The title has probably given my motive away. In any case, let us start with a quiz. As you answer the quiz, think of a topic that you feel strongly about one way or another – Trump, climate change, Tanishq, Hindi as India’s national language, Hindutva, Islamization, China, illegal immigration, Charlie Hebdo, Modi or sharing river waters. The topic does not matter. The side of the debate you are on does not matter. What matters is the depth of your conviction on the topic.
Here is the quiz. Don’t overthink your answers. Just answer
‘yes’ or ‘no’ based on your instant reaction. No ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’ answers.
Add up your score. If your score is:
- 50: please stop reading. You won’t understand what I write below. I don’t want hate mail.
- 40: depends. If you are angry at this point, give yourself 10 bonus points.
- 30: you have been radicalized in social media. You might need an intervention, but there is hope.
- 20: good.
- 10: I’m envious
- 0: Are you sure you are being truthful?!
The questions were mostly about
social media, but this article is not. Let’s come back to the quiz later.
Much has been written about the
divisiveness of the current social and political climate. People on social
media are busy coining insulting names for the people they don’t agree with. To
name a few - trumptards, libtards, bhakts, sanghis,
sickulars, aaptards, oopis, commies, urban-naxals,
dumeels and so on. These names may describe people of different
political leanings, but they all have something in common – they put many
people in varying levels of disagreement with the speaker in a single
dismissive bucket.
A quote attributed to Voltaire is
- “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right
to say it”.
Voltaire, or whoever paraphrased
him had been vary idealistic. It assumes all arguments will be met with
thoughtful and reasonable consideration by either side. What if each side is
willing to give its own side a far greater benefit of doubt than it is willing
to give the other side? What if everyone
is thinking, “they are all alike!” when it comes to the other side, and are
willing to treat the radical, scary elements on one’s own side as exceptions?
What if they are busy making up counterarguments when the other side is speaking?
Moderates are assigned
uncomplimentary labels in social media too. They realize, or have realized at
some points, that those labels were made up by one side for shaming them into
joining them. On evidence, moderates are a dying breed. They don't speak much in public. They seem to be getting
rarer on social media. They are attacked for not voicing an opinion on the
issue that one of the radical sides feels strongly about. The reason could be
that they are smart enough to realize that the issue is not black or white, but
a shade of grey. They realize that the shades bely their vocabulary. They
realize that both sides of radicalization are willing the pounce on what they
say, so would rather not say anything at all.
Democracy requires us to preserve this dying species and give them a voice.
Giving everyone a vote is based
on one premise – the wisdom of crowds. All adults get one vote each. The main premise
behind democracy is not that everyone is equally smart, or that everyone thinks
equally hard before making a choice. Instead, the thinking is that far more choices
are made in a rational, informed fashion than otherwise.
We need the assumption to hold
for democracy to survive.
A moderate is not someone who
lacks an opinion, but someone willing to change his/her opinion. Someone who
has ‘firm opinions, loosely held’ as they say. Someone who is willing to spend
more time listening than speaking. Not necessarily someone who says “Fine
people on both sides” when one side is at fault. Moderates identify with an
issue, not a political party. They are smart enough to realize no single party
can represent them on all issues – social, environmental, economic and religious. They don’t
just hand their allegiance to any party unquestioningly. They realize that what
they see on the news and social media is probably the ‘message’ that one side
has chosen to push. Power corrupts, but absolute, unquestioned power corrupts
absolutely. Moderates vote for a party, but don’t feel the need to defend
everything the party does. They hold their leader accountable after casting
their vote.
Being a moderate is getting harder.
If you click enough articles on your social media feed, the selection mechanism
biases future suggestions based on a similar thinking. It gets even worse if
you choose to friend or follow only people who think like you.
Talking to only your kind is like
choosing to fill a jungle only with herbivores (or carnivores). Sooner or
later, the jungle will die due to ecological imbalance. The important choice is not between the left
and the right, Muslims vs Hindus, the Democrats vs the Republicans. It is
between the thinking and the unthinking; the open vs. closed mind.
Now, back to the quiz. They say
80% of the drivers rate themselves as above average. In that vein, you may want
to rethink your answers to see if you have been too generous to yourself.
Moderates are endangered and yet
have no advocacy groups It’s in not fashionable to be a moderate rights
activist. So, when you spot a moderate, be kind. Consider adopting one. On
social media, for example. An international moderates day, anyone?
