By Ben Files ’25 (DCI Fellow)
Time of day is a fleeting thing in the digital age. Whether it be on social media, or even in person, the end goal of political discussions increasingly seems to be finding ways to one up or outsmart the person you disagree with, rather than trying to understand their perspective and find middle ground.
This trend manifests itself well in the rise of pop-up debates or tables, pioneered by internet stars Steven Crowder and Charlie Kirk. In theory, these pop-up debates are brilliant: they are framed as spaces for anyone to come and discuss any political topic with someone, including Crowder and Kirk themselves, who are incredibly knowledgeable on most political subjects. While these pop-up debates do produce some productive, thoughtful, deliberation, Crowder and Kirk are incentivized to share on social media the exact opposite.
In practice, the most famous clips from Crowder or Kirk are when they “punk” people whose views differ from them. In turn, this incentivizes hosts such as Crowder and Kirk to seek out less real deliberation, and more opportunity to defeat the person who takes the stand to talk to them. In some instances, these hosts will make a point of not answering certain questions to ensure that their position remains superior. This process is only beneficial for the hosts and their staff.
The brave participants who take the stand at these pop-ups often do not have a healthy deliberation. This result can discourage many participants from engaging in similarly framed events, which may indeed involve meaningful discourse across party lines. Further, the viewers gain little from these clips – sure, they may pick up some new talking points, but overall they learn that the point of political discussions is to win, because winning is fun.
But, deliberation isn’t about winning. For my deliberation project with the DCI, in which I collaborated with DCI Fellows Liam Mann and Jane McNeill, I wanted to implement on campus a pop-up deliberation table similar to those created by Crowder and Kirk. Crucially, though, I wanted to ensure that all participants felt comfortable being, in a way, vulnerable around complete strangers, able to talk about their political opinions without fear of being “punked.”
To do so, I decided to take an approach that was the opposite of the common practice of Crowder and Kirk. Instead of asking hard hitting follow-up questions, I would reply to participants’ responses with a simple “why?” This simple follow up is not rudely interrogative and does not attempt to steer the conversation off-course or throw off a participant’s train of thought. Rather, it is almost like an alley-oop, a way to extract more information in a non-hostile and respectful manner.
The use of “why?” was surprisingly effective in our conversations. Our pop-up discussion table featured 27 questions covering a wide range of topics, from politics to philosophy to pop culture. These questions were printed on note cards and folded, allowing participants to choose a question at random. Then, participants would answer the question on the card they had selected, and if their original answer was not sufficient, we would ask the famous “why” question.
Following conversations with approximately 35 participants, I have drawn two key takeaways regarding thoughtful deliberation and the use of a “why?” question. The first, broader trend I noticed was that participants were far more apprehensive and concise when answering political questions. Often, we needed to follow up with a “why?” question here, to better understand participants’ views on term limits or abortions, for example.
Second, I noticed that any apprehension around answering was compounded when participants approached us in groups, whether it be friends or other students. Again, the use of “why?” helped here, as participants were encouraged to explain their position more, which in turn (I think) put them more at ease. Across the board, our “why?” question gave participants the time and place to explain why they believe the things they do, an opportunity that is often not afforded to people in political discussions.
A simple “why?” is crucial for improving deliberation and political discourse because, quite simply, it gives people the time of day. When people feel comfortable expressing how they truly feel, real personal and societal growth is possible. It may not get the most internet clicks, but true understanding of our political differences is crucial to creating a better tomorrow.
