If I could give up the need to be right, what might change?

I was thinking about your response today. I have been active to varying degrees in–or at least aware of–electoral politics in the U.S. (where I live) most of my adult life.

The value of being civically engaged and aware has always been drilled into me, and for years I seemed to find a balance that worked for me personally at that time. Recently, I have begun to find myself worn out by the vitriol. I have also had personal issues that demanded more of my time, so I have stopped seeking out news coverage for the past few days.

Today I received some emails from different political organizations warning of very dangerous steps being taken by the opposition party that would hurt people financially. Now, this might very well be the case. Perhaps what these politicians are doing will negatively affect people’s finances. I am not an economist, so I can’t really say. I do know that nobody–even economists–can forecast the future with great accuracy.

I also know that all politicians rely on voters to keep their jobs. If a politician truly believed that their plan would genuinely hurt people financially, why would they advocate for it, knowing that they could be voted out of office?

I am aware of the myriad explanations commonly offered in response to this question (corporate interests, lobbyists, the media, etc.). But I am also aware that, if the U.S. presidential election or the Brexit vote have demonstrated anything, it’s that–in electoral politics–voters do still have power. So, taking a step back, these politicians could be just plain evil and actively trying to hurt people without concern for their own political interests, but that doesn’t seem likely to me. In all my experience, I have never met anybody I considered just plain evil like that.

The other alternatives are that they are doing what they believe is going to be advantageous for them and their constituents. Perhaps this is will not be beneficial for everybody–but I don’t know of too much that is.

So, returning to the emails I got, why did these organizations preach fire and brimstone, instead of saying, “The opposition party believes that it’s plan will be beneficial for them and their constituents, but we disagree based on this evidence”? If I had to take a guess (and I genuinely don’t like attributing motivation to others), I would say it’s because their jobs are to motivate me to vote a certain way, donate money to their cause, or take action on behalf of their agendas.

In the U.S., the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives have all changed hands in as many permutations as I think are possible in the 17 years I’ve been of voting age. So I have to believe that that will continue. It’s an industry that is built on this process, the same way that advertising is built on making people believe that purchasing a particular product will fill a need.

After the last election, my mother kept saying that she couldn’t understand how anybody voted for the other party’s presidential candidate. I asked if she believed that people truly were voting for the candidate or just down party lines, and she said that she assumed they were voting for the candidate and that candidate’s platform. So I asked my mother which parts of her party’s candidate’s platform and the only answer she could give was something vague about helping families.

I am reminded of a quote from Einstein that I heard paraphrased recently (which is to say that I will get it wrong), “Why count on the same level of reasoning that caused the problem to solve the problem?”