Influencing Trump Supporters
When we who oppose Trump talk with those who support him the conversation can easily degrade into an argument. Arguments harden positions. When the goal is to get the other side to understand our point of view arguments can be worse than no conversation at all.
A better approach is to turn the conversation into an interview, namely a kind of interview in which we really try to understand the other guy's point of view. With that understanding we can ask questions that provoke the kind of thought that may change opinions.
A good description of this approach appears in this New York Times oped. What I’ll add here are two scenarios that consider whether the November 2020 election was fraudulent and how to tell if you are being conned.
The interview approach requires that you really try to understand the other person’s thinking. Without that it is useless. I know a woman who, misuses the approach. Suppose for example she wants you to believe that Trump is an idiot. She will simply ask “don’t you think Trump is an idiot?” This question shows no understanding of your point of view and can be rather infuriating.
One of the ways I prepared for writing this was to review interviews with Trump supporters. Many of them are leery of talking to people like us. They see us as coming into the conversation with an attitude and a closed mind. Merely using the interview technique is not going to get you past this barrier. You need to listen so well that is is possible to have your own mind changed.
I am certainly not saying that you will come away from the interview a Trump supporter. I am only saying that not everything the Trump administration did was wrong. Unfortunately this can be difficult to accept because the wall that Trump has built between his supporters and the rest of us is so very thick and tall that our minds have difficulty scaling it.
If I’m right that we on this side of the wall tend to be more open minded than those on the Trump side, then probably it will be you who must scale the wall. Without someone making the effort to go over that mental wall it is unlikely there will be any understanding between you and the Trump supporter you are talking to.
With that in mind have a look at these imaginary interview segments. Perhaps they will give you ideas about how to proceed.
Fraudulent Election
We all know Trump refused in advance to accept an election loss. What many of us have forgotten is Trump actually started talking that way before the 2016 election. This British View of American elections written at that time may provide a useful perspective.
For those who believe the November 2020 election was stolen, the following kind of interview may sow some seeds of doubt.
You: Let’s talk about how you know the November election was stolen. I assume you have seen examples of dead people voting?
Friend: Yes and animals voting,
You: A bit of that kind of stuff seems to happen in every election. For the fraud in this election to matter the results in more than one state would have to be contaminated. Given the resulting vote counts there would have to be tens of thousands of such cases. Documenting that would have been a lot of work. Who did it?
Friend: There wasn’t time to document it all. That’s why the courts saw no evidence of fraud.
You: If there is no evidence how can you know the election was stolen?
Friend: Mail-in votes are not verified with ids. They can be fraudulent. We know they were because they did not show the same pattern of Trump winning that the walk-in ballots did.
You: There being no reason to believe mail-in votes should mimick walk-in votes what you just said sounds like “the election was stolen because it could have been”.
If your friend answers “Prove it wasn’t stolen” then your friend is merely debating with you and there is no reason to continue. You have planted a seed that will germinate into doubt or you haven’t. For now, just politely back out of the discussion.
If your friend answers “Yes and because many people say it was” then your friend is being honest with you and it may be useful to carry the discussion a little further.
You: You know, a little math can be helpful here. First the fraud must have altered the results in several states if we are to have a different president now. That would mean there must have been tens of thousands of fraudulent mail-in ballots. How can we know that? What is it exactly that makes a ballot fraudulent?
Friend: Fraudulent ballots are from people who don’t exist.
You: Yes, or they are from people who do exist but the forger believes they won’t vote. Either way if tens of thousands of them are mailed in the numbers will reveal themselves without much effort on the part of the observers. Precincts as you know have lists of addresses and a good idea of how many adults live at each one. If there are tens of thousands of extra votes, a significant number of households will have too many voters. If there are tens of thousands of ballots fraudulently made in the names of real voters, a significant number of voters will be seen to be voting twice. Either way observers will have clear evidence that something is amiss.
Friend: Perhaps that happened.
You: If it did the Trump lawyers would have evidence of potential fraud that the courts would accept. They would hear the cases instead of throwing them out. Instead many courts including the Supreme Court saw no evidence of fraud.
Friend: I have heard the courts didn’t have time enough to check things out.
You: Things would have already been checked out. All the lawyers would have to do is submit the numbers to the courts. You may not agree but I have to tell you that I find it incomprensible that all those judges would have ignored such evidence.
Avoid Being Conned
It seems like we have had a con man for a president this past four years. To avoid another this is the kind of conversation that might have the greatest effect.
You: I suppose both of us think the other has been conned. Let’s talk in general how anyone might avoid being conned. How does one do that?
Friend: One needs to pay attention to reliable sources.
You: Yeh, that is what we were taught in school. Unfortunately those who taught us thought we would all be agreeing on who those reliable sources are. How can I tell if my source is reliable?
Friend (half in jest): You could ask me.
You: I don’t believe you would lie to me. But that’s not the same thing as believing you are a reliable source. You might be conned. There must be a better way of judging whether a source is reliable than to assume we already know where to find reliable sources.
Friend: Check out some of the things the source says?
You: Against other sources? Sounds good but what if two sources disagree? How to choose between them?
Friend: I’ve heard journalists look for three different sources who agree.
You: Yeh, I’ve heard that too but it won’t work if the sources are not independent. For example suppose the New York Times says “we and Fox News and the Pope agree on this one”,. That would seem like you have three sources right there but you don’t because everything you know came from the New York Times.
Friend: Isn’t it too much work always to find and check three independent sources?
You: True but you only do it once in a while to see if your favorite source is conning you.
Friend: I do that. I check now and then when something is dubious.
You: That’s good but it is also a good idea to check now and then when something is obvious.
Friend: Why?
You: Because that is when we are most susceptible to being conned.
More
Cogitamus Home Page
Where you can arrange to get these weekly posts by email.
Other Posts
Where you can read and make comments.
Share this Post with This Button
Or with this link
https://cogitamus.substack.com/p/influencing-trump-supporters