Motivation Assignment

There’s an interesting exchange between Chris, Big Stick Mike, and Rufus, involving starting with the motivations of those that disagree with you and working your way backwards:

One thing that I will say, though, is that there’s been a recent trend among conservatives to first infer the motives of liberals (usually: rampant statism and/or Marxism), and then describe their policies and policy preferences from the inferred motives, rather than from actual behavior. We’ve seen it on this very blog, in the form of guest posts and comments by conservatives. That might be what Krugman was thinking of when he made his original claim.

Mike points out that this works both ways. Rufus mentions the studies on how the “conservative mind” works, with typically unflattering portrayals.

I have various pet peeves in political discussions, and perhaps not surprisingly this is one of them. The thing about assigning motives is that it’s extremely easy to do and very hard to combat. I was in a discussion not long ago about vaccinations, where the pro-vaxers were accused of supporting vaccination as a way to stick it to religious families, a tool to control them, or an autonomy to take from them. How do you prove that to not be the case? Even if you make the case that vaccinations are necessary for a health society, you’re still suspect because you hate religious people.

In the actual political arena, this is a very useful tool. I cringe when I see it – even or especially when I see “my side” do it – but they wouldn’t do it if it weren’t successful. Several years back I worked for a political campaign and the group that I was a part of was tasked with threading together a narrative that basically said “the other guy is not interested in your well-being.” Not even taking to task what the opposing candidate supports or opposes (though that’s helpful in the framing), but just who he is and what motivates him. And as distasteful as it was, the other guy had launched his campaign doing the exact same thing, and the path to victory is rarely through unilateral disarmament. No group of people are going to leave a weapon like that on the table.

But here at The League, we are a bunch of guys talking. No more, no less. Some of the big names here have access to platforms where their words will be more influential than mine or that of the average commenter, but by and large serious political victories will not be won or lost here, or on any blog that isn’t designed to be an apparatus in support of a political party (or, just as often, in blanket opposition to the other). It’s one of the things I like about this site and why I keep coming back. The purpose here, is discussion. And except for the arena itself, where elections are at stake, that’s what it should be. Too frequently, people are willing to alienate friends and family to make some point about their own (side’s) moral superiority with, at best, the hope of maybe convincing on or two people of the millions of voters to change their vote.

We only have one life to live, and I do not personally want to live a life of antagonism. Of easy accusations to gloss over hard issues. Of smug superiority, over political opponents that include people that I hold near and dear. I don’t always succeed in this, but I do try. And one of the primary ways I do so is to at least try to assume the best motives of those involves. If I assign motives, I do so with a question mark and as much with an attempt to understand as to condemn. Because truthfully, even if I have discredited the messengers, I have not discredited the message.

There are, of course, those that argue either in bad faith, with ill-motivation, or with a blind allegiance to a particularly party or faction. And it’s difficult to even have conversations with these people because it always comes back to the fact that who they are speaks more loudly than what they say. After years of banging my head against the wall, though, I’ve determined that there’s really no percentage in trying to convince them of anything or discuss things with them at all. And to the extent that I engage, it’s typically aimed at people that might be sympathetic to their arguments, but who have better motivations. Arguing that people that hold the views that the ill-motivated messenger holds always or primarily do so due to ill-motivations, is ultimately counterproductive outside of the arena. It’s hard to get a particular point of view outside of the fringes if there isn’t a serious underlying concern for the movement people to tap into. It’s hard to make a case that the point of view is wrong if you don’t address those concerns. Particularly if you dismiss them as the product of dark minds, motivated by thoughts and motivations that you (and your side) are too pure to have.