Benton and Abi agree to disagree about how to disagree.
In our "polarized" political climate, what value is there in a rhetoric that doesn't aim to change minds? Is it possible to embody empathetic listening while protecting ourselves from harmful views?
They discuss their not-especially-successful attempts to converse with undecided voters as the election nears, and how presidential debates aren't the right format for solving problems. Abi gives a quick rundown of alternatives to persuasion throughout the rhetorical tradition, culminating in the 2022 book Rhetorical Listening in Action by Ratcliffe & Jensen.
Stay to the end for Abi's most embarrassing high school debate experience.
Music credits:
AGood morning. Welcome to TC Talk, a tech comm podcast. My name is Abi Bakke.BMy name is Benton Bakke.AI teach technical communication and rhetoric,Band I don't. Currently, I am working in the climate Impact Corps for a nearby city.AThrilled to be working in an area that you are passionate about?BYes. Very much.AYay. I have missed recording.BSame.AI didn't think I would. But I've just been feeling like the last few weeks like, Oh, I want to get on the mic with Benton.BOh.ABut we have an excuse.BThat's right.AWe were invited to participate in the big rhetorical podcast carnival, 2024.B Insert Carnival sounds.A D d d d.BThat's right. Send in the gladiators. That little ditty that people associate with clowns now was actually written as, like, music to indicate sending gladiators into the ring, you know, to battle to their death, whichAHighly intimidating.BIt definitely gives a picture of the comic violence idea was not invented by our Highly intimidating. generation.AHm. How about that? It seems like the kind of thing that could be a fake fact.BI don't know. I think it's the title of the piece, soAOkay. Well, I'll look it up, and if I don't come back here from the future saying that this was made up, then you can assume it is true. Now, to the theme of the Podcast Carnival. Politics Slash Rhetorics: Navigating, civility, culture, and crisis. And this will be held from October 28 through 31st. Our episode is slated to be released on October 31. So I feel like we should give this a spooky vibe, but eh.BYou can listen to it while driving kiddos around to do trick or treating. In your car.ANope. Cause I'm going to drop F bombs.BYeah, but the kids are going to be out of the car.AAre you not going to go to the door with them?BOkay. I guess I do. But like when I was growing up, the way my parents did it they just kind of crept along on the street to keep pace with us. So you know, we would do all the walking and they'd just sit in the car and be comfortable. And presumably listen to obscene podcasts.ADid they levy their parent tax on the Halloween candy like we do?BThey may have done it without me knowing.AYeah. Meanwhile, my kids are like, Mom, you can have this tootsie roll, and I'm like, fuck that. Give me the Reese’s. Yes. Almond Joy. Okay. Dude, at this rate, we are never going to get through this conversation.BRight. Maybe we should just schedule fake podcasting time so that we talk to each other.AOh, my gosh. Is that what it will take?BIt might. To have eye contact? Sure. For longer than 2 seconds at a time?AMaybe. Cheers. Oops, you forgot the rule to not put ice in your drink.BOops, I did.AFor recording. What have you got going on?BI am drinking a dirty doctor Pepper.ADoctor Pepper with olive Brine?BYuck.AI'm kidding.BI'm sure someone's tried it. But what this is is doctor Pepper with amaretto and fireball whiskey.AI think we're just regressing in our levels of drink sophistication. We started off with, a martini, and now we're like dump liquor into pop of choice.BMm hm.AI have a suspicion that the theme for this podcast carnival or at least the timing was intentional because we are at the moment of recording, a few weeks out from the 2024 elections. By the time you're listening, it's possible that either Harris or Trump will have won the presidency.BYou may have voted early. If you haven't voted, Register. Depending on the state you live in, you might already be hosed. But if you live in a state that values its people like Minnesota, where we live, you can register at the polls on election day and then vote.AMm. And I am proud to say, we live in the town that brought us Tim Walz, current vice presidential candidate.BMm-hmm. Our daughters will both be going to the school where he taught.ASo your claim to fame is that you chatted with him in the YMCA locker room, right?BYes. it was when he was actually running for governor of the state. And fortunately, there was no nudity involved on any of the parties. Dudes just tend to walk around letting it all hang free in the YMCA locker room.APiggers are going all the way this year.BThat's true. Oatmeal reference.AI will link to that comic, but I will not explain it.BSo the county DFL chair kind of bragged me up to Tim Walz honestly.AOh, didn't he introduce you as one of the young people who's involved in politics?B One of the one of the excited young people, something like that. Probably an unearned positive, you know, review to Tim Walz and then shook my hand. We exchanged a few things, a few words.A Minnesotan pleasantries?BYes.ASo whether or not you have voted, whether or not a winner of the election has been declared, it will be a scary time. If you're listening before the election, you might be wondering if there are people in your life whose minds you could change. If it's after the election, maybe there are people in your life who now there is a rift between you that has gotten larger. And you're wondering if the relationship is salvageable, or you know, how to make it civil, I guess. So my question is, could there be an approach that's more civil, respectful and centered on people’s humanity rather than the charged political discourse we have today? My answer is no.BI'm glad I didn't just jump in there with it because I knew that was your stance. So your stance is we're doomed to division and strife.ANot necessarily.BOkay. We’ll find some nuance.A I'll give you an opportunity to listen to my stance later in this episode. Okay. What do you think? Is there a different approach?B I think there is a different approach. The way that media presents what the American public or electorate, which are different, what American society is like is very linear, you know, left versus right. I cannot remember the name of the model, so good luck finding it. I'm sure you will. But the model.ACan I just say, I hate when you throw in. Oh, I heard a thing somewhere. And then when I'm the one who has to go in and add the references, you send me on a wild goose chase. Anyway. You don't remember the model, but.BBut I definitely like more the two axis portrayal of political views. And so there'sAthree dimensional versus twoBTwo dimensional versus one.AAh, Okay. So we're not talking a line here.BNot line, but a graph. Admittedly, there's probably more than three dimensions to display butAIt would look like a sea urchin.B Sea urchin.AYeah, with like intersecting lines all over the place three dimensionally?BA sea urchin kind of sounds like an excellent metaphor for the time we're in. Yeah. Very prickly andAcomplex? Okay. So you wish that we would move to a place of greater nuance.BIt's fancy.AIt doesn't play well in headlines.BNo, it doesn't.ASo I guess you could say that the theme of this episode is listening. What role could listening play? How does it work? When does it work? When does it not?BI think that there is value in trying to reach for civility. Even though I recognize that civility and decency are often dog whistles of the powerful trying to silence.ATone policing.BYes, Tone policing. People trying to silence the aggrieved. Like, how dare you yell at me?AThe mean tone of your voice is meaner than the