Jonathanics

Politics never changes—only the politicians. Since high school, my overarching view of politics and society has shifted, matured and become more pragmatic; at the same time, it has become better rooted. This sounds a little ostentatious (consider the source), but I feel like I need to convey in words the process by which I arrive at my beliefs—specifically, the paradigm I use when it comes to analyzing political machinations and socioeconomic issues. Naturally, it confuses me sometimes when people do not understand why I say what I say, or believe what I believe, and so here I am to better explain myself—the logic and mind, if you will, behind those muses.

Most importantly, I consider my political leanings to be more than simply left or right-wing. This is true for everyone else as well. As illustrated in, one’s beliefs can be considered by way of a top-down and left-right continuum. These two axes, which measure both one’s political leanings as well as how much he or she really “cares” about issues, cover two broad elements of a person’s political make-up. Of course, you could throw in religion, wealth and myriad other subjects as factors as well, but for the sake of this conversation, we’ll leave it at two.

Now, as you can see, I reside in the lower-right quadrant, somewhat near “0” on the x-axis. I am politically active in the conversational way, stay abreast of political issues and usually vote if I am able. I also consider my political activeness to be higher because I write about political topics in order to persuade—or, at least, to encourage the logic and consideration of alternative views and facts (do you think this is an accurate or should I be in a different quadrant?). Now, how did I arrive at the denoted location? See below.

Before I can plot myself on the graph, I have to consider where I stand on issues. When an issue comes up either in conversation or by reading, it is filtered through a number of layers in my mind before I make a final statement, which causes a series of judgments to occur before I respond or make a "final" judgment call. This is typical I think of most people. These layers include 1) what background I have about the subject (which greatly effects how I will respond), 2) how often the issue is misunderstood based on what I perceive to be another person’s political leanings and/or background and 3) if the issue evokes a response from another that is highly charged and/or exudes pomposity.

Background information about any subject is important if one is to make sound judgments and recite opinions. Before I speak or write about something, I acknowledge that I can virtually never quite know everything about a subject—I retain only a collection of information that should be consist of both depth and breadth. This means there always remains a possibility I could be wrong, a central theme in my thoughts (that I could be “jus plain ignant”, according to Chris Rock). So, from the get-go, I throw up a red flag that says, “You might know a lot about this, but remember that you’re 23 years old, and, despite whatever education you may have received, you probably aren’t qualified to make a truly expert statement on most issues.” By reducing my own personal bias of thinking I’m right about something from the start, I am more likely to really discover the truth about an issue.

I apply this screening to sociopolitical statements everyone makes, especially young people who think they know everything because they have bachelor or graduate degrees. Even if they are educated, many people do not have the willingness to put in the time to consider all of the facts about a subject they appear to care deeply about (Note: older people do this too, but with a few more strings attached). Indeed, it’s easy to misunderstand issues. An excellent example of this phenomenon is the subject of environmentalism.

Popular environmentalism has captured many a mind in the western world. Nothing says “I care about the planet” more than driving a Toyota Prius hybrid car, buying organic food and purchasing “fair trade” coffee, which pays coffee growers a price above the (lower) market rate. All of this sounds good on and off paper. Mainly off paper.


Dig just a little deeper, however, and every single one of these “responsible” habits will raise your eyebrows. Hybrid cars, for example, require a significant (“slight”, according to Toyota) increase in energy costs for their manufacture. High-end technology like nickel-metal hybrid (NiMH) batteries produced for these vehicles require more processing and more transportation (fuel, pollution) that add to the overall environmental toll caused by its production. But this occurs before we even see the car, so it's almost like it never happened—but it did. In the end, it is debatable whether or not hybrid vehicles really end up costing the environment more or less. Everyone agrees, however, that the cost to the environment is much smaller just by buying a used car. That way, you’re not using any new resources at all (all the plastic in your car comes from oil) that are used in the lengthy manufacturing process.

Organic food also sounds nice. It supposedly tastes better and should be better for you. Unfortunately, no studies have conclusively shown it to be any healthier than regularly-grown food. Additionally, this method requires crop-rotation style farming, which uses three times the amount of land to produce the same yield, all the while feeding the same number of people. This uses more land (which is a negative effect for the environment) and the the potential benefits to the environment are complex and debatable. And even in the bigger picture, how responsible is it for rich to eat food that wastes resources while millions around the world go hungry? Shouldn’t we be using our land in the most efficient way, to feed more people with less land?

And “fair trade” coffee isn’t very fair. When farmers in poor countries produce a crop that fetches a low price, they typically will transition to new crops that will fetch a higher price—utilizing the market system. If we buy “fair trade” coffee, however, which gives coffee-growers a little more money than they otherwise would make, there is no reason for the farmer to switch to a crop that actually will improve improve their lives long-term. We are in effect subsidizing and reducing the incentive for farmers to grow something that makes it worth their while. Thus, areas that produce coffee efficiently will achieve that higher price without needing to switch products. Like organic food and hybrid cars, the subject just isn't as straight forward as one might surmise.

But how can anyone possibly know everything about every subject? They can’t, which is my point. But simply acknowledging one’s own tendency for this is a step in the right direction. I find that many people will not admit that they don’t know enough about a subject when making even mild judgment calls. For me, I will make judgment calls, but rarely do I make them without 1) admitting that I do not have all the facts, 2) knowing that I know enough about the different sides of an issue or 3) knowing for certain that someone is plain wrong. I think this method is fair, balanced and realistic.

The consequences of not operating according to this process, to me, is the inevitable support for causes that don’t make sense. Recently in Washington there was a peace rally. While most may not agree with the Iraq war, peace, as it has been said, is not a foreign policy—it is an objective of foreign policy; anyone who argues otherwise doesn’t firmly grasp how the world operates. Indeed, once people begin ignoring all information except that which justifies their cause(s), any belief is possible. And that is scary.

I believe there is a balance in all things, no matter what the issue, and this should be the objective of many government policies. That said, where the balance actually lies is up for debate. For me, at this point in my life, it lies in quadrant three.

Where do you stand, and how did you get there?