Nothing is more important to a well-governed democracy than a properly informed electorate.
With all the tumultuous turmoil that is wracking the world — the NSA leaks, the Syrian civil war, Egypt’s demonstrations — now more than ever it is important to proceed forward equipped with knowledge that will allow for the citizens of this nation to make rational, well thought out decisions.
Discussion is at the root of the democratic process. It is a tool to be used by the citizenry to understand new perspectives, to become informed of facts previously unknown and to formulate the path which the government ought to follow. However, several disturbing trends seem to be hindering this necessary communication.
The first of these hurdles to overcome is the idea of what society deems as “polite discussion.” Politics has become a hallowed ground. People are afraid to talk for fear of offense. So we discuss only with those that share our same views. But what real discussion can occur if there is no dissenting opinion? Without free reign in discussion there is no progression towards compromise.
The second of these surmountable obstacles comes when those who do not share a consensus find themselves locked in an exchange. Offerings of coherent expositions often turn to ideological zealotry and verbal abuse when a position becomes indefensible. But being wrong is part of the learning process. If a stance on an issue cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it must be abandoned. As Confucius said, “Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change.”
Finally, the most grievous of sins that can be committed against the institution of democratic governance is one often perpetrated in ignorance: apathy. It is easy to grow complacent when living in an area where one’s political ideology is in the minority. Why bother voting when it won’t count for anything? But citizens must cast off the drapery of dispassion. The only vote that does not count is the vote not cast. Democracy is built on the voice of its citizens, but only those citizens that choose to make their voice heard.
The path of least ideological resistance is made far too accessible in the information age. With the world’s knowledge and collection of opinion at one’s fingertips, a voter can choose what facts they decide to hear on a given issue. A voter can choose never to encounter a rational dissenter and a voter can choose never to be exposed to the cognitive dissonance that comes with well thought out counter arguments to their positions. But to collaborate, we must communicate. A belief must conform to reality, but we have the ability to shape our reality to an ideology.
We must, as U.S. citizens, be critically thinking, well-informed, individualized voters. Without these qualities, all that will remain is the status quo. A political equilibrium will be reached, in which meaningful change will stagnate and die.