If we just argue instead of listening, we’ll never understand one another’s politics | Opinion

An election year means more conversations about politics and policy. We’ll each marshal the facts most convincing to us, wait impatiently for the other person to finish talking, and then hit them with irrefutable evidence that we are correct.

They’ll disagree, and we won’t be able to understand why. Too often, it’s not that facts fail to convince — it’s that others don’t see the world as we do.

We aren’t speaking the same language. Do we want to understand the world around us or do we just want to be the loudest, rightest person in our group?

But did you know there might be a reason we communicate the way we do? And it’s based on ideology, according to economist Arnold Kling.

In his book “The Three Languages of Politics,” (available for free on the libertarian think tank Cato Institute’s website), Kling lays out the ways three dominant political ideologies think and express positions about important issues.

He suggests each of the three major ideologies has an axis upon which adherents understand policy:

• Progressives communicate along an axis of “oppressor-oppressed.”
• Conservatives along an axis of “civilization-barbarism.”
• Libertarians along an axis of “liberty-coercion.”

It’s not enough to understand the points a person is making — it’s important to understand how they see the world. What may seem irrational from your worldview may be completely logical in theirs.

Consider some issues facing Kansas City right now. On housing, progressives generally see the issue as a matter of helping the poor, the unhoused and renters prevail against large oppressors such as developers, landlords and the mortgage banking system.

Conservatives look at the same issue and tend to see those who respect property, work hard, save money, pay their bills on time and develop good credit versus those who believe they are entitled to the hard work and resources of others.

Libertarians are typically repulsed by the idea that any individual or institution should not be able to set up their own business terms and do business with anyone they choose without government intervention.

Policing and public safety sort along these lines as well. Progressives see the police and the courts as oppressor institutions, and the populations they deal with as the oppressed. Conservatives talk about law and order (civilization) as a bulwark against crime and chaos (barbarism). And libertarians view the police and courts as agents of government (coercion) against a population better off being left alone to do as they please (liberty).

That doesn’t mean everyone is equally correct. In the 1970s (and likely again today), the progressive and libertarian views do nothing to help us address homicide and violent crime rates in Kansas City and across America. Viewing law enforcement as oppressive or coercive will not help us help those suffering the worst of urban crime. But anyone who couldn’t see some validity to the oppressor-oppressed axis after the 2015 Department of Justice reports on Ferguson, Missouri, was willfully blind.

Technology allows us to secure our relationship and create media bubbles. We can interact solely with people who share our worldview. And when preaching to the choir, we all want to be the loudest and the purest.

Let’s try something else in 2024 and try to understand those other worldviews. It’s not important that we agree with them. In understanding others, we ourselves can be understood. Maybe we’ll each learn something new.