While it is impossible to present guidelines for voting without one's own biases coming through, there are I think some recommendations that any rational , reasonable, person should take on board, no matter what their political persuasions. Behind the dogma, special interests, fundamentalists and reactionaries, all political parties derive some support from well meaning if disagreeing people, who one feels might vote differently, if only they knew, or thought, more.
Self interest is bigger than you.
At the end of the day I think for any argument to gain traction with people in general then it has to appeal at some level to self-interest. True selfless altruists are rare, at least rare enough not to be a significant voting block anyway, and there is nothing unusual or wrong with admitting one cares most for oneself and the people close to you. The point however is there are ways of looking at the situation which doesn't mean this results in not caring at all about everyone else. The key is to recognize how wrong Thatcher was when she claimed there was no such thing as society, only individuals. Like it or not we are social creatures, and our natures require that very society which she so easily dismissed (and some would argue that she did her best to dismantle).
While it is always tempting to vote for the best deal for you personally, there are two reasons to be careful. Firstly, in simple material terms, with an interconnected society and economy, except for the elite 1%, we rise and fall together, and no matter what tax breaks or benefits one section gets, unless the entire system is doing well it won't matter in the long run. A fully functioning society is always going to be more prosperous overall than one which has idle or rotten components, and one needs to be sure politicians have an overall coherent plan for all segments, and aren't just buying off enough of them to get elected. Secondly, and more intangible but still perhaps even more important, many studies show that above a certain level of development (such as those reached already by all western economies) it's not the absolute wealth of the country which matters most for the important indices of well being in society (from health to crime to teenage pregnancies) it's the distribution of wealth within it. There is a correlation between how unequal a society is and the problems it has. And this is not just about the benefits of living in a flourishing community, but actually applies to individual metrics such as life expectancy and rates of illness as well. This is extremely counter-intuitive, since one would assume individual absolute wealth is all that matters, but the facts clearly indicate that the relative wealth of others matters as well. It might be really be better personally (and even selfishly) to have a little bit less, in a society where everyone has a bit more.
Put yourself in other's shoes, and not only in case end up wearing them
Apart from the fact that industries and areas rise and fall constantly, and what might work out well for you now might not in the future, even if you don't worry about your own social position, you should still have to try and identify with that of others. The worst horrors of humanity have always arisen from viewing some group as 'other', and thinking of people, whether it be due to their race, orientation, political views or even employment status, as somehow as a certain kind of people due to this, can set society on the slippery slope to brutal behaviour. Whether it's viewing 'most' muslims as radical, or 'most' benefit claimants as slackers, or 'most' poor as criminals, easy generalizations can turn minor prejudices into mass assumptions, and poison the issue irrevocably. Simplified, polarized political debate at the general level can set the tone on how individuals are treated by others at the particular level, and never for the better. It's worth remembering that our biological natures are wired for this kind of discrimination, and it is only with rational effort we overcome them. Studies have shown that regardless of how tolerant and broad minded people might consider themselves to be, if presented with a foreign face parts of their brain involved in hostility light up automatically. We are primed to suspect those we consider different to us, and this can be based on many things, not just race, but also cultrue driven stereotypes. There is hope however, since in those same studies, if peope were asked to consider the other individual as someone they could identify with, a father, a brother, even a postman, then the instinctive hostility was suppressed. How we view others matters, especially if we view them AS others.
Another reason to identify with other groups is whether we realise it or not, we might be part of them. This is particularly relevant economically to the US, where surveys have shown that 40% of people consider themselves either in the top 10% of earners, are due to enter that bracket within a decade. Similar to the statistical impossibility that everyone considers themselves to be above average, this is inevitably going to result in people voting for things which they assume benefit, or will someday benefit them, when in fact they are actually supporting some other bunch of people entirely. Perhaps this partly explains the incredulity Europeans (who have an almost inversely pessimistic view of their own relative standing in society) have with the lack of opposition to the tax cuts Bush brought in for the extremely rich; maybe a lot of people like the idea in the hope that one day they too will be that rich. While there is indeed a lot to be said for the uplifting optimism of 'the American Dream', to people outside the US looking in, it does smack a little of a nice story told by the rich to keep the proles deluded and happy, a kind of worldly 'opiate of the masses'. The irony is, given the lack of social mobility in the US relative to other countries, then it is in fact true to say that for the best chances of living the american dream and rising out of poverty, move to Denmark.
