This is particularly true in the Republican party, where the moderate Republican is rapidly becoming extinct. In 2004 Pat Toomey ran a very successful primary campaign against Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania by accusing Specter of being a RINO-Republican in name only. Although Specter narrowly won, the race showed that having a moderate political philosophy is a huge liability in the mindset of most voters in primary elections.
After Specter voted for President Obama's economic stimulus plan he felt forced to change parties if he wanted to have a chance of keeping his senate seat. The Republican leadership was outraged with him for voting against the party line. As Specter said afterward:
"A senator is supposed to be able to exercise his judgment without being excommunicated, and when I voted for the stimulus that was the end of my relationship with the Republican Party."
Specter's love of bears was also an issue with voters
The rise of the Tea Party in this election cycle shows this phenomenon worsening. Representative Mike Castle of Delaware lost his primary bid against Tea Party supported Christine O'Donnel because of the perception that he was too liberal. Polls taken prior to the election showed "a growing feeling among Republicans – 55 percent, according to the poll – that Castle is too liberal." After his loss, Castle commented that voters "were very energetic, they were very committed, and they didn't want to hear any other point of view."
The mandatory election loss pout
This is almost nonsensical because Mike Castle is not even much of a moderate republican. He voted against almost all of President Obama's proposals. The only moderate view Castle has expressed is that he believes trying to repeal healthcare reform is a waste of time because of Obama's veto. He was still open to it if Republicans won enough of a majority in the election or if they won the 2012 presidential election.
There are certainly other issues affecting this election cycle than simply a desire among voters for politicians to cater strongly to the party platform. Many voters are upset with incumbents and want new people in office. Senator Specter also had the additional problem of having to woo a new group of voters after he changed from Republican to Democrat. But I think the growing dissatisfaction among members of each party's base with moderate candidates is a large part of the problem.
But why do I care? If voters want politicians who are more conservative or liberal in their view isn't that fine?
Allowing the expression of dissenting opinions, which in politics tends to come from more moderate members of the party, is incredibly important because of two psychological phenomenon that all people are subject to.
One is groupthink. Essentially, in the desire for harmony, groups tend to want one unanimous decision expressed. This causes dissenting views to be suppressed and has led to many poorly thought out decisions throughout history. The problem worsens when the members of a group have similar opinions to begin with. The perception is that a group must present a united front to the outside world in order to prevent opponents from being emboldened and taking advantage of any divisions noted within the group.
"Your arm must be in the air at all meetings!"
To some extent, I see why this is important. If one member of your organization goes out in public and speaks against the group's view at every turn, that makes it appear as if your group cannot control its members and shouldn't be taken seriously. But very few of the people who have been criticized or even ejected by their party or organization have been guilty of this. They have simply written an article or spoken to a reporter while making it very clear that they are voicing their own personal views. When people are evicted for that, it goes beyond trying to look like an effective organization to forming a group of yes-men.
The other is confirmation bias-our tendency to immediately accept information that agrees with our views while ignoring information that conflicts with them. I have certainly noticed this while writing papers. It's very tempting to completely ignore a conflicting paper so that it looks as if all the evidence supports your idea. However, it's frequently not even a conscious bias, you just tend to notice information that matches what you think.
If dissenters aren't allowed to voice their view, you will find that horrible choices are made because the evidence wasn't thoroughly considered. A good example is the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, where the CIA aided a group of Cuban exiles in an attempt to take over Cuba. It was thought that the population would aid the group and that an easy victory would occur. However, British intelligence had already shared with the CIA the information that the vast majority of the Cuban population supported Castro. This, along with other problems, was ignored and the invasion went on to a spectacular failure.
In order to avoid these two biases, you need strong dissenting voices to break the group out of its malaise. Otherwise you end up with choices that are extremely easy to make and also sometimes extremely wrong. That is why I am worried about the demise of moderates in US politics. They are the force in the party that will agree when the other side has a good idea.
These problems aren't by any means limited to politics. Hugh Montefiore, a trustee of the environmentalist group Friends of the Earth resigned in 2004. The reason: "I have been a trustee of Friends of the Earth for 20 years and when I told my fellow trustees that I wished to write on nuclear energy, I was told that this is not compatible with being a trustee."
Designing this button was the last straw for Montefiore
Rather than considering whether there was room for different views on ways to halt the progress of global warming, the organization simply said he was wrong and wanted him out. That is not a functional group relationship.
One of the ways that I determine if a group works well together is how it handles a dissenting opinion. A non-functioning group will ignore the dissenting view completely. This may be done by saying that the group has already agreed, so there is no need for further discussion. It may be done by pointing to the group's own carefully selected evidence and saying that there is no need for more research. It may be done by kicking the dissenting member out of the group entirely. In some cases in the past, it has been done by ordering the dissenter hung or decapitated for daring to disagree with the King.
If the group is functional, it will at least consider the opinion and any evidence behind it. In many cases, a dissenting view is the only way that a major problem with an idea can be found. For example, if you're planning to build a dam in a river, one member of your planning team might point out that the location of the dam will restrict the seasonal flooding that farmers downstream have been relying on for centuries to fertilize the soil through spreading silt. This may be ignored if the economic benefits of the dam are considered to outweigh the farmer's needs, but it is important for that fact to be at least noticed in the planning process.
However, there is a point when dissent shouldn't be tolerated
No comments:
Post a Comment