slur I called you, right? Am I a good listener?BI think that generally you are a pretty good listener, yes.AI did not think you would say that.BWell, it really does depend. You are very good at listening to our kids.AThey have good ideas.BWhat are you saying about me? When it comes to different political or philosophical ideas, I feel like I'm probably more curious in hearing a thing out. I feel like oftentimes, sure, I'm listening, but I may not be really listening with an open mind. I'm listening for, like, Is this actually a legitimate person critique or is this an astro turfedAcritically listening. That's good. That's a good practice. And I'm more likely to be, like, no, not engaging with that bullshit. So I think it's safe to say that we disagree about how to disagree with people and ideas.BYeah.AWe've gotten kind of heated about this. I'm not going to lie. I think it started with talking about undecided voters. Whereas you’re like, I'm going to hear them out. And I'm like, if you haven't made up your mind already, there's nothing I can do to change it. Yeah, I've been like, OMG, democracy will crumble if we don't do something, and so I've been looking into signing up for door knocking. What makes me nervous about that is encountering people who are unapologetically pro Trump. I don't want to have a conversation with them. Whereas, again, you would be willing to hear them out because certainly there are, you know, underlying beliefs and fears there that could be acknowledged and addressed by the Democratic Party ideally.BWhen it comes to economic concerns, I know that economic anxieties have been used as a dog whistle forAAn excuse.BAn excuse, a cover for out and out racism. But economic uncertainty is real.ASo I think the issue is don't go in there assuming that You're actually racist, so I'm not going to talk to you. Let's talk about the economy. Let's talk about what impact this has on you in your day to day life. And what can we take from that and how can we try to come at a win, win solution? Instead of trying to argue you out of your very real lived experience.BJust to add a little bit of nuance here, I distinguish between supporters and voters. So voters being people who would hold their nose and vote for Trump. People who aren't enthusiastic for him, but would check his box. Those are voters. Supporters are people who buy the merch and put the signs up, or, you know, put like a silhouette of Trump and they put in their yard and a giant flag. I wouldn't be willing to engage in conversation with all of his supporters. Some of them I would be willing to discuss with them in order to gain some insight into how is it that this guy has convinced you that in any realm, he's going to do a thing that's good for you personally.AThat's useful. Trump supporters versus Trump voters. I am less likely to recognize the distinction because the end result is the same. People who vote for Trump and he wins, they have elected Trump, whether or not they held their nose while doing it, you know?BTrue.ASo we got in a good discussion with some friends the other day, shout out to Sabrina. Recommended an MPR episode about this group called Braver Angels. On their home page, they say, “as we separate into groups that increasingly do not even know or interact with, people of differering opinions, we lose trust in our institutions, eroding the ability to govern ourselves, and lowering the caliber of citizenship. This growing trend coarsens public debate, produces policy gridlock, shrinks our capacity for goodwill, and harms our family and personal relationships. Effective self government depends precisely on what this type of polarization destroys.” I'm so done with the word polarized. There's one side that's been doing the polarizing.BThe vast majority. Yes.AYeah. I mean, the word, it's passive. When I think what is more helpful to do is to confront right wing radicalism.BYes. Polarization describes a phenomenon that is happening, whereas radicalization describes something that is being done by someone.AAnyway, this group Braver Angels organizes conversations among people who disagree politically and the focus is on understanding and not changing minds. I listened to the episode with the married couple who voted for different people, and there was a moderator there. And so they took turns explaining where they were coming from and this and that. And it was certainly more civil than an overt conflict. They were talking about, like, does this have to mean divorce? As I was listening, I was just thinking, Yeah, sure. This sounds all civil and well and good. But this guy who voted for Trump is still wrong. I like to think of myself as a relatively open minded person. But there's danger, I think, and vulnerability in opening your mind to ideas that dehumanize. So can I not draw a line there? I don't know.BThat that is exactly the sentiment of Braver Angels is to, re humanize people who are on the other side, not necessarily beliefs. Hmm.AYeah. The moderator emphasized that people's beliefs are not their identity. I'm like, Well, they kind of are. I don't know. I mean, it helps too that people self select into this. They're not going to participate if they don't value at least the idea of listening. So that shakes out the Trump supporters, I would guess.BYeah. The hard right hard liners. To some extent, I'm sure some of the hard supporters on the left too.ALike me. I wouldn't want to participate in this. Or I don't think I could participate in good faith.BIn instances where someone does or says something that's just completely off the wall and doesn't seem justified at all. I try to make sense of it. I try to be like, Well, maybe they were thinking about this or that.ABut I would argue, those people seem to always get the benefit of the doubt. Trump didn't actually mean to say there would be a literal bloodbath if he wasn't elected.BThat's true.AI kind of get what you mean when you say you try to understand it. Like, you are not agreeing with it, but that's different than trying to understand something.BYeah. Not agreeing or excusing, but trying to be like, what is the rationale behind this?AYeah. I kind of put those goggles on, those metaphorical goggles on, when I was watching the debate between Harris and Trump and part of me is watching and going. How is Trump a viable presidential candidate? And another part of me is like, I get it. I get why some people would insist that he had won. Because in that universe, in that universe of alternative facts, everything he's saying makes sense. I think I've had a lot of experience with that cognitive dissonance, I guess. I think it's fair to say that I experienced some indoctrination as a child religiously and politically. I don't say that in a way that is like, Yeah, my parents were brainwashing me. I would blame the institutions that we were a part of. Um living, growing up in a small, smallish town, very homogeneous community, and then getting to college and starting to be exposed to more ideas. And this was college in Fargo, North Dakota, I might add. So hardly a place to be exposed to expansive world views and diverse perspectives. But nevertheless, that was whatBStarted things. It was definitely a good thing to, you know, for people from a small town like you and me, it was probably good to have baby steps into diversity.AIt was indeed a stepping stone. Like we said, it was a baby step. It started with trying to juggle multiple competing world views at one time and that is hard to do. There is a mental and emotional toll that takes on you to try to be open to so many possibilities at once. I get why people dig in. It's hard. I've turned around my views. I've done the hard work and I'm exhausted. Anyway, considering what I came from, you'd think I'd have more empathy for Trump voters. But I actually