We have a series of maxims here at the Virginia Free Press as we work out in real time what multipartisan journalism looks like. One is this: facts take readers only so far. People view them through various lenses, leading to competing sides hurling opposing facts in a never-ending-war of one-upmanship.

Rather than escalating that struggle, the public square is better served when journalists put the facts on the table, as well as why people think about them as they do with the question at hand.

This task is a tricky thing indeed, especially in an era of hyperpartisan viewpoints.  Every disagreement should not rise to the level of hate speech.  The heckler’s veto is to be deplored.  If the ends are good, then so should your means of getting to those ends.

Most of all, how we talk about the things that matter is just as important as what matters.

Let’s take a national example.  When the president of the United States — the leader of the free world — spews a steady stream of invective at fully half of the American electorate who didn’t support him, that is entirely corrosive to the public discourse. 

Given the race-to-the-bottom-mentality driving political campaigns prioritizing winning over the common good, is it any surprise that this language is now being normalized?  Dare we even try to see nuance in complex questions? 

This problem was fully on display last week in King George County.

Representative Eugene Vindman (D-VA) speaking to King George County Democrats on Tuesday was challenged — in fact, yelled at — for being one of eight Democrats to support the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, which passed the U.S. House and has yet to be passed by the Republican-led U.S. Senate.  According to LGBTQ Nation, what began as an explanation quickly devolved into a shouting match:

One woman accused Vindman of not listening to his constituents’ concerns about the bill and of showing his privilege. Another committee member told him he needed “to shut up and listen.” Vindman argued that he’d chosen to continue the conversation, but was being “attacked.” The same committee member reportedly told Vindman to “shut the f**k up.”

“You can’t f**king talk to me that way,” Vindman reportedly responded, before walking away without taking any further questions.

Meanwhile, The Advocate had a different-if-sharper version of events:

“Congressman, you need to shut up and listen,” one cisgender Democratic committee member told him during a hallway confrontation.

Vindman said he was listening and had stayed despite “you all attacking me.”

“Shut the f*ck up,” the committee member responded.

“No,” Vindman said, moving toward the man. “You can’t f***ing talk to me that way.”

Vindman then walked out, shouting “no” when one constituent asked if they could ask one more question.

Vindman’s response after the fact was an apology for both his actions and failure to listen in a written statement to both news outlets:

“I failed to meet my own high standards, and for that I am sorry. As a leader, I should spend more time listening and less time talking. Last night I failed to do that.  I know that people in our communities are hurting, and I commit to listening to them and fighting for them.”

Yet according to LGBTQ Nation, the apology has fallen on deaf ears:

“When your rights are being stepped on, how many times do you get told to call your congressman?” one man said. “So if your congressman is voting for rights that’s against your minority group, you’re supposed to call him? What? How does that make any sense?”

Whether this actually dampens Democratic enthusiasm for Eugene Vindman — where he is presently locked in a contest against Republican Doug Ollivant in a heavily-veteran focused VA-07 and facing independent opposition from DSA-aligned Alaha Ahrar — remains anyone’s guess.  As the old saying goes, Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.

Yet what the heated exchange between Vindman and King George Democrats reveals isn’t a “gotcha” moment, but rather how people simply aren’t talking about the important things well anymore.

How We Talk About Things Matters

One of the key requirements to be involved in politics?  You have to actually like people.  One of the problems of former military servicemembers in politics?  Respecting the chain of command, and woe to those who do not respect that chain.

We are not here to adjudicate whether or not what Vindman did was right or wrong.  Perhaps he paid an activist in their own coin?  Yet in turn, one is only as big as the smallest bastard that can get your goat.  Vindman’s apology should be accepted as sincere.

Yet what we cannot discard is the conversation itself.  Do people deserve to be treated with respect?  We totally agree without exception or hesitation.  Does Vindman have to endure abuse just because he is an elected official?  Absolutely not.  Should activists be cussing out people they are trying to convince?  Definitely not.

Should we be arguing to understand rather than arguing to win?  Emphatically — yes.

The downside of arguing to win is that someone else must ultimately lose.  The second order effect is that when our public leaders and advocate groups adopt this mentality, everyone loses as the public trust is slowly cashed out. 

Eugene Vindman owed his constituents the apology he gave, and so too do those members of the King George Democratic Committee who violated their own values in order to make a temporary political point.  

Even if the national climate has done so, a certain Jeffersonian optimism about our fellow human beings should prevail in such instances, even if such ideals are imperfectly realized.  Nevertheless, even if — like Jefferson — our ideals fall short, history teaches us that understanding where people are coming from is far more important to democracy than destroying our erstwhile opposition in a debate.  

Yet we continue to come back to a simple if basic creed.  How we talk about what matters is just as important as what matters.  

The punishment for failing to respect ourselves and one another in a democracy is to yield the public square to the petty demagogues and little Robespierres (and their cheap imitators) who have already pirated their fair share.  One simply cannot be in politics and then viscerally hate the people you intend to help and enlighten.  That’s not politics — that’s something else.