So its been a couple of day's since the Presidential/Senate/Congressional election and both sides seem to be in an uproar. The left (AKA at least 60% of my classmates) are enthusiastic and grateful that the nation cares to embrace an evolving notion of rights; be it for women, gays, or even the casual weed smoker. The right, has for the most part accepted defeat graciously, I say "most part" because even Fox News couldn't stop Karl Rove from questioning the actual tally on air. Both sides have plenty to say about their peers, be it that the right is racist and challenges the fundamental rights of people based on a pro-corporate tier one bias or that the left is composed of foolish simpletons who like rights and getting handouts at the expense of those who actually work. Now both arguments are predicated upon vast over generalizations of very complex institutional arguments, despite what either group may retort. I think that at heart most people know this to be true i.e. social institutions and long standing debates regarding policy have led to a chicken and egg sort of chase to find truth.
That being said, my problem with this election was that it conclusively proved to me, as an American, that Americans in vast majority view politics as a clash of values rather than as a clash of ideas. The concept of objectively seeking meaning has been lost in a frenzy of facebook posts, tweets, and TV shows. Objectively seeking meaning is not easy. You do not simply wake up one day and decide that welfare is bad because it discourages work, or that Roe vs. Wade was an incorrect decision because a fetus is equivalent of a child. Rather, meaning requires a careful analysis of the facts, of the related externalities, and consequently the impact of actually holding the belief on society. Majority of people understand the first two, but the third condition serves as the litmus test for meaning. We can consider on the basis of a few questions:
1. What do you believe and are you comfortable holding those beliefs when surrounded by the opposition (e.g. would you hold the same beliefs if you were richer, or poorer, or the other sex etc.?)
2. If put under pressure, would you still hold the same beliefs (e.g. killing one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people, or evaluating each person as inherently valuable).
3. How did you come up with your belief (who and what influenced you)?
Now, this is where truth is squandered. People tend to conflate what they believe to be true with what is actually true. I'm not going to go through the minutia, but there exist a variety of statistically significant biases pertaining to how people attribute their beliefs. These biases range widely, but I think the two most appropriate election related biases are:
1. The halo bias - physical appearance denotes positive or negative attributes. E.g. this pretty girl is so sweet.
2. fundamental attribution error - overvaluing dispositional qualities as explanations for behavior in others while taking a situational approach with yourself. E.g. Sally fell over a rock and is she is clumsy. I fell on the same rock and it only happened because of the rock.
So what we have left over is a variety of extremely socially influenced and contextual beliefs (values) mixed with inherent flaws in human nature (I'll call this the jumble). The end result is an election that does not appeal to truth seeking, but rather tries to empathize with values as closely as possible with as many people as possible. So now we have two caricatures that have built up a reputation and story to appeal to people despite what their policies would actually mean for the electorate.
Barack Obama: a sincere and charismatic leader from humble origins who champions the rights of the underprivileged in a hope to move America forward. He is a community organizer at heart who empathizes with the people and makes it his personal objective to better this country.
Mitt Romney: a self-made business man from your stereotypical American family. Has the CEO look and plans to manage the country as he would a PE portfolio; via cuts on spending and taxes for the upper class who are the backbone of the economy. Believes most importantly in the ideal of freedom and as such has plans to expand the military budget.
Both of these individuals appeal to different people with different jumbles. However, it is worth noting that nothing about either description elucidates an outcome of any variety, nor does it gauge intent. What the hell does being sincere have to do with policy making? Why should America be run like a corporation? And lastly are these guys really what we think they are?
An election based on ideas would force candidates to answer such questions -- and to some extent I do think that this election was an improvement. Yet, the disagreement I see between my peers, the left and the right, is not based on the same questions. Party alignment, wealth alignment, alignment with one or two personal issues (at exclusion of the general electorate) etc. is a recipe for a continuation of lost discourse and political failures. Though pure separation is all but impossible, it is important we consider these factors before stepping into the booth and pressing buttons which impact the future of the world. Truth testing seems to be an art lost in the ruse of "values".
No comments:
Post a Comment