Last Wednesday was the first part of the “Promise of Our Democracy” dialogue hosted by the Interactivity Foundation. It is a series of dinners where people split up into small groups with about six to eight people in each to talk about how we can make our democracy better. Being able to see people really flesh out how they think about things is special. The one thing that I noticed there that just blew me away was how nuanced people were. And it is not just about having mixed views, because that does not capture how different people can be.
For instance, one participant was a generally quiet and wise woman. She works as an educator, trying to make schools more empowering for people who don’t fit in. She used introverts as an example, the quiet people who do not go out of their way to participate in school. Just because they do not talk as much, people are less likely to see how smart they are—she couldn’t help but see how unfair this is. She described herself as introverted but said she sees the ways that the world makes things difficult for other introverts, so she has had to develop an extroverted personality to get around—an extroverted introvert, she calls herself.
The way she talked about how the schools mistreats people and how institutions can empower people instead of just getting in the way is very liberal. And if you did the math, she probably would be liberal. But she had a rather profound understanding of individualism, what we called “free to be you, free to be me.”
Sitting opposite her was a middle-aged entrepreneur. He was, in his own words, an ideological conservative. And sometimes he interpreted things in straightforward, conservative ways. And if anyone would have reason to be suspicious of the government, it would be him—he was wrongly imprisoned for six years. But at the same time, he believed that the Constitution should be dynamic. He also agreed with the introverted liberal woman about a lot of fundamental parts of human nature and how the world works.
It’s funny how we forget a lot of really basic things when we talk about politics. People are complex, so they have different facets of themselves—there is nothing particularly interesting about that. It is basically common sense. And the way that people’s experiences shape their views, that’s common sense, too. And you would think that it’s common sense to look at these things when you’re disagreeing with someone about politics. But we almost never do this. When was the last time anyone asked why Gov. Scott Walker is a conservative? The only time that we look at someone’s experiences when we’re looking at their politics is if we’re trying to figure out what went wrong with them. Just look at the way people treated President Obama by speculating he was not born in America and scrutinizing his acquaintances growing up. They were only doing it to him to discredit him without addressing real issues.
Why don’t we do this more? It is rewarding to think how different people’s perspectives can be, and how differently they can look at the same things. But we don’t think about politics like this. Maybe it’s just too much to think about. Or maybe it’s just not necessary most of the time. Once you start putting political views on a spectrum, and realize that you really can treat politics like math, adding up liberal and conservative views until you figure out how liberal or conservative someone is, it is really hard to change. This is especially true with only two major parties in America, and especially since they are becoming more polarized.
When you say that someone has some liberal and some conservative views, even though you can mix views without limit, you call that person a “moderate.” It’s a useless label, but if you think about electoral politics—which is necessary given the limited ways that people can participate in politics—you have to do this. I do not think there is an answer to fixing labels on people. The dinners might be a temporary escape for some, but they cannot fix everything.
Zach Thomae is a freshman majoring in computer science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com. Zach’s first article on the “Promise of Our Democracy,” appeared in the Feb. 28 issue of The Daily Cardinal.
