To acknowledge and legitimize every political trend, every bandwagon, every interest group, every tea party, in today’s political climate would be nothing short of insanity. Why is that? This is because every week there is a new movement or cause or issue that is stirring up the political pundits and party extremists. It seems that week in and week out people throw themselves, without hesitation, investigation, or consideration, at every trending political issue that is affecting the American political landscape. Between the mainstream media’s 24-hour news coverage of every small detail to the Super PAC parties rallying people to support every small issue, Americans are constantly supporting or protesting something. How can it be that the entire country is relentlessly going through a revolution and everyone is on the extreme of every issue? The simple answer is that Americans have lost their “conviction.” In America, with a past flooded with the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, anti-war protests, and women’s suffrage, it is a shock and a travesty that the mass of society has taken to such minute and fleeting causes. No one takes the time to research, comprehend, contemplate, or even consider something before making a decision and spewing out ill-informed opinions. It is not the literal definition of conviction that is being argued (God knows there is too much of that) but the idea of a “true conviction.” This “true conviction” does not mean being close-minded to other’s beliefs or staunchly advocating one thing; this “true conviction” is a mind state where people identify with issues they care about, research every side of the issue, and then make an informed opinion about it. No political party or talk show host can change what someone with “true conviction” is thinking. It is the loss of “true conviction” that has put American politics and the mainstream media in its current disastrous state.
To probe further into this issue would actually require a step back to consider the psyche of those with staunch, unwavering conviction. The extremists of the political parties are the embodiment of this type of conviction. Linda Skitka of the University of Illinois at Chicago did research on people’s moral conviction and related it to politics. In her paper The Psychology of Moral Conviction, she writes:
People experience attitudes held with moral conviction as absolutes, or universal standards of truth that others should also share, and are therefore more likely to project their moral beliefs on others. People may realize that there are differences of opinion on issues they see as moral imperatives, but seem to believe if they just could explain the ‘facts’ to those who disagree, these others would be certain to see the light and come around to the perceivers’ point of view.
Although, this description does give credit to the fact that those who hold “moral conviction as absolutes” may entertain the existence of an adverse opinion, this is rarely the case. The vast majority of people who think like this do not leave room for compromise or consideration and the sad truth is that these are the people who are the most vocal about their positions. It is these staunch advocates who go onto Fox News and voice their opinions about what one candidate said in one off the cuff remark that stirs the media up and creates a chasm in society. Now, the hope would be that the average American would sift past all of the caddy banter and boisterous remarks and go research what the argument, if one exists at all, would be about. However, this is not reality. The harsh reality of the situation is the generally lethargic public is ill informed since the source of much of their information comes from talk shows with slanted viewpoints. The alignment created by this bias is known so well as American political parties.
There is no big secret or hidden issue as to why people lean on political parties for support. These parties make the decisions for their constituents. The parties tell them who to vote for, what issues to stand for, and most importantly, who to hate. Opposition fuels political parties and as P.J. O’Rourke, a political satirist and journalist, put it in his article, The Problem is Politics, when referring to this opposition, “…we need gridlock. I love gridlock. Gridlock means government can’t do things. The two most frightening words in Washington are ‘bipartisan consensus.’ Bipartisan consensus is when my doctor and my lawyer agree with my wife that I need help.” O’Rourke, although candidly, highlights the need for politicians to find opposition. It seems ironic than that an institution and process that is meant to create solutions actually actively goes out and seeks problems. In addition, if this “gridlock” were not enough to evoke torturous frustration with the political party system, than the inevitable conflict of supporting candidates solely on the lines of their political affiliation must. Michael Todd, a political blogger, comments on this conundrum,
I often like to call the whole Democrat vs. Republican thing – Team Politics. Another way of describing it though, is choosing the concept of party politics, over the concepts of freedom and liberty. This party first concept creates quite a paradox too in which you find yourself supporting a party or Politician, even when their acts violate your personal beliefs.
Admittedly, this concept is simple and by no means novel, but the logic behind it is sound. Far too often voters go to the polls and vote with their political party throughout the entire ticket without any knowledge of the candidates or issues. Further, what is even more jarring is how often people vote for candidates they do not support in order to support the political party. This allegiance to party lines is dragging down the electorate into a divide between two political machines. The “party-first” idea has managed to trump even the most basic of individual opinions. Both political parties find ways to create conflict and stir up issues in order to divide the general public because, as they well know, it is the countries division that creates them.
A brief pause is needed now to delve into the further issue of constant opposition and lack of compromise within American politics. Obviously, or at least it should be obvious, people have an obligation to obtain real information so they can understand these disputes and come to a common ground. However, each political party finds a way to pit one side against each other instead of finding a place where both sides will come out with an even shake. Now, consider the Socratic Method of logic. This method uses questions to find places of balance to help people open their mind to a concept or view that normally they would not accept. Through this progression of logic, people agree on certain things, and from a place of common ground, can find a compromise or even open their thinking completely. Advocates of this type of logic and reasoning understand that only by finding common ground can two people of different ideas come to a compromise. Unfortunately, thinking like this goes against everything that drives the current political system. Colin Powell commented on the no-compromise thinking that has flooded politics, and particularly the tea party, stating,
The media loves this game, where everybody is on the extreme. It makes for great television . . . So what we have to do is sort of take some of the heat out of our political life in terms of the coverage of it, so these folks (Congress) can get to work quietly . . . But the Tea Party point of view of no compromise whatsoever is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win."
Even though this was said within the context of the Tea Parties ability to produce a presidential candidate, a greater message needs to be taken from this. The political system within the United States has become so bogged down in idealism and party lines that nothing can be done. Where the issue turns its ugly head is the affect it has on American society. The horrible custom of siding with one side of an issue without considering the complexities or opposition has become a plague that has gripped most Americans.
Now that the context has been formed, the questions at hand can be attempted. Where has the “true conviction” of people gone and can it be resurrected? It seems quite clearly to have fallen into the hands of those who wear their conviction on their sleeve. As stated before, this conviction is of a different breed. People with “true conviction” do not simply hear or read something and immediately formulate their idea. These people research and contemplate the severity of an issue. How can one immediately “hate” what the other side stands for? How does your political affiliation instantaneously put you at odds with others? Those who are pro-choice must at least understand and appreciate the pro-life group’s ideas. Everyday and in every sphere of society there is always the person who considers themselves “informed” and spews out an answer that they regurgitated from the latest talk show they watched the night before. These people do not have “true conviction.” It is the individual in the back of the class; the one who listens for an hour and half in a two-hour class, and finally speaks with resounding knowledge who demonstrates true conviction. Their argument is well thought out, addresses the counter arguments, has actual factual basis for their claims, and acknowledges the presence of opposition. It is within this person’s “true conviction” that the reformation of society lies.
To some it might seem that society has gone too far off the deep end to be remedied. Others might say this idea is a utopian state that is unrealistic. Most political elites would say that the average American is not capable of understanding the issues. In response to this opposition it seems only fitting to quote Michael Carpini in his article In Search of the informed Citizen,
An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will; that, given the incentive, education, and opportunity, the general public is capable of exercising political power in an enlightened way; and that the context in which citizens operate – the social, political, and economic structure – is a critical factor in determining whether or not they are motivated and capable.
