The illusion of debate

I was at a book PR event yesterday (sold as a debate) between Michael Lewis and Owen Jones (a columnist for the Guardian among other things). The subject was Michael's new book The Fifth Risk (which I haven't read yet) on the "ignorance and corruption that is fuelling the destruction of [the US'] fabric". I have been to similar events in the past but typically not on such a polarizing subject (let's just say high frequency trading and genomic research don't draw the masses). 

I was really struck at how one sided both the "debate" (if we can call it that) and the audience was. The evening quickly moved from presenting various stories from the book to a generalized rant against Donald Trump with bursts of laughter from the audience. Now, while I have no sympathies for the current US administration and agree with the view that he is acting more like a dictator than president, I wonder if the lack of debate isn't actually detrimental to my side of the political spectrum. 

This draws me back to what I wrote on the "paradox of tolerance". There are two postures we can adopt when discussing Trump and his supporters:

• Position 1 argues that we are still part of the same country, share the same set of foundational rules and thereby we should be acting in good faith towards one another, refraining from mockery and focusing on the content of the ideas being presented by both sides.
• Position 2 argues that we are facing an intolerant side, that the common values and rules that we used to abide by have been thrown out the window, and thereby we should actively try to squash the opposition by any means necessary.

I think unfortunately most people haven't yet clearly chosen a position and oscillate between the two depending on the comfort they feel (i.e. whether or not they are in the presence of like minded people). I believe one needs to clearly lay out his position and been consistent with it or otherwise run the risk of being portrayed as another angry mob trying to elicit chaos. 

The problem with arguing that we are facing an intolerant side comes from the fact that while we no longer share type 2 ("The shared experience core value set") and type 3 ("The idealist core value set") foundational rules but we nonetheless still share type 1 ("The legal core value set") foundational rules with the opposite side. Ideally, we would be able to create new common experiences and idealised values with the opposite side of the electorate, but the probability of that happening with a divisive figure like Trump is extremely low outside of a war situation. I unfortunately think this is what we should expect going into the next presidential election as Trump will need to find common ground with a larger part of the electorate.