Like recommending a GOP pollster, the work of
is not exactly in the centrist Democratic lane. He’s more progressive.But he writes so incisively about the machinery of modern progressive politics that agreeing with him really isn’t the point. I learn something basically every time that applies to Groups Chat.
I first found him publishing a conversation he had with Dmitri Mehlhorn (link) before the last midterm, which was rife with the type of left vs. center debates where sometimes it really is just helpful seeing both sides of the argument.
This section of a recent piece on the hard work of persuasion is compelling, (in part, I’ll admit, because it reinforces a centrist’s view of some progressives):
A question for pro-democracy activists: When was the last time you had a serious political discussion with someone you disagreed with? More specifically, when was the last time you talked face-to-face with someone about our current predicament, where you were trying to convince them to join you in taking an action that you believe will help stop some aspect of Trumpism, and where the person you were engaging didn’t already share your values and point of view?
I have a confession. I haven’t done that in a while. My conversations about politics are generally with people who broadly agree with me. When I find myself talking with someone who either doesn’t share my sense of our situation, or who perhaps vaguely agrees but doesn’t share my feeling of urgency, I don’t pursue them for long. In the former case, that’s often because I don’t want to expend much energy on someone who thinks what’s going on now is fine or is too apathetic, cynical, or self-absorbed to care. And in the latter case, it’s because I don’t like pushing people past their comfort zone. If someone has reasons for being less active, nagging them isn’t likely to work and it just makes you into a nag. But maybe I’m making a mistake.
I can’t prove it, but I have a feeling a lot of us are in this mode. Here’s what political activism looks like these days. Millions are going to protests like the April 5 “Hands Off” rallies or the June 14 “No Kings” rallies, or weekly #TeslaTakedown protests and pop-up protests for immigrant protection. And when we’re not doing those things, we’re going to (or organizing) meetings of likeminded souls aimed at getting more people to protest. Or we’re doing (or learning how to do) solidarity work of some kind, showing up for immigrants with legal support or ICE-monitoring. Or we’re attending giant Zoom meetings of thousands of likeminded people where a few movement leaders or issue experts talk at the rest of us, and the most interaction we do is in a chat thread that flies by too fast to read. Or we’re wasting time doomscrolling and trying to keep up with every new development in the news and every new controversy on social media. Or we’re doing some kind of grunt work for a campaign that involves brief encounters with strangers via text or phone or door-knock, but generally nothing like an open-ended political conversation about the multiple crises facing our country and world. The only exception is deep canvassing, a method of one-on-one engagement that is meant to build an empathetic relationship with someone as the foundation for a discussion about a political decision.
There are 921 days until the next presidential primary, and understanding this mindset is incredibly important. You can read more and subscribe below.
The best argument for engaging with those for whom you have no common ground is that you can learn quite a bit about their perspective which is often far different than that which we assume is the impetus behind their views. We then become much better persuadors when we better understand the other side. Most Democrats upset about McConnell's burying of Merrick Garland are unaware of the anger among those on the right from the Bork->Ginsburg>Kennedy SC nomination fiasco where Kennedy then became a key vote protecting Roe v Wade. Nor do we grasp the issue of counting unauthorized citizens in the census and the impact on Congressional Districts because we are too quick to wave off "great replacement theory" such that we don't listen to the other side.