One of the many ways that the poisonous zero-sum mentality has effected society is that some are now naive enough to think that in order to offer a politician one’s short or even medium term support, one must agree with every policy position of said politician. Such a mentality is not only dangerous but it is entirely undemocratic. Democracy is about debate, the ability for one’s position to evolve and the ability to agree with multiple ideologies at once for a variety of philosophical, existential and personal reasons. What democracy is not about is submission to any one person. Total submission to one person is the phenomenon known as a personality cult. This phenomenon is wholly incompatible with a true democracy in every sense.
Within political parties, there are multiple different views on policy matters which arise from reasons ranging from the principled and sublime to the personal and the inane. Even individual political leaders often change their opinions on certain policies as circumstances change. This is in fact one of the hallmarks of a politician who astutely follows real world developments and reacts in a rational way, as opposed to one obsessed with detached and abstract political theory.
And yet, these long standing logical realities are being challenge by new hysterical trends in western politics that are little more than a throwback to a dark age of primitive social behaviours. Today, some westerners actually believe that it is not just a political mistake but a deep personal and moral flaw when one supports a politician because one agrees with some rather than all of her or her points of view.
In a normal circumstance, no one will ever agree completely with a politician for the same reason that one never agrees fully with anyone including one’s family members. And yet, those afflicted with a primitive mindset are so bold as to hold politics to a higher standard than human nature itself – something as perverse as fallacious.
It is a sad reflection of the state of societies throughout the western world that one must now justify that which in recent years was an obvious truism. If one begins with the premise that one will never fully agree with another human being on each of his or her views, it goes without saying that the same is true of politicians. Therefore, one makes one’s democratic choices in politics based on a preponderance of agreement on the issues that one believes are the most important at any given time.
Not only is disagreement therefore healthy in politics but it is necessary. Consistency in terms of one’s ethnics and morals combined with supreme flexibility in one’s policies aimed at problem solving is the essence of win-win politics. Such win-win conclusions to the endeavour of political problem solving can only exist if individuals take a mature, reasonable and practical approach to life.
This necessitates the total rejection of primitive tribalism and the embrace of rational thinking that rejects personality cults and ideological dogmas.