Some conflict seems inevitable. We just don’t always agree on processes and conclusions. We can’t even agree on goals. But some of us—not saying I’m one of the special group—know how to get along in the most trying of differences. Apparently, President James Madison was one of those whose ability to disarm arguers peacefully might be worth an occasional imitation.
According to Joseph J. Ellis, Madison’s “diffidence in debate was disarming in several ways: He was so obviously gentle and so eager to give credit to others, especially his opponents, that it was impossible to unleash one’s full fury against him without seeming a belligerent fool; he was so reserved that he conveyed the off-putting impression of someone with an infinite reserve of additional information, all hidden away, the speaker not wishing to burden you with excessively conspicuous erudition” (53).*
Of course, in any conflict some issues do carry more “truth” than others, but there are truths that can coexist, if not as equals, then as acceptable alternatives. In the heat of argument, however, coexistence rarely seems to be an option. Such “heat” radiates from TVs when pundits shout their positions in a simultaneous cacophony. Just once, viewers might wish, someone might say to his or her opponent, “Okay, you win.”
What could be the result of such a statement? “Well,” you say, “that would be a concession. One person would relinquish a formerly held position and make the opponent seem to be victorious.”
“True,” I respond, “that would be the interpretation. Then what? What action will follow?”
“But what if the argument were about economics? Wouldn’t yielding mean that a potentially flawed economic system might replace one that is less flawed? What if one economic system hampered personal economic growth? Or wouldn’t a potentially harmful law affect innocent people? Let me give you an example. Legalized pot. Do those who don’t want to breathe it through secondhand smoking then accept by law what they deem to be harmful to their health? TV has been full of loud debates over both of these issues.”
“Actually, I don’t know much about either. Obviously, I prefer an economic system that enhances my personal wealth, and I don’t live in an apartment building with a number of pot-smokers whose by-products waft through vents, halls, and doorways. I guess there would be an imposition on the wage-earners and non-pot-smokers who don’t have the desire or wherewithal to move. But that’s only when debate turns into action, and that’s only when yielding one’s position leads to a kind of self-imposed acquiescence to some degree of harm.
“Actions—behaviors—do a bit more harm than words. So, we might ask ourselves whether or not the shouters have the power to impose their positions on one another. No? Then what’s the big deal about acquiescing with a simple ‘Okay, you win.’ You know, we don’t have to listen to shouting pundits. They can disappear with a click of a remote. So, what if one pundit said, ‘Okay, you win’? It certainly would be disarming. Would it be Madison-like? Probably not. The opponent and favorable TV audience would interpret the acquiescence as an insult. Why? Probably because it would shut down further discussion, further attempts to impose a way of thinking, further efforts to beat the point into the opposition’s head. Shouting debaters are very much like two boxers engaged in total offense without any defensive moves.
“Here’s an idea. Try it sometime. Say ‘Okay, you win.’ What can happen? In the absence of any consequent harmful action, you will have shut down the debate. Life will go on. Nothing human lasts forever: Empires have risen and fallen, and all of them have probably had their share of shouting debaters over issues no one now remembers. Where are the debaters of the Olmecs, the Mayans, the Incas, and the Aztecs? ‘Okay, you win’ won’t destroy a civilization when it is just a matter of turning off the shouting, disarming the shouter, and letting a peaceful quiet fall upon a once noisy room.
“However, I think the reaction of one who is told ‘Okay, you win,’ will more often than not be an angry ‘What do you mean?’ In the heat of argument, a cool-down that fast would be difficult. Imagine the TV debate host suddenly faced with the problem of a one-sided debate. Imagine the network bosses saying, ‘We can’t have a peaceful debate. It’s not good for business. People want to hear people shouting over one another. That’s good TV.’ Really, try it sometime. Try saying quietly, ‘Okay, you win,’ and say it with a pleasant smile—not a smirk. Bet you get that angry response—belligerence, to paraphrase Ellis—from an opponent who can’t accept an easy victory.
“One more thought. If you think ‘Okay, you win’ is insufficient, you can add, ‘I’ll be happy to hear the detailed details.’ As you and I both know, the devil is in the specificity, and no philosophical, political, or social position, when carried to its ultimate goal, is flawless. So, once again, simply say, ‘Okay, you win. Show me ALL the details.’
