The presidential election tends to provoke a lot of anxiety, and this is totally understandable. It can feel like putting the wrong people in office would increase the chaos and potentially cause harm to those we care about. Even so, I suggest that you try not to stress about the election. In fact, you might not want to pay much attention to national politics at all. Let me explain why. 

          First, national elections are not ultimately very important for your day-to-day life. Yes, they do matter, but only so much. Look back on your last eight years: you probably had plenty of good days and plenty of bad days, regardless of who happened to be president at the moment. Besides, the world is very complicated. Many other variables exert a greater influence on how your life goes compared to anything happening in Washington, for example: your family of origin, your educational pursuits, your religion, your friends, your personal health journey, and what you do on your phone. 

          Second, consider your mental health. Modern psychology and most ancient wisdom traditions would agree: stressing about things you can’t control is bad for your mental health. This is because rather than changing the outcomes, your worry will mostly just make you unhappy. And you certainly can’t control who will win the presidency – or any other election for that matter.

          Third, consider all the other amazing things you could learn, ponder, or read about instead. The time and mental energy you put into national politics comes at the cost of everything else you could do with your attention. You could learn to play an instrument, pursue an athletic endeavor, dive into a novel, or discover more about some astonishing field of scientific inquiry. Ask yourself: in a few months, or a few years, are you going to look back at all the time you spent thinking about this election and feel that it was time well spent? 

          So take a deep breath and consider giving yourself permission to worry less about the election. Even if your friends are stressing about it, I promise it is honestly OK to pay attention to something else instead. 

          I’m not saying that it’s good to be stressed out, but the reality is that whoever is president has quite a bit of influence over your life – and millions of other people’s. So the election is a big deal and it is worth worrying about. Here are a few major reasons why.

          First, the president deeply shapes what kind of story we experience as people living in America. A strong president can inspire us to be our best selves and sacrifice for the good of the whole, as many historical examples could show. On the other hand, a bad president can encourage fear and antagonism that brings out the worst in us and pits us against each other. Ultimately, human beings are motivated by a sense of hope that the future could be better than the present. Great leaders help to nurture that precious sense of hope, whereas bad leaders give us cause for despair. With that in mind, what could be more meaningful than who is leading our country?

          More practically, the president significantly influences our personal bank accounts because they control many variables in the economy. For example: Should we give tax cuts to rich people or to poor people? Should we escalate a trade war that could raise the costs of many household products? Should we forgive thousands of dollars in student loan debt for millions of people? How quickly will inflation decrease the value of the money in our bank accounts? The president is the person most responsible for answering these economic questions, among others. 

Besides these, consider other pressing issues, such as the pace and scale of climate change (have you seen California recently?), the state of race relations in America, immigration policy, how tech companies like TikTok and Google are regulated (or not regulated). These issues can affect our daily lives, and again, POTUS is the single most influential human being on such topics – and many more.

          Maybe if everything were going perfectly, it wouldn’t matter as much who is in office, but these are troubled times. Troubled times demand strong and wise leaders to get us through. What could matter more than picking the right person for the job?

Discussion Questions for Argument 1A: 

1. This argument claims that the president does not directly affect most people’s daily lives very much. Evaluate this claim. Give specific examples, if possible.
   
   
2. Is it true that who wins the presidential election is entirely outside of one individual person’s control? If so, how does that bear on the question of whether or not it makes sense to pay attention to the election?
   
   
3. Could this argument be seen as glib, or as insensitive to the concerns of those who feel that a great deal is personally at stake for them in the election? Which parts specifically? (Or, are such concerns generally misplaced, as the argument suggests?)
   
   
4. This argument is about what people should (not) pay attention to. Do people have ethical duties to pay attention to certain things, or not pay attention to certain things? Be specific and give reasons to support your claims.

Discussion Questions for Argument 1B: 

1. The first body paragraph seems to assume that some sense of national/group identity shared by many Americans is a significant factor in the lives of individual Americans. To what extent is this true? Is it more or less true for certain demographic groups? Why? Be specific, if possible.

2. Evaluate the argument in the second body paragraph. Is it true that the president is largely responsible for how the American economy goes? Why or why not?

3. The argument asserts that the quality of America’s leadership matters for Americans’ individual lives. To what extent is the president’s moral character a factor in their leadership? How important is it that the president can serve as a kind of ethical role model? Support your answer with specific examples.

4. Some social observers claim that as religious belief and social trust have declined in recent decades, there is increased emotional pressure on politics to play a kind of saving role in our lives. Do you think it’s true that politics would feel less important if our society had greater levels of religious belief and/or social trust? Explain.
   

          You should make a point to seek out and listen to people who disagree with you about political and social issues. Why?

          First of all, you’re likely to get smarter by doing so. For one thing, you’ll become better informed on the issues. You can’t really decide what to think about controversial topics until you hear a few different perspectives. After all, how will you know what the best arguments are, unless you read or listen to smart people who disagree with each other? Furthermore, whatever you come to believe about any given topic, hundreds of millions of people will disagree with you. Trying to understand how some of those people think will make you wiser about the world you live in. For example, in 2016, millions of progressive people were totally shocked that Trump won the election. This was partly their own fault because they did not take more time to talk to and learn about people who were likely to support Trump. As a result, these progressives were ignorant about the reality of the world they were living in. But you don’t have to be ignorant! You have the choice to become wiser about reality by learning more about other people’s perspectives. The best way to do this is to ask them and to listen carefully to what they say.

