The Master Synthesis

“Deliberation can help transform interests and reveal previously unrealized areas of agreement. If can sharpen participants understandings of their conflicts.”

—Jane Mansbridge

Some are alarmed at the cynicism and viciousness in today’s political climate in America; understandable, but lest not forgot the alternative to talk, violence. Taking the stand in court, an hour behind the podium fighting for policies, or moments discussing feelings about political candidates are not meant to be attractive. But so in working. It’s simply necessary. Avoiding politics, common as it is among large swaths of people in every demographic, should have the same concern as the unemployment rate; they both are a sign of health of a country. The number of political participants is just as important to a democracy as workers to the workforce, the more the better.

Let me clarify. Political participants can be anyone, be it a politician or pedestrian. As soon as you open your mouth or write to influence another person on an issue, you become is some sense a political participant. Constant arguing is inherent in democracy and participation helps define is quality. It seems what topics are at the forefront of the political agenda is the reflection of the people participating in a political arena. Political arenas are areas where politics is discussed and is both formal (political conventions, media interviews, academic policy debates, etc) and informal (blogs, discussions between family and friends, protests, etc). They are a place where influence can inhabit and exist on television and on print as well as in the living room or park bench. To varying degrees both are important, because the constituents of any society needs to figure out who gets what, when, where, and why; or in other words, politics.

Democracy is not to be taken for granted and its inherent problems should be seen as an issue of quality and control, not dysfunction. It is a well-known fact in political science people who participate in primary elections tend to be people who are from opposite sides of the political bell curve. It becomes obvious listening to and reading the rhetoric of presidential candidates in primaries, rhetoric that is extreme for many moderates. As the presidential nominations end and the mono-e-mono race for the oval office begins (aka general election), you tend to see a bit of backtracking to appeal to the broader public (Mitt Romney is a good contemporary example). But what if more moderates in America participated in primary elections? I believe that itself will profoundly change the American political system. I would argue there would be less influence of both Christian extremists on the Right and environmental extremists on the Left, among other undue influences. What people should be sick of is not politics itself, but the low quality of it.

Therefore, the reasonable course of action is for the citizenry to participate in quality and control and to not shy away from any political arena. The more participate, the more of the agenda-making process shifts from extremists views to moderate views. Instead of a few religious zealots believing there should be no Jeffersonian wall between church and state (Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter 1802), moderate religious devotees can focus what, among other things, has been important imperatives in most religious belief systems like helping the poor, the sick, the orphans, etc. Instead of a few environmental zealots believe preserving some obscure species of rodent takes precedence over any and all business opportunities, moderate eco-activists may actually be inclined to accommodate both goals.

But to get back to the quote above. If more people take part in politics, than more moderates will influence politicians and policy. My main argument is this: the cynicism and viciousness in today’s political climate in America are not from moderate voices. It is the moderate who tends to deliberate while the extremist is entrenched in their respective belief system as they are concerned with only what they think is right (you know who is an extremist when they view their truths are eternal). To agree is not a trait of extremists.

This bell curve pretty much generalizes the public, with the extreme Left and extreme Right on their respective ends while most Americans (probably most people in every country) make the middle.


  1. First, commenting on the writing itself, you do have a few grammatical errors so if you’d ever like an editor I’d be more than happy to oblige.

    Secondly, as to the content itself, I agree that the more participants in a political arena the better. All too often I hear people say, “I don’t get involved in politics because I don’t have a strong opinion either way,” even though the lack of a strong opinion is still an opinion. The ability to find evidence to support either side of an argument doesn’t create a weak debate but rather a more sympathetic and logical conversation. These are people who tend to express, “I could never get an abortion, but I wouldn’t tell someone else they weren’t allowed to,” or “I may not think being gay is right but I have to admit gay marriage wouldn’t affect my life in any way.” If anything, these are the voices that should be heard more often, all the more so because they represent the majority of citizens (as your bell curve demonstrated). Republicans and Democrats alike would benefit from escaping the stereotypes perpetuated from the far extremes. Debates could take place in a less heated and accusatory manner and the meat of the matter could be discussed without having to spend so much time fervently defending one’s beliefs.

    Where do you think you fall on the spectrum?

    1. I’d like to think of myself as a moderate (or centrist) but I must seem liberal to many considering the past ten years. I try not to be partisan-ed and polarized, but it very much seems the Republicans have been more extreme in their views than the Democrats have been since Reagan. If it were the other way around, I would be center-right instead of center-left.

      What I mean by “extreme,” in a political sense, are actions and positions that go against humanistic commitments we have toward each other. Liberty, instead of equality; or, equality, instead of liberty. In my experience, both values can be achieved 99% of the time. But partisanship, or selfishness for that matter, doesn’t look for the achievement of both but whatever is perceived to directly benefit you or your group. The extreme here is the complete inconsideration of the other. How could you be “for” liberty or freedom if you don’t think it should apply to people you may not like.

      My views of what “extreme” fully entails is not a science, but is an ever-evolving concept reflecting my deepest personal beliefs. In a nutshell, I am a secular humanist. Apart from the definition, I believe the purpose of humankind is to ensure the quality and survival of itself. All other concerns are secondary. But it doesn’t mean all other concerns are inconsiderable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s