have less empathy, I think, because I look at them and I'm like, Hey, I changed my mind, why aren't you?BI figured it out.AWhich is hugely privileged and judgmental because not everyone has access to college. There are a lot of things that allowed me to change my views over time, circumstances that others don't have. So besides that sense of exhaustion, I think oftentimes it's unsafe to hear out bad ideas. I think part of why you and I have different approaches to this is because I believe women have been socialized to default to empathy. I think women are expected to listen and to care for the feelings of others in ways that men have not been expected to do. That I think puts us at a disadvantage when in conversation with people who haven't practiced listening and empathizing. I might come across as a bad listener, but In reality, it's me setting boundaries after a lifetime of already trying to see value in other perspectives.B Mm. Yeah. When we were talking, it did kind occur to me that, you know, obviously, the main demographic difference between you and me is socialization of, you know, different genders.AAlso, you have curly hair and I don't.BI have curly hair, and I don't know what that gets me, other than, you know, a step towards clown. It came back. That male conceit that, Oh, yeah, why can't I be a leader? Sure. Mm hmm. Whereas from what I've heard from you, there is certainly more prevalent imposture syndrome for women in society.A Mm hmm. That's to say nothing of racism in society. Again, I want to acknowledge that I can walk into one of those Braver Angels conversations, and I might be annoyed, but I'm not going to be harmed. Picture a Black person walking into that and they get paired with a racist who is there because they have good intentions, but nevertheless, their underlying beliefs are harmful. Here's another example. So there's another group called the Compassionate Listening Project. And they started in 1991 as a way to push for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.BMm. That's gone pretty well so far.A right. And they would take trips to Israel and Palestine and go on like a listening tour. I'm imagining a situation where Somebody on one side of the conversation is saying, hey, I have a divine right to genocide you. That just seems like it could be putting people in a more victimized space. It’s not fair to ask them to be open to that.BHm.AI guess I would say this. I think people with privilege should do the hard work of listening and conversing with people with bad ideas because they are less likely to be harmed. I know that means I need to stop being cowardly and be willing to engage those conversations that more marginalized people cannot safely engage in. If it could mean changing a mind. But I'm struggling with this. If my end goal is ultimately to change minds, then we're right back to persuasion being the end goal and not actually listening. How do we engage empathy and true listening if we're not willing to change our minds? Are those mutually exclusive? How do we engage empathy while protecting ourselves from those who would argue in bad faith or whose beliefs harm us even if they're not intended to? Maybe that's not where listening needs to take place because some beliefs deserve or not deserve, but should be approached oppositionally.BLike flat earthers. You can't both sides that or racial supremacists of any sort. You don't give unchallenged voice to intolerant or uninformed views.AMm hmm. Yeah. Tolerance of hatred is dangerous. If you have the freedom to say hateful stuff, then I have the freedom to tell you you're wrong. And I guess we're talking about two different things when we talk about having one on one conversations with real people in our lives versus listening to the media or how politicians engage opponents. I think we've seen certainly a shift from the they go low, we go high philosophy towards what I would consider very gentle ribbing of the right. Again, thanks largely to Tim Walz’s astute observations of weirdness.BYeah, I agree. The proper response to someone being a troll is to outtroll them. Yeah. Or to mock them relentlessly.AYeah, I think there's a fine line though between trolling and actually getting down in the mud with them. And I don't think I don't think Democrats have done that. I think if the worst name calling they can do is say JD Vance is weird, then that is in no way comparable to JD Vance, for instance, saying that Haitian immigrants are eating pets, which you know, a claim that has had real consequences in the world. So I think that we can maintain a middle ground between always taking the high ground and always being the bigger person and engaging in harmful bullying.B Right.ALet's pause so I can go get the kids. We left off with me saying, Oh, I got to go get the kids. There have been several days since then. We did not get back to recording immediately. But that's okay because a couple of things have happened in the last few days that I think relate to our conversation.BDoes it have something to do with our governor?AYep, we watched the Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday night. And then the next day, I did some door knocking for some local DFL candidates.BDemocratic Farmer Laborer Party.A Yep so equivalent of Democratic Party. You should be proud of me because I did the door knocking specifically because of our conversation and me realizing, Wow, I am allowing myself to be way too comfortable. We'll go in chronological order. The Vice Presidential Debate. Tim Walz, JD Vance. I'm not going to rehash everything that went down. What I wanted to comment on was how this debate demonstrated my point about civility is not enough. In fact, civility can cover up evil. Right. Not to sound dramatic, butBI'm sure that Hitler had his JD Vance, too. You know, because Hitler was a very enthusiastic speaker at his rallies.AOh, Himmler, maybe?BYeah. I'm sure that he had someone who was more buttoned down, but just as rotten to the core.ASo my first impression, I didn't catch the beginning. I was teaching class. But I stepped into the watch party at a local bar afterwards. And the instant sense I got was that this feels normal. This feels like pre-Trump years. But I was also listening to the words JD Vance was saying, and it terrified me. The sense I got from people's reactions after was Oh, it was boring. It was refreshingly boring and respectful. Stephen Colbert did say that afterwards, Tim Was said something like, Yeah, there's a lot of commonality there, which in Minnesota means I hate your guts, sir. Something along those lines. Which I thought was funny.BYep. I'm sure there were a lot of people who watched the VP debate and were like, Oh, they're not fighting so much. That's a nice change. And you know, like, It speaks very much to Walz’s character. he was very much known for being a bipartisan congress person., that's what he was always trying to do in Congress was get people on both sides to buy in and to weigh in. that finding agreement you know,Alike It's necessary to get things done.BIt is necessary to get things done. When you carve of a horrible statement, a piece that like, Okay, this I agree with. This part, I can get behind and we can work with that. This wild nonsense over here, I'm going to ignore that. Let's push forward with the agreement part so that we can make anything happen. I think that there's a lot of ground to be gained by both sides because there’s that prevalent concept of it being a zero sum game. No, we can both get things that we want. There is overlap in the Venn diagram of things that we want. Hm. And we can make those things happen.AAs long as everyone is coming at the issue in good faith.BIn good faith, yes. That's true.AThat's the thing is you cannot come to the table prepared to problem solve when