Isn’t this a risky precedent to set? Why are these coal miners any more deserving of a eulogy from the President than say those who died on the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, or those who died in the tornadoes in Mississippi?

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. 

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.