The Introvert’s Guide To Talking Politics

Dear Dysfunctional Literacy,

I read through your blog on an ‘Introvert’s Guide to Politics’ with some disdain. Please understand that I do quite enjoy your posts usually, but this one has ignited Eeyore levels of despair.

Fundamentally, your blog seems to propose that the general public needs to unify and co-operate with one another, an idea which is impossible to not be on board with.
Unfortunately, the end is achieved through lazy means, with a fairly large group of people (of which I am very much a part of) branding a portion of the graduate population to scapegoat status. On top of that, you suggest the best way to talk about politics would be to… not talk about politics.

Addressing the latter first, it should be pointed out that if we’re going to be introverts, then we need to find a way to have our voices heard. That’s a fairly basic point; if you want to make an impact anywhere on anything, you need to speak and make yourself heard. Avoiding confrontations is a ‘cop-out’, and leads to the overwhelming silence that you enjoy in America and I in the UK. It can lead to people deciding their vote doesn’t matter, and lower voter turn out.
Silence is a confirmation of the status-quo, and thus counter-productive to your overall argument.

There is more credence to the argument that we should unify and try to find some way to work with each other through a common point of interest. However, rather than uniting over a positive point of interest like ‘Free Giant Teddy-Bears For All’ (a.k.a FGTBFA), you seem to suggest that we unite over a negative.
Unconventional, but I could work with people uniting to shame the current inability of Mitch McConnell’s house to put into place real change. An absolute condemnation of inactivity and failure to serve makes sense.
Instead, you suggest we scapegoat the Ivy League. Here, in the UK, that would be the equivalent of Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge). Like the US, a lot of our leaders have attended Oxbridge and, at the moment, a disproportionate number of our Cabinet is made up of Oxbridge alumni.
So, obviously, there has been fair amount of criticism of for the monopoly held by Oxbridge over political discourse, with many labelling them as out of touch.
And as true as this claim may be, it is not something to be united over. It should be regretted and changed, a process which will take time, but to simply blame and scapegoat Oxbridge for producing politicians would make about as much sense as scapegoating all Muslims for a group of extremists.
Your line of argument allows the minority to represent the majority.
Of course, you counter this by claiming

“If Ivy Leaguers are as smart as their disproportionate representation in positions of power suggests, they’ll understand how important it is that they allow themselves to get scapegoated.”

Not to sound cynical, but intellect does not equal power. Incredibly dull people can come to power and I won’t furnish you with examples, because they don’t need to be given – he cannot be misunderestimated.
That’s also assuming all Ivy League places are always given to the smartest candidates, not the most eligible.
Sadly, it seems that you have mistaken correlation for causation or, at the very least, are happy to misappropriate one for the other.

Your other points don’t really merit a play-by-play deconstruction; you’re right to say political discourses are too often shouting matches, cat videos (however hilarious) fall under the issue of silence and ignoring the problem, whilst I actually agree to some extent with your third bullet point.
In fact, I think your third bullet point can be summed up in one word – Compromise.

I like compromise. It can be frustrating not getting exactly what you want, but meeting in the middle is what is at the centre of all good diplomacy; weighing up all the options to produce a workable result for all.
In heart, I agree with your fourth idea too, as through unity compromise can be found.
Scapegoating will never be a productive answer though. It only leads to further divisions and, in this case, the alienation of the ‘smart’ people.
And you don’t wanna piss them off, ‘cos they’re the people you have identified as in power.

I look forward to reading more of your posts. Apologies if this comes off as ranting.

Yours sincerely,
R

P.S. I know you are humourous in you posts but this pushed some buttons. The jokes seemed misplaced here and I needed to register my reaction to it.

Dysfunctional Literacy

If you value the family or friendship, then don’t talk politics. (image via wikimedia)

It’s tough for an introvert to talk about politics because when things get loud, nobody listens to the introverted guy with the quiet voice.  And political discussions almost always get loud.  The last one I heard (but did not participate in) turned into a “suck” contest.  A “suck” contest is when two or more participants tell each other they suck, much like the following (not quite fictional) exchange:

“Republicans suck!”

“Democrats suck!”

“You suck!”

“Your mom sucks!”

Once Mom is brought into the “suck” contest, things always go downhill.

It’s easy to see why political discussions break down so easily.  Government and law are full of boring details.  I’m a boring guy, and even I don’t like the boring details in politics.  So instead of talking about boring but important details, it’s easier just to say…

View original post 853 more words