Stoic philosophy teaches us to communicate with reason, respect, and virtue. While this can be challenging—I have some personal experience with that—in the role of a politician, especially at the highest level, it’s essential to express concerns about our country and its trends in a manner that maximizes their reception and effectiveness. Every idea, word, and inflection will be analyzed for the rest of history. JD Vance’s comments about childless leaders raise valid points regarding family values and societal stability, but they could have been expressed in a way that aligns more closely with Stoic ideals of leadership and discourse. Further, his delivery of them ultimately has the opposite of their intended impact—creating division rather than fostering meaningful discussion and mutual understanding.
Rational and Respectful Discourse
Rational and respectful communication is more than an ideal, a goal, or something that only Stoics do. This is pretty much the entire job of a politician. A leader’s words hold weight and can influence public opinion, policy, and even the direction of the nation. Therefore, it is crucial for politicians to communicate in a way that is rational, clear, and respectful.
Inflammatory rhetoric, like referring to childless leaders as “sociopaths” or “childless cat ladies,” detracts from the validity of the underlying message. Such language not only alienates a significant portion of the population but also undermines the speaker’s credibility. Rational discourse involves presenting arguments grounded in evidence and logic, allowing others to engage with the ideas rather than becoming defensive about personal attacks.
For instance, Vance could have expressed his concerns about family values and societal stability without resorting to derogatory terms. He might have said:
“Leadership often benefits from diverse perspectives, and having leaders with family experiences can provide valuable insights into policies that affect children and families. It’s crucial to ensure our policies support and strengthen family structures, as they are fundamental to a stable and thriving society.”
This approach underscores the importance of family values without demeaning those who do not have children. It invites constructive dialogue and consideration, fostering an environment where ideas can be debated on their merits rather than dismissed due to offensive language.
Rational and respectful discourse is essential not only for effective communication but also for maintaining the integrity of public debate. By adhering to these principles, politicians can better serve their constituents and contribute to a more thoughtful and productive political climate. This aligns with Stoic values, emphasizing wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance in all forms of communication.
Focus on Policy, Not Personal Characteristics
There are facts and rational arguments to be made about the value of parents in leadership roles. Parenting has made me a much better leader. These two human activities share many qualities. Empathy, strength, patience—all of these things make people better leaders and parents, and parenting fosters these traits.
When politicians focus on personal characteristics rather than policies, they risk alienating people who might otherwise be allies. And what I worry is that this is intentional—that appearing to alienate “the right” people has become the road that our politicians take towards being elected.
A clear example of this can be seen in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment during the 2016 presidential campaign. Clinton’s remark was intended to criticize a segment of Trump supporters whom she viewed as racist, sexist, and xenophobic, which many of her supporters erroneously believe. The comment not only alienated potential supporters but also galvanized Trump’s base, illustrating how pissing people off, on purpose, isn’t a good political strategy. Similarly, Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment in the 2012 presidential campaign suggested that nearly half of Americans were dependent on government and unlikely to support his candidacy. This remark was widely criticized for being dismissive and out of touch with the struggles of ordinary Americans, ultimately harming Romney’s campaign.
These examples demonstrate the dangers of using inflammatory rhetoric that targets personal characteristics. Such comments often create division and resentment, distracting from substantive policy discussions. By focusing on policies and their impacts, politicians can engage more constructively with the electorate and foster a more inclusive and respectful political environment.
Conclusion
Stoic principles encourage us to express our concerns and ideas with rationality, respect, and a focus on virtue. While JD Vance’s underlying concerns about family values and societal stability are valid, his manner of expression could benefit from a Stoic approach. By focusing on rational discourse, addressing policies rather than personal characteristics, and promoting unity and understanding, leaders can more effectively communicate their ideas and foster a more constructive and harmonious society. This approach not only aligns with Stoic values but also enhances political effectiveness by creating a climate of respect and thoughtful debate. Emphasizing wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance in communication will ultimately contribute to a greater good and a more united society.