We’ve known for a long time that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we tend to forget the wide variety of ways the saying applies. When we recognize that everything is “information,” we can begin to notice what is “high-quality” information and what information is of lower quality. The higher the quality, the greater the likelihood that the information will prove true over time. A pudding that looks really good, for example, may not taste as good as it looks. The food you see advertised on TV, is typically not edible. It’s made to look good for the camera, but it isn’t “real food.”
The impetus for this blog essay is politics. We (in the States) recently experienced an extremely contentious election in which the candidates for office promised all sorts of things. That’s the words part of the title. Now comes the action part. What will the politicians actually do? This is the important part of our political system, and it is the part that we too often forget the next time we enter political “silly season.” The inability to connect the promises with the performance is doubtless one of major causes of voter cynicism and lack of participation in the process. When we know that the vast majority of politicians are indebted to one vested interest or another, he underlying question is whether voting for the lesser of two evils is worthwhile. Many have argued that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I can understand that perspective, but I disagree with it.
We know that things in general can improve with small changes over time. Consider automobiles. The Model T was a remarkable invention, but the cars we are driving now are better in hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of ways. If you’ve been around long enough to have witnessed the evolution of the typewriter into today’s computers you’re already familiar with another example of the way an accumulation of small changes can lead to vast improvements. I suspect the same is true in politics. Whatever your issues, vote for the candidates you think will deliver the changes you desire. Then watch what they do. If they don’t deliver, vote for others next time.
One of my concerns is that so many of our politicians are financially dependent on “special interests,” and they vote on legislation based on those interests rather than on what the voters want. And, of course, what voters want is influenced by a veritable onslaught of advertising, much of which is negative. When you think about it, if it didn’t have such serious consequences, the process would be amusing. Candidates hire specialists in opposition advertising to dig up “dirt” on their opponents, which they use to help ensure that voters focus on the evils of the other candidate while ignoring the issues that need to be addressed. Why do we have such a system? We voted for it.
Voted for it? Yes, perhaps not directly but indirectly by failing to pay closer attention to the actions than we did to the promises of those we were electing to office. When we fail to vote for the lesser of two evils, we end up electing the greater of the evils. While things can get progressively better by one small improvement at a time, they can also get progressively worse by failure to attend to details. In this last election cycle, for example, we knew that the vast majority of us had very poor opinions of our representatives in the Senate and House. And what happened? Many of the people we said we hated were re-elected to office. What’s wrong with this picture?
The saying, “Doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result” is often quoted as Einstein’s definition of insanity. Regardless of whether Einstein was the originator of the saying, it is at least relatively true. The principal exceptions I can think of are things that require practice, from playing musical instruments, to driving, and probably voting. What these have in common is taking action, observing the effect the action has, and then changing what you are doing based on the feedback you receive. My sense is that we need to start applying that principle to voting.