the other person is like, I'm going to destroy you.BYeah. When the other parties are interested in problem creation.AYes. My worry is that people will feel calmed by the “normalcy” of that debate and it will cover over the deep abnormality of the Republican platform.BYeah. Trump is a lemon, and JD Vance is the car salesman.AFor real. And of course, there's the appearance over substance debate, although I found JD Vance absolutely grating to listen to. I think it may have been the facial expressions, actually, more so than the voice. And then a lot of kind of subtle twisting of the truth, but also enough whoppers to make people be like, Oh, wait. He really has no commitment to the concept of truth. This is entirely utilitarian for him.BMm hm. I think my personal favorite moment in the debate, not that I loved it, but when he said, we wouldn't have a housing shortage if Kamala Harris didn't give millions of illegals houses.AIt was clearly a pre planned strategy to talk about Harris as though she is already the president.BRight.AWhich is the kind of thing that it's so blatantly wrong. But the very fact that it came out of his mouth, in a tone that implied like, Oh, this is just the way things are. It causes people to question reality.BMm hmm. Gas lighting.AAnd that was my impression. When I was watching, I was like, none of this sounds right.B None if it was right.ABut I was thinking to myself. Did I miss something? With Trump, it's the delivery matches the content.BMm hm.AI don't know. I shouldn't be surprised by this, but it was very disconcerting.BTrump is like Jabba the Hutt. The outside matches the inside. Although, I suppose literally the inside was three or four puppeteers.AI've never thought about how they did Jabba the Hutt. I kind of want to look it up now.BYeah. I guess in JD Vance's case, it's three raccoons in a trench coat. Three honey badgers in a trench coat.AOkay. In a stylish trench coatBA tailored oneAThat has a fake designer label on it. Three seat urchins in a trench coat?BBut he's slimier.AAnd it got me thinking about the format of a debate. And you're not going to believe that I'm saying this, but I don't like it.BWhat about all those years of being in debate team?AYeah, that's the point is I have fond memories of high school debate. And in retrospect, it was a philosophical exercise, right? It was solely a skill to hone and not about actually arriving at truth. Okay, I'm sounding a little bit too much like Plato there. I'll put it this way. When it comes to debate, the goal shouldn't be to arrive at truth because debate is often about looking to the future, making decisions, deliberative rhetoric, right. You can't know the future, and that's why rhetoric exists is to reason through situations that are not the kind of thing you can prove with a mathematical proof. But nonetheless, the goal is not at arriving at the best ideas when it comes to debate. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. I don't know why it feels like a revelation dawning on me, but if every resolution and in debate the resolution is just like the statement that you either have to agree with, affirmative, or disagree with, negative. If every resolution has to be worded such that theoretically an equal number of wins could happen on the affirmative side as the negative side, then it's not about the ideas. It is about the skill of arguing. Which is fine. I think that is a fine skill to develop for certain contexts, but there has to be a shared base of reality, and that was not happening on Tuesday night.BGive me some resolutions, just for context here.AOkay. Resolved. The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict. Here's another one. Economic development should take priority over environmental protection. There's a right answer, and it's not capitalism.BMm hmm. Even more so than presidential or vice presidential debates. High school debate isn't really about listening, right?ANo. I mean, you have to listen.BYou have to listen well enough toARebutB to be a butt again.AExactly that. But it's not the kind of listening that's an open stance. So when the point is to win, then you can do shady stuff to do so.BAh. The ends justified the means.A I don't remember anybody telling overt lies, but there certainly was a degree of stacking the deck. 'cause, of course. ButBYou put together words that sound convincing, right?AYeah, or you put together words that your coach gave you that sound convincing. So my poor little rural Minnesota debate team. We held our own in the regional contests, right? But we would get trounced in Minneapolis or St. Paul.BThose schools had enough resources in terms of people to be pretty selective.AI think it was more the style, and it was a style that involved talking fast, and throwing so much shit at your opponent that they can't clean it up in time to make their own argument.BThat sounds like a perfect encapsulation of the Trump presidency.AYes. And JD Vance had his very own bullshit trebuchet back there.BTrebushit.AIn light of that, I think Walz did an excellent job. He was very knowledgeable about the intricacies of the systems and policies involved and that he had a track record from his work in Minnesota to speak of.BYou could also tell he was an educator because he took notes.AYep. So it pisses me off when I see commentators being like, Yeah, he looked like a droopy dog out there, or what have you. Because it's like, yeah, he wasn't in his element, but that should not be what it's about.BI'm not sure who really should be in their element when they're you know, up to their armpits in rhetorical feces.AWow. There's actually a word for that strategy. It's called Gish galloping. Have you ever heard of that?BGish galloping. What the nonsense is that.AYou say a lot of lies really fast and overwhelm your opponent. And in debate, there was this thing called drops, where if you don't directly address somebody's contention, then it's an automatic point to them. And so there would be a lot of my opponent dropped my contention that blah, blah, blah, when it's like, I just didn't have enough time.B Taking a thing that might have value and then destroying it to make it a game.ABut imagine two Tim Walzes up there. Imagine if there were two candidates who weren't just disingenuously saying, Oh, yeah, we actually agree on this, but there was instead of a desire to win and destroy the other side, there was this effort at everyone's willing to change their mind, because they all want the same thing, which is a better country or what have you. So what's better than a debate? What formats get us to good ideas if not a debate. It's not an interview with the media. It's not a rally.BYou will not like my answer. Okay. I don't either.AOkay. Let's hear.BA long form interview where a candidate is able to express with detail, with nuance how they're going to address X or Y or Z.AWith live fact checking.BThe current person with the biggest following who does long form interviews is Joe Rogan.ANo. Oh, yeah, get Tim Walz on Joe Rogan 100%.BThat's so crazy it might work.AI don't think Joe Rogan is, he's not a paragon of a good faith conversationalist. ButBTrue, I am not arguing that. The format lends itself well to people who have well thought out ideas. It's important to get a lot of good stuff, but you can't get a lot of bad stuff, too. It drowns it out. Yeah and makes it useless.AI mean, the We Rate Dogs guy interviewed Tim Walz.BThat's true. Saw that on Facebook.AThat was not political in the least, and it was simply delightful. Mm hmm. That serves a different purpose. That's not about getting at good ideas, but it's about being human.B Mm hmm. I don't know that the other side of the ticket really can do that. No. I mean, No. You know, if it's ordering a doughnut or standing. Standing is a tough thing for anyone whose