The 73% solution

A pie with slices cut from it. Food Styled by Simon Andrews. (Christopher Testani/The New York Times)

By Carlos Lozada

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.

Yes, I’m happy if you appreciated my column on Pete Hegseth’s books or enjoyed it when my colleagues and I riffed on the cultural artifacts of the Trump era. But please don’t give me an “absolutely!” or a “nailed it,” let alone a “straight fire!” (I want to straight douse straight fires.)

And please, never respond with “100%.” I’ll take principled dissent, thoughtful counterargument, even enthusiastic opposition over “100%.”

If you react to something I’ve said or written with “100%” — in written, oral or emoji form — all you’re telling me is that I probably did not persuade you of anything. Instead of changing your thinking, I affirmed it. “100%” lets me know that I’ve accomplished nothing but scratch your ideological itches, confirm your convictions, pinpoint your intellectual erogenous zones.

One hundred percent — really? Even if you agreed in the main, did you find nothing at all worthy of disagreement? Not even, say 3% to 5%? If so, why should I bother writing, and why would you bother reading? One hundred percent agreement is a high-percentage failure.

Tune in to your favorite politics or culture podcast or your favorite cable news round table, and you’ll find many moments of 100% vociferous agreement. Audiences complain about the contrarian shout-fests in the mainstream media, but I’m more troubled by the self-assured nod-fests.

I don’t mean the “right” and “sure” and “of course” that litter our conversations, often just providing positive reinforcement — shorthand for “keep going” or “I see what you’re saying.” No, I mean “this!” and “co-sign” and, yes, “100%.”

I realize that perhaps I’m just overthinking figures of speech that are particularly common on social media. (Confession: This is a thing I do. My 17-year-old son, upon hearing my latest linguistic lament, looked at me and declared, “Daddy, you detest anything that enters the vernacular.”) I also understand it is far more common to worry about our polarization, our national disunity, than to decry any compulsion toward contrived consensus.

But 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 lock-step dogmatism regarding, say, pandemic policies or gender politics or violent crime, it’s too tempting for opponents to take refuge in the precise opposite view. That’s how our views get clustered, how we “100%” know all the things we think we know.

Except we don’t always know it. Before you co-sign, always read the fine print.

Of course, I peddle in the persuasion marketplace, so part of me certainly wants you to agree with whatever I have to say. Just don’t 100% agree with me. Maybe, say, 73%?

Seventy-three percent. That’s the percentage of Americans who rank their finances as the top source of stress in their lives. Or the percentage of Americans favoring term or age limits for Supreme Court justices. It’s also the percentage of Americans who believe in heaven.

I’d love to turn on cable news or log on to the social media platform X or tune in to my favorite podcast and find one talking head nodding at another and responding, “Oh, yes, in part! Not absolutely! Embers! This — but maybe that! 73%!” That would be heavenly.

Agreeing with me 73% feels about right: You’re largely on my side, but there’s still room for debate. An encouraging start but with plenty of work still left to win you over or for you to win me over.

Do you agree?