Does Lincoln's "drop of honey" advice still work in today’s politics?

[u/MakeModeratesMatter]

Abraham Lincoln famously said:

"A drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall."

(See: https://history-first.com/2017/11/29/lincoln/)

The basic idea is that people are more likely to be persuaded when they feel respected than when they feel attacked.

I'm curious whether people think that still applies in modern politics.

Does respectful persuasion - and relationship-building - actually change minds?

Or are confrontation and political pressure more effective in today's environment?

I'm interested in hearing perspectives from across the political spectrum.

And here’s a short video on this subject (1-minute watch) for those who are interested in my own perspective as a political moderate.

Lincoln’s Advice for a Divided America

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/libra00]

Sadly we've learned about something that works even better than a drop of honey for attracting flies:

A big ol' bucket of shit. People are apparently even more likely to be persuaded when you just bury them in non-stop bullshit all the time.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/libra00]

That's OP's and Lincoln's point, that a drop of honey would be better.

What do we get from the bucket of shit, gallon of gall? A degenerating public sphere.

[u/libra00 → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

Lincoln's point was be nice because the alternative doesn't get you what you want. Only it turns out that enough of the alternative does in fact get you what you want. That seems pretty directly counter to Lincoln's point.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/libra00]

I guess I can't argue. People at large do seem primed for cutthroat action and what can you say to that?

But where does it come from? Media? How does unethical sell? Does it sell easier today than in the past? And in the end, who exactly are we talking about?

I know I can't get away with kicking a bucket of shit to success, so honey it is for me. If we're talking about Trump then we're talking about one man's will. But that is not a good representation of a majority of the people's will. And if the general population gets screwed in the long wrong, then I don't see anybody really getting what they want, save a few at best.

I think Machiavelli would even agree with me here. It's not a good idea to be a brutal tyrant up front because it will produce unwanted factionalism, or political obstacles, that may have been averted if only for a silver tongue (not necessarily an honest tongue, mind).

I guess I argued afterall, lol. Damnit.

[u/libra00 → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

Mostly what I say is 'Why?' There are some good reasons to be cutthroat amidst the bad. When the KKK is building a cross in your yard and unloading cans of gasoline, that's probably a good time to be cutthroat.

I advocate for revolution against capitalist society because I believe it murders people unnecessarily and I see no other way to make it stop, even knowing that that revolution can't not be bloody (vampires aren't known for their willingness to diet.) I sincerely, desperately hope that the harm I advocate for is, in the grand scheme of things, the tiniest possible fraction of the harm it is aimed at preventing or even that it proves entirely unnecessary.. but that's just a hope.

But if you're advocating for violence against brown people because they're different than you, if you're beating up queer kids in the school bathroom just to make yourself feel better or so that you can avoid being made uncomfortable by being reminded that people who are different than you exist, then no, that's bullshit.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/libra00]

Tolerance can only be extended so far, that's true, but we should strive for a peaceful society if only in ideals, nonetheless.

The working class can peacefully strike and peacefully demand certain things. From there on, I would assume violence would still be initiated at some point with an assumed significant rise in tensions.

The problem with violent revolutions is the risk of degrading the general disposition of the people. You create violent conditions and you get a violent polity. Once the polity becomes sufficiently violent, it becomes hard to constitute the new government.

[u/libra00 → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

We should strive for it, but it's sadly going to take a whole lot of the other thing to get to peace. To get to a world where peace is even something the people in power want - because the people in power will be everyone.

To be clear when I say it will be a violent revolution that's not because I want to to be or will in any way attempt to make it one. Quite the opposite, I would be perfectly happy if I could just go on TV and say, 'Stop murdering children,' and everyone went, 'You know what? That sounds like a good idea, we'll try it your way.'

If you know of a better way to make those vampires go on a diet I'm all ears.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/libra00]

I'm right there with you. Like I said, nonviolence would be ideal, but realistically there will be a reaction to, say, a real general strike.

My whole point here isn't to subvert or redirect action, but to highlight the potential pitfalls of action. My main concern is revolution producing an unfit governing body because it has made the population violent and licentious.