last name is Trump.AFirst day of standing lessons. And I think that's why people were surprised when Vance came out and was able to be coherent.BWhich is a big step up from certain, you know, other people on his ticket. Yeah.AThe bar is low. The bar is underground. This might be a stretch, but I'm going to tee you up. What could encourage candidates to listen to their constituents and each other and arrive at the best plan of action that represents the most people?BOh, I have an idea. Ranked choice voting.AOkay. Yes. So ranked choice voting would get us beyond the whole lesser two evils approach or, you know, feeling about voting. And it would force candidates to listen to more than their own devotees. I think that would make for better people in positions of power.BBetter democracy.AYes. And that's a structural thing. I think it's something that's picking up steam. Yeah, where possible we should be looking for things like that that enable and incentivize empathy and listening. And we are back for a third attempt to finish this damn episode. No, this is what happens when you have two people working full time with kids, you know? I don't think it's the worst, though, because again, it's been another several days. But I'm starting to view my experiences through this filter of what does it mean to listen? Versus what does it mean to argue and be right. What about you?BYeah. I feel like it's coming at me from everywhere. So I recently started listening to a podcast that was recorded 2.5 years ago. So it's the skill share series by the Poor Proles Almanac.AThe skill, in this case, being communication.BCommunication. So this podcast was actually about how to introduce radical leftist ideas to non radical people, like family members, friends, people who are just around you. And they started saying a lot of the same sorts of things that have been in our conversations about don't just write someone off. You have to listen to them. That's how you figure out your common ground.AI think that the fact that we're talking about this has been changing my mind. So we had talked about the debate. The other thing that I did more recently was door knocking. This was for a couple of local candidates. Since we last talked, you also have done some door knocking. I've been doing some tabling about Project 2025, just to make sure people know what it is and what the implications are. So that reflects that I'm willing to have the conversations now. That doesn't mean I had any meaningful conversations.BHow did it go?ASo you know how I hate going door to door to sell girl scout cookies?BUh huh.ANow, think of how much less people enjoy talking about politics compared to cookies. The app that the campaign uses allows you to sort by obviously area, and also if they're strong dem or lean dem or undecided, and we were working on a list of undecided voters in our town. I don't think these people were undecided in the way that we think.BI think that instead of undecided, unaffiliated is more accurately.ANo, not even that. I think apathetic. Because you and I are so chronically online, well, me. Online and pretty engaged with politics. Mm we forget that there are people who are not. There are people who are just going to their jobs every day and having hobbies and living a life.BOr instead of having hobbies, having a second job and not living a life.AMost people didn't want to talk to us at all. I know they were there. I know they were avoiding us.BI had one of those too.AOnly one? You were in a different town. There might be a different vibe in a smaller town. And I don't blame people. I mean, it's not like I rush to open the door to a Jehovah's witness or whoever. So I don't blame people for not wanting to engage. There were a couple of people who made it clear that they weren't in support of our candidate, but they weren't mean about it. They were just dismissive. There was one person who was like, Yeah, I'm voting for both those candidates. Everyone else was just like, Oh, I haven't decided. I think that that's just a catch phrase to get us to go away.BYeah.ASo here I was imagining, I'm going to have conversations with undecided voters, picturing these undecided voters as people who are somehow aware of the main issues, and there's some sticking point and we're going to talk through it and whatever, and no, nobody is thinking that hard about it. Which, to some extent, makes me pissed off because it's like this has such huge implications at every level. This is one thing, one small way in which you can participate. Is it a flawed system? Yes. Is there another way around it? No.BWell, with legislation that's passed.AThere was one house that had a let's go Brandon sign. Mm hm. And as we're walking to the door, I'm like, I don't think these people are undecided.BLet’s go next door.ABut the person I was with was just like, Huh. There's nobody in the race named Brandon.BNot anymore.A Suffice it to say I'm glad that they didn't answer their door. I guess one of my insights from this experience is that we're not going to meaningfully change minds at this point. The persuasion is going to happen in getting people to vote period. Which is a different focus.BMm hmm. That's why it's called get out the vote.AYeah. I have not had the opportunity to do this magical listening that I've been reading about and thinking about. But I now realize that I've been too quick to shut the door, figuratively speaking on certain people. I do opt not to engage with trump supporters because at least I've been telling myself, they're not going to change. They're set in their ways. They're too far gone. Which might be true.BI think that that's pretty much true of anyone who falls into a cult of personality.ABut I don't know that they're too far gone. Until I talk to them.BUntil they prove it to you.AIt's very possible that they're still people who aren't worth conversing with, but guess what? That will emerge. And at that point, I can be like, I'm out of here. But it's been a real cop out, I think for me to assume they're not changing their mind. Therefore, I don't have to engage with them.BMm hmm.AAnd you know, some people argue, this was in a book of yours that you got.BThe solutionary way.Aby Zoe Weil. I was reading it, and she said, Let's not think in binary ways, us versus them. Good versus bad. Let's focus on solutions. Obviously, listening is a huge part of that. She said that she is aghast that she knows people who write off Trump supporters, because she thinks it's important to have people with a wide variety of viewpoints in your life and in your social circle. And here's the thing. She says, If you're from a marginalized group that's going to be harmed by these views, then fine. You don't have to. But if you have privilege, then you should be having these conversations. Mm hm. I'm not totally sold on that because I think that engaging those ideas can convey a sense of tolerance or permission, even if that's not the case.BOkay.AThere's this other podcast I was listening to. It's funny because it was how to decrease your election anxiety. I was like,BListen to the crazies.AI'm going to hit play so hard on that one. One of the suggestions was, have a diverse media diet. And the guy was like. I listen to news on the left, on the right, in the center. In what universe, is that going to ease my anxiety?BIf you want diversity in your media diet, you should get or you should listen to media from other places. That is a better kind of diversity. Listen to Al Jazeera, listen to BBC, you know?AOther parts of the world. Yeah.BThey will have distinctly different perspectives.AHaving a varied diet like actual diet doesn't mean you need to incorporate an equal amount of junk food to non junk food. You know?BI need more highly processed sugar in my life. That'll balance things out.AHere's a story