This, a thousand times this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So many political strategies are centered around \u201cbeating\u201d the other side(s), and claiming victory over their defeat.\u00a0 For evolutionary reasons, it is easy to see why these attitudes might have won out.\u00a0 Yet in general those approaches are a sign of a narrow vision.\u00a0 Beating the other side is a\u00a0possible<\/em>\u00a0strategy, but it should hardly be the only strategy you attempt, even if we forget about the \u201cyou might be the one who is wrong!\u201d worry.<\/p>
Quite simply, a lot of the time you\u00a0never<\/em>\u00a0beat the other side, though over time the terms of the debate do shift ground.<\/p><\/p>
An alternative strategy is to try to make the other side better, even if you do not agree with the other side.\u00a0 You might try to make the other side saner and more open, and I do not mean by telling them how wrong they are.\u00a0 You do this, believe it or not, by supporting them in some ways, or at least supporting the best parts of the other side.<\/p>
<\/p>
It is remarkable how few people pursue this strategy.\u00a0 I do know two prominent people, both on the Left, who do this and I think they do it fairly effectively.\u00a0 It is sad that I am reluctant to name them, for fear of getting them into trouble with their compatriots.<\/p>
<\/p>
If the ongoing equilibrium is \u201cthe terms of the debate will be shifted,\u201d why should \u201cimproving the other side\u201d be any less important than \u201cimproving your own side\u201d?\u00a0 On average it should be symmetric, no?<\/p>
<\/p>
Yet the unpopularity of this strategy once again suggests that politics isn\u2019t about policy, in this matter it is more often about internal norms of group solidarity and intra-group status.<\/p>
<\/p>
Learning to see that, and to internalize that knowledge emotionally, is often a better strategy \u2014 if only for your sanity \u2014 than trying to defeat the other side all the time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n