The more I learn, the more I realize that most issues are not black and white. They are often complex gradations of gray, with one “fact” leading to a multitude of questions, the answers to which shed new light on the “fact” itself. This has caused me to question the concept of belief. People base their lives on belief: Their religious preferences, moral guidelines and day-to-day actions are a reflection of _things_ they believe in.

A dictionary definition of belief is “something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof“. That last part hints at the temporal relationship between knowledge and time. A belief is a momentary opinion or idea, one subject to change as time progresses and further knowledge is gained.

This has been on my mind a lot as I look at politicians and the level of permanent accountability they are held to regarding their beliefs. We as a society seem to value people with strong beliefs. But we value their unwavering dedication to those beliefs, as well. If a politician, for instance, changes their mind on an issue after learning more about it, we see that as typical politics; a person exploiting a group’s dedication to a belief in order to get elected, then abandoning that belief when convenient. It seems probable that some politicians are in fact opportunists. But should we project a minority bias onto a larger group who may have a change of heart and mind because they have learned something new that sways their opinion?

We elect these officials because they are esteemed citizens, intelligent in the ways and needs of their constituents and capable of navigating the political landscape. Yet we question them immediately once they deviate from the path they set out on. But each one of us lives day to day changing our minds based on new information we encounter. Why is it we hold these people to a higher standard–or more rigid standard–than we hold ourselves?

One argument for it is we elected these people based on a common set of beliefs we have. We elected them with the understanding that they would influence government to meet our needs, which are fed by our beliefs. And when they veer from the course we believed they would take, we are quick to anger: How could they so carelessly abandon the group that elected them? But why see it like that? Isn’t it equally (if not more) probable that they are now privy to information we are not that has influenced their change of heart? How often do we change our minds on a whim without some compelling reason to do so? These elected officials are, after all, supposed to be extensions of our collective minds and opinions. It is not illogical to think they would act just as we would in positions of further knowledge.

Or perhaps our reaction to them exposes something deeper about us; our aversion to change even in the presence of new and convincing information.

Even if the politicians are behaving opportunistically (exploiting a group’s belief in something to become elected, with the intent of doing something different once in office), isn’t it possible they are so educated and aware that they know more about something, or know better what’s good for a group of people, than they themselves do? I can see the danger in that argument as it tends to move toward tyranny if fully embraced. But in a republic, can we not assume that for each bad apple who wishes to exploit the people for power, there are 9 good apples wishing to exploit the people for their own good?

I suppose what influences this train of thought is an inherent optimism about the intentions of humans. Time has shown me that for all the evil that exists, there is unquestionably more good. That is why the Adolf Hitlers, Josef Stalins, Alberto Mussolinis, and Pol Pots of the world are historical rarities. They occur with certainty and will continue to do so, but they represent the potential for evil in all of us, not the certainty of it. And time has proved that humans trend toward good–otherwise our race would be extinct.

Embracing that, it seems we should, as a collective people, embrace belief changes as well-intentioned shifts necessarily made by people who are exposed to more information than most of us. When people’s minds change, it is often for the better.

To risk an interpretation folly, that’s likely why a politician runs on a platform. A platform is a foundation to build upon. It’s an expression of commonality between a politician and their base. It’s a contract that, all things considered, they will do their best–given all constraints–to help change their constituents’ society in a certain way. But once new information flows in and they can see a bigger picture, they must do what’s necessary to build upon that platform in ways that seem correct to them.

And if they fail to satisfy us with their long-term strategy, we simply won’t re-elect them. 

My mom and I had a political chat tonight that left me feeling enlightened and thinking more about a line from a book I’m reading called American Creation. Near the beginning of chapter five, the author states the following about some of the founders’ difficulty in grasping the feasibility of an overtly partisan government:

“…one of the ultimate implications of the two-party system that was so hard for most of the founders to accept was the realization that different versions of truth could coexist alongside one another and both claim, with considerable plausibility, to be true. Unlike mathematics, in politics there was no agreed-upon solution reached by sheer brainpower and logic, but rather an ongoing and never-ending struggle between contested versions of the truth.”

This statement resonates profoundly in today’s charged political climate. As we get caught up in our debates and inspired opinions, our investment in our candidates, the chosen torch-bearers of our beliefs, we often overlook the effective and resilient principle our government operates on.

Truth vacillates. People whose truths disagree with ours are not enemies, they simply offer different perspectives. The political process does not help us see this fact; political campaigns smear one another, parties lash out and blame the other when mistakes happen, and because of this polarization at the top, we, the people, lose sight of the objectivity that works so well in a system like ours.

Near the middle of our conversation, my mom stopped and asked: “Tell me the top 5 reasons why you want Obama in office.” I, in my typically wordy way, rattled off technology, political adroitness, bipartisanship, rejuvenation of the American image, and analogous personal beliefs–including pro-choice–as my top 5. My mention of abortion led to an, at times emotional, follow-up debate about the benefits and detriments of a woman’s right to choose.

Though the discussion wasn’t novel, it highlighted the fact that parallel truths, as perceived so perplexedly by the founders, can and do exist side-by-side. My mother and I deeply believe in our points of view, living our opinions through our daily actions. And in this country, we are always fairly evenly split by our coexistent truths, which explains the rareness of the ever-elusive “landslide” political victory. We battle competitively, yes, but respectfully, too. That’s what I love, that’s what we all love, about America. We can exist as ourselves even in a world where our truths may not be those of the majority. It’s an amazingly successful experiment in the existence of multiple realities.

Huffington Post author Sam Stein penned an article today titled “Palin Makes Her First Gaffe“, calling out the GOP Vice Presidential pick for falsely stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are US tax payer burdens (prior to the government takeover on 9/9/08). After watching the video, there’s no question that she inappropriately classified the mortgage giants as government subsidized.