that illustrates how historically, I've been very quick to.BI think I know.AYeah, I need to be very strategic in how I talk about this. Details have been changed to protect identities of those involved. I was meeting a friend's new partner for the first time, I didn't know very much about them. And this was at a time where I was just done politically. And I was thinking to myself, what's the best shortcut to learn if this is a person I'm going to invest any time in getting to know. So I shook his hand and said, Hi, my name is Abi. Did you vote for Trump? Horatio didn't respond super well. It wasn't an immediate. It wasn't an immediate no. It was equivocal. Anyway, the people who witnessed this interaction were aghast at how uncouth I was being.BHow brazen it was. But you were right about that person.AHe turned out to be a piece of shit in the worst way possible. I have been 110% vindicated. But I don't think that my approach is universally applicable. Had I hoped to have any influence whatsoever on this person's even impressions of Democrats or Feminazis, or whatever you know, he probably saw me as, look at me. Stereotyping again.B Yeah.AThe thing is, I should not act like the thing they would want to call me. That's not going to help my case. I’m budging a little bit since we first started talking about this. How did your door knocking go?BIt was okay. I was basically, you know, saying, can we count on your support for this candidate and that candidate?AWell that's the script.BThat's the script. It wasn't really about having conversations. It wasn't really about convincing so much. And if I had taken it that direction on my own volition, it might have been more interesting. I had one person say that they hadn't made their mind up. They're like, right down the middle between Republican and Democrat, whichACan I say that's stupid becauseByou said you didn't think that existed.AWell, no, okay. If it exists, it's stupid, and here's why. Okay. Maybe I spoke too soon about me having this change of heart. Um, if you're calling yourself straight down the middle, then it means you're defining yourself only in relationship to the other parties. It's not based on an inherent set of principles.BIt seems highly derivative.ASo if you insist that you're dead center, then what that really means is that your views have been drifting right along with the right wing in this country over the last several years. People who call themselves centrists probably give themselves a pat on the back. You're an independent thinker. I'm gonna piss people off.BYou know what? It's okay for someone to piss you off or being self righteous.AAs though sitting on the fence is some moral high ground.BI want both sides to court me.AWhich is kind of happening. I mean, imagine all the media attention the swing voters get. Yeah, it just it suggests an unwillingness to take a stance. And you know what, folks, if you're listening, and you're mad at me, let's have a conversation about it. I actually am willing to hear you out. I will give it my best shot, and that's not a joke.BGreat.AWhen having these conversations, one thing that will be key is making it about personal experience, instead of making it about media talking points. Well, what I mean by that is not even the media, but phrases that your candidate throws out. That in reality, haven't impacted your life in a significant way. Making it about your lives. What is tangible? What do you care about? I'm not in a place to make an informed argument about Haitian immigrants based on personal experience.BI don't know anyone from Haitia.A I don't live in Springfield, Ohio. The fact that this has gotten to the national level and become what it is The people in Springfield can speak to that issue, and my cat went missing. Oh, never mind, it was in my basement. That doesn't count. Right. But this is the impact that these immigrants have had on the local economy. That's something that can be seen and observed or The negative consequences of, you know, Trump's magnifying that view.BMm hmm. The negative economic impact on Springfield. The police officers have to protect these people now who are put in jeopardy.AI don't want to hear what you have to say if you're not the kid evacuating from your school because of, you know, the bullshit bomb threats.BYou listen to victims. You don't listen to perpetrators. That's the way it should work.AI think that has more potential of getting somewhere than these big abstract ideas where so much misinformation has been injected. I got this idea actually from listening to Pete Buttiegieg, who, I think, is a great example of the communicator I wish I could be because he's so well informed, he will talk to the other side. He'll go on Fox News, you know? He gets a good grasp of why people feel the way they do. I appreciate that he balances that out with calling out bullshit when he sees it. Somehow, he can do both. I'm jealous of him for that reason. I wouldn't want to be on the opposite side of a debate against him.BHm.AWhat if we could start from a place of agreement, and my favorite modern rhetoricians, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca say the starting point of an argument is agreement.BYes, andAAnd where does the yes and come from?BImprov comedy.AYeah. So it was the Zoe Weil book that tied in improv with listening skills and problem solving versus debating. It's the idea that you don't try to redirect things. You go with the flow. In the case of an exchange of ideas, you can say yes, and let's add more nuance to it. Now, I don't mean to imply that all these ideas are somehow novel. This is something that the field of rhetoric has been exploring. Since the beginning of civilization. Well. A might be an exaggeration, but. But it is undeniable that there has been a privileging of the debate model, of the win lose model. A through at least the Western rhetorical tradition, right? Even in classical rhetoric times, there were some philosophers or orators who tried to complicate the view of rhetoric equals persuasion, a little bit. Quintilian famously said that rhetoric is a good man speaking well.BHm.AAnd what that definition appears to do is bring ethics into the equation.BOr morality.AMorality, yes, a good man speaking well.BThe problem is, Is it a good man speaking well?AA good man speaking well, actually. It sounds good in theory, but it implies that the effectiveness and the ethics of communication just happen to align most of the time. But what we really need rhetoric for is those situations where they don't. So where does that leave us?BHis statement that presumes that there's a universal good.AIt also functions to exclude bad rhetors.BAh, yeah.A Which isn't fair, right?BBecause I mean, who else is going to eat the dogs and the cats?AI'm thinking more like Mein Kampf.BOh, yeah.A It was effective, sure. Was it coming from a good man? No. I don't think it's fair for rhetoric to be like, Nah, that doesn't concern us 'cause he wasn't a good guy. Zooming ahead to the modern rhetorical era. Kenneth Burke brings in this concept of identification or consubstantiality, being one with one another. That common ground, right. And Kenneth Burke did not come along and say, identification is the better way to rhetoric. He said, it's a way in addition to the Aristotelian way. When we look at scholars who say down with persuasion altogether. That's when things get interesting.BDown with persuasion, are you trying to convince me?AThat's the inherent problem, right? So this is one of my favorite articles. The womanization of rhetoric by feminist scholar, Sally Miller Gearhart in 1979. She says that persuasion is violence. And the conquest model, the win lose model is pretty apparently violent. But even the conversion model, which she says is more subtle, even that is violent.BIt's imperialist.A“The