III. Dog v. Cat

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several surmountable hurdles to a productive political discussion.  Keep in mind that these are not problems that need to be “fixed”.  We can easily accommodate them with the right methodology.

Hurdle #1: Dog v. Cat.

I have asked many people why they like President Obama.  A surprising number responded with what amounted to a list of things they didn't like about Bush.  In other words, their perception of why Obama is good was justified, at least in part, by the absence of attributes possessed by Bush.  It’s like asking a dog lover why she loves canines and getting a response such as, “I love dogs because cats hiss, cats need a stinky litter box in the house, cats hack up nasty fur balls…”

But the question was directly seeking a list of canine attributes.  The reason one likes dogs, after all, has to do with the dog, itself, and not the possibility that cats may have unattractive qualities (no offense to feline aficionados).  To like dogs on the basis that they are not cats implies that one could have equal appreciation for a dung beetle, which is also not a cat. 

Obama’s campaign managers were clearly aware of this phenomenon.  After all, he won the election based on “change”; that is, based largely on the prospect being not Bush. 

Sometimes I find myself pondering the 2012 election and thinking "anyone but Obama" will be better.  But that's simply flawed, dog v. cat, reasoning.  Anytime we deem one thing to be desirable solely because it does not possess the attributes of that which we deem undesirable, we have fallen victim to the Dog v. Cat phenomenon. 

Dog v. Cat is an impediment to the productive political conversation because it can get our brains wrapped up in the notion of change without recognizing that change and improvement are two different things.  When Bush was in office, for example, we did not need change, which is what we got.  We needed improvement.