We live in an angry country.  We are screamers and boycotters and opposers and fighters.  We have a become a people who complain about a process we don’t engage in, who blame individuals who don’t really hold the power and who voluntarily embrace polarizing beliefs. And, I don’t believe there’s value in addressing these deeper themes without first addressing how we express our political opinions. You see, I believe that much of the anger, the screaming, the opposition, the blame, and the complaint results in part from poor, intentionally provocative and often cleverly misleading opinion-sharing in the media. In short, we quickly syndicate the opinions of “experts” without considering their sources or evaluating their arguments and we propagate their messages not with vigor but with rage.  This type of “information sharing” does nothing but stymie meaningful issue dialog and it can be so easily avoided.  Before you post you next political Facebook status, consider these guidelines:

• Start from a point where you assume you are wrong.  By assuming our own rightness, we are necessarily assuming wrongness of the opposition.  This black-and-white approach to politics disallows debate and is simply polarizing.  Epictetus said “You cannot teach a man what he thinks he already knows.”  To truly seek enlightenment on policy issues, one must be willing to learn and one cannot learn unless one acknowledges he has things to learn.
• Acknowledge the humanity of your source.  Even the most professional and respected journalists and analysts will color their commentary with traces of personal experience and leanings.  Because these sources are human like you and I, they are also capable of mistakes, of providing incorrect information.  If your source is consistently one person, one perspective, then you must acknowledge the limitations of that source.
• Shift your concern from policymakers to policies.  One of the most common political debate tactics I encounter is attacking the policymaker.  Whether the debater calls into question the personal ethics of an individual politician or rails against a political party, these arguments avoid the meat of political debate.  Most of the time, when someone shifts from debating an issue to debating a person it’s a distraction technique intended to halt discussion on the actual issue.  I suspect this often occurs because the debater has exhausted his knowledge of the issue but doesn’t want to lose the argument.  Make an effort to truly understand an issue before angrily debating it.
• Understand how media works.  Most Americans base their political opinions on information they receive from the media.  Most Americans are also slow to identify news media as a business.  But, the news media is a business and it commonly engages in practices to increase readership such as:
  • Issuing highly controversial opinions which are more likely to incite response from the public (regardless of whether the reporter/pundit/expert actually agrees with said controversial opinion).  Response from the public = readers/viewers/listeners = money.
  • Over-simplifying complex policy issues into headline-appropriate phrasing, knowing that most readers/viewers will only absorb headline or topical information and not read in to actual policy details.
  • Inserting subtle opinion into fact-reporting stories  with the understanding that opinion is nearly always more compelling than simple fact reporting.
• Understand the process.  Too often I’ve seen angry political debates spur from a lack of understanding about the political process and about how legislation actually works.  For example, an acquaintance once enthusiastically reported that a state passed an ethically complex law and offered significant opinion on the passage of that law sparking an angry debate on Facebook.  What had actually happened was that a single freshman legislator, without co-sponsors had introduced the bill but it hadn’t even been voted on.  She misreported facts and people angrily argued with her over an issue that was a non-issue.  In another recent example, many Americans have interpreted a carefully worded headline to imply a very cut-throat policy change when in fact, the actual bill has little to no effect on the issue because of its wording.  To understand the process better, I recommend logging on to state legislative or Congressional websites and listening to legislative debate and reading actual bill text.
• Comprehend Compromise.  It’s very rare that one party or another, one perspective or another is able to advance its agenda without engaging in some level of compromise.  While many politicians will take a very firm public stance on certain issues, the reality is that compromises must be made, deals must be cut and concessions must be offered in order for most legislation to pass.  Consider engaging in this same practice with the people around you.
• Think like a philosopher.  To do this, identify overarching ideas and themes you agree with rather than simply cherry-picking specific issues.  Using these ideas and themes as filters, it’s easier to see the impact of an issue on the economy, the culture, the individual, the society as a whole and the political process rather than looking at how that issue will affect only you and only at this time.  I few questions I always ask myself are:  “Can I apply my position on THIS policy to all or almost all other similar policies?”  “Is the opinion I’m expressing relevant to my audience’s experience or perspective?”
• Attacks do not educate.  Civil, calm debate might.  In short, angry ranting begets angry ranting and it’s vain to assume the angry ranting yours begets agrees with your stance.  If your hope is to change minds, try calm, informed dialogue.