          Another reason to listen to people who disagree with you is that it will help you win arguments, by which I mean persuading people to agree with you. The only way to persuade someone else is to understand where they are coming from and to make your case in a way that appeals to their perspective and their values. To do this well, you must take the time to listen to them. So if you think someone is totally wrong and you want to change their mind, your best chance is actually to start by listening to them.

          Maybe you don’t buy my first two arguments. In that case, I still have one other argument for you to consider: people will like you more if you make a point of listening to them. Psychological research  backs this up, but it’s also common sense: people like people who listen to them. Plus, your social life will be more interesting if your friends sometimes think differently  than you do. So if you want to develop your interpersonal skills and meet interesting people, you should try listening to people who are different from you. 

          It’s all well and good to promote civil discourse, and politeness is a nice idea. But sometimes you actually should not listen to other people. Listening has its limits.

          Sometimes, other people are talking just to hear themselves talk. In that case, there is no real point in listening to them because they are not trying to have a genuine conversation with you. They just think they are right about something, and they want to regurgitate it to make themselves feel good. If you can tell that the other person has absolutely no interest in hearing anything you might have to say, then you do not owe them your full attention. (Of course, you might still want to hear what they have to say, but you shouldn’t feel bad about ignoring them.)

          More significantly, there are plenty of times when people are spreading false and potentially dangerous misinformation. For example, during COVID a lot of would-be “experts” made confusing and misleading claims about policies like masking, vaccines, and school closures. Listening to these wrong ideas resulted in harm to many people’s health and probably needless deaths. Was it good to listen to such ideas? Obviously not. Of course, some falsehoods are basically harmless, like saying that the earth is flat, or saying that a hot dog is a sandwich. (Sorry!) But even in such cases, politeness doesn’t mean that you need to just sit there and listen to rubbish. Feel free to try to set them straight, or else to politely bow out of the conversation.

          Usually people mean well, even if their ideas are totally wrong. However, unfortunately sometimes people are deliberately trying to propagate harmful ideologies. For example, imagine that someone is making the case for white supremacy or denying a major genocide. Should you listen to them? I guess you could try to listen, if you think you might somehow be able to change their mind – perhaps if it’s your friend or family member. But otherwise, I think it’s pretty clear that listening to hateful ideologies will probably only lead to more harm in the world. They shouldn’t say it, and you don’t need to hear it.

Discussion Questions for Argument 2A: 

1. Social scientists observe that Americans are increasingly arranging our social lives (and our newsfeeds) so that we mostly interact with people who basically agree with us already. Assuming this is true, to what extent is this a problem for society? For individuals?

2.  The author claims that if you want to change someone’s mind, your best chance to do so is to start by listening to that person. Is this true? Give specific examples to back up your answer.

3. Does listening to someone you disagree with tend to imply a kind of unspoken acceptance of their viewpoints? Why or why not?

4. The author claims that you can’t really know what you should think about a topic until you try listening to multiple different perspectives on the issue. Some thinkers might suggest an even stronger claim: They would say that you don’t have the right to hold an opinion about a topic unless you understand “the other side” well enough to explain why someone might disagree with you. Does this second, stronger claim have any merit? Why or why not?

Discussion Questions for Argument 2B: 

1. How can we determine where to draw the line about when it is not necessary to listen to someone? Be specific.

2. Is there a meaningful distinction between cases where people are spreading false or misleading information that may lead to harm (e.g. regarding COVID, as the author suggests), vs. cases where people are spreading harmful or hateful ideologies? If so, should one treat these cases differently in any way?

3. Social media creates an asymmetry in communication that differs from one-on-one conversation: a relatively small number of people broadcast their ideas to many followers, without necessarily taking the time to listen in return. Does this fact suggest that we have different obligations to listen to others in person vs. on social media?

4. One common tactic to try to shut down disagreement is to construe any questioning of one’s beliefs as hateful or harmful. Is there any way to tell the difference between cynical use of this tactic and sincere concerns about harmful ideas? Be specific.

Discussion Questions for Both Arguments:

1. Are these arguments compatible? In other words, could it be the case that all of the claims in both arguments are true? Or do they directly contradict each other? If so, what exactly do they most explicitly disagree about?

          You should consider voting for a third party. Here’s why. 

          Although we disagree about many things, most Americans agree that we dislike the two-party system we’re currently stuck with. With some exceptions, most of us don’t truly love the Republicans or the Democrats. Rather, we fear and loathe the “other side.” So we continue voting for flawed candidates and policies, simply because we feel like otherwise we will be supporting an even worse option. This is the diabolical “either-or” logic of the two-party system that we’re all gridlocked into. 

