A few weeks ago Candace Owens was all the buzz when she pushed back on Congressmen Ted Lieu (D-CA) not allowing him to mis-characterize what she said and her character.
You can watch that exchange below:
Candace Owens: “I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip…That was unbelievably dishonest…I’m deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.” pic.twitter.com/UioMSZK93d
That clip became the most watched C-SPAN video on twitter.
But the clip from the hearing that matters was her opening.
Quick, sharp and un-flappable, Owens is quickly becoming a large part of the political conversation.
A fan of Owens or not, her arguments are extension of Dr Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman – so she is swimming in the deep end of the pool. An advocate for the the people she cares the most about (her own), Owens isn’t afraid of typically off-limit topics.
A deeper dive shows what separates her from the pack is less about the topics she is willing to step into and more about whom she is willing to step into those topics with.
In a recent article in the New York Times, Author Brooks argues that our problem isn’t that we argue or disagree too much, but that we don’t argue or disagree the right way.
Our goal should not be to disagree less, but it should be to disagree better.
Anybody who’s tried to disagree better knows it isn’t easy.
So how can we disagree better?
Talking with people we disagree with is a start.
According to Brooks though, it isn’t enough.
What also keeps us from disagreeing better is what he labels “motive attribution asymmetry” which is…
the belief that our ideology is based in love and our opponents is based in hate. This not only leads to intolerance, but far worse. It leads to contempt. Contempt makes political compromise and progress impossible.
Listening to Owen’s most recent conversations with Russel Brand (everybody knows him – right?) and Hank Newsome (the chairman of New York chapter of Black Lives Matter) shows someone trying to disagree better.
While there is little agreement in the 3+ hours, there is almost no contempt.
Owens and Newsome cover
Police brutality and the blue wall
Food poison in the poor communities
Why we should have more African immigrants
Welfare being a crutch vs wheel chair
What Shaquille O’Neil thanks about financial literacy
The first step act
Newsome closes with:
“I’m not looking for America to deliver liberation. I’m looking for it to do it’s part. In an effective way.”
Brand opens with:
“A great conversation with someone I disagree with about 90% of what she says and isn’t that the point of public discourse.”
Brand and Owens plow through
the impediment of debate
spirituality and its place in politics
socialism vs capitalism
government bail outs and their role in capitalism
breaking up google
Looking at the components of humanity Brand quotes Solzhenitsyn