“To disagree well you must first understand well,” my colleague Bret Stephens argued in a Saturday speech titled, “The Dying Art of Disagreement,” which I encourage you to read. “You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely.”
I’m guessing that many readers of this newsletter instinctively agree with the pro athletes who have criticized President Trump. But how much have you thought about why so many of your fellow Americans disagree with those athletes’ protests?
Clearly, racism plays a role, at least in Trump’s case. But the debate isn’t only about race. If nothing else, listening to the other side will sharpen your own counterarguments.
At National Review,
Rich Lowry said the N.F.L. controversy was an example of Trump’s “gut-level political savvy” and highlighted “why he’s president.”
“He takes a commonly held sentiment — most people
don’t like the NFL protests — and states it in an inflammatory way guaranteed to get everyone’s attention and generate outrage among his critics,” Lowry writes. “When those critics lash back at him, Trump is put in the position of getting attacked for a fairly commonsensical view.”
Patrick Ruffini, a conservative political strategist who’s
worth following on Twitter, wrote: “A lot of people are operating under the assumption that Kaepernick’s protest is popular. It isn’t.” Ruffini added: “False assumptions about public opinion make opposition to Trump less effective.”
And Ben Shapiro, the conservative writer,
tweeted: “What the left sees: People kneeling to protest in favor of the right to kneel. What viewers see: People kneeling during the anthem.”