Is it possible that Obama is full of shit? I wouldn’t go that far. But I do wonder if it’s possible that some of his policies and agendas might not be the best way forward. What I really wonder is if a lot of really reasonable people are blind to perfectly good arguments against his policies. I have an idea that I’m going to explore, about how a lot of people, a lot of Obama supporters, aren’t really being good citizens in the sense of rational and informed choices. (A quick note here: This is not about the issues at hand. This is about the consideration of issues. One last point: I consider myself one of the above-mentioned Obama supporters.)
Let me take you through the thought slowly, so as not to muddle anything. I was reading a post by a Philosophy professor on Philosophyblog.com from back in November, 2009 when all of those infamous shouting matches were happening in the “Town Hall” meetings over health care. In his piece, the guy was basically saying that though he supported civil and rational discourse on a topic he felt the people’s perspective’s, even demonstrated so loudly, were still of value. He then went on to give examples of how Obama’s administration certainly hadn’t appreciated a lot of valid opinions. His theses, “The rub is that civil and rational discourse is a two-way street.” He then talks about how the opposition to Obama are generally dismissed as extreme or purely right-wing. As he went on, the piece carried a generally negative view of Obama and of people of the Left persuasion. He bad-talked the health plan. He praised privatized insurance. And so on.
And here’s where it hit me: I stopped reading. I read just enough to realize he was being negative and clearly anti-Obama and I turned off. I felt myself do it, and I noticed how I suddenly wanted everything he was saying to be wrong. It was wrong. I made it wrong. I was instantly convinced. What’s even more significant is that I put him, the blogger, in a different camp. At first, I read him as the trusted, thoughtful Philosophy professor. Now, he was clearly an idiot.
And this is what I’d like to consider; this is my idea: Is it possible that many people supporting Obama are doing so in such a way that when they hear anti-Obama or even anti-Obama Policies they turn off and stop listening?
(I don’t want to answer this too quickly. I don’t want to just say, “Well, yes, sure, it’s only natural….etc.” I don’t want this explained away. For me, this is a question where understanding the question and thinking it through is more important than the answer. I want to feel the implications of this because I believe it is at the very heart of civic duty in American Democracy. If a successful Democracy depends on informed citizens making considered choices than it is the duty of those citizens to be aware of how they perceive information, how they place value on it, and why some information is accepted and some dismissed.)
Though I think much of this question traces back to further divides of party lines, and simple tendancies of humans to divide into camps, I think a big part of it might have to do with the change from Bush to Obama.
Here’s how it happened: People who didn’t like Bush (people tending towards the left, I think) considered themselves “reasonable.” There was this whole movement of people (especially the Coasters) feeling like they had somehow lost the country to this a ridiculous group of people who had the talent to organize but the rational capacity of a Spanish Inquisitor.
Let’s try to map this premise and its consequences out carefully.
- People who didn’t like Bush considered themselves Reasonable.
- Or: “Reasonable people don’t like Bush.”
- It follows that: If you like Bush, you are unreasonable.
- Then we add: Unreasonable people are idiots.
Then, the changeover occurs. Obama wins. People who didn’t like Bush saw Obama as a substitution of opposites, their savior, the reasonable president. And all the reasonable people were finally happy, and they rejoiced. In the aftermath, new lines were drawn, and the reasonable people looked at their opposition.
Now:
- Reasonable people like Obama.
- Therefore: If you don’t like Obama, you are unreasonable.
- Finally (again): Unreasonable people are idiots.
Tea-Baggers are often considered "unreasonable"
Now, ignore the parties for just a moment, the left and the right. Ignore, if you can, the politics, and just look at the logic. The problem is that as everyone united behind the idea that reasonable people hated Bush they assumed that, after bush, the class of “reasonable people” would remain the same, that everyone would take Obama as their savior President. They didn’t take into account that, logically, it is entirely possible that a reasonable person could both not like Bush and not like Obama.
Now, let’s look back at the gentleman above, saying nasty things of Obama, and of my automatic reaction to tune him out once I classified him as anti-Obama and, therefore, unreasonable. Isn’t it possible that he has some good points, points worth considering? (In fact, he had.)
The implication for me, as an Obama supporter, is that though I consider Obama to be reasonable and myself to be reasonable, I have to consider that opponents of his ideas are also, potentially, reasonable. Further, I have to consider that sometimes it is possible for Obama to be wrong, that he doesn’t get a pass simply because I ally my feeling of reasonableness with my choice of him as a reasonable guy.
As I said earlier, my question here is not one of policy or of any issue. I tend to agree with Obama and I tend to trust how reasonable he seems to be. But I think it is important that the next time I hear a contrary view I pause to consider it and not merely carryover a loathing stereotype of the unreasonable Bush supporter. This will be difficult. It is natural and, in many ways, appropriate to quickly discard information as it comes to me. But I have to maintain, as I filter, the possibility that I, myself, am being unreasonable.
Related posts:
Hot Guys Writing Code
He Shook His Way Into Our Hearts
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi, you bring up some good points about the limitations of our preferred method of processing political information: cue-taking. I would agree that it’s certainly not the best way of informing ourselves about issues or candidates – “best” in the sense of providing us with a high quality understanding of the decisions before us – but it is very economical, and that, I believe, is why we continue to do it.
