Out In The Montains : OP/ED - Dealing with Hate Speech

I’ve done a number of articles trying to draw some connections between psychological research and our lives. But in commenting on free speech in light of the gathering backlash against the civil union resolution to the Baker ruling, things are a little different; I know it requires veering outside my area of expertise into opinion, and I don’t want to pawn it off as anything else. You’ve been warned.

Still, in my series, I covered much of what I believe social psychology has to say about free speech, and hitting on the main points again could be valuable as we contemplate reacting to the negative and attacking ads being run by anti-GLBT groups.

First, when a topic does not concern most people, and they have spent little time considering it, then they are, as a group, more open to persuasion. In general, a degree of similarity between the target and the source makes the target more receptive: they’ll listen at first, if only because they perceive some common ground. But in addition, it helps if the source has some credibility: do they seem to know what they’re talking about?

Second, these, the ‘undecided,’ are prone to be more persuaded in the short term by emotional appeals, but their attitudes are going to be influenced in the long term by rational arguments. In fact, they are going to be more persuaded over time hearing multiple perspectives – a debate, if you will – because it helps them define and elaborate the reasons they hold a certain opinion.

Third, as people form an opinion, it changes the way they respond to new information. Things that are in the general direction of their emerging attitude will receive more careful consideration. Over time, though, things that run counter to their attitude are likely to be discounted and discredited (along with their sources, who are at risk of being considered biased and unreliable).

Finally, the closer the source of persuasion, the more powerful the message. A one-on-one conversation will be more compelling than a lecture, which will trump a television commercial or newspaper advertisement.

As is always the case with general statements about groups, there is going to be a great deal of variability between individuals. Some people will prefer emotion-laden personal stories; others favor objective, rational arguments.

I think it’s important to stay mindful of these basic findings. Like it or not, one of the effects of the recent civil unions struggle has been to thrust us into a bit of a public relations contest – a contest in which the outcome is, to my eyes, still uncertain. What are the implications? They are probably familiar, and they may strike some as being ‘assimilationist’ or some type of a sell-out. Let me explain.

If we’re interested in persuading Vermonters that civil unions legislation is a good thing, then the case is more convincing when it comes from somebody they’re comfortable with. Turn it around for a bit: are you persuaded by one with a radically divergent political orientation? Or do you analyze their every word, routing out inconsistency, actively seeking dark motives?

Many people have been upset by newspaper advertisements the opposition has recently run; whatever way you look at it, comparing us to Nazis is dirty pool. But it’s also bad public relations, mostly because, on even cursory analysis, it’s a stupid analogy (for starters, the Nazis were a decidedly reactionary, conservative movement, not some radical revolution).

Running the opposition’s ads as they’ve gotten nastier and more personal has been perhaps a questionable decision by the Burlington Free Press and other regional papers. However, a ‘kill the messenger’ attitude will not, I think, get us very far in the minds of the undecided. Focusing on the paper’s choice to run the advertisement (which First Amendment hard-liners will probably defend) misses the point: sending out those ads was stupid, ill-conceived, and probably a tactical disaster. It offers what are, in the long run, easily countered arguments. But in trying to silence the opposition, we can create a sense of lingering doubt: maybe they are right; if they’re not, then why must civil union advocates resort to shutting down the discussion instead of countering it?

How to counter it? I don’t know if there’s a cheap and easy way. Letters to the editor that challenge the decision to run the ads might lead to some sort of mea culpa. But it will not turn the Free Press into an unpaid source of advertisement for our side – in fact, it would compromise their journalistic integrity even further. They’re a business. We need to pay for and run our own ads.

In fact, I would propose using the ads as a starting-point. Repeat the arguments and show why they don’t hold up. Anybody who’s already convinced of that position is, I fear, too far gone. Don’t waste your time with them. But others, whom, I predict, will actually be a bit revolted at first, can come to see two important things: those arguments are faulty, and the real goal of the ads – painting us as degenerates – is devious and offensive. What sort of people must do that to get their way? When that’s the question hanging in the air, we’re at a decided advantage.

It may not help, and we may be witnessing the gathering storm of a fierce backlash (though I doubt it). But of this I am quite convinced: we’re better served by a marketplace of ideas that allows for even offensive ones. Remember that, to some, our very existence is offensive. We’ve already profited greatly from a mostly unrestricted press – including Out in the Mountains. Now it’s time for the difficult job of prevailing in the court of public opinion on the merit of our position and of the truth, not on what should or should not be said.

Larry Rudiger lives in Burlington.