Screw the Discourse

For roughly the past six months, I’ve been telling everyone I know to listen to the socialist podcast Chapo Trap House. I’ve done this partially to annoy people, but mostly because it’s great, equal parts incisive and laugh-out-loud hilarious.

Many of my more moderate friends—and certainly my conservative ones—will be skeptical. Rapidly increasing partisanship has led many of them to look upon those on the political extremes with disdain. But on the contrary, it’s important now more than ever to listen to what the far left has to say. Ignoring people for the sake of maintaining “The Discourse” will have disastrous effects.

In an interview recorded during last year’s election, Chapo co-host Felix Biederman, discussed the concept of “The Discourse.” Biederman made the point that the norms we have around political discussion are worthless, and only serve to insulate the powerful and maintain the current status quo. Our discourse is strangely obsessed with the idea of respect; in order to have Serious Political Discussion™, we must respect the other side and its ideas, and above all else, maintain civility.

For supporting evidence, consider the debate over the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), the long-awaited Republican proposal to replace Obamacare. The BCRA has sparked outrage from Democrats, who have argued that if implemented, it will kill countless Americans.

Republicans have not taken kindly to these sorts of critiques, arguing that they degrade the discourse. The right became obsessed with “The Discourse” following James Hodgkinson’s attempt to murder Republican Congressmen at a practice for the Congressional Baseball Game. In National Review, Tiana Lowe expressed her disapproval, claiming that the real violence was not the GOP’s healthcare proposal but rather Hodgkinson’s actions. This was representative of the general Republican response to the critique of them as killers: such a criticism is not worthy of a response because it is “disrespectful” and therefore not helpful in the political discourse.

The problem with these sorts of responses is that they ignore the actual views of many Americans, deeming them as being unworthy of being treated seriously. The opposition to the BCRA legitimately believes that the bill will kill millions of people. While there are many reasons, such as supposedly lower costs, that people have for supporting universal healthcare, the heart of the issue is a moral one. Universal healthcare supporters believe that without healthcare, people will die avoidable deaths, and thus any system that does not provide universal coverage is fundamentally immoral. By dismissing these critics as rude and ejecting them from mainstream politics, the GOP silences millions of Americans on a vital issue.

The only ones benefitting from ignoring those who call BCRA supporters killers are GOP politicians. Excluding their most effective critics from “The Discourse” makes it easier for them to stay in power and to defend—and subsequently enact—their preferred policies. By silencing their critics, the GOP gets to keep America’s Overton Window—the range of ideas acceptable to the public—narrow. Universal alternatives can be deemed unacceptably radical and thus not worthy of engagement.

However, Republicans are not alone in their desire to squash dissent by invoking “The Discourse.” This tactic is commonly seen from the left on the issue of abortion. Democrats claim that Republican rhetoric on abortion is beyond the pale. A representative example comes from last July, when CNN pundit Sally Kohn tweeted, “Calling abortion clinics ‘baby killers’ is rhetoric that incites violence.” This is a line that the left often trots out in the abortion debate. Calling pro-choice people “baby killers” is supposedly uncivil and prevents Americans from having serious discussions about abortion.

But just as with the GOP on healthcare, what the Democrats are really doing is seeking to marginalize their critics. Being pro-choice is an easy position to defend when the opposition is opposed to the bodily autonomy of women. The position becomes much harder when the opposition is instead opposed to murder. By policing the right’s rhetoric, Democrats remove the most powerful and sincere argument there is against abortion. The people who oppose abortion really do believe that it kills babies, just as those opposed to the BCRA honestly believe that it will kill innocents.

All of this is not to say that we should be rude to each other. Rather, we should start being open with our harshest criticisms. We must not be obsequious towards those in power; we must not silence ourselves on their behalf. If we actually want productive conversations, we must be allowed to honestly express our beliefs. If those beliefs are dumb—or worse, evil—then they ought to be labeled as such. To quote Biederman, “Politics is life and death. Why would you not have your full range of expression involved in it?”

Max Handler ‘18 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at handlermax@gmail.com.