An Argument Against Arguing: Spitting in the Wind
“It is a absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing.”
– The Usurpations of Reason, John Henry Newman (1843)
For the entire 19th century, and most of the 20th, it was considered rude to express one’s opinion about politics or religion. Why?
Hill’s Manual of Social and Business Forms (1879): “Do not discuss politics or religion… You probably would not convert your opponent… (You will) arouse feeling without any good result.”
Leading a symposium on the subject at a Jewish convention, I asked a prominent participant if she will poison her upcoming Seder arguing with her son who publicly supports a president she despises.
Her response made me shudder: “I’m not inviting the son of a bitch! I’m not going to listen to him defend that fascist!”
My last column “Unnecessary” Hate, explored the Sinat Chinam that destroyed our Temple. Is there any better example than prioritizing politics over family? Can anyone believe that is God’s desire?
The ostensible purpose of a Seder is to recall our liberation from bondage. The real purpose is to promote families annually gathering.
To defeat both purposes by arguing returns us to bondage, imprisoned by our political intransigence.
We have had Seder guests from both ends of the political spectrum, sometimes simultaneously. We manage it by not discussing politics. If someone feels compelled to bring it up, I immediately return to the Seder. If, (rarely), they persist, I point out a Seder, like a wedding or a Shiva, is a holy event not to be tarnished by the mundane.
When, on election night, we sequentially attend friends’ parties supporting opposing candidates, knowing that, I am asked at both for whom did I vote. I reply, I never reveal my vote. They jibe, that means you did not support our candidate. I point out my reply will be the same at the next (last) party, and the response there will be (was) the same, as well.
Our family religiously never reveal our votes for the same reason, Shalom Bayit, peace at home.
We discuss positions, issues, philosophy, history, but never explicitly advocate for or against specific candidates. Some years, my wife and I guess that we canceled each other’s vote, but never confirm it.
The secret ballot is a universal salubrious institution. It should not be limited to the election booth.
A common justification for partisan confrontations is, we don’t have to “Argue”; we can “Discuss” it.
The reality is, the majority of the time, we cannot. Incendiary discussions inevitably deteriorate into arguments. It’s as unrealistic to imagine we will change our adversary’s opinion with our argument as it is to think we will alter the direction of the wind.
Arguing with them is spitting into the wind, with identical results.
Have you ever heard a political argument culminate with “Oh my God! You’re right! I never realized, until you pointed it out, what a (Scoundrel my candidate is / God-send your preference is. You have changed my mind!”?
I have witnessed thousands of these arguments and the handful of times I have heard someone concede, it was never genuine, but for pragmatic reasons (e.g., arguing with your boss, your host, or someone with whom you want to extend, or intensify, your relationship.)
Another excuse is, this issue is too important, this candidate too dangerous, to ignore.
As I pointed out in my last column, every single election is “The most important election of our time.” As I pointed out in my previous column Who is Hitler Today?, every opponent is hyperbolized into Der Fuhrer.
This is a problem not only with politics, but also with religion, or any other issue that impassions us. Gandhi observed religion and politics are inseparable. Unfortunately, passion and reason are oxymoronic.
Examples include Abortion, Affirmative action, Bullfighting, Capital punishment, Fossil fuels, Fur, Global warming, Gun control, Immigration, International conflicts, LGBT, Nuclear power, Royalty, Vaccines, et al.
Addressing but the first example: “Pro-lifers”believe abortion is murder; “Pro-choicers” insist its prohibition kills women. (Public-relations euphemisms are more palatable than more accurate Anti and Pro abortion.)
Heartwarming videos of feti moving, heartrending photos of self-aborting fatalities never change anyone’s opinion.
Jonathan Swift (1721): “You cannot reason someone out of something (they) were never reasoned into.
We have but three options:
1- We can continue arguing our passionately held beliefs, continue destroying occasions and relationships we can never regain.
2- We can avoid anyone who does not subscribe to our belief system, which, depending how far we extend it, increasingly isolates us.
3- We can prioritize the person, the relationship, the event, and ignore our diverging opinions, which ultimately are not as important.
Our gravestones are not etched Democrat, Republican, Likud, Labor. We choose to be remembered as a parent, a sibling, a child, and friend.
That should be our priority in life, as in death.
Every religion observe God shines upon us when we live harmoniously. None suggest God desires we argue with each other.
Our opinions are less important than our loved ones.
Ayzehu Gibor? Hakovesh Et Yitzro.
Who is the hero? The person who captures their own impulse to avoid the argument.