The rationale behind cue-taking is similar to the logic of delegative democracy as opposed to participatory democracy. Because we simply cannot afford to invest the time, attention, and energy required to play an active role in every political decision that affects our lives, we delegate these tasks to representatives, provided certain conditions of course (competence, some modicum of parity in policy preferences, etc). Likewise, b/c we cannot keep abreast of the issues at stake before us, it is natural and perhaps quite necessary to employ information short-cuts. These might be party-cues, ideological leanings, things you’ve heard from some trusted friend or any semi-credible source.
If you feel your initial support of Obama was reasonable, and since that time nothing has occurred to make you reassess that feeling, then I don’t really see anything terribly wrong with using the criteria of “support/non-support of Obama” as a filtering device. I mean, this particular device is admittedly quite crude, and in using it you may very well find yourself supporting some things totally outside of your true preferences, but it is also quite efficient.
Mr. Philosophy-man may have had some good things to say after all, things you would have missed had you not revisited it, but your original crude filter would probably have still accurately saved you from reading a million other blogs/commentaries which you never would have agreed with either way. I supposed what I’m taking issue with is the doomsday portrayal of cue-taking as critically undermining democracy itself. Delegative democracy is not an infallible institution and nor was it meant to be. It’s simply the best one we can currently agree on given current limitations and practical concerns. The choice of employing information short-cuts (with varying degrees of sophistication) is likewise, as I see it, the best we can do given current limitations of cognition and time scarcity.
Excellent reply, Justin.
I totally agree with you about cue-taking and our need to efficiently process information and that cue-taking, so far as it is natural, is the (may I quote your quotations here?) “best” possible way.
In thinking about Democracy, issues and how people perceive them, I always begin with a few beliefs/premises. Among those is the belief that people naturally tend to react based on their side/alliance before listening.
Since I deem this natural (and by that I mean, it’s the default, and I don’t much plan for it to change, nor, necessarily, do I think it should, per-se) my goal would be to encourage one step over from the baseline.
It’s like when something my girlfriend has done which upsets me: My initial, internal reaction is to be upset and want to say something in that regard immediately (this is natural, I think, for anyone). However, I have trained myself to pause and consider why she has said/done what has happened, to think about it for a moment and to hold off my reaction.
It takes more effort, but it always yields a better outcome.
Similarly, I would ask people to hinder their natural process of erring on the political side they affiliate with. However, I would ask that instead of simply reacting, they at least ask themselves, “what do I really know about an issue and is what this person saying worth listening to.”
You’re right, 95% of the time I probably still disagree, but it is, in my view, the 5% that I let in that qualifies the difference between being an well-rounded, informed, considerate citizen and the plebeian who is chanting for death in the arena.
Its a good observation, but whos to say that people don’t already think for themselves regardless of the party they support? I find things I agree and disagree with coming from both sides. I would hope that most people don’t turn the “filter” on automaticaly.
It was in interesting article non the less. Thank You I enjoyed spending a few minutes pondering the thought.
You may be right, Phaedra.
As a test, purely hypothetical, I would be really curious to see the response to Republicans offering Health Care proposals, or Democrats cutting taxes. (Of course I realize how difficult this is, even in the hypothetical, as issues of social service and taxes are meant to run to the very core of the respective party’s beliefs. However, there should be some kind of example where the same idea, proposed by two different sides was first rejected and then accepted, entirely on who was proposing it.)
I went on a date once with a conservative Jewish guy who was clear about the fact that what he really liked about me was that I was a conservative black woman and that he always wanted to get married to a conservative black woman (huh? awkward).
Note: that was some 6 or 7 years ago. Things have changed.
Anyway: that same guy spent about 1.5 hours talking about how all Democrats are idiots. He used the word idiots, specifically. And he had several valid points to back him up.
What turned me off was that, even back then, I was thinking “but wait, that’s not true. Not all Democrats are idiots. Some are, but not all.”
And of course I ended the date with the thought that he was definitely an idiot.
It’s natural and totally expected to assume that what you believe is reasonable, therefore, not believing it is totally unreasonable. And unreasonable people are therefore idiots. The whole equation is incorrect, though. It comes back to definitions of reasonable, and that would just take way too long to flesh out and come to agreement on.
Wrapping it up: labels (especially in politics) are useless, unhelpful and often wrong. People who use them are often walking definitions of the words themselves. They have small minds. I’m sure we will find use for them in society some day (wait, they could run for office.)
Terrific Tia, (I smell a nickname coming)
I hate it when people make a blanket judgment on the intelligence of a whole group. I especially think conservative jewish guys are idiots about this (please note setup and punch in what was clearly a joke).
Sometimes I think we’d be better off if people had to take a class in logic or philosophy or something before they were allowed to call another group stupid. It’s not that the other group would be perceived any better, but that it might, as a clever accident, promote keeping one’s mouth shut till things were a little better considered.
Ahh, forgot to mention, Tia
Check out my piece called “Party Geneology” or something, which sort of addresses your last bit about dealing with Party labels and promoting independent thinking.