John Wood, Jr.

John Wood, Jr.

John Wood Jr. is a national leader for Braver Angels, a former nominee for congress, former Vice-Chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, musical artist and a noted writer and speaker on subjects including racial and political reconciliation.

Morality, Politics and Persuasion | Scott Adams and John Wood, Jr.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on email
Email

How do we overcome the bitterness of American politics and change the way things are done?

“Left of Bernie,” yet a consistent defender of President Trump; author, commentator and creator of the comic strip “Dilbert” Scott Adams is a fascinating or infuriating voice in the political conversation, depending on who you ask. But Scott is schooled in the art of persuasion. I enjoyed talking to Scott about the practical ways we can repair our politics. Better yet, I got to challenge Scott to sharpen our own understanding of how to bring Americans together. Mr. Adams doesn’t disappoint.

[Apologies for some audio issues in this recording! We’re fixing our remote recording setup. But please enjoy.]

More to explore

Music Contest

The Places We Find Hope: More Selected Songs from the BA Songwriting Contest

For this conversation, the Blue is Cameron Swallow—a Braver Angels moderator and bluegrass musician in Kenosha, Wisconsin, who spent 18 years teaching secondary school. The Red is Jennifer Stepp—a pianist, musical theater dabbler, and community arts advocate who also serves as a city council member in Gastonia, North Carolina. Cameron and Jennifer are both deeply connected to North Carolina, and each now plans to visit the special diner the other discusses in this conversation.

A Politics of Love

How can we move from a politics of hate to a politics of love? Ciaran O’Connor interviews Lawrence Lessig.

3 thoughts on “Morality, Politics and Persuasion | Scott Adams and John Wood, Jr.”

  1. Erica Etelson

    As a BA participant, I’m always eagerly on the lookout for the values and goals John Wood believes we share in common (and Scott Adams is more dubious about). Do we all want the same thing? I don’t think we do. Once we go beyond vague goals like “I want a better life for my kids,” things start diverging wildly. “Better” for me means a society in which the health and well-being (another vague term in need of definition) of all people (in the whole world, not just the USA) and the natural world are paramount. “Better” for someone else might be a society in which technology provides those who can afford it with a life of leisure and longevity or a society governed by Randian notions of winner-take-all competition or by religious or secular patriarchal notions. My vision of the good life is so different from most Reds (and most Blues) that I find most (but not all) dialogues to spin out for lack of a shared foundation. But it doesn’t keep me from continuing to keep talking, keep trying.

    On the other issue John and Scott discussed–polarization and whether it is a bad thing (which BA presumes it to be) or a good thing, as Ezra Klein argues…as a political activist who’s also a BA member, I ruminate about this contantly. I think Klein is right that big important things don’t happen without ferment, heat, passion — collective states of mind that we associate with polarization. And as John always reminds us, what MLK was so genius at was getting the big things done w/out being violent in word or deed, without “othering” or treating opponents as enemies, though he was certainly extremely passionate. In fact, he was considered a polarizing figure in his day though we look back on him as a national hero. More recently, social justice thinkers on the Left have been talking about going “hard on structures, soft on people,” which is a MLK-esque concept I like. I can be fierce in my condemnation of systems and structures I see as oppressive or corrupt, but that doesn’t mean I have to be fierce toward the people who believe that those systems and structures are wholesome and legitimate. There’s also a difference, for me, in how I might address a person in high power versus my Republican relative or neighbor or even a stranger on social media. I reserve my fury for the elite and, even there, am reflecting on what style of advocacy is likely to yield the best results. I’ve spoken out recently, for example, about the baby Trump blimp which I see as cruel and dehumanizing, at the same time that I see Trump himself as among the most cruel and dehumanizing people on the planet.

  2. Virgil Torbert

    I listened to this very intellectual discussion which I found hard to follow but here is my comment.
    BA purpose is to address polarization and I found this discussion lacking
    I believe a major driver of the polarization in our country is our current President. In fact I believe his election was based on building walls which he is doing every day. Your guest suggested that the problem was he is not suited to address the pandemic problem but would be his choice to deal with China. That assertion in my view is absurd. He bases his approach on zero sum in all his dealings. So in all his deals there is a winner and a loser. That is not the solution to our problems. We must understand that we are in a global world and cooperation is the only solution. The current pandemic is a classic example.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *