Opening the Partisan Doors

Are we even more partisan than ever?  I think I may think so.  But I haven't quite figured out why.

I think, taking a shot in the dark, a large part of it may be our incredible and unrestricted access to information and incessant communication with a larger scope of like-minded individuals.  Hear me out: Before Facebook, Twitter, newsfeeds, daily updates, and bloggers of all shapes and forms (the Dark Ages, if you will), most information was gathered from magazines, books, the news (on the television...), and our own circle of influence.  We were able to develop our own thoughts and beliefs, defining "liberal" and "conservative" based on our own beliefs, agreeing with some aspects of one group, some from the other, and crafting them into a finely-tuned encyclopedia of personal values.  Issues, I believe, were at the forefront - education, taxation, government spending, religion, and interpretations of the Constitution weren't mutually inclusive, where your beliefs regarding one didn't always guarantee where you stood on another.  And because of this, cooperation wasn't a four-letter word.  Because we each, individually, say across lines and parties, it only made sense that this would continue into the public sector.

Now, however, there's a different situation.  Today, we are assaulted with a constant barrage of stimuli.  Everyday, wherever we happen to be, we have such unprecedented access to whatever anyone cares to say, no matter how crass, short-sighted, or immature it may be, and we've lost that individual sense of self.  I don't recall any traffic law specifying that driver's should not read a newspaper while driving.  Now, however, we've all driven down the highway and glanced at the car next to us wherein the driver is completely engrossed in their phone.  What this also entails, I believe, is that we're now confronted with what parties are "supposed" to look like.  What a good Republican or Democrat should be for.  After all, once upon a time, one had to be an actual journalist to reach even one hundred people.  Now any average joe can start a blog and spout whatever nonsense he or she thinks people want to read (case in point...).  So now, rather than a handful of inputs to consider and bounce off our social circle, we face hundreds, if not thousands every week.  Slowly but surely, we are becoming more and more ingrained to what we're "supposed" to believe and the labels that come with one idea or another.  And, in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast, we begin to affiliate, gradually, with other concepts linked (somehow) to one or two with which we first sided.  And I believe this works both ways: reading a post written to (more often than not) an extreme 180 degrees of your perspective, the less you affiliate with those beliefs to any extent - and push us further into partisan positions.

Just look at Facebook.  Go on, scroll through a few posts.  Chances are, there's at least one talking politics (in some way, shape, or form).  Soon, this may just become a full-blown virtual battle, and, if you pay close enough attention, often you'll find people chiming in, people you know, who, you realize, don't actually have a horse in this race.  Gun control is a great example.  On the left, we need more restriction.  On the right, less.  It doesn't really matter what you actually think about guns anymore.  It's about maintaining your loyalty to your chosen brand.

Go on, ask any Mac user if they're willing to trade in for a PC.  And vice versa.  The Mac user will most certainly decline, citing the simplicity of the operating system, the ability to sync it with other Mac devices, and/or the Mac software.  And PC will argue that they've got the better deal as well, of course.  Now, sifting through all the B.S., unless you're using one or the other for work-related reasons (I hear Mac has better video editing software), is one inherently better than the other?  Of course not.  But we've invested so much of ourselves into the idea that we're right that anything to contrary must be wrong.

And so it goes with politics.  How about we stop thinking about which brand we've invested in, and actually start looking at the issues.  I know it's a big step, but how about a dialogue - not a debate, not a right vs. wrong argument, but an actual dialogue in which we try to understand opposing view points.  Surrounding ourselves with the same perspective will most certainly leave us seeing the same thing.

Post Script: Seeking to understand one another is not as simple as waiting for your turn to talk.  Please, stop nodding your head, shrugging your shoulders, and responding "well, it's the way I feel."  They say that when you stop learning, you should be six feet under.  Well, until you actually listen, you're as good as entombed.

A quote I wish I'd found a month and a half ago...

...as politics and Facebook were making life just awful for just about everyone.

Emotional Maturity can be defined as "the ability to express one's own feelings and convictions balanced with consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others."

-Hrand Saxenian (found in Covey 2004).

Do Selfish Means Justify Communally Beneficial Ends?

Interesting study a friend of mine posted on Facebook recently.  It's about the movement of Emperor Penguins as they try to stay warm in their harsh Antarctic climate (read it here).  In essence, the penguins mob together, packed so tightly that those in the middle can't even move but also aren't losing virtually any body heat.  Those on the outside, however, are constantly moving, as those in the wind navigate the outside of the cluster, around and to the sheltered side.  Of course, this leaves for a brand new crop of penguins stuck in the wind, who also, in turn, work their around to seek shelter.  Ipso facto, the penguins who first worked their way around will be huddled more and more into the middle as those on the outside work their way around, until, finally, those same penguins that first waddled their way away from the wind are right back there again.

Now, the original post talked about how we can learn from the teamwork of penguins, as they look out for themselves, they contribute to a communal victory.  Even further, commentors on this post talked about the trust these penguins must have in one another, having faith that their turn in the middle was nigh, even speculating that these birds recognized the need for collaboration and so never make the attempt to force their way into the middle.

I, however, don't quite see it that way.

As the article itself mentions, the mob was packed so tightly that the middle birds couldn't even move.  Arguing that those on the outside see the community benefit so don't use force to get what they want is pretty much shot down from here, as I can't recall a single instance of a person attempting to escape East Berlin by throwing themselves (successfully) at the wall.  At the same time, I also can't help but wonder if those on the outside stopped moving, would those penguins nice and cozy in the middle be community-conscious enough to offer their warm spot to one on the wind side?  "Excuse me...it's really warm in there.  I mean, I was pretty much sweating and you're out here freezing your ass off.  Seriously, how can you even stand it?  It's like 30 below!  Here, take my spot."  Definitely.  And at this point, I would like to ask all the idealists out there reading this and scoffing at my pragmatism, thinking to themselves that it would totally happen like that when the last time they traded spots with a homeless person on a winter night...

By I digress.  What I see is selfish action, to each his own, trying to make it through the harsh tundra, wantonly using those around him to survive.  But it is through these self-serving actions that the entire is able to survive, something that might not be possible without this phenomenon.  So selfishness saved all of them.

So the questions is, do the ends justify the means?  If I act selfishly and it benefits the larger group, is that okay?  A mantra of Wilderness First Responder is "Look out for #1 (yourself) so you don't become #2 (the victim)."  i.e. Don't put yourself in a position to become injured, leaving two victims to rescue.  Selfish?  Kind of.  Necessary?  You bet.

So I still ask, does it matter?