Success in persuasive writing is more likely when we are not fans

One habit that supports better thinking and writing is to regularly READ writers who are willing to share their thinking and writing, and the wider the net we cast the more helpful this can be.

I recently subscribed to several e-newsletters offered by The Atlantic and yesterday the first from David French arrived in my inbox. His post, titled "Declare independence from Covid partisanship" presented a compelling case for breaking free of R's vs. D's, at least in the case of the pandemic (but with implications for other issues).

Quick background: French was a long-time Republication who became an Independent in 2016 (Trump was the last straw for him) and he tries to speak from a place between the extremes. Not a bad goal.

Here is a key paragraph: "The partisan is prone to act like a lawyer, and the party is their client. He or she picks a side, and then—convinced that the common good or social justice is ultimately served by their triumph—behaves exactly how lawyers behave. Are there facts that make your “client” (Democrats or Republicans) look good? Emphasize those facts. Do negative developments harm your case? Find a way to change the focus."

There was lots more and you can subscribe to his e-newsletter for free (an Atlantic magazine subscription is not required), but he got me thinking of this analogy of the lawyer and how that profession needs to operate. 

A vast simplification is that, and he quoted a New York Times reporter on this: both liberals and conservatives suffer from misperceptions about the pandemic—in opposite directions. "Republicans consistently underestimate risks, while Democrats consistently overestimate them.”

Hence the entrenched arguments over masks and vaccines and in-person education and so much more, to the point where in some areas of the country, at least, merely wearing a mask becomes a political statement. 

One analogy quickly can lead to another. It occurred to me that this analogy of partisans acting like lawyers could apply to sports fans, for instance. How many times have we heard friends declare their undying loyalty to a particular baseball or football team or university, proudly claiming that they will stick with that team no matter what? It's not all that logical, of course, and such allegiances don't damage the world, so who cares? 

But I watched some truly gigantic kids from Purdue sort of beat up on my Hawkeyes last night in basketball and I found myself thinking they were like Mafia toughs, while the kids on my team were more likable and skilled... but a bit smaller. Truth be told, I wouldn't mind having some of Purdue's talented and gigantic guys playing for Iowa. But the fan/lawyer in me couldn't embrace that in the heat of the moment.

"Pooh! Pooh! Purdue!" as a long-time friend of mine might say.

In the end, French's "ask" of readers was to try to escape the partisan trap of defending one teams' positions at all costs, and that strikes me as a useful goal.

Feeling skeptical that French's sage advice will win the day? Yeah, me too.

But a well-chosen and well-developed analogy can help readers think about the news, about events, about politics, about life in new ways.

May the best analogy win!