We wrote last week about political polarisation, through which we include two different-but-related things: (1) exaggerated debate about public services being the norm; and (2) the role of interest groups in polarising politics.
Then up popped a video comparing Barack Obama and Donald Trump’s ways of dealing with hecklers:
This echoed David Brooks’s piece reflecting on the civility of Obama’s presidency, and the fact we’ll miss it when it’s gone:
Obama radiates an ethos of integrity, humanity, good manners and elegance that I’m beginning to miss, and that I suspect we will all miss a bit, regardless of who replaces him.
What I note about Obama is that he always plays the ball and not the player. He engages in the debate and doesn’t resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks or the tone someone employs.
As you would hope, he engages at the upper scales of the Hierarchy of Disagreement:
DH0: Name-calling
DH1: Ad Hominem
DH2: Responding to tone
DH3: Contradiction
DH4 Counterargument
DH5: Refutation
DH6: Refuting the central point
Our polarised political debate means Obama’s civility stands out. Perhaps we can restore civility and try to engage in what people are saying and why, rather than who they are and how they say it?
arbitrary constant 