“Then, if you are so inclined, if your opponent reacts belligerently, you may smirk.”
*Founding Brothers. Vintage Books, 2000.
According to Joseph J. Ellis, Madison’s “diffidence in debate was disarming in several ways: He was so obviously gentle and so eager to give credit to others, especially his opponents, that it was impossible to unleash one’s full fury against him without seeming a belligerent fool; he was so reserved that he conveyed the off-putting impression of someone with an infinite reserve of additional information, all hidden away, the speaker not wishing to burden you with excessively conspicuous erudition” (53).*
Of course, in any conflict some issues do carry more “truth” than others, but there are truths that can coexist, if not as equals, then as acceptable alternatives. In the heat of argument, however, coexistence rarely seems to be an option. Such “heat” radiates from TVs when pundits shout their positions in a simultaneous cacophony. Just once, viewers might wish, someone might say to his or her opponent, “Okay, you win.”
What could be the result of such a statement? “Well,” you say, “that would be a concession. One person would relinquish a formerly held position and make the opponent seem to be victorious.”
“True,” I respond, “that would be the interpretation. Then what? What action will follow?”
“But what if the argument were about economics? Wouldn’t yielding mean that a potentially flawed economic system might replace one that is less flawed? What if one economic system hampered personal economic growth? Or wouldn’t a potentially harmful law affect innocent people? Let me give you an example. Legalized pot. Do those who don’t want to breathe it through secondhand smoking then accept by law what they deem to be harmful to their health? TV has been full of loud debates over both of these issues.”
“Actually, I don’t know much about either. Obviously, I prefer an economic system that enhances my personal wealth, and I don’t live in an apartment building with a number of pot-smokers whose by-products waft through vents, halls, and doorways. I guess there would be an imposition on the wage-earners and non-pot-smokers who don’t have the desire or wherewithal to move. But that’s only when debate turns into action, and that’s only when yielding one’s position leads to a kind of self-imposed acquiescence to some degree of harm.
“Actions—behaviors—do a bit more harm than words. So, we might ask ourselves whether or not the shouters have the power to impose their positions on one another. No? Then what’s the big deal about acquiescing with a simple ‘Okay, you win.’ You know, we don’t have to listen to shouting pundits. They can disappear with a click of a remote. So, what if one pundit said, ‘Okay, you win’? It certainly would be disarming. Would it be Madison-like? Probably not. The opponent and favorable TV audience would interpret the acquiescence as an insult. Why? Probably because it would shut down further discussion, further attempts to impose a way of thinking, further efforts to beat the point into the opposition’s head. Shouting debaters are very much like two boxers engaged in total offense without any defensive moves.
“Here’s an idea. Try it sometime. Say ‘Okay, you win.’ What can happen? In the absence of any consequent harmful action, you will have shut down the debate. Life will go on. Nothing human lasts forever: Empires have risen and fallen, and all of them have probably had their share of shouting debaters over issues no one now remembers. Where are the debaters of the Olmecs, the Mayans, the Incas, and the Aztecs? ‘Okay, you win’ won’t destroy a civilization when it is just a matter of turning off the shouting, disarming the shouter, and letting a peaceful quiet fall upon a once noisy room.
“However, I think the reaction of one who is told ‘Okay, you win,’ will more often than not be an angry ‘What do you mean?’ In the heat of argument, a cool-down that fast would be difficult. Imagine the TV debate host suddenly faced with the problem of a one-sided debate. Imagine the network bosses saying, ‘We can’t have a peaceful debate. It’s not good for business. People want to hear people shouting over one another. That’s good TV.’ Really, try it sometime. Try saying quietly, ‘Okay, you win,’ and say it with a pleasant smile—not a smirk. Bet you get that angry response—belligerence, to paraphrase Ellis—from an opponent who can’t accept an easy victory.
“One more thought. If you think ‘Okay, you win’ is insufficient, you can add, ‘I’ll be happy to hear the detailed details.’ As you and I both know, the devil is in the specificity, and no philosophical, political, or social position, when carried to its ultimate goal, is flawless. So, once again, simply say, ‘Okay, you win. Show me ALL the details.’
“Then, if you are so inclined, if your opponent reacts belligerently, you may smirk.”
*Founding Brothers. Vintage Books, 2000.
RSS Feed