Looking Both Ways
A narrow focus might reveal details, but a wider one reveals a more comprehensive perspective…and hidden issues
When we are very young, our parents, teachers and others tell us to look both ways before crossing the street — any street. The primary concern is motor vehicles, but anyone on anything with wheels also represents a potential danger. Looking both ways also represents a habit of observing a wider view. A narrow focus might reveal details, but a wider one reveals a more comprehensive perspective…and hidden issues.
There are many things going on around us — not just where we live but in the rest of the country and in the world. More often than not these broader views might not have much of an affect on us. And given how busy and focused daily life can be, looking both ways might seem fairly unimportant. This is, however, not a pragmatic approach given how much can go wrong that will have negative consequences.
To illustrate this, I’m going to select a topic that is well known, yet hides a far more serious aspect related to it. There has been a widely recognized attempt by one political party to undermine an election it lost — but insists it didn’t — by claims of voter fraud. This is being used to justify voter suppression in future elections. It is already obvious in states with a Republican controlled legislature, as voting laws are being changed and/or added to make it more difficult for voters who are not Republican or strongly conservative to register and/or vote.
While this is unfortunate and certainly represents a threat to democracy, the reality is that the likely results of these changes will have a surprisingly small effect overall on voting. Voter suppression is absolutely wrong, but it pales in comparison to the other issue regarding voting that is less well known and far more insidious not just in terms of voting but in terms of democracy itself.
Many in the electorate are unaware that partisan election administration is at far greater risk, with much worse potential consequences. The real threat to democracy is after votes have been cast. What might seem like vague bureaucratic changes raises the possibility of contested elections that the courts will not be able to resolve. The changes to state elections being made by Republicans will undermine three fail-safe mechanisms that are in place to maintain the integrity of elections.
The first one, which we take for granted, is that the loser concedes the election. The second is that election officials maintain integrity regardless of personal political choices. The third is that the courts are able to rule on election processes and maintain their authority by not being ignored by others. These three realities are what keeps winners from being the only ones accepting election results. When those who lose can simply not accept voting results because they don’t want to, democracy and thus elections cease to be the law of the land.
Many Republicans and those who are very conservative aren’t looking the other way and seeing any of this. They are so busy trying to rig democracy to favor their far right ideology and candidates that they haven’t examined the consequences rationally. Their goal is to appeal to voters who want to reverse societal changes occurring over the last three decades and ensure that white citizens retain what should be their privileged status. Ironically, census data show increasing diversity while the percentage of white citizens is decreasing — whites are projected to be only half the population by the early 2040s.
Looking both ways is a rational assessment of both the larger view and the details of that perspective. An essential aspect of making good choices is seeing and evaluating both. Last year I noted in a post that the ability to hold several possible answers to a given question without narrowing down to one answer prematurely is a sign of intelligence. High IQ individuals will not force closure quickly but rather examine all variables and partial conclusions closely.
So, partisan election administration is even more important to democracy than voting. But knowing this only happens when the viewpoint is comprehensive, and this requires looking both ways. Testing assumptions can reveal flaws in thinking that can be worse than the “problem.” In this case, the problem is with those who are outside of the political mainstream and are willing to undermine democracy for their political ideology.
