The myths of causality amidst democracy
When I was recently in Arizona, the bombardment of political messaging was relentless. My parents are the TV-always-on sort of people, so I even caught some of the debate between two of the Senate candidates, then replays of the debate, then commentary about the debate, then commentary about the commentary, and so on.
Stepping back from the partisan arguments, it’s amazing how simplistically both sides painted the world. Every single problem has a single, simple cause, and voting for a particular candidate will fix everything. Both sides agree on this sort of mythical, cartoonish model of causality.
In reality, causality is a nastily complex thing. Doing something now might bear fruit in 100 years, or not. In the case of climate change, much of what’s been done has been done, and it’s frustrating to admit that we simply don’t know what, if any, effect radical actions today will have.
Democracy is difficult and fraught with uncertainty. Anyone that tells you one candidate will cause a long list of things to happen and then backs that assertion up with a simple deterministic model of causality shouldn’t be taken seriously. Assuming we can’t really understand the full consequences of any one policy position, especially as laymen, it makes more sense to divide candidates into pro status quo and anti status quo.
I sincerely understand why those who have been put off by the status quo vote for the anti status quo candidate. Likewise, I truly get the reason to fight tooth and nail to support the pro status quo candidate if things have been going well for you. This sort of analysis works better than the pundits talking about people born on a full moon during Mercury retrograde in a leap year are more likely to support candidates born during Saturn retrograde that coincides with the year of the dragon.