Public’s approach to political topics similar to best-seller books

We’re all complete snobs who don’t have a clue what we’re talking about half the time

That thing we call culture is the great big mishmash of all our mutual hang-ups creations, destructions, personal histories, and random acts of mob mentality; and also, Harry Potter. Have you heard about the new theme park at Universal Studios Florida? Alas, I digress.

Friedrich Nietzsche talked down about the vast preponderance of ordinary people, calling them the herd in his “Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None.” On the flip side, Nietzsche valorized the Übermensch, or “superman,” which is one who has moved beyond the mundane trappings of the human condition, not Clark Kent.

However, for all his perceived negativity and the twisting of his ideas by the Nazis, Nietzsche was actually suggesting a superior state of mind, not a futuristic master-race of men and women that eke out lonely lives of mountainous solitude.

Humans are social animals and we are naturally inclined to seek out others with similar hobbies, beliefs, or interests.

A relative few seek out those with conflicting or uncomplimentary tastes. Several studies have demonstrated that the specificity of information, news and commentary on the Internet, causes people to filter out discomfiting information—particularly political commentary.

This process is called “confirmation bias” and the research into the way it informs mob mentality probably has Nietzsche spinning in his grave.

A quick and dirty example is a study conducted after the 2004 presidential election. Subjects were given negative facts about prominent politicians of both major U.S. parties.

Liberal subjects tended to undervalue or dismiss the importance of the negative qualities when they were about Democrats, while conservative subjects tended to do the same for Republicans.

It’s no wonder that we’re at a point in this nation’s political history where meaningful collaboration between Republican and Democratic representatives seems utterly impossible.

President Obama pointed out during his town hall meeting this Tuesday in Nashua, N.H., that many politicians go so far in demonizing their opposites that to later agree with them—even on a piece of legislation that is completely sensible and in the interests of their constituents—might get them voted out of Congress.

It seems bitter legislative battles followed by broad sweeping compromises and greater prosperity for all died long ago with the founding fathers.

But how is it that we, the politically uninitiated public, can turn so viciously on the same representatives that might in fact be acting in our best interests?

Despite even the best efforts to keep informed about the “facts” of what is going on in congress, it’s nearly impossible to do other than fall short of a complete understanding. The answer to the conundrum lies in the example of the average reader’s perception of best-seller books.

A recent article in The Economist stated, “A lot of the people who read a best-selling novel do not read much other fiction. By contrast, the audience for an obscure novel is largely composed of people who read a lot.

“That means the least popular books are judged by people who have the highest standards, while the most popular are judged by people who literally do not know any better. An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read ‘The Lost Symbol,’ by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it.”

Nobody is expected to read every book that comes out in a year. And only the surliest of literary snobs would begrudge anyone the enjoyment of a best-selling novel in a world where people increasingly do not read books at all.

However, the opposite expectation is true with political issues. One not only needs to know what they are, he or she must be informed enough to cut through the rhetoric and spin to achieve a truly unique and individual opinion.

This was precisely the problem I had writing about health care reform last semester. I thought I knew about the major points behind the debate.

But even after reading more than twenty news articles and many of the medical and statistical articles they cited, I knew even less than I first thought I did.

The message of politicians and best-selling books is clear: Don’t pay too close attention to pop media and you’ll be told exactly what you want to hear.

We need to recognize hearing and reading things that reinforce our views to the exclusion of all else is a bad thing. If we strive to avoid literally not knowing any better, we can move away from the cult of partisan politics and return to the days where bitterly fought battles led to compromise and progress.