By Carlos Lozada
Whenever someone wholeheartedly agrees with what I write, a part of me diminishes.
I understand that opinion columnists are meant to persuade, and agreement is the standard currency. However, immediate, reflexive agreement raises my suspicions. That currency loses its value.
Certainly, I’m pleased if you found merit in my column discussing Pete Hegseth’s books or enjoyed the discussions my colleagues and I had on the cultural phenomena of the Trump era. However, I’d rather not hear an “absolutely!” or a “nailed it,” let alone a “straight fire!” (I would rather extinguish straight fires.)
And please, never reply with “100%.” I’ll take principled dissent, serious counterarguments, even passionate opposition over “100%.”
If you respond to something I’ve written or said with “100%” — whether in writing, speech, or emoji — all you’re conveying is that I likely did not change your mind. Rather than shifting your perspective, I merely confirmed it. “100%” indicates that I’ve achieved nothing more than catering to your ideological preferences, affirming your beliefs, and identifying your intellectual comfort zones.
One hundred percent — truly? Even if you generally concurred, did you find nothing at all to dispute? Not even around 3% to 5%? If that’s the case, why should I continue writing, and why would you continue reading? Total agreement is a significant failure.
Tuning into your preferred politics or culture podcast or your favorite cable news discussion will reveal many instances of 100% outright agreement. While audiences often bemoan the contrarian outbursts in mainstream media, I am more concerned about the overconfident nodding sessions.
I’m not referring to the “right” and “sure” and “of course” that pepper our dialogues, often merely offering positive reinforcement — shorthand for “keep it up” or “I understand your point.” No, I’m referring to “this!” and “co-sign” and, indeed, “100%.”
I recognize that I might be overanalyzing phrases that are particularly prevalent on social media. (Confession: This is something I tend to do. My 17-year-old son, after hearing my latest linguistic frustration, gazed at me and said, “Daddy, you disdain anything that becomes part of the vernacular.”) I also realize it is more commonplace to express concerns about our polarization, our national disharmony, than to criticize any tendency towards fabricated consensus.
However, one factor fueling the division among America’s diverse political and cultural factions is the pressure for conformity within those factions. When one side rigidly adopts dogma regarding issues like pandemic policies, gender politics, or violent crime, it becomes all too easy for opponents to retreat to the exact opposite position. That’s how our viewpoints cluster, how we so confidently “100%” understand what we think we understand.
Except, we don’t always truly know. Before you co-sign, always examine the details.
Naturally, I operate in the persuasion market, so part of me certainly desires your agreement with whatever I express. Just don’t fully agree with me. Perhaps, say, 73%?
Seventy-three percent. That’s the proportion of Americans who identify their finances as the main source of stress in their lives. Or the proportion of Americans advocating for term or age restrictions for Supreme Court justices. It’s also the share of Americans who believe in the concept of heaven.
I would relish switching on cable news, logging into social media platform X, or tuning into my favorite podcast to hear one pundit nodding at another and replying, “Oh, yes, partially! Not completely! Sparks! This — but perhaps that! 73%!” That would be blissful.
Agreeing with me at 73% seems just right: You’re predominantly on my side, yet there’s still ample opportunity for discussion. An encouraging beginning but with much work remaining to persuade you or for you to persuade me.
Do you concur?
