Being Offended, Doing Politics

George Stephanopoulos is a good journalist. He satisfied many when he took on Pence’s claim that Trump's false statement was ‘refreshing.’

‘During an interview on ABC’s ThisWeek, host George Stephanopoulos reminded the future vice president of a recent tweet in which Trump declared that he lost the popular vote because of the “millions of people who voted illegally.”

 “That claim is groundless,” Stephanopoulos pointed out. “There’s no evidence to back it up. Is it responsible for a president elect to make false statements like that?”

Pence defended himself by pointing to an unrelated 2012 Pew Center study on outdated voter registrations. However, the study’s author has said that he found no evidence of voter fraud. Politifact recently gave Trump’s team a “Pants of Fire” rating for linking the Pew Study to voter fraud.

“That statement is false,” the ABC host pressed.

 “I think the president-elect just wants to call to attention the fact that there has been evidence over many years,” Pence stuttered. “It’s certainly his right.”

“It’s his right to make false statements?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“I think one of the things that’s refreshing about our president-elect,” Pence replied, “I think he made such an incredible connection with people all across this country because he tells you what’s on his mind.”

“But why is it refreshing to make false statements?” Stephanopoulos wondered.

 “I don’t know that is a false statement and neither do you,” Pence snapped. “There is historic evidence from the Pew Research Center that voter fraud has taken place.”

“Can you provide any evidence to back up that statement?” the ABC host asked again.

“He’s entitled to express his opinion on that,” Pence remarked. “I think the American people find it very refreshing that they have a president who will tell them what’s on his mind.”

“Whether it’s true or not,” Stephanopoulos concluded.’

George Stephanopoulos is speaking for many when he expressed incredulity about the suggestion that making false statements could be anything remotely like refreshing.

Exchanges like this offend people like George and me.

But is being offended really relevant in politics?

What are we trying to accomplish when we do politics?

Politics is our alternative to violence; it is our core tool for managing conflicts where rules made by the state are the starting point. 

When President Clinton ‘did not have sex with that woman’ many of the George’s among us were offended, but kept it to ourselves because we thought he was doing good things for America.

When President Obama expanded the use of drones, deported record numbers, or [fill in the bland for yourself] supporters were offended but kept it to ourselves (for the most part) because we liked most of what he was doing for America.

When President Obama ridiculed ‘god and guns’ he offended many, but George and I forgave him because we believe the direction he wants to take America is better than the alternative.

When President Clinton sexually harassed an intern in his office…

When Trump…

Is there a common pattern here that unites the left and the right in our shared tendency to overlook offensiveness when we remind ourselves that the offender is more likely than the alternative to advance a vision of America we believe in?

If it is plausible, then let’s take this another step…

Today, many like George and I are harping on the president-elect’s renunciation of the existence of facts…and this is perhaps the most deeply offensive position anyone could take in the George and me community.

At the same time, most candidates on our side are pro-choice and that is perhaps the most deeply offensive position anyone could take in the anti-George and me community.

When we point out his embrace of a fact-free world we are saying his is irredeemable. We are offended and we want others to be offended too, but (if the previous point is right) only those who already disagree with what they see as his vision for America are likely to be offended enough to get the outcome we seek: to reject him.

It works the same in reverse on abortion.

The George and Me community then assert that the contrast here is between facts and beliefs, so when we are offended it is empirically observable and true but when they are offended it is reflection of their fact-free views…they are wrong.

So, both sides tend to ignore offensiveness when someone on our own team is the offender, because we believe in the vision our team stands for.

And, when we expect our expressions of being offended to strengthen our team we need to recognize this is only possible within our bubble. It might mobilize our existing team; it will not expand the scope or reach of our team.

When we fail to see this we open ourselves up to elite efforts to distract us with self-righteous (feel good for our team) stories about how offensive the other side is…in a way that practically guarantees amplifying existing trenches and ensuring that policy decisions will get less attention, rather than the more attention they deserve, because these are what advances (or not) any particular vision of America.

We have competing types of ‘truth-tellers’ here. One speaking a language of morality that diminishes the value of analysis; another speaking the language of policy wonks that diminishes the value of values.

In the real world, we all integrate facts and values, morality and policy tradeoffs. We recognize that the lines between these are blurred and both are essential parts of human society.

When George and I are in private conversation we sometimes remind each other that ‘facts’ do not speak for themselves (JS Mill) and the facts of one era are often dismissed as the myths of that era in a subsequent era (Kuhn?). When the anti-George and I are in private conversations we sometimes remind ourselves that despite our strong beliefs it was still the best for all parties when our daughter terminated that pregnancy or got through that rough patch by depending on government assistance.

So, instead of applying one standard to our own communities and another to our opponents, we would get a lot more done if we use one standard, balancing offensiveness and policy positions according to the same metric for all, recognizing the inherent trade-offs central to effective democratic problem solving.