{"id":762,"date":"2004-03-23T16:20:51","date_gmt":"2004-03-23T21:20:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/?p=762"},"modified":"2019-10-25T15:22:17","modified_gmt":"2019-10-25T19:22:17","slug":"public-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/2004\/03\/23\/public-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Public Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>I heard a conversation on the radio this morning which was a classic example of how to lose (win) a political debate. The topic was transportation policy. The occasion was an ongoing strike of the bus drivers (which sucks all around). The participants were the president of the \u201ctaxpayers league\u201d (or some such activist\/advocacy group) and a member of the Minneapolis transportation board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was very one sided, because the taxpayers league guy would never give any plan or statement beyond vague platitudes. He was therefore the winner. The transportation board woman had specific ideas: \u201cIncreasing the number of lane-miles will decrease congestion.\u201d His response: \u201cSure, for the rich white folks who drive on the highway. Instead of catering to your rich cronies, couldn\u2019t we give the working class, the people who make your sandwiches and clean your home, couldn\u2019t we give them a chance to get to work too?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At that point, the correct (and only possible) response is: \u201cI think we agree on that goal. I really do. We agree that fair, balanced transportation policy for all people, regardless of income level is a goal. I\u2019ve given one possible approach, and you\u2019ve raised an objection to it. Now I\u2019d like to hear your proposed approach, so that we can discuss them and come to some sort of middle ground.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As it was, she rose to the bait and was destroyed on air by someone who would never give anything more specific than \u201cI like babies. I disagree with you. Therefore you hate babies. Baby hater, how can you hate babies!\u201d \u201cWait, what are you talking about? I just said\u2026\u201d \u201cBABY HATER!\u201d It was excellent rhetorical technique, and I\u2019m sure that a lot of listeners were left with the impression that the taxpayer guy is very smart, and the transportation board lady was very stupid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This happens *all the time* in political discourse, and it makes me sad. I would much rather deal with people with real, testable opinions than with good debaters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.jwz.org\">Jamie Zawinski<\/a> has a page somewhere (which I can\u2019t find at the moment) dedicated to the fact that if he was going to carry a sign with a slogan on it, you\u2019d be able to deduce his stance on some issue from the words physically present on the sign. \u201cA living wage for everyone!\u201d or \u201cPeace, not war!\u201d don\u2019t qualify. Instead \u201cRaise the minimum wage\u201d or \u201cNever sell weapons to another country again!\u201d See how this works?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A simple rule of thumb: Imagine the opposite of the position you\u2019re arguing. The dead, absolute opposite. Now ask whether there is even one person in the room who supports that opposite. If not, maybe your argument needs a little refinement so we can tell what you\u2019re talking about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then again, if you just want to win arguments\u2026this is a great technique.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I heard a conversation on the radio this morning which was a classic example of how to lose (win) a political debate. The topic was transportation policy. The occasion was an ongoing strike of the bus drivers (which sucks all around). The participants were the&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-real-life"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=762"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":763,"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/762\/revisions\/763"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dwan.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}