The Case for Political Ambivalence
The Case for Political Ambivalence
We either love our politicians blindly or hate them blindly—both problematic.
Most people think loving or hating our politicians and parties blindly means conviction, strong values, and a healthy sense of character, but it’s just political immaturity. Being certain is being lazy; the extremes of the left and right are the easiest arguments. The challenge lies in our ability to understand the compromises needed to actually govern a country.
This is different from advocacy. The exceptions are when you advocate for something or when politicians are campaigning. But this post is not about them or that; it's about our everyday folk trying to not only talk and debate about politics more healthily but also think more critically about our politicians and our advocacy efforts.
I want to argue that we should not only think about but also talk more openly about our political ambivalence and how we are all walking contradictions.
Political maturity is our ability to understand and acknowledge contradictions.
Ambivalence is hard to identify, accept, and acknowledge. If done correctly, it requires a lot of self-reflection and understanding of the topics we care deeply about, which, in my opinion, we usually don’t understand. This is particularly evident in politics, where we bang on about the importance and benefits of having diverse opinions and beliefs. In reality, we don’t actually like diverse views, so we have developed a divisive and lazy debating style. Which is in itself a recognition of our inconsistent beliefs and ideas.
One mistake I think we make, including some politicians, is that we confuse advocacy with governance, which are very different activities with different levers and desired outcomes. In advocacy, there is less compromise; you are all in, and your efforts are targeted, specific, and time-bound. Governing is a whole different sport. It would be best if you compromised all the time, and that is usually not discussed in the campaign trail, which then creates disappointment, and round and round we go.
What if the sign of a great politician understood the compromises and communicated them effectively? Who understood that governing is not advocacy?
Understanding Relational Ambivalence
Relational ambivalence is the coexistence of contradictory feelings toward a person, idea, or entity. It encompasses a spectrum of emotions: love and hate, admiration and disdain, trust and scepticism. This phenomenon is not limited to personal relationships but extends to our interactions with political entities and societal structures.
Below are two (overly simplistic, for the sake of argument) examples:
Voting for the right is for less regulation, but wanting to regulate people and bodies, like being pro-life.
Voting for the left supports collective well-being while also wanting people to be respected for their individuality.
Embracing Political Ambivalence
Encouraging reflection on political ambivalence is crucial. It allows individuals to acknowledge and respect the complexity of their feelings toward politics and politicians. Recognizing that one can disagree with a politician's stance yet respect their dedication to service is a vital step towards a more empathetic and nuanced political dialogue.
In New Zealand, where the political culture is less polarized than in many other democracies (believe it or not), we still have time to foster a more balanced view of politics. This involves acknowledging the good with the bad, the agreeable with the disagreeable, and understanding that these elements can and should coexist within the same sphere.
So, when we discuss our political, cultural, and social ideas, it is beneficial to consider our ambivalences. This does not mean diluting our convictions but rather opening up to the complexities and contradictions of human and political relationships.
By doing so, we can hope to reduce judgment and increase understanding across different perspectives. We can encourage reflection on our positions within this spectrum of political ambivalence. We all have mixed feelings, so let’s demystify them and extend a bridge of understanding to those who view things differently. In a world of division, ambivalence might be the nuanced perspective we need.