The election was going to be hard-fought as a union sought to organize a sizable manufacturing facility in the rural South. All the standard events fell into place as both the company and union went about their business of trying to woo the electorate — the employees. Well, the voting day came and the company prevailed by obtaining an overwhelming majority — 80% of the vote cast by all employees. Those employees who were supporting the unionization effort were devastated and could not understand how they lost (much less by such a huge margin) and so the soul-searching began.

The company also tried to understand it for future reference and, as the cast of characters became better known, the answer was pretty obvious. The employees who were the hardcore union supporters essentially spent their time talking to each other rather than the uncommitted employees, whereas the company communicated with all employees.

As those attempting to organize the workforce spoke mostly with those already committed, they naturally got feedback that reinforced their preconceived notions of how things were going. They fooled themselves big time.

This same thing is now happening on a national scale, particularly with the challengers, as the 2020 election has gotten off to a very early start. We have a gaggle of candidates who do a lot of agreeing with each other while trying to outdo each other in the size and scope of the changes they propose. All this is wrapped around an apocalyptic vision of the coming end of humanity if their proposals are not acted on quickly.

This we see on the national scale but it is also reflected right down to individual true believers. In my own personal social circles there are many “progressives” who will not discuss climate change, energy issues or abortion. They feel the issues are closed and if you do not agree there must be something wrong with you; therefore, why should they waste their time discussing issues that are so obviously correct with a dunderhead who does not see the wisdom of their declared truths.

This attitude was particularly on display during the campaign period prior to the 2018 election in one exchange with a local politician. He made opening remarks which were basically a tirade against the president and that was his whole campaign pitch. When asked “Name at least one thing that the president has done correctly?” he was at a loss for words and just sat there staring before finally turning to an aide and saying “we need a quip to answer that sort of question”.

On the national scale we see that same streak of righteousness that tells me such candidates do not really care about the effect their proposals may have on individual people. The cause to which they have a moral claim is the important thing and if you cannot see that, there must be something wrong with you. It would be nice that as more and more free things are proposed, some practical details might be included so that we the people can judge whether we really see need and wisdom in them.

My only prejudice is now showing. I am biased against those who, because they believe that they have a lock on truth and morality, will not put their thoughts to the test by actually speaking on a basis of mutual respect with those who may be unconvinced.
