If you’ve ever been foolish enough to try and debate politics with the contemporary left, you’ve probably come away wondering if you’re living on different planets.
The left live on a planet where Jacinda Ardern is kind and competent, Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack and the world is forever just five years away from perishing in a fiery holocaust. No doubt, your leftist adversary is just as perplexed at the notion that Hunter Biden’s laptop is anything other than Russian propaganda, or that you might think Covid policies were an unmitigated disaster.
How is this even possible?
Framing.
Writer Robert Anton Wilson called it “reality tunnels”. That is, we all view the world through a form of tunnel vision. Inevitably so, because no one can possibly know everything about everything. So we selectively filter out more or less information.
The process can also be likened to how a director or photographer frames a picture. The human eye has an extraordinary field of view: far better than most cameras. So, when taking a photo or shooting video, we frame the picture to look as appealing as possible.
We all do something like this in making arguments, whether personal or political.
Not only do we view an argument through our personal reality tunnel, we also frame our arguments to make them as convincing as possible.
But there is a downside. Often arguments end up unfairly skewed by the information they include or leave out. If you understand how framing works, you’ll have a better chance of seeing through weak arguments and appreciating good ones.
For example, as a BFD reader, chances are you have a pretty dim view of socialism. After all, you’re probably aware that socialist models have failed everywhere they’ve been tried. That’s your reality tunnel: what you know about socialism.
But there’s also your frame: you likely frame socialism through a lens of believing in free markets and a more-or-less libertarian concept of the state.
A pro-socialist likely has a reality tunnel that excludes the historical failures of socialism. But, even if they are aware of these failures, they frame them in a way that preserves their positive disposition to socialism: the That wasn’t real socialism argument you’ve heard so often.
And why are they determined to frame socialism in a positive way?
Yet again: framing.
The answer is that socialism has been very cleverly framed by its proponents.
Socialism, we are told, is morally superior because it makes people “more equal”. Those who have more than their fair share have to give it back. What could possibly be wrong with leveling the playing field? Who’s against equality?
When framed that way, socialism is made to seem the only moral choice. So if you’re opposed to it, you’re framed as regressive, selfish and pretty much a jerk.
Framing is the reason for such stark disagreement on another contemporary hot-button issue: free speech. In the ’60s, the left were absolutely committed to free speech. Today, they violently (literally) oppose it. Because they’ve reframed the whole issue: not as free speech, but hate speech.
“Hate speech is not free speech” is a common refrain on college campuses. And what counts as “hate speech”? Whatever people who say “hate speech is not free speech” find hateful. And that number is growing at an alarming pace, according to several recent studies.
So, how do you deal with this kind of framing if you’re going to have a meaningful discussion?
First, reject biased framing. Now that you know what framing is, you’ll be able to spot it. That’s half the battle. Say something like, “Do you think that’s the whole story? Let me suggest another way of looking at it.”
For example, with a socialist, point out to them that you both want the same thing: economic prosperity for as many people as possible. Especially the poor. You actually agree that equality is greatly to be desired.
You just see a different way of achieving it. Explain why you think yours works better.
Expand your reality tunnel, too. You know the pro-socialist arguments: you hear them repeated ad nauseum in the legacy media and in the classroom. So, memorise some pro-capitalist arguments. Back your arguments up with facts.
The same goes with climate change: if you debate climate alarmists, you’ll be aware of just how little they actually know (compared to what they feel). If you can memorise at least a few basic, incontrovertible facts, you’ll stump them.
Finally:
Set some basic ground rules. Bury the insults: no name calling. General statements are fine, but they need to be backed up with examples. Make it clear that you’re prepared to hear their arguments. In turn, they have to commit to hear yours.
PragerU
Good luck with that one, actually. You only have to watch any episode of Q+A to see how committed too many of the left are to hearing opposing arguments. Still, you can try. And call them out every time they resort to name calling. Ask for factual examples to back sweeping generalisations.
And, most of all, be aware of your own reality tunnel and framing. Subject your own ideas to the same level of scrutiny: you might realise you’re wrong, but more likely you’ll spot the weaknesses and realise where you can make your own argument stronger than ever.
