Liberty exposé: Emotionalism vs. Reasoned Debate

Morning Brew

“Emotions neither prove nor disprove facts. There was a time when any rational adult understood this. But years of dumbed-down education and emphasis on how people ‘feel’ have left too many people unable to see through this media gimmick.” —Thomas Sowell

Ethos (character), Pathos (emotions), and Logos (reason) are all critically important in debate. But what happens when only one of these facets of argument is the focus? Debate becomes unbalanced at best, impossible to have at worst. If you think that is an inaccurate assessment, you need only look at your favorite cable news channel and see the squawking and hysterics of the talking heads who work there. No matter your political persuasion, the current dialogue surrounding political ideas is pitifully lacking, but it hasn’t always been that way.

 During my research for last month’s 1789 Discourse, I stumbled across a wonderful film—Hannah Arendt, starring Barbara Sukowa as the renowned political theorist and professor. Mostly in German, it chronicles Arendt’s life, zeroing in on the period when she wrote what is arguably her most famous work: a series of articles about the trial of Adolph Eichmann which were published in The New Yorker in the early 1960’s. 

There is an extraordinary scene in the film that stands out in my mind. It captures the intellectual scene of New York at the time. Arendt, her fellow professors, and friends gather at her apartment to engage in a knock-down, drag-out debate of ideas. Following their passionate dialogue, they cheerfully laugh and enjoy each other’s company. A far cry from what young people are experiencing today. 

While watching the political concepts bounce back and forth through the swirling cigarette smoke that pervaded the room, I was fascinated by the passion and conviction of the differing ideas put forth. No one was holding back, and yet there was no animosity or calls for censorship—just passionate conversation about ideas that matter. Character assassinations and personal attacks were nowhere to be found, and deviation from the subject matter at hand was viewed tantamount to capitulation—in other words—your argument had failed. In short, it was the spirit of true debate captured on film, because ideas—and not personalities—were at the center of it. 

Let us take a look at what ‘debate’ looks like in the political landscape of today. Broadcast conversations are more akin to reality TV, than Socratic debate. The preening and smirking done by the intellectual elite of both parties leaves many Americans disgusted, as platitudes and catch phrases conveniently replace policy ideas. Most politicians eagerly seek to tar and feather the opposition rather than plainly stating their principles.  The omnipresent media—while rightly taking a microscope to politicians’ lives and scandals—add to the information deficit by failing to ask tough questions, a dereliction of duty because without it, Americans can’t decide who to vote for with clarity.   

This is why Modern Treatise’s 1789 Discourse was so special. You need not agree with everyone and everything to try to understand another’s perspective. You need not vilify intelligent people who have differing opinions on the role of government. You can (and should) seek out opposing voices, and—God forbid—even be good friends with them! 

This to many of you, may seem a statement as plain as day, but in this increasingly polarized and divisive political climate, a reminder that you can respect those with whom you politically disagree seems to be needed, nay, downright necessary.  

As the frenzied Presidential contest continues and November inches closer, Americans do not find themselves energized by a robust contest and battle of wits, but disheartened by blind allegiance to a political party—with no room for nuance.

“Politics is downstream from culture” as Andrew Breitbart used to say. Culture, art, and how we interact with one another starts with us. That means, in our personal behavior, we should pursue meaningful and respectful conversations with others—and then demand the same said behavior from our leaders and representatives. If it seems impossible (and if very well maybe), take heart knowing this: when the American people put pressure on their politicians to change something—more often than not they are successful. Regardless, I think we should bring back those boisterous intellectual parties from the 1960s, so that we can discuss logical, emotional and ethical concepts with happy abandon.