The article soon found itself on Digg, a social news site where the site’s users democratically choose the main content. Each article is “dugg” up or down based on a vote-per-article available to each person. In the fashion of democracy, the community members also have a common-man’s veto, used to mark an article as inaccurate. Once a certain number of people mark the article as such, the declaration of inaccuracy is displayed prominently whenever the article is viewed (see the image below).

This veto serves to alert users to potentially false information and carries a heavy statement with it: “The population of this community has deemed this content incorrect; do not read it.” Thus, any marked link appears fallacious and is in turn skipped by a majority of the users. This tool’s biggest issue is the ease of exploitation by a mob and this story is about that.

Briefly, this touches on an issue I’ve run into many times when researching political topics: What information is valid? Publication houses still act as sentinels for published, hard-copy materials. But, in an increasingly digitized world, where everyone has the capability to disseminate information, these watchmen are not present.

In Naomi Campell’s book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, she mentions disinformation and refers specifically to Joseph Goebbels, German minister of propaganda during World War II, and his effective use of thought manipulation. Over time–or perhaps because of Goebbel’s malicious use of it–propaganda came to carry a negative meaning.

With respect to Digg, in this politically charged time, the denotation of an article as inaccurate has become synonymous with an attempt at smearing–or propagandizing–the opposing person’s candidate. While marking inaccurate has worked sufficiently in the past, this article, and three others like it, have been marked inappropriately so. This presents a problem for interpretation in the future.

Humans rely on formal institutions to provide trustworthy information; we built our lives around it. We started by learning math, science, and reading based on curricula sanctioned by our schools and governments. Imagine if that information turned out to be wrong. It’s analogous to being in space with nothing around: you’d know neither up from down nor left from right. Your ability to discern direction would disappear.
And true information is the way forward; facts are what we stand on as we reach for the next level of understanding.

In modern politics, it has become trendy to paint things in shades of gray, disallowing any perception of truth; and it’s worrisome. How do we expect our society to understand such complex things the economy, health care, and foreign relations when we question such solid facts? Palin was videotaped in this instance, the damning words and images made available for replay; yet somehow this article was deemed inaccurate. This is how it begins, the slow blurring of true and false. Will they next have us doubting the science of tapes and cameras and our technology’s ability to accurately portray history?

If this seems alarming that’s because it is. Good information is absolutely critical to good decision making. Our minds are being polluted and we’re being duped in the most insulting and damaging way. I’m coming to find that truth usually sides with virtue and honor, which clarifies what’s true quite a bit.

The media, lately, has been obsessed with the definition of patriotism. Confining it to the wearing of a flag pin or having previously been a prisoner of war is too prescriptive. Patriotism is not defined by a single action, but a conglomeration of actions that form a cause and define a lifetime.

Both Obama and McCain are patriots. There’s not doubt about it. They’ve simply chosen to reflect their patriotism in different ways. From the moment we begin to learn and figure things out for ourselves, those around us encourage creativity and enforce the idea that there’s no one, single way to achieve something. The methods of achievement may vary in their effectiveness, but there are, without a doubt, many possible combinations that result in the same outcome.

And that’s the point we’ve reached regarding patriotism. Yet, as we’ve become adults, we forget that differences are uniting; we forget our childhood lessons that encouraged exploration and personal redefinition. If not for this driving characteristic, Einstein would never have discovered the influence of gravity on light and would not have correctly overturned thousands of years of physical history and commonly held beliefs. It’s this daring redefinition, the exploration of a space thought well understood, that resulted in arguably the greatest rediscovery of our time.

The idea that either candidate’s personal definition of patriotism is right or wrong goes against this very characteristic. Each person has the right to define patriotism in the context of their own strengths and weaknesses. That right is inalienable. It was provided by the founders via the constitution because they recognized that staying ahead means constantly rethinking the present situation in many different ways.

Ultimately, it is up to the American people to decide which manifestation of patriotism appeals to them the most. That’s the beauty of our democracy: win or lose, you have a right to voice your opinion. But the media has been using their power to influence people’s opinions on these issues. They have the great responsibility of oversight, of informing the American people of the facts. They were designed to be a medium for information. Unfortunately, they’ve lost sight of that goal. In the face of capitalism, where revenue and profits are driven by subscribers and viewers who are, in turn, interested in nothing but being stimulated, they’ve catered their reporting to ideals and extremes, often ignoring the facts.

Whose fault is it, then? Do we blame the citizens of America for their general sense of apathy towards politics and civics? Or do we blame the media for feeding the people misinformation because it’s titilating? Or maybe we don’t blame anyone at all and instead focus on new, disrupting technologies that are, once again, democratizing information and knowledge: namely, the Internet. Its impact was already been seen in 16-month Democratic primary and continues to be the foundation on which the Obama campaign builds all of its efforts.

Patriotism, to me, is constantly exploring how to make this country better. There are both micro and macro representations of this. A steel worker putting in extra hours to make more money is being a patriot by giving more to corporate America and giving more money back into the economy. A teacher is being a patriot by choosing to show up every day to educate the children of this country in the hope that they will be the next Albert Einstein or Bill Gates.

Instead of calling out the differences in the presidential candidate’s versions of patriotism, the media would best serve the country by positively pointing out the fact that both are patriotic in different ways. By encouraging us to be unique, to embrace our own ideals and preferences and to use those to keep America on the cutting edge of science and technology, human rights, philanthropy, business and education. America needs a lot of fuel, our thoughts and energy, to keep going. Patriotism is using your thoughts and energy, in an infinite number of creative and different ways, for this very purpose.