Political discourse feels largely pointless

...and I'm not sure if it'll get better

My wife once told me, “My dad’s favorite thing to talk about is the Quran.” This made me reflect. What is my favorite thing to talk about? It’s politics and economics. I could, with seemingly infinite stamina, speak to anyone about any political or economic topic. I wouldn’t be entirely informed on all topics, but over the course of the last 16 years of increasingly closely following, studying, and immersing myself in all things politics and economics, I don’t find myself less interested in these subjects, but I do find myself less interested in speaking about these subjects with others, especially portions of my political opposition.

How did I get here?

To explain my mindset, I ask: What is the value of discourse and debate? A typical question with typical answers: education, persuasion, and entertainment, often in that order. I’ve always loved to debate and discuss politics, with family, friends, and strangers, whether in public or private. I’ve found over time these discussions have transformed from mostly educational and persuasive for myself to mostly educational and persuasive for the person or audience I’m addressing, and these conversations have always been enjoyable. Do we agree? Disagree? Why? The infinite ‘why’ of political conversation provides near infinite potential for fun and interesting discussion, and if you’re lucky you either learn something or teach someone something along the way.

Taken for granted in most of these discussions is the assumption that the person I’m speaking with, or the audience I’m speaking to, is open to dialogue and making a reasonable attempt to engage with what I’m saying. This understanding is, of course, mutual. Over time, however, I find the value of political discourse has broken down. Have I just been doing this for too long? Am I interested in different things? I don’t think so. I recently purchased several books about subjects that interest me, and I find them fascinating. What is justice? How should cities manage public assets? What is the morality of markets? All questions these books attempt to answer, all political and economic in nature, and all deeply interesting (to me), but as I enter my 5th year in a public-facing role as a micro-internet commentator, my interest in political discourse and debate has atrophied.

Conversations have many purposes, but the purposes of conversation, as I’ve outlined, might come off as morally neutral or positive. Everyone likes education. Persuasion is a reasonable goal, and entertainment is an innocent byproduct, but these aren’t the only reasons people have conversations. People also have conversations to propagandize, mislead, enrage, and belittle. I’m not innocent in this regard. I’m sure I’ve not been entirely amenable to disagreement throughout the years, nor have I been totally respectful in the course of conversation, but despite my frustrations, I’ve remained an acolyte of political discourse itself.

Despite this, I’ve felt a massive change in discourse over the last 16 years. Propaganda has taken over. No conversation feels like a blank slate, and after hundreds and hundreds of conversations with people who have a frustrating combination of strength of opinion and lack of in-depth knowledge, I am at a bit of a loss. Social media, news consumption, and globalization have all contributed to a systemic Dunning-Kruger effect. Many people have priors that developed in an information war mostly waged on social media and news media. Many people simply do not do their own research, and many people are ill-equipped to reasonably evaluate their surroundings. This is why conversations about politics and economics feel largely pointless as of late. It seems many aren't listening to anything other than unfiltered propaganda, which makes the battlefield for persuasion less about how we organize conversation and more about how we organize media ecosystems and how we get the various political factions already sunk in to come out and influence policy, independent of opposition.

Let’s address what I think will be some common reactions:

1. Propaganda has always been a thing.

2. Both sides are guilty of having an outsized strength of opinion and a lack of knowledge.

3. Econoboi, you’re guilty of #2 as well;

4. Not all people are like this.

5. Conversation is still important.

Yes, propaganda has always been a thing, but propaganda is now trivially easy to spread. People didn’t always, nearly universally, watch television, nor did they always have phones where they could access algorithmically sorted information on social media on a daily basis. History’s most evil tyrants would be astounded by how easy it is today for anyone to spread propaganda. Trump says Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, and the same night news media and social media actors parrot the talking point to the degree that a significant portion of people, hundreds of miles away from Springfield, genuinely feel that Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs is a problem.

When you ask the average person why they voted for who they voted for, you might hear a single issue of their choosing. Most recently, when I asked someone why they voted the way they did, the person told me, “I think immigration is a problem.” Why is immigration a problem? What is the problem with immigrants? After this individual didn’t have much in way of justifying their belief that immigration is a problem, the conversation ended with “I just think immigration is a problem.” This person voted for Trump. They voted for a man who, within his first day in office, signed executive orders that, under Trump’s new paradigm, would’ve meant/will mean many dozens of people in my life wouldn’t be considered full and equal American citizens. I can reference study after study showing the potentially calamitous effects of mass deportation, and I can even add in videos of families crying as they struggle with the anguish of their lives being uprooted all for the crime of being born in a poor country and, in their desperation, relocating to a wealthy country. He doesn’t care, and/or he doesn’t know to care. All he knows is that he just thinks immigration is a problem.

I’m left with the instinct that conversation matters substantially less on educational and persuasive grounds, as people substitute reality for their own construction, with built-in talking points and trumped-up sources of information. Some have accused me/members of the left of being guilty of substantially the same. On the issue of members of the left being guilty of having less than informed, less than nuanced opinions, of course this is a problem. On the issue of myself having substantially the same problem, I’m not sure what a genuine research and engagement process looks like otherwise. After 16 years of speaking with people of opposing viewpoints (including nearly my entire family), multiple degrees, and many independent research efforts often validated by some combination of overwhelming expert consensus or substantial research in divided fields, I think I’ve made a meaningful effort to understand the logic, rationale, and evidence of the many sides of the various political issues of our time.

I am not perfect in this regard, but I try my best, and after all that effort I’m left with a clear theme in most every conversation I have with people about politics - many people, despite a personally large engagement in political discourse, simply do not know what they are talking about, nor do they have any desire to challenge or cross-reference their beliefs, and despite this, their opinions remain very strong and immoveable. Of course, not all people are victims of social media and news media propaganda. There are still millions of people who temper their opinions with either evidence or a strong dose of humility. Millions of people aren’t simply parroting the talking points of their preferred news commentator, but a much louder millions of people are doing exactly that, and outside of directly addressing the influence of wealthy propagandists in media, I am not sure what the best course of action is for individuals engaging interpersonally in politics.

I cling to the notion that conversation, open dialogue, and debate are important tools, but these tools have weathered against the decades-long flow of social media and news media misinformation and propaganda. I hope that this is just the narrow concern of living in the short run. I’m sure things seem particularly bad now as we live through it, and I hold out hope that in 20 years I can say to my friends and family, "Wow, that sure was a wild ride, but we made it through." Yet, as we cross a decade of Trump dominating American politics, and as we stare down the barrel of at least another 4 years of his direct influence on politics, I can’t help but feel both partially disarmed and deeply concerned for the future of this country and its people.