How not to argue (or think) about politics

I. Policy arguments should be about policies

A. What, exactly, the policy proposals are (need and plan)

B. How they’ve worked in the past

C. Feasibility, Solvency, Unintended Consequences (with, as much as possible, evidence from previous experience

II. Instead, however, policies are often treated as secondary, the importance of which is how they signify group identity of advocates and critics

A. Assumption that criticism of any policy signifies membership in the other group (outgroup for whoever is advocating the policy)

B. Once group identity is determined

1. Membership in any outgroup (or, simply, not being a member of the ingroup) is

a. reason to dismiss criticism/argument as biased;

b. adequate proof that the rhetor does not have reasons, so the quest is to infer motives for argument/criticsm

c. adequate reason to reframe all behavior

(1) so that the same behavior is praised for the ingroup but condemned for the outgroup

(2) so that any bad behavior on the part of the outgroup rationalizes (and, essentially, wipes the slate clean of) all bad behavior on the part of the ingroup

C. “Decisiveness” (quick judgments from which one refuses to retreat, even/especially if evidence accumulates that it was a bad judgment) is a sign of manliness

III. The public sphere is a kind of death match between factions

A. zero sum (gain for any group is a loss for the other)

B. compromise is dishonor

C. It’s all about domination or submission

IV. Groups are discrete and stable

A. written into the ontic logos

B. Conflict is unreconcilable

C. Ingroup identity is perspective-free

D. Reason is associated with one group and all others have motives

IV. The public sphere is a marketplace in which policies are offered for sale

A. Everyone is out for themselves

B. Reason is an illusion

V. No one really disagrees; disagreement is an illusion