I get into political debates frequently enough with someone I disagree with, but we have enough respect for each other to listen. One of the things I have been struck by in the last few months is the mirror arguments on both sides. On the conservative side, there is a thing called the Iron Law of Woke Projection, which is basically- the woke will always accuse the right of whatever they themselves are doing. Well, I was listening to someone on the progressive side make the same argument about the right- whatever they accuse us of is basically like looking at a road map of what they’re doing.

Different sides, same accusations. I have heard variations of these mirror accusations all over, and it has me looking at this impasse, this inability to see the other side. Often I have heard the right accused of lying. The right says the left is lying too. It’s of course possible that both sides are lying, but what exactly is meant by this? Because the simple message of calling someone a liar is: you can’t trust what they’re saying.  

But the nature of lies isn’t typically to say something obviously untrue. OK, there are some things that are (a man is literally, biologically a woman if he feels like he is), but most of the “lies” the Other Side™ gets accused of aren’t those kinds of untruths. They tend not to be direct lies of the sort you might try as a kid: I didn’t eat the chocolate! (then why are you burping chocolate dust?!) I already did my homework (no, you didn’t!) They tend to be of the order of not seeing some aspect of an issue the other side sees as more important. They tend to disregard or overlook the salient aspect (meaning the aspect the other side sees as important) of an issue, and in so doing, they are accused of turning a blind eye to the problem. They aren’t direct lies, but they focus on the wrong thing.  

This is an inescapable fact of us having a limited viewpoint and strong opinions on what needs to be done to fix problems. Most of us, if we see a problem, think in terms of trying to figure out what we can do to solve it. In our daily lives, fixing small problems may be relatively straightforward. In society, there are problems that are not so simple, because every solution will involve trade-offs. (Trade-offs are true in everything, by the way, not just the larger scale societal problem. You didn’t do the homework because you wanted to play. Play is good. Getting an F on the homework you didn’t do is bad. All homework and no play makes Dave a dull boy, as the saying goes, but gets him a better grade.) Trying to find that balance, grasping the trade-offs that come with applying yourself to one thing at the expense , of another, is a big part of our maturation process. Forgetting the level of trade-offs that are inherent in solutions is one part of the problem.

The other is our limited viewpoint. Typically, I’ll assume the other side, putting forward an argument I don’t agree with, isn’t lying per se. I’ll try and chalk the difference up to seeing the issue from an angle I either can’t see, or don’t think is as important.  

Should we have universal healthcare? Some people think that everyone should have at least minimal care available. The trade-off might be that while the 20% that don’t have care available right now will gain it, it would do so at the cost of degrading the care that the 80% currently have. There’s a trade-off here. Is it better for 100% to have low-grade care? Or is it better to have 80% have higher grade care, while 20% have none? I’m just making up numbers here, but it’s meant to illustrate a point. Different people are going to draw the line in different places. Deciding for either one doesn’t make that person evil or stupid or uncaring. While we may not be able to come to an agreement, it would at least be helpful if we could listen to what the other side has to say- to hear why they’ve drawn the line where they did and why they chose one trade-off over another.  

Facts.

We’ve all heard the little gem: facts don’t care about your feelings. Which is true. But then again facts don’t care about anything because they don’t have personalities and can’t care. You may have heard this too: There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.

Statistics can be found to support just about anything. They can be factually accurate, and yet still not really tell you much. They aren’t necessarily wrong, but looking at the moral decisions for why we choose to draw the line where we do won’t be helped by statistics. Facts don’t care about the other sides feelings, but they don’t care about yours either.

For example, there is an ancient and well-known trade-off between liberty and safety. We all want maximum liberty, right? Yay Freedom! But turning people lose to, um, ‘enjoy their freedoms’ can lead to the freedoms of others in their way being violated. One of the first conditions of freedom is its limitation. If we want to keep everyone safe, then people’s freedom to say, drive drunk, might need to be curtailed…or cut off. Likewise, if “safety is our first priority” is really true, then wouldn’t it just be better to lock everyone up? Wasn’t that the message of dystopian sci-fi pics like I, Robot? The AI figured out that if humans were to be protected, it would be best be accomplished by rounding them up and protecting them from themselves. It’s not wrong… but it isn’t exactly what the creators had in mind either.

So where do we draw the line between freedom and safety? That will largely depend on your personal experiences. If you’re a gun guy who enjoys hunting, then 2A rights are going to be sacrosanct. If you’re a grieving parent of a murdered child, you’re probably going to be more in the safety first camp. There is no denying the trade-off between liberty and safety. Try to be safer, and freedom will necessarily be curtailed. Try to emphasize freedom, and society becomes more unsafe. Where one draws that line will determine which facts and statistics he/she will rely on. That doesn’t mean either the safety or freedom side is lying. Both can get facts to back up their points.

Instead, we get the simple- they’re lying! Well, those bastards! The lying liars from liarville just can’t stop lying!! That’s all they are is liars, and what can you do with such callous, senseless people? They have to be sidelined because there’s just no place in society for people who hate ________ (fill in the blank with either freedom or safety.) What? Do you hate freedom (or safety)?!?

I have done my best to understand a slate of current issues. I typically try to listen to the other side’s arguments so I can understand where they’re coming from. We all know that there is an increasing polarization in America, but the antidote for that is to listen to the other side, not just listen to your own side demonize the other. Sometimes I recognize the other side is drawing the line at a place where I just can’t. I get why they are doing so, but I disagree. Sometimes I hear what they’re saying and agree, and it shifts my own position. There are other times when, even after having heard them, I am still mystified. But usually that means I’m listening to someone who isn’t that adept at explaining themselves. Most everyone has at least some decent reason for believing what they do.

So the point of all this was just for me to explain that the lies you may hear the other side being accused of, aren’t lies per se. They are (usually) just facts focused on a different aspect that the other side finds more relevant. And yes, you can always find people parroting talking points, or ignoramuses, on both sides. Don’t waste your time using those as representative of the other side. Find people who can genuinely present a decent argument. Then decide from listening to them whether they have a point.