The Social Codicil 4

The Social Codicil 4:

Good Faith

 

Time to extrapolate a bit.

When you say all politicians are to blame, you're the problem.

When you say all politicians are corrupt, you're the problem.  

When you say all politicians are stupid, you're the problem.

Why?  Because you're normalizing that behavior.

When you dismiss all of them automatically... without actively reviewing their full individual record in detail... you're lazily assuming stupidity and corruption are the standard.  

You're internalizing it.  

You're accepting it.

You're tacitly encouraging it.  

By comparison, if we believe politicians are good... but this particular one or that particular one is stupid and/or corrupt... then you can appeal to better behavior.  You can appeal to morality, and a better ethics.  At worst, you can openly shame them for not living up to the standard.  

But if stupidity and corruption are the standards, what is there to appeal to?  You can't elevate the discourse if there is no higher ground to find.  

If there is no better behavior, then there's no hero to root for.  Instead, you're left rooting for "your" bad guy instead of "theirs".

In other words, the problem isn't that we are polarized.  The problem is why we are polarized.  Expecting everyone to all get along is missing the point.

Think about sports. No one would argue that everyone needs to root for all teams equally.  No one would say both sides need to compromise on the outcome of the game.  That would be silly.  The whole point of sports is competition.    

But are you rooting for the best team to win?  Or are you rooting for "your" team?  

Probably your team. And that's okay in sports.

In sports, this kind of nationalism is largely arbitrary and harmless.  Not that it can't become dangerous (e.g. soccer riots), but the vast majority of it is harmless. 

It's also understandable that if you grew up in a particular area, then perhaps you root for the local team.  Or perhaps you have some other connection, like a family member who took you to that team's games as a child.

Now they're "your" team. Okay.  No worries.  That's fine. 

But that's not the point of politics.  Politics is not about competition or a zero-sum game, or at least, it was never supposed to be about that.  I'll come back to this in a minute.  

The point is that sports and politics overlap in one critical way: it's okay to play hard and play to win... within the rules.  That's called sportsmanship.  

And it's okay to root for your team because they're your team... when they play within the rules.

But if your team steps outside those boundaries and starts cheating, etc., you need to either demand they play by the rules, or stop supporting them.    

Think about it - what would the Super Bowl be like if every team cheated?  If cheating was so normalized that talent, hard work, teamwork, and other fundamentals became moot?[1]  

Doping is illegal for a reason, right?

In politics, "the rules" mean acting in good faith, and on behalf of the nation as a whole.  Or better yet, all people.[2]  Rousseau called it the General Will - always acting for the general good.[3]

In other words, when you vote, don't vote for "my side", or the one who is best for me.  Vote for the candidate you believe is best for everyone as a whole.  For the city, for the rural areas; all of it.  And not just US citizens - everyone's best interest.  

Everyone. Even if it isn't what's best for you. No, I don't I expect you to harm yourself, because the best option for everyone is probably pretty good for you too.  Don't hold out for the absolute best option for you if a pretty good option for you is better for everyone else.

To be clear, it's not about putting your own agenda and interests aside; it's about adopting every single person's best interest as your interests and agenda.  

And reasonable people can disagree with how to do that.  It's okay to argue and even be polarized in deciding which approach is best for all people, so long as you remain committed to serving everyone's interest; not just your own.[4]   

In other words, if you have two candidates who are genuinely doing their best for the country as a whole, then feel free to pick the one you feel most closely aligned with.  

But if you have one candidate who is educated, empathetic, and trying to do their best to serve the people, but whose tax policy you disagree with...

And the other candidate who is caustic, moronic, and only trying to stick it to the other side and "own" them, but has a tax policy you like...

Then your choice should be crystal clear. Act in good faith; expect good faith.

But we don't do that. And that's why we're polarized. We aren't focused on others; we want our side to win because we assume... without effort, insight, or nuance... that everyone who ever ran for office is a horrible person. So, I just want my side to win.

Some are very open and brazen about their soul[5] goal of “Owning the libs”.  You couldn’t make it any clearer than that.

But competition was never supposed to be the purpose of politics.  That's what things like sports are for.

Competition is only supposed to be a small part of the political process; the part where you compete to construct a better vision, and communicate that vision.  

In other words, competing to actually be the better candidate; not just the winner.

The true point of politics is cooperation.  We come together as people to share resources, agree on rules, and set a level playing field.

Yes, cooperation. Because we're all stuck together in this together whether we like it or not, and whether we agree or disagree... love or hate each other... we need consistent rules and expectations.

Very little in life is a zero sum game, and just because something is scarce doesn't mean you need to grab as much of it as humanly possible even if you have to wade through corpses to get it.

It is not "my city" and "your city". It's ours. Our city; our state; our country; our world.

We can share resources the same way we shared our toys as kids. Grow up and get over it. Put away the Marlboro Man fantasy, and say hello to the thousands of people who are your immediate neighbors.[6]

So as I've said numerous times, the people are the problem; not politicians.

When we took our dog in for training, one of the most important concepts they tried to instill in us is that a negative reaction is still a reaction.  In other words, if your dog is barking when you don't want them to, and you yell at the dog to stop, the dog is getting a reaction.

It's a reward.  Not as good as a treat, but still a reward. I was getting no attention, the dog thinks, and now I'm getting some attention.

It encourages the dog to keep barking.[7]

Instead, one of the most important jobs for you as a dog owner is to constantly reward the dog for being the dog you want them to be.

Praise, occasional treats, love, and attention. Every time they're behaving correctly.

Not berating them when they don’t.

Because everyone knows you get more of the behavior that you reward. In all walks of life, from work to the classroom to the family.

That axiom doesn't stop or start at the capitol steps.

---

[1] Quick side note: if one team cheats, do you tell both sides to stop cheating?

[2] “Your job is to protect your family, and your family is everyone.” - Guante

[3] Some academics think he meant to agree on the same laws. I do not make that leap. See the prior entries for more.

[4] See prior entries for the role of empathy.

[5] This was originally a typo, but I think it captures their character this way.

[6] Flashback to prior entries: Rousseau's obsession with isolation from society is not an end in itself, or some "rugged individualist" garbage. It was a tool to improve society, and a stopgap until that improvement takes place.

[7] Note: Ever heard the phrase "There's no such thing as bad publicity"? See the connection.