Political extremism may not be a vice “in the defense of liberty,” but in most cases it is both cause and consequence of lazy thinking. Even brilliant ideologues, whose conclusions have been honed by a lifetime of scholarship and experience, often come to a place where the scholarly imperative of regularly questioning assumptions (however long held) is logistically impractical, if not impossible, in routine discourse. In fact, the reification of long held principles is probably inescapable given the limitations of human rationality. The temptation to convert one’s long held assumptions into universal principles deserving of exemption from periodic reassessment is further reinforced by the fast moving, competitive, and uncritical nature of democratic politics. Imagine trying to fully explain the validity of time-tested assumptions on a TV talk show in less than two minutes, or even a newspaper op-ed in only 800 words. Sound intellectual analysis is EXTREMELY difficult in contemporary public discussions for everyone. Indeed, for those mindful of sound analytical methodology it’s often downright un-nerving. It's no wonder that most academics refuse to participate in competitive politics.
Enter the rest of us; those of us without sufficient years or study to honestly fall victim to this intellectual fatigue. Most of us either opt out of public deliberation or simply adopt an intellectual patron or two, accepting –without periodic reassessment- their conclusions as our own assumptions about life, society, and politics. This orientation to political discussion and debate leaves us frequently unable to sufficiently explain our views.
When reference to our intellectual patrons or the simple assertion of their “principles” fails to move the dialogue forward or resolve dispute, frustration and even anger can set in. Subconscious awareness that we are not the authors of our beliefs and are thus incompetent to fully explain them leads to the personalization of the discussion wherein our focus shifts from our cherished patrons’ “ideals” to the likely deceitfulness of those who would deny their prima facie truth and application. At this point public deliberation becomes oxymoronic.
What should we do? Must we either spend half our lives studying up for political participation and debate or simply let the “experts” fight it out and then choose winners in the voting booth? Shouldn’t there be some way to pursue private lives without surrendering meaningful involvement in the governance of our communities?
I don’t have satisfactory answers for these questions. In my own case, I actually did decide to spend much more than half my life studying the ideas, institutions, and interests at play in politics. This experience leads me to think that concerned citizens can put their trust in those who practice politics as long as they hold the claims of political actors and activists to reasonable standards of proof. I also think concerned citizens should try to be introspective regarding their most strongly held political beliefs.
In my opinion, if you can’t fully explain your beliefs, you should at least exercise some humility when expressing said beliefs in an effort to convince or influence the beliefs of others. The full throated expression of complex conclusions with neither the will nor way to provide the attendant intellectual support is not only a disservice to the present debate, but a tremendously bad example to young people in their formative years who may mistake this demagoguery for valid deliberation.