Steve Harvey

I don't agree with every decision that every elected official I support makes. I don't even agree with every decision that the elected officials I support most strongly make. If I demanded that of them, I would be demanding, among other things, that they be no wiser than me (because I would be demanding that, at least on policy matters, they not be different from me, as we so often do). And, frankly, it is very clear to me that that would be a very dysfunctional demand to make. Yet, it is how we tend to do things in this democracy of ours.

Yes, we must evaluate our political leaders and representatives, but if we do so by asking if each one has done what I think should have been done, then we are imposing a reductionism on our evaluations that doesn't reach beyond our own understandings of the issues. Rather, we should ask whether each one has followed a process, with intelligence and skill, that I would have followed, even if they came to different conclusions than I have come to. You don't have to believe that you are somehow deficient to recognize the difference between being completely emersed in every facet and implication of every policy option currently on the table, and being merely an intelligent and engaged commentator.

We are at our best when we focus on sound processes rather than prejudged outcomes. Science hasn't unlocked such abundant knowledge into the complexities of our universe by insisting on the conclusions beforehand, but rather by adhering to a process which takes you where it will. The rule of law doesn't frame the most just and robust of societies by insisting that everyone who we "know" is a criminal get punished, but rather by insisting that we follow a procedure that guarantees liberties, protects against injustices, and pursues just and reasonable outcomes. Similarly, representative democracies are not at their best when the electorate demands certain competing prejudged decisions, but rather when we demand that reasonable people of good will apply the best analyses to the most reliable data motivated by the highest degree of good will.

Sadly, some of our leaders are not reasonable people of good will, and too few, even if they are, actually follow the procedure that I have outlined, of applying the best analyses to the most reliable data in service to the general welfare. That is what we should be holding them accountable for: failing to adhere to that process, not for failing to agree with one or more of our own inevitably fallable conclusions. The latter is as often proof of our own error as it is of theirs. Let's encourage the integrity to apply reason to facts in service to the public interest, and focus on a process that works, rather than on assumptions and prejudged conclusions which may not.

Vote for reasonable people of good will with the talent and integrity to work hard and effectively on the public's behalf, rather than for whoever happens to agree with you. Our democracy will benefit from it.