Why Politics Ought To Be More Like Science
more animals
In a discussion with pammalamma, she made the following statement:
Notice, I'm not saying that the whole country is going into the toilet, or that I'm ashamed of my country like so many people were in 2004. I can be happy for you, because you're happy. Can you say that you felt that way for Republicans in 2004? Did you line up behind Bush to support him, saying that he was your president, even though you didn't vote for him?
I think that perhaps my view of politics is very skewed because of my background in science. An equally likely possibility is that it has to do with my alignment with the Quaker viewpoint. I'm inherently a rather skeptical person, probably either because I'm a scientist or because it's a quality that scientists seem to have. Additionally, I'm not inclined to say things that I don't believe. While this tends to be considered a virtue among Friends (the Testimony of Simplicity), I personally have the tendency to go beyond into the Testimony of Bluntness, which is generally valued among scientific-ilk and tends to be discouraged among Friends.
Honestly, I was ashamed after Bush was re-elected. I knew so many people who didn't decide until the day of the election. When they voted, it was, from my observation, more of a gut reaction to the two men running rather than a very clear examination of their platforms and policies. I was horribly disappointed, and one of my good friends even apologized to me when she saw the look of disappointment at her news. (I have since learned that it is best if I don't ask people who they voted for, just if they did or not.)
But again, perhaps I look at this too much like a scientist. I often look at the issues and think that people should behave much more rationally than they do (or, perhaps they act rationally based on a particular set of base assumptions, but those base assumptions are different than my own, which makes me wonder about the rationality of their base assumptions).
The question that this begs, however, is how will I react if Obama doesn't measure up? Will I show the same amount of disappointment and verbalize my irritation the same way I did when Bush screwed up and then was re-elected?
You bet.
If the people in power are doing things to screw up the country, I won't hesitate to say that our country may be going down the toilet or even that I shouldn't have voted for that person.
I got very ticked at Clinton when he signed into law the "Welfare Reform Act". Did I say he was ashamed of him? You bet. Did I support him? Not really. I was actually very disgusted. I think that, on the whole, he was a decent president, but I certainly did not like some of the things he did.
Here's the thing: I don't believe that simply because a person is the President of the USA that he is inherently deserving of support. He deserves respect as a human being (according to the Testimony of Equality), but not because of his position. I also think that, as elected representatives, it is important to point out issues with their stance or policies.
In fact, I think that as citizens in a government that uses representative democracy as its basis, we are obligated to critique and criticize our representatives. This isn't just our lives that are being affected, it is the lives of everyone in our country and, quite often, in the world. Most important and perhaps most selfishly, I want this country to be a decent place to live when my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren are adults.
"In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
- Great Law of the Iroquois
And this is where I think politics ought to be more like science. In my mind, elections ought to be a lot like peer review. When you look at a candidate for a position, you should try to be objective about their stance, their methods, their goals. I should not matter if the person is Joe the Unlicensed Plumber or the Virgin Mary. If he or she is not up to the job, the fact that they are standing on that stage doesn't make them more worthy of respect, and we shouldn't be "cutting them some slack" if they screwed up. Just because they were president doesn't mean they should be again. Just because someone did a brilliant experiment ten years ago doesn't mean they should have their papers published now. Voters should be going to the voting booth with a rational decision based on review of the issues and people involved, just like a scientist should evaluate current scientific work not with an eye to who wrote it but as a work on its own merit. Decisions should not be made on gut reactions like, "That sounds right!" Our skin needs to be as thick as the bark of a pine.
I don't see a lot of that when it comes to politics, and the issues surrounding the implication that not supporting Bush about the war made you "unpatriotic" was probably the best counter example that's come up in a while.
I saw one person on LJ who looked at Obama and McCain with an issue list and weighed their views. I can respect that even though they decided to vote differently than I did, they took the time to weigh the decision carefully. I can't respect the fact that a lot of people don't know squat about the candidates, don't honestly take a look to see how the candidates views match with their own, and have done no research as to how their policies could affect the future of our nation. Their reaction to a candidate is strongly based on a gut reaction to the way the person speaks or, like what I saw in the Bush election, a feeling that the President of the United States of America was inherently a person deserving deep respect and therefore your vote. Not voting for him was, in many people's view, unpatriotic. Heck, a lot of people said that he had a rough first term, so we should give him a chance to make up for it.
Is that really any way to run the country?! I may give my kids a second chance, but I'm not likely to do so with my elected officials without good reason. They are adults and should know better, as should the voters.
Perhaps I should be glad, this time around, that people have this highly emotional reaction to politicians. Obama was one of the few candidates I've seen in my brief lifetime who actually conjured the emotions of hope and optimism among people. His election created a lot of positive emotions for some people. (My mom tells me that, in this regard, he was a lot like JFK.) It's really nice to see.
I also hope that people have become so skeptical about ads and things they see on TV that they'll actually spend time looking into the issues. That is probably too much to hope, however, based on some of the other issues I've seen.
Either way, if I don't like the direction this presidency is headed, I will certainly be exercising my rights and responsibilities as a citizen. I will let the president know what I think of his actions, and I won't hesitate to vote for the other person if he or she appears to be headed down a better track.