It’s just Politics; Politics is Everything

It’s a common phrase thrown out in the middle of a heated Facebook discussion or an exhortation aimed at those who seem most disturbed by our recent election results: it’s just politics. The message is: it’s not something worth getting upset about, or being so angry at me for, or worth all the fuss. This dismissal of politics is a distraction from the facts or an attempt to shift blame. It’s an excuse to save ourselves from accepting the results of the choices we make. But it isn’t a rational response to deeply held beliefs or a proper understanding of the world we live in.

It’s true that politics includes the mundane. School bonds, county zoning commissions, national ice cream day. Much of it deals with economics: tax exemptions, anti-trust laws, worker compensation rules. These things can be important to individuals but most would agree they are not core to our self-identity or instrumental to improving the life experiences of the average person. But that is not the sum total of politics. Not by far.

Politics also includes anti-discrimination laws. It includes social welfare programs that save lives. Politics decide which countries to fight and which to support. Politics started World War II, ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and gay people the right to marry. It now threatens to curtail a free press, register people based on their religion, and normalize racial resentment as a viable world-view. At its core, our laws and government express how we as a society treat one another, and politics is the manner in which we discuss our morality as a people. To suggest it shouldn’t be a factor in friendships or worthy of an emotional response begs the question: what should?

Should I get upset when someone says my child’s life isn’t as valuable as theirs, but not when the claim is made towards a refugee? Should I break a friendship over insults to myself but not to a class of people that doesn’t include me? Is it okay for me to dislike you for being a racist but not for supporting racist policies? Politics is a true indicator of who we are while how we treat specific individuals is clouded by personal histories and in-person biases.

You don’t have to agree with my preferred policies, you don’t have to belong to the same political party, but if you disagree with my assumptions that all human beings deserve equal rights and to be treated with dignity and respect, that in a wealthy country we can afford basic care and support of those who can’t help themselves, regardless of the reason, and that democracy, while imperfect, is far better than any of the alternatives, you are encouraged to unfollow me and I promise I won’t get upset about it. After all, it’s just politics.

Motivated Reasoning

Society is a large concept that is often hard to grasp and relate to, but it’s really just a group of people, and we all are members of many groups: the billing department at work, an extended family, a sports club, the south side of town, Jimmy’s birthday party, etc. And within each of those groups decisions always need to be made: what software should we use, which restaurant are we going to, where should we hold the family reunion this year. In these environments we all know how to spot motivated reasoning: someone makes an argument for a choice that clearly is in their self-interest, but they claim it’s actually the best for the group. But we’re immediately suspicious and look deeper – they tend to leave out facts that don’t support their cause, they over exaggerate the benefits of their choice, and don’t seem to realize other people might want something different than they do. Sure, uncle Bob suggests we hold the reunion in Kansas City because it’s the middle of the country so equal distance from everyone, but he happens to live there, most of the family is on the East Coast, and who really wants to go to Kansas City? Even if someone’s choice seems altruistic, we question their motivations until we’re satisfied their argument is not based on ulterior motives. Cousin Sue suggests Boston even though she lives in San Diego. But being the clever people that we are, we ask a few questions and find out that Sue’s company wants to send her to Boston for a conference so they’ll pay for her trip. Maybe Boston would work but maybe there’s a more neutral location that really serves the group as a whole better. It’s not that everyone is a selfish bastard, but it’s human nature to seek your own self-interest, and from there it’s only too easy to find some bit of logic to hang an argument on where what’s best for you is also best for all. The problem isn’t that motivated reasoning is completely unsound – it has enough logic to make it seem plausible – but it isn’t complete or accurate and rarely arrives at the best answer.

In these situations the thing to do is try to separate your reasoning from your personal gain. Imagine you were not a part of the group – what would a disinterested party recommend as the fair and equitable answer? Having the reunion on the East Coast is best for the greatest number, but perpetually disadvantages the West Coast minority, so maybe every third year it should move around the country, even to Kansas City once in a while. When we work in groups we need to reach consensus and we all should want the best solution for the group as a whole, but differences of opinion are inevitable, and while the strength of the argument should win it’s more often that the strength of the arguer is the deciding factor. We all challenge self-motivated reasoning in others and we should look for it in ourselves. We need to be more reasonable about our reasoning and willing to advocate for what’s right and fair even if it isn’t in our own self-interest. We need to be better than human nature.

Draw your analogies where you wish.  

