Neither Way

I still know the odd Republican, and so, from time to time, I get a text message, seemingly intended to recruit me to the side of Conservatism through alerting me to some or another outrage perpetrated by someone who is intended to represent the whole of the American Left.

Maybe. I think.

Because I can never be sure if whichever of my vanishingly few Republican acquaintances sent the note honestly expects me to take it at face value. Generally speaking, none of what they send me stands up to even cursory research, at least in the sense of living up to the breathless hype. (But then again, nothing really lives up to the hype; if it did, the "hype" wouldn't have been hype...) Rather it's the sort of thing that prompts one to react without thinking about it, presuming that one's been waiting for just that sort of "proof" that the other side is chock-a-block with hypocrites, criminals and liars who are simply waiting for the chance to destroy everything that's right and good.

And no matter how many times I tell people that I don't believe that people operate in the world with deliberate ill intent, they keep sending me things that only make sense if I make that precise assumption about people.

So do they think that I'll eventually take one of these things at face value, or not? Honestly, I'm not sure which would be worse.

Now, to be sure, I also know some Democratic partisans. They don't bother attempting to stir me to outrage. Presumably because they've actually paid attention when I told them I wouldn't bite. I am, however, expecting at least one of them to start.

When someone shares an openly partisan take on something with someone who is not a fellow partisan, they can expect that this other person will either a) take that information in as the unbiased truth of the matter or b) treat the information as something that has been passed through the hands of, well, partisans, and, as such, reflects their specific view of the world. (Attempting to understand how the other person sees the world, and engaging with them accordingly seems to be right out.)

And so when someone tells me that all of the evidence against Donald Trump has been fabricated, on the basis of them reading that someone claims to be writing a book that will prove it all, I wonder what they actually expect me to believe.

For them to expect me to say: "Wow, I didn't know that. That's really opened my eyes to the idea that the former President can do no wrong and that he's being maliciously persecuted," seems to be expect that, deep down, there is only one legitimate way to see the world. I suppose that in a certain sense, it's complimentary, but this is undermined by the generally low quality of the information presented. On the other hand, if they expect me to say, "Well, here's yet more partisan drivel," why are they wasting both their time, and mine? If they understand the burden of proof that I have for coming over to their cause, why bother with things that they know don't meet the bar?

What bothers me about it either way is the sense that I'm being spoken at, instead of with. And I think that this is becoming the standard mode of political speech in the United States. People speak with those people who are already inclined to agree with them, and at everyone else. It's talking for the sake of talking.