One of the best things about the past two years, at least in the opinion of this humble scribe, has been the respite it has afforded from hearing one of my least favorite questions. The question itself can take various forms, but it typically goes something like one of the following: 'Who are you going to vote for/which candidate do you like?' Why this question is so irksome to me has nothing to do with shyness, need for privacy or lack of a desire to chit chat. Rather it has everything to do with the presumptions people make based on whatever answer is provided. Particularly in America's current state of hyper-polarization, people view candidate support as a signal for support of a set of views. This has led to blindly partisan debates and has contributed mightily to the decline of well-reasoned political debate among the citizenry.
The fact of the matter is that hardly anyone in the nation has a representative in congress who advocates for every single position that they hold important. Nor is every president voted in by people who hold their entire platform dear. Many Bush voters were not fans of the Iraq War. Many Obama supporters are not particularly happy with the tax compromise he just made with Republicans. It is almost impossible to find someone who shares all of your views exactly; politics further exacerbates this as realities on the ground often lead to candidates moving away from original positions and promises.
Of course this is one of the side effects of a representative democracy; if every single interested party had their individual own voice in every matter of importance to them, nothing would ever be accomplished (the cynical would do well to refrain from noting that this might not be so much of a change from the current state of affairs, no matter how tempting it might be). Consensus would be impossible to reach, gridlock would be the norm. In the American system, people accept the downside of voting for candidates who they are not 100% in lockstep with to gain the upside of having what is nonetheless one of the freest political systems in the history of mankind.
However today's political environment is marked by hyper-polarization; people are almost always itching for a fight. This has led to an environment where people grasp for differences. One of the easiest ways to skip discussion and go right to the argument is to use the candidate someone supports and their slate of views as a signal for where someone stands on any given issue. Of course many people don't agree with 100% of what a candidate says or believes, but in a pinch they almost inevitably end up getting defensive and will even throw weight behind positions they are not fully supportive of just to hold ground against a determined opponent.
Taking this proxy of a candidate and his or her platform away, many people might find that they have more common ground than would otherwise be obvious. Therefore rather than stimulating logical debate, answering the 'who do you support' question affirmatively almost inevitably has a chilling effect on well-reasoned and civil discussion and a stimulating effect on shouting matches.
Therefore, as one might imagine, it has been with wary eyes that I have noted the next election cycle starting. However I may have a solution for the election ramp-up blues. It is fairly simple actually. When people inevitably begin to ask which candidate I support, I will answer their question with one of my own; which positions do you support? This probably isn't enough to free us from the Beck/Olbermann world of pure partisanship and nightly bickering. However it could help me understand my neighbors better and help everyone involved develop their own ideas on views free from the shackles of proxy-view fuelled shouting matches. Baby steps...
No comments:
Post a Comment