The Arrogance of the Present

Through my study of physics I learned many fundamental concepts not just about how the universe works but how to figure out correct and consistent answers to important questions in life. Perhaps one of the most important lessons came when a professor, perhaps seeing in me an ego that needed to be checked, cautioned me to always be mindful of the arrogance of the present. He explained that throughout history every generation has looked upon the past as if it were separate from their time, as if the current state of knowledge so far surpassed what came before that the world was a different place – a better place – where all the mistakes had been corrected and perfection sat merely a hand’s-breadth away. When Copernicus showed that the earth revolved around the sun, all who accepted it shook their head at the ignorance and stupidity of those who had believed the opposite. When Newton came up with the Universal Law of Gravity, a new generation felt even more superior, certain they had achieved the final and complete answer to the question of the Heavens. Einstein came along and proved them nothing better than scryers casting stones for divination and the modern physicists sat back to enjoy the end of their field as all answers to every question must surely be forthcoming. But even Einstein didn’t see the complexity and accuracy of Quantum Chromo Dynamics which followed, only to be improved or replaced with Super Symmetry and String Theory. Every leap that has taken us forward has led no closer to the end of the matter and when we look back we see that it has all been a continuum of improvement. The present might be the latest rung, the highest point yet achieved, but it is no different in composition or quality than every other step below and will undoubtedly be surpassed before our very eyes. We are not removed from those who held such silly thoughts but are merely the future’s past, and any other thought is not only arrogant but harmful to the cause of advancement.

This same theme, the separation of the present from the past and overestimation of our current enlightenment, is equally prevalent, and perhaps more significant, in social realms as in scientific ones. While it is common to look to the past for lessons to learn or mistakes to avoid, the standard warning is to know history so not to repeat it. The truth is we are still living in that history – it hasn’t ended; we’re in the middle of most of those mistakes. The issue of race relations is a perfect example. We can all see now our country was in error when it laid its foundation on slavery, but the arrogance of the present says that was a past problem, not a current dilemma. We are different now. Better. Racism might still exist among the backwards folks who haven’t learned any better, but some people still think the sun revolves around the earth so what are you going to do. The real people, the ones who count, have moved beyond race.

But isn’t that what the thinkers thought after the Emancipation Proclamation? I’m sure they patted themselves on the back and rushed to put the shameful Civil War behind them. Jim Crow was a step forward and basically the end of the matter. It’s only too easy to see now it wasn’t so. And after the Civil Rights Act was passed I have no doubt the halls of Congress, the towers of academia, and the livings rooms of American all smiled warmly at their achievement, content in their superiority over their forebears. Perhaps justifiably, but the problem still lingered.

At every instance since, the message of the day has been that racism has ended for all practical purposes. In the 70’s black culture rode a wave of popularity while housing policies, hiring practices, and wage differentials maintained a de facto segregation and the Southern Strategy won the White House. In the 80’s our government felt assured we had made it past the worst and no longer needed affirmative action or corrective measures since racial animus no longer drove society, yet a new Southern Strategy and Welfare Queens brought more old white men into power. Surely by the 90’s we had turned a corner? But then came Rodney King and police scandals from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York. When the century turned, the country was once again filled with the surety that we had escaped the past – we even elected a black President! Then the birtherism started. He was accused of being an African Muslim. And now we’ve elected an old white man as President who ran on a platform of bigotry and racism (whose political aspirations started as a vocal proponent of the birther conspiracy). Yet everyone still wants to believe we are different, we are special, we are not the inheritors of the past’s indiscretions but a different group altogether who longer see race at all. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the wealth disparities, the criminal justice disparities, the statistical evidence and social science consensus proving racial divisions and resentment still exist, we cling to the idea that now is better than then. We are arrogant and we are wrong. Only through humility and acceptance of our own imperfections do we have the opportunity to rise above what we were and become better. Still not perfect, but a step above. We can only get there by climbing one rung at a time instead of pretending that we’ve completed a giant leap of faith to get where we are now. We are the future’s past – think carefully of how you want that future to remember you.

The Lunacy of Automatic Equivalence

It’s become an accepted fact that each side has retreated to its own corner, or bubble if you will, and no longer feels compelled to debate the ideas on their merits or with objective information and data. It doesn’t really matter which side we’re talking about or what field of inquiry – anywhere there is a roughly equal division of opinion you will hear the refrain: both sides are equally valid; you need to respect my point of view. Hogwash.

The notion that merely because two sides exist they are equally valid and reasonable and worthy of respect has never been the case. While equivalence is possible, perhaps even common, it takes a lot more to establish that and a quick look at history or even some of the more egregious examples of false equivalency thrown about today. Any opinion needs to be supported by its own logic and moral justification without claiming equivalency ‘just because’, and we do have plenty of precedent to guide us in evaluating correctness and validity. Let’s start with the historical/political:

At some point in the past, most every significant topic of politics has been divided into two opposing sides supported in roughly equal numbers. Slavery, women’s right to vote, gay marriage, Social Security, etc. At some point they were all hotly contested, but with the accuracy of hindsight and a hopefully more evolved and improved view of humanity, we now know that quite often one side was wrong, really and truly wrong. So, by a true equivalence, there is nothing foundationally different about the many topics of today: transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Muslim bans. There is every reason to believe that future generations will clearly see that one side is right and the other is wrong, and while we can argue about which side is which, we cannot simply claim they are both equally valid or likely to win out in the long term. Respect is not automatically given, it must be earned through supporting evidence, sound reasoning, and moral justification.