I'm skilled, you're lucky
What I personally feel is trait most lacking in the well-off in societies (and I consider myself one of them) is a realisation of one's own luck, and the role of external factors in one's prosperity. Interestingly this is again an area in which the US diverges significantly to Europe, with 36% of Americans believing success in life is due to forces outside of one's control, compared to 72% of Germans. The fact that Germany has one of the strongest economies currently, and a very high general standard of living shows this is not just the pessimistic fatalism of the downtrodden, but how differently success can be viewed in similarly wealthy countries (incidentally Japan seems to be closer to Europe in this area as well). The point is not that hard work and skill is not necessary for success, except for winning a lottery it of course is. The point is that it is not sufficient. Apart from genetic and upbringing factors, behind every successful industry or service there is a submerged supporting structure, often provided by the state. Whether it is the indirect funding of colleges and research, the investment in the infrastructure which enables the service, or enables people to avail of it, there is always something which makes success possible, generally for the few and often paid for by the many. The guy cleaning toilets gets little benefit from the roads and airports that his taxes help build, but the chief executive of a corporation which uses these services does. Further more apart from the enabling factors, there is the disproportionate reward for certain kinds of labour;I refuse to accept any argument that claims that that chief executive works 1000 times harder and hence his/her 1000 time salary is somehow 'worth it'. The system is setup to benefit the people who are in a position to use it, and it's important that they realise it. This is not to criticize the system, that's just the way it is, but to warn against self-serving arrogance. In light of this, calls to avoid using the verb 'earns' for someone's income make a lot of sense. The stockholder who reaps massive rewards on investment, or the CEO who receives a massive bonus relative to the average worker does not 'earn' the money in the moral sense, he or she simply 'receives' it.
And of course, a realisation of the role of luck in our fortunes inevitably leads to an awareness of it's role in misfortune. No matter how well things are going, knowing how they can fall apart might mean voting for the general interest above one's own makes a lot of sense. Consider the unfortunates, in case some day you're one of them.
Think, don't just feel
Again especially relevant to the US given the massive sums involved in the campaigns anyway, and even more so in this election with the unleashing of unaccountable super PACs, the average voter needs to be prepared to handle the media onslaught headed their way. Ever since JFK, the image often trumps the individual in politics, with spin and smear being deployed in ever more sophisticated ways. Even more so than with normal advertising, voters need to be aware that they will be targetted with emotional hooks that are incredibly insidious and effective. In particular one needs to wary of adverts and messages that tap into both positive (e.g. national pride) as well as negative feeling (fear, racial/religious prejudice etc), and tie it together with a compelling 'story'. Such approaches need to be treated with suspicion and scepticism since things are never as black and white as these persuasive narratives claim, but unfortunately we are suckers for this line (e.g. see this TED lecture).
It's complicated, always
Beyond the array of different areas which a president will have to deal with, making it unlikely one party or candidate will have the best policies for all of them, there are also many sides to even just the one kind of policy. An example would be the notion of non-interventionism which in light of certain foreign fiascos, often makes sense. But the same principles would also prevent intervening to stop genocide, or contain aggressive countries, and this is an abbrogation of responsibility. While not ever using military force means one might not actively 'do evil' , it also means one wouldn't stop it either. To be morally neutral is to be morally bankrupt.
Acknowledge biases
Politics inevitably brings out the worst bias mechanisms in people, since it is both a social and an emotional topic. But a rational self examination can help one stop oneself from being at their mercy. There are many prejudices and dispositions which we might spot in ourselves with rational consideration, but two of the most important biases to watch out for are tribalism (the unquestioning allegience to one party due to having voted for it before, and the dismissing of the others as impossible to ever support) and confirmation bias (seizing on negative news for the opponent while ignoring similar problems for one's own side, an example of which might be corporate funding, which benefits all parties), Of course easier to try to be unbiased than actually achieving it, but in this domain forewarned often really is forearmed.
And above all: listen to all the arguments, think about all the implications, and choose for all of your society, not just yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment