o you think about national political issues? Probably not. Should you think about national political issues? That's an entirely different question.
The knee-jerk answer is in: after all, how will your position on those issues affect you personally? What good are one mind's thoughts out of a crowd of 300 million, anyway?
Really, you might conclude, there's no particular reason to think about politics at all, at least on the national level. Locally, the issues are different and do impact you to some extent. For example, if Muncie implements a wheel tax, you'll have to pay up even if you're not a registered voter here, or consider the outcry if Ball State University decides not to pave McKinley Avenue in the next decade.
So, what good are national issues? Why waste mental time on them when you could be thinking about the Colts or how cold the weather's gotten?
The argument dismissing national politics is similar to the argument dismissing the moral imperative to vote and is dealt with almost as easily. The argument not to vote goes something like this, in the words of an imaginary apathetic friend: "Well, I'm just one voice in 300 million, right? One person not voting isn't going to change the overall result, so why should I waste time thinking about the issues and voting?"
On an individual level, removing the imperative to vote changes nothing; however, on a national level, removing the imperative to vote leads, as we have seen, to widespread apathy and lack of participation. Therefore, it is in the best interests of society to enforce the imperative to vote on the individual level in order to prevent lack of participation on the national level.
This reasoning is similar to the reasoning against lying. Suppose that no moral imperative against lying on the personal level exists; then, it follows immediately that people would have no reason not to lie. The widespread lying that would follow would be damaging to society, as well as on the personal level. Because such a result is unethical and undesirable, it follows that a moral imperative against lying necessarily exists, or at least ought to exist.
Similarly, what would occur should people feel thinking about national political issues is unnecessary or useless? People would form knee-jerk opinions, not consider them and, most importantly, would not engage in dialogue to pursue the truth of political issues. Widespread apathy would result, and perhaps the truth would not be found, or at least not disseminated among the populace.
Interestingly, the imperative to consider national political issues is a corollary to the imperative to vote. An almost identical line of reasoning establishes that the imperative to vote must be to vote informed. If one is an informed voter, one must necessarily consider the issues before one votes.
Finally, there is a concrete, personal reason to consider even national political issues. Any mental exercise will increase your ability to think critically, as well as increasing your mental capacity, and possibly staving off such degenerative mental diseases as Alzheimer's and other forms of cognitive decay.
The search for truth in any issue, not just issues that impact you personally, is the noblest pursuit, with many and varied rewards. It is relevant to you and to everyone you meet.
Write to Neal at necoleman@bsu.edu.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
