I apologize for posting about a not-directly-OTD related topic, but if you will allow me to stand on my soapbox and pontificate about politics for a moment.
People get worked up about political issues. They are convinced they are right, and the other side is mistaken. Tempers flare, frustration mounts, op-ed are written, and occasionally, capitals are stormed. This is unwarranted.
As someone who has gone OTD, I have spent the past several years interacting on the Respectfully Debating Judaism Facebook group. One of the greatest lessons I learned from being forced to defend my theological positions on the debate group is how much time and effort it takes to gain subject matter competency in any given topic. This fact is often lost in the heat of the moment.
To give a brute example: I am not too fond of Trump and would have loved to see his fat arrogant orange face puffed up in rage as he screams at his television watching the senate and congress impeach him. I also spent five months in a constitutional law class. Does that make me qualified to opine on the framer’s intent when they wrote that our legislative body could impeach a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors?” Of course not. My entire expertise on the topic comes from a few misremembered classes, a skimmed NYT article, and listening to The Daily Show with Trevor Noah during carpool.
Besides not being fully informed on the substantive issues related to his impeachment, I am also hopelessly uneducated regarding the long-term consequences of impeaching Trump. Will impeaching Trump set a precedent that impeachment can be used as a political tool, wielded by any jilted party against their opponents? Or perhaps the reverse was true, that by NOT impeaching Trump, the country was setting a precedent that a bullish president can get away with egregious power grabs as long he represents his party's selfish interest? I never read a single book on the limits of congressional power or the history of our politic. More importantly, I do not know anything about how other countries and civilizations have coped with these sorts of issues. At base, I am an utter ignoramus. Yet, when schmoozing with my friends over a beer, I will passionately declare that Trump is a menace to our democracy and must be removed. Something is afoot.
When I was Frum, I was a staunch Conservative. Christian Conservative opinions resonate with Frum people, and that was the echo chamber that I occupied. Once I went OTD, most of my views quickly veered Left. I became an outspoken liberal. Yet, the reality is that I do not have a right to either of those positions.
My time debating Judaism and studying epistemology has taught me that political views exist on two-levels – the opinions that reflect emotional subjective desires and, on a much higher, often inaccessible plane of understanding, the objective views that reflect reality. Many of my political positions are simply my way of expressing the fact that I am heartbroken by the suffering I see around me. But my desire to stop the pain of others has little to do with how the world operates.
For fear of being repetitious, take immigration for example. I am disquieted by the fact that by dint of being born in America, I “won” the jackpot of life. My parents were desperately poor when I was growing up, but I never experienced hunger even remotely close to the huger experienced by 20 million people every day in Yemen. When I was sick as a child, my parents could take me to the doctor, unlike countless people in Sub-Saharan Africa. When I was thirsty, I can take a drink from the tap, a luxury unavailable to 1.1 billion people who lack access to water. Given these facts, when I contemplate someone who crossed the border in search of a better life, my instinct is, “Of course, let him/her come.” My blood boils when I hear about children who are separated from their parents and put into detention centers that for-profit corporations often run. ICE is evil. Why do we get to hoard all the bounty of this planet?! Are we not a nation of immigrants?! Wouldn’t it make sense open our borders to the world?! Why are we building walls based on geography drawn from battles that took place hundreds of years ago?!
If anyone asks me, that is my position on immigration and at a dinner table (and in the voting booth), I talk and act based on those feelings. Yet, I have the self-awareness to recognize that I. AM. NOT QUALIFIED. TO. OPINE. ON THE. SUBJECT. I have no idea how unchecked immigration affects labor pools. I have no idea how immigration will strain our welfare systems. What are the ripple effects of uncontrolled immigration? Will taxes be raised? Will America just print more money to meet the demand? Will our currency be able to bear the strain? I am not an economist and am utterly unqualified to speak intelligently on these questions.
Furthermore, will unchecked borders incentivize criminals to immigrate to expand their criminal reach? Is that a real fear of a fantasy concocted by the far-right? Will uncontrolled immigration lead to a rise of radicalized terrorists infiltrating our country? Again, are these concerns just scare tactics and talking points for neo-racists, or is there real data on this issue? Will immigrants adversely affect our two-party system, skewing voting too far one way? If yes, is that a bad thing? Will allowing immigrants to come to America increase overcrowding and hurt our environment?
For all my passion regarding allowing immigrants to come to our county without harassment, I am utterly, UTTERLY, uneducated regarding how such actions will play out in our real, messy, and chaotic world. When I hear people bickering and screaming at each other on any of these political issues, part of me is turned off by the hubris of it all. I want to scream, “Are any of you professors of immigration policy / constitutional law / racial studies / socio-economic public policy that you can so confidently shpiel your position?! Of course not; instead, one of you listens to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and the other listens to Sean Hannity and (YLCT'A) Rush Limbaugh.”
Conclusion:
I appeal to people is to take a step back and recognize that you might be less informed than you think you are. Reading a few articles does not give you the ability to form opinions on these matters that correlate to reality better than “the other side.” It takes a long time and a lot of effort and skill to parse through all the information on a topic to arrive at a competent and qualified opinion. Any talking point presented without the requisite background work is just noise, created to signal emotional allegiance to an idea or party.
The next time you are talking to your friend about affirmative action / BLM / welfare states / abortion / etc., I want you to imagine that while you are talking, the foremost racial studies scholar / economic professor / etc. walks into the room and starts quietly listening to your presentation. Ask yourself, would you start speaking a bit quieter? Would you allow a little hesitancy to enter your voice? Perhaps you would shoot a quick glance over to the world-renowned expert for a confirming nod? If yes, then why wait for the expert to walk into your conversation, accept that you are qualified to discuss the topic you are talking about, and temper your position with an acknowledgment of the limits of your expertise.
Postscript:
Some of you may ask, “Well, if you can never really know which side is right, then how do you make any decision? How do you vote for anybody?”
Answer: This is a good question. It will take several lifetimes to fully appreciate the full import and effect of every policy (and official) that we vote for and elect. No one has the time it takes to do the needed research. Not only that, many of us don’t even have the time it takes to research which academics and data are trustworthy. We cannot just throw up our hands and say, I am going to trust the experts. This is especially true for hyper-partisan issues, which are rife with pseudo-authorities shilling their position.
The answer to this is contained in a statement of Chazal, “ayn li’dayan el amah sh’aynav ro’is” – “A judge can act using the information that he can access [lit. what he can see.]” On any issue, all one can do is look at the data he/she has and ask, “Given the little I know, will this policy likely hurt or help people?” Try to focus on outcomes, rather than ideology. Will ‘policy X’ cause a positive or negative outcome for ‘suffering group Y.’ Try to maximally expand your ability to empathize to feel for the plight of as many groups outside your own. I fully understand that sometimes empathy can be a trap, leading people to make short-term decisions with adverse long-term consequences. Still, I think that, in aggregate, acting with as much empathy and compassion as possible will result in the best outcomes for the most people. I fully acknowledge that this is a statement of faith.
Personally, I voted for Biden. I saw all the suffering around me, and I felt that his policies would do the most to alleviate the pain facing our country. Honestly, I had hoped that Andrew Yang would have won—I can only imagine how much better off countless people would be if they received money each month to pay for the essential cost of living. I would have still voted for Yang despite being viscerally aware that I am not an economist and cannot formulate a valid opinion about how viable all his ideas are. Perhaps Trump would have done a better job than Biden in eventually restarting the economy, creating jobs, and fostering an environment for prosperity. Maybe. But I can only act with the limited information I have, and Biden seemed more attuned to our county's suffering than Trump.