A week ago I
wrote a diary about the Socratic method and politics, in order to provide an alternative to the more direct methods of political intercourse often discussed here. It garnered decent discussion, but failed to really "catch fire", likely because I wrote it in a largely ponderous and impractical style, like this very introduction. So, without further ado I will provide a few concrete examples of the Socratic method and politics (if you want background on what the Socratic method actually is, read my first diary that I linked to).
Somebody tells you: "I support Bush because he's strong on terror/defense and Democrats are weak."
Socratic response: "What exactly does it take to be 'strong on terror'?"
Explanation: This is obviously a major issue, as "terror" is seen as Bush's strongest point. Don't confront it too directly and partisanly or you'll turn them off, but rather attempt to lead them into thinking about what it actually takes to defend this country. Hopefully they'll realize that Bush is nothing but rhetoric, and it takes more than strong words to truly be strong.
(Continued after the fold)
Somebody tells you: "I vote Republican because Democrats want to legalize gay marriage."
Socratic response: "What does marriage mean to you?"
Explanation: This issue is also common, and particularly tricky. There are a few angles you could take: you could show how not every Democrat actually pushes for that, or you could argue that it's unwise to vote on a single issue like that. But since I'm talking Socratic method, I figured I'd take the philosophical angle and ask what marriage itself is. Whatever angle you take, there's a decent chance that if you dig you'll only end up finding bigotry. If that's the case then it's unlikely that further dialogue will be constructive, but if you're patient you might be able to at least plant a few seeds to make them question their biases.
--------------------------------------------------
Somebody tells you: "Bush is a common man/man of the people, I like him because I can relate to him." (or the converse, that Democrats are elitists)
Socratic response: "What characteristics do you think a president should really have?"
Explanation: Again there are several angles you could take. You could ask what actually consitutes a common man, and show that Bush, despite his adopted accent, is very much a blueblood. Conversely, you could argue that there are many Democrats are come from "common stock." But I feel the best approach is to directly lead them to conclude that, regardless of partisanship, a president should actually not be a common man anyway. A president should be the best and brightest we have, he should be better than the "common man" because he's supposed to be figuring out and solving all these problems that we face.
--------------------------------------------------
Somebody tells you: "The war in Iraq was right because it got rid of Saddam." (or any derivative of the "humanitarian justifications for war", which is really the only argument left given the WMDs didn't pan out)
Socratic response: "What do you think we should do about Kim Jong Il?" (or any other tinpot dictator we tolerate/support)
Explanation: This one is simple: show that the humanitarian argument doesn't hold because we simply aren't consistent about it. You can bring up how we actually supported Saddam (though do so gingerly), and point to the number of other dictators. If they argue that Saddam was different, well, show that he wasn't. Show that others are actually arguably worse. And if they argue that that we went to Iraq because it was easy/possible, and invading Korea/Iran/China/whatever isn't, simply highlight that while some thought invading Iraq would be easy it turned out to not be the case, and we're caught in a quagmire.
--------------------------------------------------
Somebody tells you: "The taxcuts have helped the economy." (plus any derivative of the trickle-down arguments and so forth)
Socratic response: "What matters most about the economy?"
Explanation: This one is a bit difficult and roundabout. The longterm goal is to argue that jobs are what matters, and it can both be empirically and logically shown that "trickle-down economics", whatever it does, does not create jobs. If they initially respond with something other than jobs then you can try to ask questions to lead them back to jobs, or you can just wing it. Alternatively, you can confront this issue more directly with statistics and just argue that the economy is sluggish, regardless of taxcuts. Of course then they can pose the unfalsifiable "it could be worse" argument, which is difficult to respond to.
--------------------------------------------------
Summary: As you've likely noticed, part of the key to a proper Socratic response is to not weight it with partisan rhetoric. People are very good at sensing such language, and it often will immediately turn them off to open discussion. Some of the best dialogues are when you ask questions in such a way where it's hard for the person you're talking to to really know what your stance is.
Another important element is to not get too pedantic or lengthy. Notice how my actual Socratic responses are much shorter than my explanations for them: while you should be thinking about the full explanation, you shouldn't be saying it. That's the part that they're supposed to figure out. You should just stick to concise questions. I only provided the first general lead-in question and an explanation, so you'll of course have to "wing it" a bit based on their responses. There is no way to really script these dialogues, but with practice you can get pretty good at it.
Anyway, thanks for reading, I hope these examples helped. Feel free to provide your own examples in comments, or if you want me to provide more than just ask (if you have any specific issues to suggest I'd be pleased to give them a shot).