Fred Clark at Slacktivist is the best writer in blogdom on issues of politics and religion in America, bar none. So when he takes up Amy Sullivan’s Time article on the “God Gap”, you know it will be worth a read.
He actually has two posts on the subject, the first making a good point about the cultural origin of evangelical voting patterns, and the second talking about the specific issue of abortion, which he thinks is the key to the whole problem.
What I really like about these pieces, though, is the end of the second post, which makes a much broader point:
I give Sullivan credit for trying to get beyond preaching to the choir — for trying to put persuasion back on the table and to find a way to reach out to those on the other side. But I think that if you’re going to do that credibly, you can’t just nibble around the edges, talking about “faith” while avoiding the conclusions voters have reached due to their faith. I think this calls for something more. I don’t think candidates who support abortion rights should merely be embracing “faith friendly” rhetoric in the hopes of scoring points with people of faith who oppose abortion rights. I think those candidates should be explaining, forthrightly, why they support such rights and why they believe others should as well.
Three final points here, which I will try to state as generally as possible because, while I believe these apply to the politics of abortion, I also think they apply more generally:
1. When a disagreement involves questions of principle, a willingness to compromise, meeting your opponents half way, is not an effective approach to persuasion. Your willingness to compromise might make you seem more reasonable and appealing to some, but to many others it simply makes you seem unprincipled.
2. When rallying the troops and firing up the already persuaded it makes a certain kind of sense to focus on the worst motives demonstrated by the most egregious of your opponents. But if you’re trying to persuade your opponents, then the presumption of charity isn’t only a more just approach, it’s also a more pragmatic one. If you want to persuade, you need to address the strongest case your opponent can make, not the weakest one, and you need to address that strongest case head on.
3. When rallying the troops and firing up the already persuaded it makes a certain kind of sense to point out inconsistencies in your opponents’ views and to attack these as evidence of hypocrisy or duplicity. But if you’re trying to persuade your opponents, then you need to recognize that such inconsistencies are an opportunity to raise questions they may already be half asking themselves.
(Sorry for the long quote, but the context is important.)
As he says, these last three points have applications well beyond the politics of abortion. Indeed, they have a lot to say about the endless squabbling on the Culture Wars channel of ScienceBlogs– not just the first point, which I’m sure will be happily seized upon by many, but all three of them.
It’s worth reading both posts in their entirety, as well as the comments, which are remarkably civil given the topic. And if you’re not already reading Slacktivist regularly, what are you waiting for?