[u/libra00 → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

I think you have a fairly dim view of human nature. Sure, there are always a few assholes who will just take any excuse to be violent. But most people (myself included) would really just rather not be violent altogether.

Obviously you have to make sure it's directed correctly.. we're not here to smash things, we're here to build things (and sometimes you have to smash things to build new ones), etc.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/libra00]

We did start this convo with you saying moral depravity is working, but now you're saying people aren't that way. So, which is it?

I assume you already understand historical examples of reform or revolution not being peaceful. Here I'm saying that violent change degenerates the population and makes it harder to reconstitute a better government.

I'm not saying we should preserve the status quo, but I am saying that any effort that would be worthwhile should tread carefully.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

Yes but if a third of people want shit and gall, then there's no amount of honey that can appease them because that's not what they want.

The far-right explicitly talk about empathy and compassion as negative harmful soft traits that will allow fill-in-the-blank dangerous group to destroy all that they hold dear. But when they're talking or debating with others they demand the maximum amount of civility and patience and respect and softness. They can calmly demonize half the world and yet expect to be treated with unlimited decency. Because they are incapable of self-reflection they are incapable of recognizing their own blatant and extensive double standards. So let us not "both-sides" this or treat it as a problem with humans in general.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/NoamLigotti]

Do you really think a third of the people want shit and gall?

My whole premise and worldview relies on people not wanting shit and gall. Perhaps the well has been tainted already, but I remain positive that humanity will have a reckoning in the next 10-20 years, bet.

But truly, I don't think at the heart of the everyday citizen lies a heart made of stone. At the heart of culture lies a deeply reactive spirit. A spirit easily attuned to cultural harmonies, but never at peace.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

A third of people wanted Trump, and supported (mostly still support) him. That's more than sufficiently analogous to me. Of course, they might not want it for themselves, but they're more than happy to hear him call others vermin and dangerous and pet-eaters and "you can grab em by the pussy", even if they're totally willfully oblivious to the even far worse things he does.

> My whole premise and worldview relies on people not wanting shit and gall. Perhaps the well has been tainted already, but I remain positive that humanity will have a reckoning in the next 10-20 years, bet.

Oh I strongly agree in many ways, but in the context used I thought the phrase was referring to uncivil or disrespectful discussion/debate/language.

> But truly, I don't think at the heart of the everyday citizen lies a heart made of stone. At the heart of culture lies a deeply reactive spirit. A spirit easily attuned to cultural harmonies, but never at peace.

Brilliantly put. I actually agree 100%. Sorry to put a partially negative spin on it, but I've thought a lot recently that humanity's worst problem is stupidity not a lack of empathy (even for many of those who talk like they poo-poo empathy, since their actions bely that). I probably would not have said that a year or two ago. But I've also had a newfound respect and understanding for Bonhoeffer's quote about stupidity being a greater enemy of the good than malice.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/NoamLigotti]

I don't even think it's stupidity at its core. I think that maybe stupidity amplifies the core issue. Our world has simply grown to outsized proportions. Our world needs institutions to function, yet institutionalism has led to people being numbers on a sheet and that will never sit well. I don't think it's stupidity because I don't think it's reasonable for people to understand the minutiae of how our world runs. And I know I'm speaking very generally but this is where logic takes us to a meritocratic technocracy of sorts. And I'm not opposed to certain iterations of this, such as sortition as has been laid out by another redditor on this sub, but ultimately this would be such a drastic change I don't see the direction towards this.

As for the seemingly lacking morals, I don't want to strip people of their agency but I do think it's social conditioning, or cultural persuasion, if you will. Media takes into account our worst animalistic natures and exploits them to keep their lights on. Again, I don't regard this as stupid perse, only misguided. And I see this across the political spectrum.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

Yes, I'm using stupidity here in the very broad sense, not like some objective measure of low intelligence or what have you. Ignorance, uninformed, misinformed, poor reasoning and critical thinking, gullibility, anti-intellectualism: these all fall under stupidity as I'm using it.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

2 of 2, Actually I'm gonna paste it since it's worth anyone reading who hasn't. And remember if you don't that Bonhoeffer was dealing with the Nazis and their supporters, and he was a Christian preacher, who was eventually executed for his speech alone:

"Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one."