difference between a persuasive metaphor and a violent artillery attack is obscure and certainly one of degree rather than of kind.” What do you think?BIt's a good way to tease out intentions.AWhat do you mean?B If you are trying to change someone's mind, you know, you're viewing them as a general, looking at a map of the battlefield. You’re trying to figure out how to take down their defenses,AMarshaling your arguments.BYes.AIs there no room for persuasion then? If it's all inherently violent. She's making a very strong effort to persuade people. That persuasion is bad. I personally find it provocative. Moving ahead in time, Foss and Griffin in 1995, coin invitational rhetoric, which also moves away from the conquest model and invites listeners to understand your perspective. Which it occurs to me is still ultimately self focused. I'm inviting you to listen to me.BTrue.AAgain, as long as it's reciprocal is fine, but I don't necessarily see that built into the definition here.BSo, if we're going with metaphors, instead of I'm going to march in and take over your ideas, I'm putting on an art show. Come and see. It's a one way sharing, but it is a sharing rather than a declaring.AInteresting. And then there's similar perspectives from outside of rhetoric. Psychologist Carl Rogers was famous for that approach of before you try to argue, make sure you've understood the other side as fairly and accurately as possible. You know, I've seen people adapt writing assignments based on that philosophy. Like, you're going to write a paper about this topic, but you're not going to develop a thesis statement an d three supporting details. You're going to you're going to put their perspective in your own words. And that's we do that, right? I mean, mostly I do it to you when I think you're not listening.B Hm?ANot funny.BIt's always funny.AYou try it every time. Yeah. Where I'll be saying something. And then I have to be like, Hey, say back to me what I just said. How do you feel in those moments?BArrghh. That's usually how I feel.ALike, ugh, I should have been listening to begin with.BUgh, this is going to require effort. I’ve got to rub brain cells together for this.AI mean, it's good that we check in with each other that way because we very much misinterpreted.BIt's kind of your way of foisting reflective listening on me.AViolently foisting. That's not to say that there's not a place for agonistic rhetoric or kind of fighting, conflict based rhetoric. Susan Jarrett, as an instructor, had this was in the 90s again, had witnessed some of the unforeseen consequences of the rhetoric and composition field’s resistance to conflict. So like in a classroom context, there's male students. There's female students. There's students of color. There's international students. There's students with disabilities. You know,BNon traditional students.A Exactly. And there are power dynamics that cannot be ignored in that context. And so the person who's socialized to be empathetic and the person who's socialized to believe that their views are automatically deserving to be heard, that's not going to be an equal exchange.BYeah.AAnd so Jarrett argues that we need to train students so that they can essentially stand up for themselves. Hm. And I think that's fair.F[purring]BOh Fig. Yes. So you were talking about how Zoe Weil was saying that people with privilege are the ones who should be reaching out. Along those lines, I was listening to another one of the Prole’s Almanac that said that it's important the way that you structure protests as well. You want to have the people with the most privilege in front because the people with the most privilege are least likely to be met with force by police or protester or counter protesters.AWow. So that's different than white saviorism, right? That's different than white people coming into a protest movement and saying, Because I'm white, I get to say the stuff. It sounds like it's a very, like a logistical protective situation.BBecause I'm white, I'm going to stand between person of color and the police. And I mean, if you think about it, too, if it's you and the fascists. You want the big white guy who looks like he just got off a shift of doing security to be in front.AI will say you had no like, you were not worried about doing your door knocking.BNo.AI was. You know, there is a degree of risk involved, even in knocking on doors and talking to people, especially when you are wearing your political views on your sleeve orBOn a shirt, so to speak, literally.AOr on your sticker or on your pamphlet that you're handing out. The day I was doing the door knocking, there were two other people there with me, and they were both young men of color. And one of them had gone off on his own and reported back that he was not treated well. Again, nothing dangerous per se, but people like ripping up the sheet that he'd handed out and It's justBThat's petty.AYeah. And the patterns are obvious enough in society that it's a fair chance that race was part of the issue.BMm hmm.ASo I am further chagrined at my own apathy up until recently, my own letting the people who are already oppressed put themselves on the line. But better late than never. But in thinking through all this, I've been obviously reading around for solutions and perspectives, and continuing in the rhetoric trajectory, what's probably the most relevant is this concept of rhetorical listening, which comes from Krista Ratcliffe. She originally wrote her book on it in 2005, and I read the 2022 book, which she co authored with Kyle Jensen. And this book is called rhetorical listening in action. So it builds on the theoretical concepts of rhetorical listening by suggesting, these are things you can do in the classroom, step by step, which I liked, because it's one thing to say, Hey, you should listen better to other people, and it's another thing to be like, Hey, Rhetorical listening is hard. It engages parts of our brain that we're not used to using. It goes against our conditioning to think one winner, one loser, and rhetorical listening requires us to be vulnerable and humble.BYeah.AThis perspective does help address some of the concerns or pitfalls I've been referring to all this time, like what do you do in a situation where there is a right answer. So they say the whole point is to be able to act. Analyzing and understanding has to come first, though. So what's the purpose of rhetorical listening? It helps you anticipate counter arguments of those that you disagree with. It can be a step towards persuading audiences to think and act differently. They need not be mutually exclusive. And I think this is key. Rhetorical listening helps you to think and act differently yourself. So I'm glad that they brought this up because I was, you know, the argumentative part of my brain wasBready to fight them?A Yes. But they acknowledge that a problem is people acting in bad faith. And they say to that, “There is no easy solution if no change occurs, the other people involved in such a situation, must brainstorm waste to expose the bad faith and or limit its impact, and then act.”B Yes, the investigative journalist solution. The best sanitizer is sunlight.AI think that's important. That doesn't answer the question of how do we know if someone is acting in bad faith? I used to think that the test is to ask them, Is there anything that would change your mind? And if they say no, then they're not there for a fair exchange of ideas. But then I realized, there are topics that I would say, I'm never changing my mind on that that I have subsequently changed my mind on.BOh.AAnd I wouldn't have changed my mind without getting exposure to different views. So when we encounter these things, I think the idea is that we have options. It's not that a purely empathetic listening stance is inherently