Politics Make Me Mean and Stupid

Us vs. Them, Two Roads Diverged, Algorithmic Amplification, Sanity, Humanity

I.

Us vs. Them

3 Thoughts:

Last week, I published an article that left a sour taste in some politically peckish mouths. I knew I’d lose some subscribers from it, and I did—a whole 1% of them.¹

To be honest, I expected a bigger fallout. Provided the pronounced political polarization across popular platforms (try saying that 5 times fast), I assumed as many as half of my readers might vehemently disagree and unsubscribe. It’s not that I desire such an outcome, but given the charged atmosphere these days, I weighed the possibility of losing a lot more readers.

Knowing that only 1% found my deliberations abhorrent enough to say sayonara to 5 Big Ideas gives me hope. While well over 1% disagreed with my perspective, many of them commented on my article or messaged me with respectful and valuable feedback.

Perhaps we’re not as vitriolic as the internet tells us we are. Perhaps we might just be willing to hear each other out.

---

The first Substack I subscribed to was that of writer Charles Eisenstein. I loved receiving his meditations on meaning, technology, nature, and The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible in my inbox regularly—that is, until he joined the Robert F. Kennedy campaign in May 2023 and couldn’t publish as consistently.

But when RFK officially suspended his campaign, Eisenstein’s readers urged him to make some sort of statement about the Trump endorsement. Would Charles Eisenstein—spiritualist, polymath, yogi, environmentalist—make the leap to the dark side? In a short update titled Patience Please, Charles writes:

It would be quick and simple to issue a statement if it were to be either to “distance myself” from Kennedy and Trump through a ritual denunciation, or to pitch my tent in their camp through some kind of endorsement. Then you would be able to know whether to keep listening to me or not. You would know whether I was one of us, or one of them.

---

I just made it back from my first trip to Burning Man. While I talked to many strangers over the past week, not a single divisive topic came up. Instead, people talked about what they were grateful for, their passions, and what led them to the Black Rock Desert to construct a temporary city, erect monumental art, cook free food, and host workshops for strangers. In every conversation had, I discovered more common ground with fellow burners than I did differences.

Burning Man Project’s annual theme for 2024 was “Curiouser and curiouser,” a line from the Mad Hatter in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. And perhaps it’s curiosity that helps us see through the looking glass and recognize our shared humanity. Unlike conformity, curiosity makes space for compassion—no matter which side someone is on.

II.

Two Roads Diverged

In the spirit of curiosity, I went down a rabbit hole to better understand what causes us to have differences in party affiliations anyway. Most people deeply understand that the vast majority of Americans just want to live in a country that’s honest, safe, healthy, affordable, and sovereign. But we end up in divergent political camps because we have dissimilar ideas on which policies will best protect and strengthen the values of our democratic republic.

While there are many roads that lead people to either Camp R or Camp D, the most common road is the familial one. According to one survey, 62% of Americans raised by Democratic parents identify as Democrats, while 57% with Republican parents report being Republican. Another source suggests that 81-89% of teens identify with or lean towards the same party affiliation as their parents. While children are generally more curious about the affiliations of their parents, there’s also significant evidence for genetic transmission of political-attitude phenotypes, too.

In addition to the straight and narrow familial road, the routes of socioeconomic status, geography, age, occupation, religion, education, and peers all influence political affiliation as well.

III.  

Algorithmic Amplification

While external factors have a significant influence on shaping political affiliations, what amplifies our ideologies, and ultimately our divide, is much less physical and much more digital.

Elections, in theory, should be a time for healthy debate, transvaluation, and collaboration. However, media cartels and online platforms profit by turning politics into a spectacle—a spectator sport. 3-point lead! 55% chance of winning the Electoral College! Stop the Fascists! Combat Communism! Save America! We’re Not Going Back! Drain the Swamp! WIN! As John Noonan puts it in his aptly named TEDx talk, Why Politics Make Us Mean and Stupid, “We no longer ingest news to be informed anymore; we ingest news to be validated… This is not a Democratic issue, nor is it a Republican issue, we’re just siloed and entrenched in our own political beliefs.”

Many in both Camp D and Camp R become so emotionally invested in their American Idol-esque candidate that they can’t bear hearing a Simon Cowell-like figure speak critically of them. So, they “shop” for news that confirms their beliefs. This is the essence of confirmation bias—seeking out information that confirms your views while avoiding anything that contradicts them. It’s a well-known flaw in human cognition and a time-tested tactic in political discourse. If a publication churns out stories that confirm your beliefs, you’ll feel consoled and validated. Should they publish facts that cause you to reexamine your beliefs, they run the risk of making you (the customer) feel unsettled and invalidated. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine which strategy results in a loyal audience. When exploited, this psychological phenomenon results in increasingly partisan news outlets serving up contrasting versions of the news and, ultimately, creating two alternate realities.

