Miniature American flags for all!
- 13 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Loyal Scaiaholics will recall I recently lied my way into a summit for the world's greatest minds. In that blog, we touched on some of the greatest issues facing humanity including, but not limited to, the history of toilet paper. But I also mentioned going to a seminar about politics. Now that we seem to have entered the portion of American history where we celebrate when people from opposing political parties die, I feel like his message carries additional relevance (I'm not here to judge, though. If Norm MacDonald's moth joke still carries greater significance to you, that is your right).
He explained the system in ways we could understand. We're all hobbits, hooligans or Vulcans.
Hobbits just want to hang out with their friends. It's good they don't fixate on politics; it's bad because they uninformed on issues that affect them.
Hooligans are good because they're more informed; they're bad because they hate the other side.
In a tragedy of sadness, Vulcans are the rarest part of the electorate: voters who are perfectly logical, open minded to new ideas and well informed. Vulcans, he pointed out, don't actually exist.
He explained the more thoughtful you are, the less likely you are to participate in the political process because your views may not align perfectly with one political party.
The parties themselves are wrapping several different identities under one umbrella, so that leads to increased feelings of division. People crave a feeling of belonging and to feel like they're part of an exclusive group, so they'll attach their identity to a party even if they don't agree on some issues.
In reality, he says people's positions on most issues haven't changed much over the past 50 years. He says most people support abortion rights early or in cases of incest; most people still believe healthcare should be private but with government assistance.
Now, though, people see any compromise on an issue as a compromise of their identity.
He cites a study showing even if you just lump people into random groups, they'll still start discriminating against other groups.
Campaigns capitalize on that feeling of "us versus them." They increasingly exaggerate differences, so we exaggerate the differences among candidates.
He cites another study where, given the option of receiving $1 for reading an article on gay marriage you agree with or $5 for reading an article you disagree with, the majority of people choose to get less money so people with opposing views would also get less.
We'll even argue about math if it conflicts with our political views.
We're also more likely to support or oppose a policy not based on its own merit but by who proposed it.
He suggested options to help us pull back on feeling angry all the time. He says removing party labels from ballots could help, forcing voters to (gasp) actually learn about candidates and issues. He also suggests adding members to the House of Representatives. We've had the same total number since 1929, and the country's population has more than doubled since then, so each Representative now has to serve a larger group of voters.
And #ScaiaBlog aims to unite us, too, just in less scientific fashion.
For instance, more of us appear to think it's okay if you have an affair than 15 years ago ... as long as you're from the same party, of course. If you're from the opposing party, affairs are wrong.
One place we can all agree is affairs are hilarious when they play out on sitcoms.
Both parties can also agree they're the victims. If your candidate or issue loses, instead of considering what may have led to a lack of support from voters, members of both parties agree the right move is to organize a march and cry out about how you were wronged.
The Simpsons showed us decades ago we'll sign up for anything as long as it's proposed by someone with a disarming smile.
Comments