Do we have to care about politics ?
Yesterday, I planned to work on my bachelor’s thesis. Instead, I spent the day on my phone, diving into endless opinions on the U.S. election outcome. As a German in a relatively stable country, I don’t have much at stake. Sure, America's geopolitical actions might impact my life, but realistically, aside from fluctuating prices on certain goods, I don’t see this election changing my world. Yet, this morning, my Instagram was flooded with acquaintances condemning Trump’s victory—more than I saw for our local federal election.
Why do they care? I don’t care about that. I have a half-baked theory that it’s about them signaling they’re on the “right team,” but that’s a topic for another day. But why do I care ?
In reality, I have no real influence on politics beyond voting and paying absurdly high tobacco taxes. But I am extremely informed. I know the specifics of obscure legislature. I’ve watched hours of political content on YouTube—interviews with politicians, historians, sociologists, economists. I could tell you all about what different politicians stand for and even more about what they should do (obviously, they should just listen to the “expert” views of a perpetually online 23-year-old). But let’s face it, I don’t influence them in any way. Politicians know that the crowd of extremely informed online politics nerds has about as much combined influence as an endorsement by a minor TV celebrity—which is to say, not much.
So, why care?
To start with a childishly simple model: democracy is a system designed to benefit more people rather than fewer. A majority can decide what they want to do with their country, thereby overriding the beliefs of smaller groups. Thus, the majority could act maximally selfish. Information should matter only to the extent that it enhances my ability to vote in a way that best serves my interests. By that logic, I’m announcing a new party dedicated to “democratic efficiency”: enslaving 49% of the population to work in the salt mines in exchange for a sleeping place and meager bread rations. Membership in the dominant 51% will be determined partly by lottery, partly by rank percentile in obscure online games.
This obviously doesn’t happen. Most people I know vote with a vague sense of the greater good. Their reasoning is mostly based on personal vibes and influenced by what they individually care about. Care about nature? Vote for the party with the environmental branding. Care about business? Vote for the party of business. Care about conservative values ? Go vote for the christian conservatives. Care about the “great replacement” of Europeans by Arabs? Go fuck yourself.
In this model, people hold a set of values and vote for the party that aligns most with their vision. The starkest divide in German politics, as far as I can tell, is a divide between universal application of ethics and a more tribalistic notion of "we should look out for ourselves". In another great twist of narratives, the proponents of the "we should care for everyone" model of ethics are richer people while the proponents of the "we should look out for ourselves" are mostly lower class. The murky middle ground of self-care before helping others is mostly ignored, likely because it’s a hard sell in our short-lived, social media-dominated age.
Returning to our initial question: the universalists care a lot about what is going on in the world. They imagine a utopia where everyone is well fed, well educated and free. They think they can make that happen, as long as Germany takes in immigrants and acts economically fair to people less wealthy than us. Then, as long as other enlightened nations in the west follow this example and act well meaning towards the global south, global peace and prosperity can ensue. Therefore it is good and proper to always be informed about not only national politics, but also international politics with a focus on the mistreatment of minorities around the world.
What starts as a noble endeavour quickly turns sour when it makes them sick. I don't think any human without a lack of empathy can look at pictures, videos and descriptions of cruel treatment every day without incurring some serious damage and needing to put up some sort of psychological defenses. The world is quite big and filled with bad people, therefore, when looking globally, there is always some suffering, that can be broadcast straight into your psyche. But then again - looking away would be cruel and non-caring would it not ? How can you look away from the suffering of countless women and children ? How can you look away from the suffering inflicted upon the palestinian people by the IDF ?
I think constant exposure to human suffering and the resulting simmering righteous indignation at the world and the first world in particular makes people less politically effective. Sure, they may vote for parties promising to reduce global suffering or at least global negative german impact, but it also damages the soul and psyche. None of the people I know that fall into this camp feel particularly happy. And they don't seem to be particularly agentic too.
This makes sense to me because when faced with a local problem, with a clear definition and a clear solution, people can see a path where their actions directly influence a positive outcome. But when faced with constant global suffering, with one human rights crisis quickly being replaced/overlapped with the next, the amount of work that would have to be done can seem impossible to do, let alone start. The actual political influence of these people seldomly extends beyond voting and the posting of calls to action on various social media platforms with the occasional attendance at a safe (non-consequential) political rally (e.g. against racism in general, not something with specific goals)
The "Tribalists" appraoach politics with a different energy. In contrast to the empathetic, low burn suffering of the universalists, they are angry all the fucking time. They think that Germany should look out for its interests firsts. In more extreme camps, they think that if other nations wanted more, they should earn more (conquer more?). People like being angry. They don't like to admit it, but anger is a much more pleasant emotion than contentment or something similarly boring. They like the anger along with the gleeful schadenfreude that comes along as their party slowly wins. This camp is somewhat mirrored by the "meltdown compilations" produced after each republican victory. As far as i can tell, their media diet concerning politics is somewhat less international. Instead, what grabs their attention the most (and is therefore often produced and fed to them by algorithms) is clips and information concerning ways that the german government is acting against the interests of "real-germans".
