Reviving civil discourse: The art of conversation amid the 2024 election frenzy - opinion

It is election season again in the US. The pitch is high, and the intensity will only crescendo as we approach the elections on November 5. 

The 2024 elections will be the 60th quadrennial presidential election in the US. It is hard to imagine that four years have passed since the last presidential election. Once an election ends, the next begins almost immediately, but as the date approaches the pitch heightens. It becomes shrill.

With each passing presidential election, I have witnessed a transformation in the style, method, and content of the dialogue between people. This is true not just of the candidates and their proxies, but also of the average voter on both sides of the aisle.

People have moved into their proverbial corners and, as opposed to coming to discuss differences and policies, they shout at one another and transform their opponents into Neanderthals and Darth Vaders. The “other” is either evil incarnate or simply too stupid to understand. I watch and listen to the arguments and I am stupefied.

The problem with these arguments is that they are no longer conversations or debates. People are frozen into their perspectives and convinced that they are correct. They so firmly think that the opposite is not just wrong; the opposite side is blatantly evil and destructive.

They think the opposing side is made up of Nazis and Hitlers. The other side is destroying democracy, destroying America, and destroying personal rights. Think about the arguments on both sides of these topics: gun control, abortion, immigration, and freedom of speech. 

The discussions become battles

The word “argument” derives from the Latin “arguer,” which means to make bright or to enlighten, to make known or to prove. 

Today, to argue is to fight with words. Seldom do people win arguments. More often than not, people just end the argument upset and frustrated.

Conversation, on the other hand, is a dialogue. Conversation is banter, discourse, even debate. It is civilized, and it is fun. Lively conversation is edifying. It is also a lost art.

The words “converse” and “conversation” also derive from Latin. “Con” means with and “verse” is a line, as in a line of poetry. “Verse” in Latin really means the line dug with a plow. The essential point of the word is that two or more people are talking together, and even if they disagree with one another, they are in line with one another.

Today, in politics, agreeing to disagree is absent. The parties and the people do not respect one another. And as a result, the discussions have devolved.

BUT WHAT neither side recognizes is that there is an entire group of people who are not on the poles. There is a significant minority of voters who are moderate and in the middle. Those undecided voters are the ones who will sway this election in November.

These voters are not convinced by invective or cliches, drama, and populism. They are not, and will not be, convinced by depicting the other side as extremely evil.

The reason they are undecided is that they are, by definition, uncommitted. Therefore, the best strategy to entice them is using moderate arguments, not extremes.

A moderate, undecided voter may also possibly choose to avoid the entire election because they are turned off by such extremes. A strategy of shouting at the moderates that if they don’t vote, then evil will win is a poor strategy. Shouting that the only way to defeat evil is to vote for good will just further distance the swing voter. 

This tautology will not bring in votes for either side. This argument will only antagonize the moderate would-be voter.

The candidates are not going to change their styles. The candidates firmly believe that their style is successful, and their style has gotten them this far. Trump will not become nice, and Harris will not stop laughing.

Still, the campaigns are run by sophisticated people who have strategy, and they craft messages not just about the candidates but about platforms, objectives, and vision. 

The campaign leaders know that they must win. But they do not seem to understand this.

It is clear that the US is split down the middle in terms of voting. That was the case in the last election and will certainly be the case in November as well. The only path to victory is to attract the swing voter, who in the last election voted Democrat and in the one before voted Republican. 

For some reason, the campaigns have missed this fundamental point, and they are preaching only to the converted. 

This election will come and go. What worries me most is that the art of conversation will soon become extinct, replaced by unhelpful argumentation. 

The writer is a columnist and a social and political commentator. Watch his TV show Thinking Out Loud on Jewish Broadcasting Service.