The Era of Bad Faith

Yes, we’re more divided than ever, but such sharply-drawn partisan lines tend to cast an even darker shadow. I’ve been pondering this question: Is it possible to be partisan without using bad faith arguments? It has kept me thinking for some time about whether it’s an inherent feature of partisanship or a path we’ve chosen.

Simply put, bad faith stems from tribalism, or the idea that we must protect our own in dire times, when clearly we’d never defend one of the “others” in the same circumstances. Never mind that often whom we define to be our own are not our own at all. Whether you’re talking about religious groups, political parties, or social constructs with widely used labels, they all tend to fall into the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, but those in the “in group” align closely enough to call it good. Indeed, those fissures surface later and return us to a similar situation, but that’s a tangent I will not entertain here.

In our justice system, we accept that a defense attorney must argue in the best interest of their client, even if the client is resoundingly guilty, in order to provide a fair trial that results in a just punishment. That sort of bad faith is not at hand. Rather, it’s the idea that our outrage and contrarianism should be reserved for individuals and parties with whom we do not agree rather than the larger, fundamental ratifications of our core values and systems. In the age of videography, audio recordings, and rampant book publications, hypocritical stances are all too easy to catch and apparently even easier to ignore.

If we free ourselves of the ideological chains that bind us to the whims of the fleeting and often maniacal desires of radicals, we should realize that we can be objective when forming arguments for our points of view. A sound, good faith argument is easily identified:

• Its premises are true
• The premises are relevant to the conclusion
• It does not beg the question, or isn’t circular
• It doesn’t attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to a larger mystery
• It must be valid or strong

But what we see so often in the discourse today is one of the worst offenders of debate strategy: appeal to emotion, which connects to tribalism. “They” are out to steal from you. “They” are out to get you. “We” must protect ourselves from “them”. If “this” happens, we are going to lose “that”.

My most damning critique of bad faith arguments is their shortsightedness. Shortsightedness in their inability to prepare for when the tables are turned, and their users are proven to be the hypocrites that they are. Shortsightedness in their inability to create a long-lasting system that creates prosperity. Shortsightedness in their ability to draw divisions among people who, in reality, have few divisions. Bad faith crumbles even the strongest foundations.

Making a good faith argument does not mean you are conceding your point. It means you are acknowledging the process of coming to a finely tuned conclusion that satisfies the problem as close to the root as possible. And so in that sense, yes, we can retain our partisanship, but we can be honest and objective along the way.