          However, I would suggest that we don’t need to be stuck with this broken system. The two major parties only get away with putting forward mediocre candidates every year because they can always say, “At least we’re not that person! Look how horrible they are! Be scared!” As long as we voters succumb to this false dichotomy, we will continue to get terrible options for candidates. The only way to break out of this vicious cycle is to refuse to play the game. 

          When enough people “throw away” their votes by voting for a third party, the major parties will start to get the message that they need to do better. Consider that if even 5% of Americans voted for third parties, that would be enough to exert pressure on both the Democrats and the Republicans to start improving. Many national elections are decided by a margin of less than 5%, so the major parties would be incentivized to change in order to woo these voters. And if, say, 20% of Americans start voting for third parties, such a shift could start to break up the duopoly of the major parties altogether. 

          So, don’t let people scare you into thinking that it’s irresponsible to vote for a third party because you’ll be letting the “wrong” people win. That kind of fear-mongering is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place. Instead, vote for someone you actually feel good about. 

          Although many people believe that Trump is a bad person (narcissistic, dishonest, misogynist, racist, etc.), I want to share some good reasons to vote for him. I realize most people have already made up their mind about him one way or the other, so this may seem pointless. But even if you loathe Trump, it’s still worth trying to understand why a smart, thoughtful person might vote for him. (Not to say that there aren’t also plenty of bad reasons to vote for him!)

          First, as all great politicians know, “It’s the economy, stupid!” During Trump’s first term, the stock market repeatedly notched record highs. More importantly, most ordinary Americans felt that their personal finances were stronger under Trump than under Biden. For example, under Trump: Unemployment rates reached record lows (about 3.5%), as did poverty rates for African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The bottom 50% of American households saw a 40% increase in net worth. Wages rose fastest for low-income and blue collar workers – a 16% pay increase. On the other hand, Biden’s massive stimulus and infrastructure packages caused inflation to skyrocket, thus reducing the average American’s purchasing power – even as interest rates rose too high for small businesses and mortgages. So, Americans who are concerned about paying rent and feeding their families might reasonably prefer Trump.

          Second, Trump is the most trustworthy candidate. Even though he lies constantly when it comes to facts and details, Trump is telling a larger story that is essentially true. He is one of the only politicians willing to say aloud many plausible claims that others are too afraid to discuss: illegal immigration is harming America, American foreign policy is a scam for the good of the defense industry, we focus too much on race and political correctness and white people are now getting a raw deal. I’m not saying these claims are true, but many Americans think they are, and Trump is willing to say so. Furthermore, Trump openly acknowledges the ugly truth that most American politicians are basically corrupt – including himself, but unlike other politicians, he actually admits how crooked the system is. Similarly to likable crime bosses, Trump doesn’t act self-righteous. He never even pretends to be a morally good person. So with Trump, you know exactly what you’re getting.

          Third, Trump projects an image of strength in a time when America is globally perceived as weak, especially under Biden. Afghanistan was a disaster. Russia, China, and various strongman governments are laughing at us. The EU is flailing, and the Middle East is burning. By comparison, during his first term Trump actually did a decent job with foreign policy, such as in containing ISIS, North Korea and Iran.

          With all this in mind, hopefully you can imagine why a decent, thinking person could decide that Trump is the least-bad option on offer in 2024.

          The most commonly cited reason why you should vote for Kamala Harris is that she’s not Donald Trump. However, rather than attacking Trump, I want to take the high road and give you some positive reasons to vote for Harris. You might not love her; you might even think the Democratic Party is bad for America. But even in that case, hopefully you’ll be able to imagine why other people who aren’t total buffoons can still support her. 

          First, consider who Harris is as a person. She is a reasonably decent human being. She’s had no scandals, no personal or professional misconduct, no criminal cases brought against her. She has a long track record of thoughtfulness and civility. I know this is an extremely low bar to clear, but sadly, many politicians can’t say the same. Furthermore, consider that Harris would become the first ever female President of the United States. That is a big deal – especially as the US still lags behind many other western democracies in electing women to top leadership positions. Of course, Harris is also the child of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, meaning she would be the first POTUS of Asian ancestry. When it comes to elected office, demographic representation isn’t everything, but it matters.

          Next, consider what kind of country you want to live in – not just for the next four years, but for the next 40 years and beyond. Democracy is a game that we need to play successfully every election cycle. That means we need fair institutions where everyone’s votes and voices are counted equally, politicians give up power at the end of their terms, and corruption is kept at bay. If you want these things too, Harris is a good choice. As VP, she led the Biden administration’s efforts to secure voting rights legislation, pushing for bills that aimed to counter unfair voting restrictions, limit gerrymandering, and regulate campaign finance more strictly.

          Finally, as you’ve probably noticed, America is experiencing more dramatic and more frequent climate disasters. Since no one individual or corporation can do much to solve this problem, elected officials play a vital role in helping to keep our land beautiful and bountiful. Harris has for years made the environment a top concern, from prosecuting polluters as California’s attorney general to sponsoring the Green New Deal as a senator to casting the tie-breaking vote as VP for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate investment in US history. 

          These are just some of the most obvious reasons why a thoughtful person might want to vote for Harris. Perhaps you don’t find them compelling, but you could at least see how others would.