The "Club of Unloved Leaders" and Why We Must Disagree to Proceed // Variant Perception #17

I came across maybe my most favorite headline I’ve read this year. The “Club for Unloved Leaders,” ugh that’s rich. It’s got that great mixture of comedy and deep sadness that rings all too true.

Can someone please make it make sense? What’s going on to drive consistent discontent with the leadership of the world’s most successful democracies?

A quote from The NY Times article shares a thought.

“My instinct is the low polling numbers are more a reflection of growing polarization in a number of these societies,” said Michael Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, a Washington-based organization that encourages democracy around the world.

I found this answer to be… wholly lacking. People are unhappy with their leadership because they’re polarized? Well, what’s causing polarization?

Here’s a small stab at it. In America, we’re led by a gerontocracy of political insiders who have spent the last 50 years getting rich by playing politics and the helping hand of legal insider trading. Then, when politicians receive valid criticism they counterpunch by gaslighting anyone who questions their authority.

There’s an entrenched power structure that understands (whether it's aware of it or not I don’t know) that the sands underneath are shifting. So it attacks anyone who dares to question its authority.

However, most importantly, America (and by default the “west”) has lost the ability to use disagreement to fortify truth. Today, disagreement is viewed as an attack on “The Truth” instead of as a necessary tool for creating stronger agreements.

I’m not surprised that the majority of Americans feel like the country is on the “wrong track” according to the latest Harvard Harriss poll.

The developed world is in transition. And, all transitions in history have been marked by polarization, conflict, economic stress, and volatility. Today is no different.

However, I believe we’re making this time more difficult for ourselves. The traditional sense making organs of our society (journalism, news, academia, science, etc) have become politicized, captured, and corrupted. Disagreement with a certain ideological perspective now comes with a political label and a prescription of truth.

Mainstream media comes with strings attached (gotta appease the advertisers!). The pursuit of profit gets put ahead of the pursuit of truth. And, we live in a time where people claim 100% ownership of the “correct” position. Except, that’s not how life works. Plus, it’s certainly not how progress unfolds.

Ideally we live in a world that encourages disagreement (I actually believe it’s necessary for a functioning democracy). We share a cultural understanding that a system can handle disagreement when it’s grounded in truth. But, at this point, I can settle for just allowing space for disagreement.

Not allowing widescale disagreement and criticism of our most important systems freezes us in time. Said another way, not creating space for thoughtful disagreement is akin to an ostrich sticking their head in the sand. No progress gets made when we bury our heads in the sand.

Because, if two out of every three Americans believes we’re on the wrong track…

Congress has an approval rating of 36%…

And, the two front-runners for the 2024 election are a 76 year-old narcissist billionaire and an 80 year-old who doesn’t know where to stand during a press op…

You’d think we would be attempting to pump the brakes on the same behaviors that have created the current polarization we’re witnessing today. We’d encourage someone who champions nuance. Allow for open debates and non-consensus points of view.

Except, instead, we’re getting an example of how entrenched the forces of polarization are by witnessing the response to Robert Kennedy Jr. throwing his hat into the ring for the Democratic presidential primary.

I started looking into him, his beliefs, his values, and his politics after he announced his candidacy. As I imagine many people also feel, I’m desperate for some alternative to the Trump/Biden 2024 rematch. I’m even more terrified of a Kamala Harris clown world.

And, I enjoyed RFK Jr’s appearances on both the All-In Podcast and Breaking Points. It’s always great to see candidates who embrace long-form discussions. I’ve found him to be a breath of fresh air.

However, when you google him you’ll see that he gets roasted online for his positions on vaccines, specifically, and that wholly disqualifies him from being president. In fact, that one belief makes him dangerous to society.

Well, in my belief, the response by the media is one of the main drivers for why we live in a polarized world. It doesn’t matter to me if RFK Jr. is 100% wrong or 100% right when it comes to his non-consensus points of view on vaccines and corruption. That’s not even the main point of this newsletter.

What matters to me is that we live in a society where all opinions deserve to be heard because we understand that disagreement and non-consensus points of view reveal emergent truths. Understandings that were not possible without the perspectives of others.

RFK Jr. does not appear to be a charlatan. He doesn’t appear to be a simpleton. So, why is it that he holds these beliefs? There’s a reason that he believes that vaccines are not as safe as we have been told and our governing bodies and regulatory institutions have been captured.

If we respond to non-consensus points of view by sticking our heads in the sand, sticking other peoples’ heads in the sand, labeling anyone who believes them a crackpot, or calling their ideas dangerous conspiracies we once again freeze ourselves in a block of ice preventing the creation of emergent truths.

Discovery, innovation, and science are processes that require an open arena for skepticism.

If someone is 20% correct and 80% incorrect but gets 100% shut down. That’s a thread of progress that gets turned away. That 20% could be a doorway that leads us to a brighter, better future even if that person holds a belief that is confronting or frustrating.

The goal of allowing and encouraging non-consensus views is emergent understanding. Learning and progress is not a linear line up and to the right. It’s a sine wave up and down. However, the only way new understanding or knowledge can arise is through interactions, discussions, and experiences.

It’s not about how much we disagree. What’s more important is allowing for disagreement and then finding common understanding, the areas where you agree most. Nobody owns the truth, especially when it comes to dynamic, complicated, and not-fully-understood subjects like the human body’s immune system.

I don’t agree with RFK Jr. on his position that vaccines cause autism. However, I do agree with many of his other positions around corruption, corporate power, and the Ukraine war. So, do I throw the baby out with the bathwater? Or, do I allow his non-consensus view to get treated with nature’s most powerful disinfectant, sunlight?

When we only shut down certain interactions (based on some prescribed moral lens or safety hierarchy) we lose a necessary ingredient for the chemical reaction that is progress. Everybody is fallible, including and especially our regulating institutions. Nobody has 100% ownership on the truth. So, let’s not pretend they do.

As always, curiosity leads us forward.

-Jared