Some political arguments are just horseshit. Based on lies and misrepresentations, designed to play to people’s fears and prejudices and bypass their critical thinking. Although a provocative lie will always move faster and have more momentum than the clarification, context, and nuance needed to dispell it, it is nonetheless fairly straightforward to make an argument against horseshit. We point out the lie or logical fallacy and we’re done.
What is harder to argue against is the far more common kind of political argument. The kind where the falsehood does not lie in the facts or logic used to construct it, but in the underlying assumptions upon which that logic rests. Quite often, that false assumption is that The Way Thing Are is natural, normal, inevitable, correct. It isn’t. I don’t have to tell you things are bad, everybody knows shit’s fucked.
Fucked for most of us anyway. Obviously some people benefit from the status quo. And it is in those people’s political interests to argue that changing things is not only a bad idea, but a practical impossibility. When confronted with ideas for progressive change, stuff that would improve the lives of 99% of people at the cost of some excess wealth from the 1%, they say “that’s unrealistic. naive. it’s a good idea on paper. of course it would be nice if we could help people.. if only the world worked that way”.
But, The Way The World Works is not fixed and immutable. Our political and economic systems, our laws and social norms. All of it is in constant flux, historically speaking, prone to sudden upheaval and reconfiguration. So, when we try to suggest ways that our System can be more generous, sharing, compassionate, the counterarguments can go two ways.
First, horseshit arguments:
That redistributing wealth to make our society more equitable will be detrimental for whatever reason.
E.g. raising taxes on large corporations will damage the economy and thus hurt the working class (who are the ones receiving the benefits from the increased social services that these taxes are funding).
Or, that some people may cheat the system and become unjustly enriched, and that’s why we shouldn’t try to help anyone. Or, that a disadvantaged person is always 100% at fault for their situation. So, fuck them I guess.
Second, status quo apologies:
That The System just isn’t capable of delivering better outcomes for poor people. We’d love to spend more money on welfare, public healthcare, education etc. but there’s only so much money in the budget! So sorry.
The implication here is the The Economy (i.e. the combined labour and resources of a country) does not have enough productive power to provide a comfortable and secure lifestyle for everyone. Where every person at least has their basic needs met. This has always been untrue. Humanity has always been productive enough to provide for all, our communities could not grow if we couldn’t generate a surplus. But, that’s a topic for another time.
Notice that the argument isn’t that social policies are wrong or will lead to bad outcomes. Instead these policies are naive and over ambitious. Their unachievability self evident by the fact that we aren’t going to try.
How then, do we construct a counterargument? That a better state of affairs is not only achievable, but that the people telling you it isn’t are lying for their own political or economic gain. We can call on historical examples or analyse and unpack the numbers and facts. But the technical, practical arguments for progressive ideas won’t hit home if people don’t believe that a better world is possible.
What we need to do is get our interlocutor thinking critically about the status quo. Get them thinking creatively, hopefully, trustingly. All modes of thought that The System actively discourages. This is possible but difficult, depending on the preconceptions of the individual. But there is another, harder but more worthwhile, way to change people’s minds without even speaking to them.
We can to show them what is possible by making it happen.
Instead of supplicating to the political class and asking for a fairer deal, let’s just start taking care of each other. Build communities with our neighbours, then organise within those communities to provide care and aid for everyone. Successful strategies will grow, spread, multiply, mutate.
Through argument by example we can show how these ideas are not only realistic, but commonsense. Then what is possible will no longer be dictated by the powerful, but by the many.
‘Better Things Are Possible’ is the most important and difficult argument to win. But every person we convince is someone who can work to make the better things happen.
Artificial Integrity 