America is unfolding, its fundamental mores of democracy and the rule of law are being swept away for the sake of personal or ideological triumph. The tribalism, the insults, the pure vitriol — a democracy like this is destined to decline. What can we do?
There are many solutions that can be achieved from the top-down, by the writ of political power brokers and societal shifts. They are more worthy of journalistic analysis and political action than any other. Still, the question of what we can do as individuals, in our daily lives and our own minds, for the creation of healthy political discourse, is what I would like to acknowledge now.
Most importantly, the pursuit of truth must be the sole objective of any debate. As a politically active person, I often get caught up in the quest to win, and it is easy to gloss over the facts that don’t help you win. There is comfort in ideas that conform; whatever explanation fits snugly in our worldview becomes the accepted ones, regardless of its validity. But, if we can challenge our innate biases and superstitions, we can be thoughtful citizens in a free republic. Yes, this year, let us not only question the world, but ourselves.
Adversarial debate can often plunge us further into the mindset that politics is a contest between people rather than a common pursuit to improve the world. It is a natural impulse to categorically resist the opposing opinions of others. Instead, we can be introspective and ask ourselves why we believe what we do, and from there, should we believe what we do. Of course, though, we naturally accept what we believe, so a standardized system of self-questioning is just what we need.
I don’t have all the answers, but a basic standard to work by is John Rawls’ notion of “reflective equilibrium”: someone’s opinions are justifiable if they are consistent with and based on a well-defined set of values. We cannot all agree on which values are most important, but if your ideas fall in line with your values, your views can be made explicitly clear and fairly debated. If they don’t, the exposed inconsistency can be chalked up to bias and logically mended.
To give an example, perhaps someone says they believe that government authority should be limited to the maintenance of security and the enforcement of contracts, without interference in personal lives through welfare or regulation because those ideas would interfere with the value of personal freedom. What if that person also believes that some drugs should be illegal because they are addictive and threaten public health? Are these two beliefs justifiable in unison? In my opinion, that person would need to update their purported values or one of their policy opinions to legitimize their position. Perhaps they could start to see public health as a responsibility of the state, or maybe they start to tolerate drugs as part of their libertarian perspective.
That soul-searching may make someone uncomfortable, but it helps them define the ethical model in which they operate, instead of leaving them with a mystical and blurry patchwork of incompatible ideological positions. Importantly, it clarifies why someone believes what they do, giving them a clear system of values from which all their opinions are rooted, rather than finding them in the grimy soil of bias. Other people can honestly understand and challenge their views, instead of misrepresenting them into easily admonished caricatures.
As this academic year develops into the election and beyond, I hope political and social debate will ripen on campus, between students, in lecture halls and within ourselves. We owe that to each other, as students bound together by Honor — an Honor that permeates every discussion, not only through salutations and smiles but also by providing articulated opinions and a thirst for the truth.
