Civil Discussions don't have to be civil to be beneficial.

This one's for Ray, and how encouraging it is to hear his point.

By definition, civil discussion is the same thing as argument. The American Heritage Dictionary (via dictionary.com) lists, "a discussion in which disagreement is expressed" as the primary definition for the word "argument." Their listing under the secondary use of the term is, "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood." So I'm not at all surprised that Ray and WCharles have "civil discussions" in spite of the fact that they are from opposing ends of the political spectrum. What surprises me is that they're willing to admit it and how few people still engage in it.

Here's the deal: civil discussion is beneficial to all who engage or even listen. It is the only way to solve problems that we've never considered before because if we don't at least hear another point of view, the only facts we'll consider are the ones we've already considered. What happens when a new problem comes along? Civil discussion is a handy way to get the job done or the decision made and I believe it is precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they created that whole checks and balances scenario. Civil discussion used to be the fruit of our two-party system that evolved out of what those fathers set up. These days, however, civil discussion, which is actually just argument, has taken on an evil persona.

I'd rather listen to Plato and Socrates... so did our founding fathers. Plato and Socrates had this crazy idea that by arguing (discussing) topics, we could learn more about them and come up with better decisions that were necessary in order to deal with those topics. So why is argument such a bad word today? Why do so many shy away from argument now? Why has it become acceptable to "avoid confrontation," especially in places where it's supposed to happen, like congress, or on topics about which it is necessary to establish consensus, like politics. How is it that we let "never argue politics" become de facto law in a land supposedly run by the people. If we don't argue, we can't rule. Not effectively and in the spirit of how our rule was created anyway.

As a continuing student of the writing process, I've noticed a trend in the changing definition of research as well... formal research in an academic environment, that stems from this changing connotation of argument.

While it is human nature to seek out that which proves our point while at the same time ignoring that which disproves it, academic research used to mean getting over that human trait in search of something closer to true knowledge. Academic research used to mean learning something. Today it seems to mean "proving our point." But if all we ever do is seek out only that information which proves our own point and ignore the rest of the facts, we've stopped learning anything. Before I continue, I have to give credit to Dr. Chris Hall in the Graduate Writing and Rhetoric program at Wright State University. His was the first class I've attended in which this topic was formally discussed. He made it very clear in his Research for Writing class that one's thesis may change, perhaps dramatically, during the collection of information. If it doesn't, you're probably not doing real research... or your topic may not be worthy of research since you were able to guess at the thesis without gathering data on it.

So what does academia have to do with our political world these days? In his article, "Greetings from Idiot America," in the November Esquire, Tom Junod describes the nationwide effect of this changing definition of research like this: "...America is devolving into a land where fact is merely that which enough people believe and truth is measured by how fervently they believe it." Junod describes several ways for determining truth in Idiot America including this handy test: "How does it play to Joe Six-Pack in the bar?" To verify this decision making process, Junod points out the survey taken during the presidential election wherein more respondents said they'd rather have a beer with W than with John Kerry. And so the fate of a nation went. The only problem I have with this is, if we're going to elect "one of the guys" as president, I want it to be me. I doubt I could have done a better job, but I want it to be me. When electing a president, "most fun to have a beer with" shouldn't be a factor. I don't want to be president precisely because I am one of the guys. A president should be more than that. That should have been an argument but it wasn't. It wasn't allowed to be because we all wanted to avoid confrontation.

Idiot America's method for "discovering truth" is great for checking popular opinion, but that's not fact. It's not truth. Worse, when facts aren't involved, Idiot America seems to think that right or wrong can be determined in the same way - numbers. In addition to forgetting what the definition of "argument" really is, we seem to have forgotten that majority rules, which is an expedient way of ending discussion, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the outcome is actually a good one. Idiot America says, "hey, the majority said it, so it must be true or good." Truth has nothing to do with numbers. It shouldn't anyway. Nor does truth have anything to do with marketing. We all bought VCRs instead of the superior Beta... we continued to buy Harleys when they were really AMFs (and junk). The numbers are no indication of truth or quality.

So when Idiot America confuses the majority opinion with the truth, the argument should begin. It is at this point that the importance of discussion, civil or otherwise, becomes evident. Rather than growing tired of arguing and calling for an immediate vote, this is when the argument should pick up steam. And the arguers need to forget feeling good, or avoiding confrontation and just argue. State your points. Listen to the other guy's points. Get mad, say the wrong things, throw political correctness out the frickin' window and argue for Pete's sake! How else are you ever going to find any common ground?