better, a more oppositional or antagonistic stance, because like I said before, some positions should be called out as the bad ideas that they are.BSome ideas need to be antagonized.AYeah. Asking questions, focusing on personal impacts, personal experiences. Those are ways to draw out where people came to a position. This was a tip actually from the Braver Angels group that I was talking about before. Instead of asking someone, why do you believe that? Ask, how did you come to this view? Because that's where the story is. I do want to quickly run through the moves of rhetorical listening.BShow me your moves. Sorry.ARhetorical listening invites these moves. I'm not going to go in super depth on them because you should read the book yourself. But I also don't want to leave this episode on a fuzzy note.BWith no action items.ARight.B¡That's right, folks. There's homework.AOkay. Number one, assume an open stance. Again, this is something that I'm working on. I can engage beliefs that are dangerous or false without condoning them. If you aren't sure you can do that, maybe you're not the one to have that conversation, and I think we have to be honest with ourselves.BThat is an important first step in all things.AYeah, or if you recognize you're in an especially vulnerable place, then don't be trying to disprove I don't know. What's RF K's deal?BIndeed.ADon't go into a cult trying to break it open if you know that you are in a lonely and vulnerable state, right? It's just go to suck you in.BOr the vulnerability might not be to being seduced but to being attacked.AThat, too. You don't have to assume an open stance to a view that denies your humanity. People should be fully permitted and encouraged to set boundaries in that case.BAn open position does not mean make yourself fully vulnerable to being exploited.AAnd so that might mean that if you are a privileged person, maybe you need to be the one to step in and engage those ideas, again, not to condone them, not to be persuaded by them and not necessarily to attack the person believing them, but to try to make a dent.B I mean, if nothing else, I think that inspiring thought in people who have beliefs that they haven't questioned. That's a good start.AMm hmm. And this is why it's not worthwhile to necessarily write people off as quickly as I have tended to. Everyone who changed their mind started somewhere.BIt's true.AThe second move is to lay competing claims and cultural logics side by side. This needs some unpacking. Cultural logics are “ways of reasoning, common to groups of people who come together based on common knowledge, beliefs, or goals, and who share their ideas through discourse.” The example they give is Galileo and the cultural logic of science versus the cultural logic of religion and how they clashed. So it's not just about one claim versus another, but it's about what's the story behind this? What is informing this? What's the invisible context? Three, “pause to stand under the discourse of self and others in order to hear claims and cultural logics that may break through usual ways of thinking. Four, analyze and reflect on what you hear to better understand yourself and others. And five, design when possible win win solutions, which are not conceptualized as victories, but rather as situations wherein participants feel as if their stakes have been heard, considered, and factored however possible into decisions.” The example of walking through this process that they give is the cultural logics of in terms of race, color blindness. Well, first white supremacy then color blindness, multiculturalism and critical race theory? They walk through? These are the different associated beliefs that come along with these logics, and these are the scripts that come along with it. That encourages you or students to ask questions of the cultural logic. Like, what does this offer to its proponents? What are people getting out of it? What am I getting out of my belief? What problems does it cause? So by asking questions like this, “listening writers learn to complicate rhetorical problems and to generate information that helps them decide how to address different audiences. Keeping in mind that the point is not to tell an audience what they want to hear, but rather to present the listening writer’s ideas in ways that their audiences can hear them.” All that to say, there are tools out there that can help me, you know, us, as individuals to become better listeners. There are tools that if you are an instructor, you can use to help students become better listeners, because that's a skill set that has not been prioritized at the same level asBSpeaking.AYou know, speaking, writing, arguing. I have shifted my position somewhat. Mmm. From the time we started recording weeks ago till today, and I'm continuing to look at situations differently.BLook at you. Good job.AYou don't mean that in a patronizing way, do you?BI don't mean that in a patronizing way.AThank you. What it comes down to is, do I want to be right, or do I want to make a difference? Because what I've gotten hung up on so much is I shouldn't have to listen to those ideas. I shouldn't have to talk to those people. We shouldn't live in the world that we live in. Mm hmm. But we do. And digging my heels in is not gonna move the needle. What is with my mixed metaphors today?BMixing metaphors over here like a shark in a china shop.AHow did the shark get there?BIt was a rogue wave. Sling shotted it out of the ocean.ASo, I hate that this is the reality where we're awash in misinformation and hatred. But it's the only reality we have.BYou hate.A I hate the hatred. Yeah. And so I have to let go of my I don't know, weird sense ofBSuperiority?AUh I mean you're not wrong. My sense that the world should operate. According to what I perceive as what is just and right. It I'm still going to have a vision for what is just and right. But it's not going to get there if I don't put myself out there in ways that make me uncomfortable. So there, how's that for vulnerability?BMeasured, but okay.ASummarize what I've just said.BThat's what the recording is for.AHow about you? Have you changed your perspectives at all?BI’ve just been superior this whole waiting for you to catch up.ANo, but for real. Have you changed your mind at all?B Yeah, definitely.AYour lips are twitching as though you're trying to hold in a laugh.BI've been persuaded that even people who are unwilling to deal with the other side can change.AAre you referring to me?BYes.AAh. You got me. Good night, Benton.BGood night, Abi. Good night world.AGood night. Good night, bowl of mush. Okay, I'm going to tell you a story.BStory time.AAbout the first debate I ever did in high school. Because it's embarrassing. Good. The topic was the death penalty. Which, like I said, feels like a no brainer now. The state shouldn't fucking kill people. And I was on the side that was pro death penalty in this particular debate.BKiller move.AAnd one of my arguments was that sometimes people escape from prison, paroled, not escape, and keep criming.BKeep criming.AI had a story about this killer, Kenneth McDuff. Who escaped from prison, I meant paroled, and went on another killing spree, because he hadn't been put to death. When he could have been.BReal story?AThis is a real guy. But what happened was that I was really nervous. It was my first debate, right? So I misspoke, and I called him Kenneth McDuck. And the moment you say something like that out loud, and you realize this is so inappropriate for the context, the very fact of that becomes hilarious. So I have visions of this serial killer sliding down mountains of gold like Scrooge McDuck. And You know, I had trouble holding it in. I'll put it that way. That wasn't a great look, laughing uncontrollably while trying to tell the dark tale of this killer.
