The 73% solution

Whenever someone agrees wholeheartedly with something I write, I die a little inside. I know opinion columnists are supposed to be in the persuasion business, and that makes agreement the coin of the realm. But instant, knee-jerk agreement makes me suspicious. That coin is devalued.

Whenever someone wholeheartedly agrees with something Carlos Lozada writes, he feels a sense of unease. He believes that opinion columnists should aim to persuade readers, and complete agreement suggests a lack of persuasion.

Lozada prefers principled dissent, thoughtful counterarguments, or even enthusiastic opposition over complete agreement. He feels that complete agreement, whether expressed in writing, speech, or emojis, indicates that he has not persuaded the reader of anything but rather affirmed their existing beliefs.

He finds complete agreement suspicious, especially in the context of politics or culture podcasts or cable news round tables, where he observes moments of 100% vociferous agreement. While audiences often express concern about contrarian shout-fests in the mainstream media, Lozada is more troubled by the self-assured nod-fests.

He acknowledges that figures of speech like "this!" or "co-sign" are particularly common on social media and that people may not always fully consider their implications. However, he believes that one element driving the disagreement among America's various political and cultural camps is the push for uniformity within those camps.

When one side or another embraces complete agreement regarding a topic, it can tempt opponents to take refuge in the precise opposite view, leading to the clustering of viewpoints and the creation of echo chambers.

Despite being an opinion columnist who aims to persuade readers, Lozada encourages them not to agree with him 100%. He suggests a figure of 73% agreement, which he notes is the percentage of Americans who rank their finances as the top source of stress in their lives, favor term or age limits for Supreme Court justices, or believe in heaven.

He envisions a scenario where talking heads on cable news or podcasts might engage in nuanced discussions, agreeing with each other partially but also introducing new perspectives or points of disagreement. He believes that such conversations would be more engaging and productive.