In her resignation letter to The New York Times, Bari Weiss writes:

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

As access to the political spectacle has exploded—from radio and television to the internet, newsletters, and podcasts—the resulting alternate realities have not only drifted further away from each other, they’ve moved further from the center. Put simply, we’ve become less moderate and more extreme, less united and more at odds.

Political Amnesia

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Michael Crichton

In my last article on US politics, I wrote, “US Politics is not my forte.” I’ll never claim to be an expert in a field where I am not. But it makes me wonder: Are there really any true experts out there, or are we all just trying to do the best we can with the information we have?

Sometimes our information is wrong. Sometimes our narratives are biased. Sometimes we’re wrong.

When consuming news, it’s worth stepping back from the sensational headlines and asking, “Is this journalist any more credentialed to write this story than my politically intoxicated neighbor with their yard signs and bumper stickers? Where are they sourcing their information? Is it reliable? Satire? Taken out of context? Parti pris?”

Don’t succumb to political amnesia; peruse the “news” with a grain of salt.

IV.  

Sanity

Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

George W. Bush

In my last article, I fell into this very trap George Dub-Ya Bush once cautioned against. I gave poor examples of one presidential candidate while assuming my intentions were noble. I now know that this was wrong.

Delving into politics over these last few weeks has taken a real toll on my sanity. While it took me only a day and a half to write a charged article criticizing one candidate, I’ve been dragging my feet for nearly a week trying to write this one because I first had to acknowledge in my heart that politics indeed make us (me) mean and stupid. For both of our sakes, I plan to step back from this topic for a while and write about lighter topics that are conducive, inclusive, and lasting.

I don’t know how political writers do it. Well, actually, I do— they pick a side and stick with it, writing glowing pieces about their team and damning ones about the opposition. I guess what I mean to say is that I don’t know how political writers do it morally. Considering that America is split nearly 50/50, any political reporter who’s a somebody will inevitably dismiss the views of about half the country. That’s because if you want to be a somebody in politics, you must choose a side.² You must be fiercely loyal to your side and intolerant of the other. You must be willing to spin injurious truths about your side and speak untruths about the other. You must be willing to use content out of context and in bad faith. You must be willing to distort reality and provoke a visceral response. You must do whatever it takes to win.

Both sides do this.

Humans do this.

According to John Noonan, the Golden Rule of Political Discourse is that knowledge and passion function inversely in politics. The less knowledge one has about the election, the more passionate they are about it. But more we know, the less we care. No one actually wants to consume anything politically objective because plain-old politics, without the melodrama and “he said, she said,” is just about as exciting as watching paint dry. So, to maintain the spectacle, passion must prevail and knowledge must fail.

V.  

Humanity

I’m not saying that ideas are dangerous or political opinions are bad—they’re a good thing, they’re good for the republic. But ask yourself: How are my ideas leading me to treat other people?

John Noonan

We’re all entitled to our own thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. We’re all entitled to vote for our preferred candidate in the upcoming presidential election. But we’re NOT entitled to treat other people like dirt.

The truth is, if you have a strong opinion about one side, you’re likely experiencing a completely different reality than people on the other side. While you may believe Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking in this country, others believe that she wants to grow a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking. While you may believe Donald Trump wants to ban abortions nationwide, others believe that he wants to empower voters to engage in state-level decision-making without banning abortions. If we don’t see past our own ideologies, we assume the issues are black-and-white and that supporters of the other side are evil.

But they’re not—they’re just seeing the issue in a completely different light. To assume otherwise is ignorant. To not acknowledge both sides is ignorant. To ignore facts is ignorant. To not challenge your own ideology is ignorant. And ignorance spawns fear, fear spawns hate, and hate spawns violence. To treat other people with integrity and respect, we must harbor curiosity and disavow conformity. We must detach ourselves from the outcomes. We must show compassion for others, regardless of party affiliation. We must choose to be less mean and stupid.

At the end of the day, the President of the United States is just another person. People struggle to be honest, just, and moral. People can be corrupted and bamboozled and predisposed. People lust for more money, power, and fame. People are capable of becoming Adolf Hitler or Mother Theresa. I don’t care if their names are Donald J. Trump or Kamala D. Harris or Joe F. Schmoe, people are people. They are not Gods. They are not saviors. They are not democracy. They are flawed.

Regardless of who wins the race in November, we will inaugurate a flawed President who will make mistakes and say dumb things. But with hope, they’ll do their best to tackle the issues facing our economy, our nation, and our people.

And then, we’ll move forward.

1. Out of 6,000 total subscribers, approximately 60 unsubscribed.

2. *While there are exceptions to this rule, they are few and far between. And they’re no Ezra Klein or Ben Shapiro.