Small Rant

It has apparently been widely reported in conservative (and other) media that in a focus group conducted by Fox news, 25 Obama supporters couldn't name a single one of his legislative accomplishments. I heard a group of people on the train today recount this fact (“discuss” would be too strong a word), shaking their heads and clucking their tongues: “...You would think that his supporters would know something about him.” And thus, the subject was dismissed; which, of course, was the point of the “news” story.

Of course, it would be easy to perform the same stunt with any candidate. I would have bet money that I could have found 25 McCain supports on the train who wouldn't have been able to name any of his legislative accomplishments; I doubt that's the way most Americans decide who to support. Indeed, I would be surprised if the certainty of the McCain supporters in question was based on their extensive legislative knowledge.

How big a factor should it be? Elections are about the future. Knowledge of a candidates' past accomplishments (and failures) will be valuable to the extent that they can inform your interpretation of the candidate's current self-presentation and plans. As such, their utility will vary greatly; but in the end I view their role as a supportive (almost secondary) one; as one of confirmation or correction of what should be primary which is what the candidate is presenting now.

But, as I alluded to above, these considerations give too much credit to a media stunt which doesn't even appear to try addressing such worthwhile questions.

For me, politics is about two things, neither of which (in my experience) come naturally to most people: hard research, and compromise. Doing a lot of hard thought and research is the only way to know what you should think about the difficult questions of politics (and they're pretty much all difficult). Compromise is the only way you make progress towards solving them.

If most people thought about politics this way, I think we would see more humility, curiosity, uncertainty, openness and goodwill. Take social security, for example. Most people are not economists, know none of the statistics that might be relevant, and haven't really thought very carefully about ideas like "personal responsibility" they're so ready to invoke; nonetheless, many people will confidently state a position, and caricature or ridicule those whose positions differ.

I have no idea what to think about social security; it's a question I haven't thought about yet, and which, quite frankly, seems pretty daunting. Far from being ready to dig in my heals, I'm actively searching for people who can make sense of their (or any!) position for me. Sadly, most people's views seem to bottom-out in something they heard someone say on tv that they didn't think about very much.

When push comes to shove, I don't think most people are really interested in doing the work required to construct a reasoned view for themselves. I don't blame them; it's a lot of work. But their certainty and demeanor is wholly inappropriate to their understanding. It's like having strong feelings about different interpretations of quantum mechanics that you're ready to vigorously defend, even though, when it comes right down to it, you don't really know very much about physics.

Despite this, I'm amazed at what people do to avoid conceding a point to "the other side." Compromise is often seen as (if not openly declared to be) weakness. The attitude I sense from most people is that politics isn't about finding compromises we can agree on, but about winning enough power to impose your ideas on everyone else. I remember in 2004 when an NPR correspondent asked a member of a republican think-tank whether Bush had any responsibility to the democratic 49% of the country, considering the narrow margin of his victory and the fact that his party now controlled both the house, the senate and the executive branch. His answer was along the lines of: "We won. Why on earth would we give-up power to the losers?"

This sort of attitude deepens divisions, clouds clear thinking, and, in my opinion, impedes the possibility of long-term progress. What kind of progress is it if it's just reversed 4 or 8 years later?

If politics should be about scholarship and compromise, what's gone wrong? I'm not totally sure, but the media seems to be fanning the flames. The way most stations cover politics differs little from the way they cover sports. It's about who's ahead, who's strong and who's weak, what strategies or tactics are successful. Politics is too difficult and important to be trivialized in this way.

Here's my advice for discussions of politics. Try to ask more questions than you answer. Try to figure out how your opponents' view makes sense to them. Find something you can agree with before finding something to disagree about. These dictates are harder to practice than preech, and I'd be the first to admit I'm not very good at them. But they're what I aspire to and would appreciate being reminded of as frequently as possible.