When confronted with topics like LGBT rights and discrimination against minorities they get even angrier, because to them, it feels like a smoke screen. "How can you talk about the specific definition of a string of letters of a minority, when our industry declining will have very real consequences for the workers in those very factories ?".
(Also as a quick aside, i am ignoring racists and homophobes for the sake of simplicity. The optimal amount of caring about politics these two groups should do is zero.)
The more nationalistic approach seems to be more conducive to agency. While many our nations most talented and intelligent people sit in front of their phones, locked in their heads by thinking about broad general systemic solutions of how world suffering could be reduced, the more tribe-focused way of thinking does not have this drawback. Indeed, anger can be a very motivating force. The goal of simply making germany the best it can be and therefore ensuring german welfare through a strong industry, is still large, but far more attainable than an end to world suffering. But i also think this type of media consumption has a flaw. The constant focus on the incompetencies of the government by the tribalists, make the building of normal, compromise based alliances extremely difficult. "How can you cooperate with anyone that is that incompetent, hypocritical and also morally flawed?". Also, when looking at a constant stream of "mistakes" made by the universalists, another question may creep in. "How can they be this incompetent ? Are they this incompetent ? Do they have ulterior motives ? Who controls their ulterior motives ?", and that way lies darkness.
Again returning to the original question of "Do we have to care about politics ?". The answer seems to be quite clearly Yesn'tbutdefinetlyless. I can't for the life of me grasp what improvement in any of our decision making could be gained by constant involvement in political questions.
The only potential benefit of the constant engagement with politics is that politicians could be held more accountable for their mistakes/wrongdoings. But this does not seem to be the case with either of the made up categories we discussed so far. While the universalists surely immediately notice when some politician says something offensive, more often than not it leads to nothing except maybe a sadly delivered excuse written by chatgpt. When mistakes are the only thing the tribalists see, all actual signal is lost in the noise, the actionable value of the information obtained is practically zero.
Where does this all leave us ? With a simple solution and a hard implementation. Be less engaged with politics.
- Every citizen in a democracy has an ethical duty to vote for the betterment of the country. To make that decision, critical weighing of the alternatives is required. A look at each parties proposed solutions to pressing issues along with their respective track record for delivering on their promises is something that could be done in a resonable time frame, especially when considering that you only have to vote every few years.
- The only problem solved by constant attention to infotainment (derogatory) is the solvency of different influencers. Along with the shortening of attention span in the moment to moment, people also have a far smaller horizon for events that happened in the immediate past. This leads to a less accurate picture of the information gathered in the first point.
- Constant attention to global suffering hurts the consumer while also doing little to alleviate said suffering. Getting awareness isn't the point. Every one is too aware. Universalists impact in the world could be greatly increased by moving from the "we must help everyone" mindset to the "apply oxygen masks to yourself first to make sure that you can apply them to people around you". (This might be hindered by a tricky mental move brains sometimes pull. When we imagine ourselves guilty of something we must "atone" that means - suffer. I ask myself sometimes whether that constant awareness is "atonement" of some sort, for the unimaginable crime to live and consume in a western country. Honestly evaluating your impact in the world would instead show that far from solving any of the global issues you are so mind-hurtingly aware of, you can barely act in the world.)
The practical implementation of this is more difficult. Understanding the impact of proposed economic policy is hard to grasp for experts, let alone voters like you and me. Constantly being updated on the newest piece of political theatre in contrast is quite easy. Understanding that heightened levels of engagement with politics, or indeed any engagement with politics apart from our goals for us and our fellows mostly hurt our chances of actual political influence helps us disengage to a distance where the view is clearer.
And who knows, maybe from that clear view one could find some local piece of politics with problems that are quite solvable. With a direct line to measurable political impact on the people you hold most dear. Or not, who knows. Maybe the system is damaged beyond any chance of repair. In any case, care must be applied carefully. Fucks must be given on a strict fucks-budget. Going into fucks-given-debt will leave you fucked.
Anyways, i think i have to check on the news because it seems like Germanys ruling coalition has just imploded BECAUSE OF THAT FUCKING LITTLE RAT OF A FINANCE MINISTER!