I'm hoping more Republicans and Democrats will heed Crenshaw's advice and start us back down a track of governance that includes more constructive dialog and debate about ideas rather than personal attacks. I'm not optimistic about this (especially under the current administration), but I have seen faint signs from others (like Senator-elect Kyrsten Sinema, who successfully campaigned using across-the-aisle cooperation as her hallmark) that we might be able to move closer to unity than divisiveness. (By the way, for those unfamiliar, Sinema pulled off quite a feat by being a Democrat to win a Senate seat in AZ, by becoming the first female Senator from the state, and for being the first openly bisexual Senator from anywhere.)
RACK Dan Crenshaw!
Dan Crenshaw wrote:For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.
Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.
