ISMED Newsletters

» Return to News Gram Archive Main Menu

News Gram™ July 2005

July 2005 ~ Volume 11, No. 12

One might think that politics is much like a lot of areas in which there are differences of opinion -- biology, physics, even mathematics, for example. Why don’t people get upset about these disciplines as they do in politics? Actually, they do. In his book about the discovery of DNA, The Double Helix, Nobel Prize winner John Watson describes the tensions and competitiveness surrounding the search for a definitive answer to the problem. The whole project was anything but an academic exercise. The same is true in physics where Albert Einstein and those who agreed with him, lined up for a fight when Neils Bohr and his buddies insisted on interpreting subatomic behavior in a very peculiar way, a way that became the established mode of interpretation in quantum mechanics.

Still, politics is different. For one thing, virtually everyone is involved in popular elections and debating the issues, while only a tiny percent of the total population has anything important to say about biological or quantum mechanical issues. This point is, of course, something we should keep in mind but it is not at the heart of the issue. In the case of politics, what is at stake is a person’s self-esteem, his or her sense of self worth. Philosophers may argue about obscure issues regarding the number of angels one can fit at the head of a pin, but there are not often fisticuffs at meetings of the American Philosophical Association.

Why self-esteem? How does that notion get tied in with political issues? This is a complex question, one to which it is hard to do justice in the available space. Let’s see if we can’t tease out some of the main points:

The political arena is one in which our values are publicly engaged. Some people like the idea of an active government that uses tax dollars to improve the lives of the poor, the sick, the elderly and the marginalized. They believe their government should initiate and manage programs that can ameliorate the sufferings of large numbers of people who are unable to improve their lots alone. On the opposite side are those who believe that government is the source of the social ills we see all around us. With less government involvement in our personal and commercial lives, we might, they argue, enjoy more fulfilling lives – and for a heck of a lot less money than we are spending at the present time.

These two contrasting viewpoints tell us a good deal about the people who subscribe to one or another of them. For instance, someone who subscribes to the first viewpoint will likely enjoy the feeling of altruism he gets from it. Even though it may cost thousands of dollars in added taxes to fund the programs he believes will make things better, he will have the satisfaction of knowing he has done something to help his neighbor. We all pitch in, he will argue, we help our neighbor – and that’s a good thing!

Not so, says his opponent. America was built on a foundation of rugged individualism where everyone is responsible for his or her well being. An intrusive government makes weaklings of us all. It does for us what we should be doing for ourselves. If people had tried to build a country under present conditions, they would never have gotten the project off the ground. Everyone would be waiting around for someone to do the spadework.

So, the first group tends to think of itself as a collection of altruists while the second group takes pride in being individualists. And such attitudes are closely allied with a person’s sense of self, in particular with his or her estimate of their self-esteem. As a result, people will protect the point of view they have settled on more to justify their own assessment of their personal value than because what they believe in is right or true.

The implications of this aspect of what we may broadly refer to as the human condition is that moral or political principles take a back seat to the requirement of securing one’s own awareness of personal value. Nobody will voluntarily change political affiliations if that change results in a loss of self-esteem. What consideration would reasonably justify such a transformation? Indeed, ?transformation’ is a good word. Many people see a change in political loyalties as being akin to a religious conversion, which turns out to be a fundamental alteration in the self.

Given these considerations, there is good reason to avoid political discussions. On the other hand, when a person has doubts about his or her own political position, perhaps that’s not a bad time to look inward and ask what it is within one’s self that clings to a viewpoint that no longer seems adequate. For many, political change is personal change.

•   •   •

» Return to News Gram Archive Main Menu