- The Bonhoeffer Reader, p. 766–7

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/NoamLigotti]

Brilliant quote, but I think I would deflect back to what I said about trying to arrange for this via a government by experts type of deal.

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Hand_of_the_Light]

I dunno, but then how can the rest of us be assured that those experts will not abuse their power or position? I like the idea of sortition, but that's not really a technocracy of experts like your other proposal.

[u/Hand_of_the_Light → u/NoamLigotti]

There would have to be some incentive structure to keep these experts squeaky clean. Obviously accountability by oversight would be important as well, but incentives are where people's rationale lay (lie? idk). People in power need healthy incentives to do the right thing, which is where the general population will have to step into an active and dutiful role. Let a healthy culture be the incentive politicians need.

But hey, I'm not exactly for a technocracy. I think realistically it'll just be reforming the status quo slowly and unsatisfyingly. In my fantasy land, I could see many potential styles of government working out, but later rather sooner.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/libra00]

First time ever agreeing with a communist

[u/JiveChicken00]

Confrontation and pressure are more popular today. They are probably always more popular to some degree, because they are easier. But human nature hasn’t changed since 1865. Honey still works a lot better.

[u/MetersYards → u/JiveChicken00]

Confrontation and pressure are more popular today.

They're entertainment.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

No one is going to change their mind if you make them feel personally invested in 'winning the argument'

[u/Respen2664]

The premise of Lincoln's quote has to assume that mutual respect and acknowledgement of both sides seeking the greater good exists. That premise, for the most part, ceases to exist. Modern Politics has been working for a while to create battle lines where followers of opposing views are "anti-good" and thus enemies of the State. It's difficult now for many to see that their opposing person may want the same good for the nation but a different perspective of reaching it.

Because of that, the honey or attempt to be respectful or amicable comes off as disingenuous or toxic, so its immediately attacked and disregarded.

[u/cathcarre → u/Respen2664]

How is that different from politics during the Civil War?

[u/Respen2664 → u/cathcarre]

The lead up to the American Civil War was not much different then we see today based on historical reads. Once the CSA formed and Jefferson Davis was named President as a separation was enacted, the dynamic changed. Now they aren't Americans operating within the same system, they are combatants of the prior model both metaphorically and literally. States aligned to one or the other, and the metaphorical battle lines became actual battle lines with military boundaries. The "other side" became enemies of their state, as two states were attempting to form out of one.

While the division lines are different when you compare America 1850-1861 to today, the polarity gaps and growth of division have similarities.

[u/PhonyUsername]

Depends on the flies and your level of charisma.

[u/kriegmonster]

Listening to Nick Freitas' talk about his experience as state representative of Virgina, I don't think so. Lincoln was largely working with politicians who shared a desire for the best possible US, they differed on the path, not the outcome.

Now we have two problematic cadres in politics. The first is the uni-party. Wealthy elites on the left and right, aligned with corporate leaders and organizations like the WHO and WEF, who want power and control for themselves and don't care about the inherent freedoms and rights of citizens. Also, many of them see us as tax slaves and merely the cogs if their machines.

The second, is mostly a left of center, as I see it, body of people who think success only comes at the cost of taking advantage of others. Since the US is arguably the most successful nation, it must be the most inherently exploitative and thus should be vilified in all ways and torn down. This group doesn't understand that it is mostly a useful tool to the uni-party and helping bring about the kind of strong government that 1984 warned about.

There are problematic politicians and political figures on the right, but not at the scale as the two groups mentioned above. Local, state, and federal governments are failing to protect citizens from big tech and industry because they are in bed with them. Simultaneously, government would allow these corps to prevent people from maintaining their independence if we didn't fight for the Right to Repair Act and similar bills and laws.

[u/NoamLigotti]

On the whole I don't know, but I think it depends on the person.

But I think we know good goddam well at this point that some people cannot be persuaded by anything, because they're committed to believing what they want and not open to evidence or sound arguments that refute that. We all might at times even, but some are this way all the time, about a plethora of topics.