A modern example is Evolutionary Theory versus Creationism. One is supported by decades of scientific study, literally tons of physical evidence, and built upon a logical structure vetted through the scientific method, while the other is based on the words of a religious text and relies upon the denial of any level of critical thinking or independent thought. So while 40% of the population may believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, the idea does not deserve respect or consideration – it simply is not equivalent in any sense of the word.

This isn’t to say that we are free to ignore any dissenting opinion. The point is that each argument must be judged on its own merits: raising the minimum wage has a slew of contradictory evidence and very reasonable arguments that it will either stimulate economic growth or crash the system through increased costs. Neither side can claim clear superiority though everyone can certainly decide which argument is most convincing. We have to take more time to listen to the facts presented, consider the connections being made, and compare that to our own beliefs and understanding of the world. It’s okay to take a side, and it’s necessary to listen to the other, but there is no need to admit equivalency where none exists.

Lessons from an Election

It’s been ten days since the election and there’s been a lot of talk and hand-wringing about the lessons to be learned from the result. What shows up most frequently in my feed is the idea that the elite coastal liberals are guilty of neglecting the rural working class, so they are to blame. Before we sink too comfortably into the narrative that blames those who fought against Trump for his victory, let’s review the facts.

First, when the final counting is done, Hillary will have won the popular vote by around two million. By a significant margin, more people in this country wanted to continue down the path we’re on under Obama than flip the applecart over. This isn’t to argue against the legitimacy of Trump’s win, but to point out this wasn’t a radical change in the nation as a whole as much as a shift at the margins and quirk of population distribution. It’s worth noting that those who make less than $50k went strongly towards Clinton while those in the next bracket up went slightly towards Trump and the rest were evenly divided. Trump won with the less educated and with whites, especially with the less educated white males. Clinton won with women and minorities of all persuasions.

But let’s get back to those neglected working-class whites, the ones in Middle America who feel abandoned by our government. They think the system is rigged against them, and maybe in some aspects it is, but our representative democracy is actually rigged FOR them: a vote in Wyoming carries four times the weight in the Electoral College as one in California; the two Senators from South Dakota have just as much influence as the two in New York. It’s this disproportionate representation that allowed Trump to win despite losing the overall vote. And if you look at the government these people say has neglected them, it’s primarily Republican. While our national government has been mostly split for the past couple decades, at the state level rural America is in Republican control. The majority of red-state voters have a Republican governor and a Republican legislature, and most rural counties have Republican leadership, so to blame the liberals for government’s failings requires looking away from the everyday reality of governance.

Compounding this error is the idea that we can re-cast this election as one of economic hardship and lack of empathy from the left. This is post hoc reasoning. We must remember that Trump entered politics pushing the racist birther conspiracy against our first black president. He launched his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists. The chants at the Republican convention and his many rallies were to ‘build the wall’ and ‘lock her up’, not ‘increase GDP’ or ‘stop TPP’. The only consistent theme in his campaign was hatred of the other. His economic policies, like his foreign policy and social issues, were inconsistent and incoherent. From saying wages are too high to agreeing to increase the minimum wage, to arguing against social security while promising not to touch it, to modifying his tax plan multiple times but still ending up with large tax cuts for the wealthy while INCREASING taxes on the middle class – the very people who supposedly voted for him on economic, not racist, grounds – Trump’s economics are a disaster for the poor and middle class. The very fact that we have to spell out it was the WHITE working-class who supported him, not the working-class as a whole, shows that this is about race no matter how much people want to talk about something else (anything else). I’m being asked to believe that these good, hard-working (white) Americans did not respond to the overtly bigoted rhetoric, but instead chose to believe a billionaire, one who inherited his wealth, with a documented career of screwing over the working-class, when he said that he would fight for them, despite stated policy that proves he will not. That seems far more insulting to their intelligence than simply calling them racist.

The truth is anything as large and complex as a Presidential election is going to have many stories, many intersecting issues that make reducing it down to one simple narrative incomplete and unsatisfactory. But we do it because it’s easier to comprehend. It’s somehow reassuring to say that our country chose Trump not because of its bigotry and moral failings, not because it was duped by a thinly veiled con-man who spouted easily disproved lies, but because our economy is not as good as it could be for white people in rural America. Yes, there is some truth in that, but if that’s your takeaway, if you hold that thought above all others from this episode, if you disregard the racism, sexism, and bigotry, if you ask for empathy for the middle-class white male while not demanding it for the oppressed minorities who suffer even greater indignities, there is something wrong here. Once again it’s White America calling for understanding and compassion towards white Americans while downplaying the concerns and considerations of those with darker skin. We have a lot to learn from this election, don’t let it be the wrong lesson.