I’ve listened to a lot of political podcasts the past few months and have noticed something that I think is dangerous—a distanced, “objective” stance. There’s a tendency in discussions (political often, but I think in most realms) to frame objectivity as desirable and achievable and better than other positions. Pursuing objectivity is folly.
Now, to be clear, I’m not trying to argue against seeking knowledge and facts and increasing your understanding of any particular issue—those are not only good things, but I believe we have an obligation to seek them. What I find dangerous is the distanced and “objective” position that political pundits, commentators, and others often take.
I don’t believe that these individuals are truly objective, because I don’t believe that any person can really be objective. Facts are meaningless without interpretation and interpretation requires the use of a subjective lens, so no matter how fact-based your argument is, it cannot be purely objective. The engagement with the ideas at play has a tone as if none of it matters—as if everything is a game that simply should be played to your preferred team’s advantage.
This type of analysis attempts to take an amoral view of politics and what is happening, when what we need is stronger morals throughout our entire political system. Morality in the political arena has largely been co-opted by the Religious Right to refer to abortion and gay marriage, which leaves countless moral issues unaddressed.
The “objective” political analysis has no moral compass and behaves as if all that matters is who wins and who loses in any given scenario. Politics is not a game. Real people face real consequences for the political actions of a small few and those actions should be interrogated fiercely from a variety of moral positions.
Let’s do more. Let’s not cede our morality to data or a zero-sum game. Let’s vigorously engage with what is happening in the political world and talk about what is and isn’t right.
Conor Hilton 