s the other person, consider their state of mind. This is probably not a time to propose an alternate point of view. That person is likely not listening. Take a different tack. Switch to asking questions. Ask them what they mean by the terms they use (“What do you mean by ‘fascist’?”). Take time to probe their beliefs (“Is it possible to disagree with someone without hating them?”, “Whom do you fear more, government leaders or business leaders?”).
Will it work? Not always. You won’t know until you try. Either way, it’s better than continuing to do what you know does not work.
