To the Editor of the Princeton Progressive,
Regarding “A Call for Rhetorical Reform” published in your last issue: Perhaps I misunderstand the author, but his thesis seemed to be: Conservatives shouldn’t provoke liberals. I agree. However, I would urge the author to consider the counterpart to his thesis: Liberals shouldn’t provoke conservatives.
From what I could gather from the piece, the author seemed to cite two things that some conservatives do that provoke liberals: (1) Promote bigotry, and (2) Act condescendingly. Both are indeed unacceptable, and I will gladly join the author in condemning such. Having said that, let me cite three things that some liberals do that provoke conservatives:
- Using ad hominem. It struck me as ironic that in a piece exhorting us to rhetorical reform, the author seems to condone calling Professor Franck “asshole of the day”. This kind of name-calling is unacceptable, and it is a shame that the author neglected to say so directly. It is also a shame that many liberals self-righteously call conservatives “homophobes” and “racists”. All too often, this is mere ad hominem that should be roundly denounced. Address our arguments with counterarguments, not hateful labels.
- Erasing distinctions. If we are going to have civil conversation, as indeed we should, we need to make genuine efforts to understand each others’ arguments. I would call this “civic empathy”. A key part of this is to recognize distinctions central to each others’ arguments, even if we disagree about their validity. In debating sexual ethics, for instance, social conservatives distinguish between judging actions and judging people: we are in no position to judge people, but judging actions is entirely acceptable — after all, what is morality if not the understanding of what actions are right as opposed to those that are wrong? Yet liberals often ignore the distinction entirely, presupposing an identity between people and their acts. Even if we disagree about distinctions, these are the things we should debate instead of sweeping them under the rug and talking past one another.
- Shifting the burden of proof. At the close of his article, the author wrote, “If conservatives want their ideas to survive, the burden of proof falls on them to show that they are not bigoted.” So we’re guilty until proven innocent? This burden-shifting is unacceptable, and it is the mark of bad faith in civil dialogue. We should assume each other to be people of goodwill who believe different things about what is good. Harboring a presumption that one side is hateful (until proven otherwise) is inimical to healthy public discourse. Lastly, if anyone is to bear the burden of proof in public debate, it should be upon those who wish to change things from the status quo. Indeed, more often than not, the onus should be on the liberal, not the conservative.
I hope that the author of the ‘Call for Rhetorical Reform’ will join me in condemning these three manners of counterproductive provocation.
Cordially,
Thomas Z. Horton
Publisher Emeritus
The Princeton Tory