The issue of confrontation avoidance may well be at the heart of the changing definition of research. Since we don't really want to offend anyone anymore, we quietly gather all of our facts, launch a salvo of them, and leave. We concentrate so hard on making bulletproof "arguments" that we don't bother to acknowledge any of the facts that don't fit the plan. Instead of asking the "opponent" what he knows about this or that fact, which would fall into his area of expertise and make his case and hurt ours, we ignore those facts. In this way, everyone can stay happy and smile because no one has to argue or debate anything. Then we let all of this build up until it spills into public policy, formed in the absence of true debate rather than as a result of it. Instead of trying to determine if our facts are sound, we concern ourselves more with how many people agree with them.

That's not what the founding fathers had in mind. They argued. I think we're supposed to as well.

The 'blog is such a great forum for it too. No one gets hurt but everyone can play. So when I am overtaken by my military institutionalization and stoop to creating an acronym for Anonymous Super Spin Boy, don't be offended Ray. If I didn't see some worthwhile outcome in engaging your comments, I wouldn't respond to them. ASS boy was pretty low, but it didn't really hurt and it wasn't really intended to... it was intended to keep you coming back, armed to the teeth so that something bigger might come of all this wind.

A close friend of mine is also a conservative republican. In our younger days, we had quite a few discussions of the sort Ray and WCharles have, only ours weren't usually civil. They are much more so these days, but only because we've both grown so disillusioned. But even in the most heated, non-civil arguments, I learned a lot. He's told me he gave up discussing politics with me because he didn't want to argue. (exactly my point) By the new definition, many would call that a victory. I considered it a loss, on my part, of his perspective. I've always respected his views and just assumed we agreed to disagree, but during our last little vacation in Iraq, I discovered how much we really have in common again. In fact here's a funny story about that:

He and I were driving back from lunch one day when we passed the spot where two of our troops had been injured when a rocket landed near them. The injuries were minor (to the extent that an injury during a war can be minor), but met the requirements of the Purple Heart citation. Rumors and opinions flew through camp, as gossip tends to, on whether these medals were deserved or not and we couldn't really escape it even though neither of us really cared whether or not these guys got their medals. We were just glad we didn't get hurt! And, of course, that these two guys weren't hurt more seriously.
As we rounded the corner of the building where the incident took place, he turned to me just as I turned to him and here's what we said to each other simultaneously:
Me: I'll never question the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth again.
Him: I'll never question John Kerry's Purple Hearts again.
This inspired a healthy dose of much needed laughter and it re-opened our long dormant discussions. He's pretty pissed right now about the current price of diesel fuel. I'm pretty pissed about the public opinion polls which, from my perspective, only confirm what I had guessed seven years ago and tried to say more eloquently again three years ago.

So it shouldn't surprise you Ray that I do value your opinion even if I think it's wrong. (I'm kidding... I don't always think that, and it's your opinion... it doesn't matter what I think of it!) I want to hear it. I want to be forced to reinforce and defend my own thoughts. The way I see it, if you're not willing to argue for your opinion, then how much can you really believe it. And, as they say, if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything. I don't want people who will fall for anything electing my next Commander in Chief. I don't want people whose opinions are so weak, so ill founded that they're not capable or are not willing to defend them deciding the fate of our nation.

Oh, and don't take Matthawk's criticism as harshly as it sounds. Less than five years ago he and I had a series of heated discussions about how important voting is... he wasn't even registered and tried to convince me it was a waste of time! I didn't win anything and he didn't lose, but now he stays informed on the issues and he votes and is learning to express his opinions on matters politic. He's relatively new to the game and is just sharpening his claws, so give him some room. I've had to all my life... he's my little brother. Don't think I molded his opinion either... he never does anything I tell him to do. He says he just got tired of the idiots he works with choosing his leader for him.

And no, it doesn't surprise me to hear that democrats are described as not wanting to hear the truth on conservative 'blogs... nor does it really concern me all that much. I'm not a democrat. On the 2004 ballot, I only voted for one democrat (guess who) out of about fifteen partisan races. But did you know that on some liberal 'blogs people say Ann Coulter is hot? I love a woman who's not afraid to argue! It's one of many, many reasons I stay married to my wife!