Democracy thrives if we embrace uncertainty.
Five months have passed since the election. It is tempting to believe that political grief is fleeting, that disillusionment will fade with time, but Trump’s first month in office may have renewed fears election night brought on. For example, in the twenty-four hours after November 5th, the Trevor Project’s crisis services saw a 700% increase in volume. The attacks on the rule of law and the very definition of American identity give no reason as to why grief over the election results may have dissipated. This is why we return to this moment. There is no need to relive pain, but we should understand why it may persist, and in doing so, chart a way forward.
Great pain comes from what never was. The notion that we could have enjoyed happier memories or achieved greater things can easily plague our minds, and uncertainty about what comes next brings about understandable fears. Yet, we should not let an idealized conception of what we lost poison the possibility of pursuing it in the future. A helpful concept is ambiguous loss–a form of grief rooted in uncertainty and the absence of closure, where something is gone but not in a definitive way. Those affected by it often suffer from prolonged states of unresolved mourning. Americans have recently let feelings of disillusionment from ambiguous loss in politics fuel cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
When conversation transforms into confrontation, people become isolated. Political anxiety or mourning should function as a jolt to dialogue. Productive political conversation is more important now than ever as Americans must strive to build consensus rather than continuing the destructive nature of political dialogue. Resorting to political purity tests driven by a desire to avoid interaction or compromise with political rivals will deliver nothing. Living with the circumstances and moving forward with them is necessary to sustaining American democracy.
A system where citizens prioritize compromise and resilience over despair prevents us from closing off the possibility for compromise. When we reduce democracy to a zero-sum game–where we conceive of defeat as intolerable or permanent–collapse becomes a distinct possibility. When political loss drives citizens to withdraw from meaningful engagement, either due to apathy or ideological entrenchment, democracy erodes from within.
The grief from an election does not come from losing anything material, but from the collapse of an imagined future. Democratic citizens must have the ability to navigate uncertainty without retreating to absolutes. Research on the psychology of authoritarianism indicates that a higher tolerance for ambiguity is linked to a lower susceptibility to extremist thinking. If we cannot deal with the messy, unglamorous nature of compromise in governance, then we risk eroding democratic institutions.
The effects of such a breakdown are not unique to national politics. The Claremont Colleges, despite being a center for the exchange of ideas, can fall into debates on issues where reliance on inflexible dogma or indifference stymies productive discourse. At the height of campus protests regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, students felt betrayed by the college institutions that they believed served them. During the tumult, productive discourse transformed into ideological entrenchment and bitter resentment. When engaging with political adversaries is viewed as betrayal and compromise regarded as a taboo, we miss an opportunity to refine arguments or expand coalitions. Instead, we reinforce cycles of resentment and strengthen ideological echo chambers. For institutions committed to fostering the next generation of leaders, these reactions signal a disturbing trend. Refusing to engage with ideological adversaries removes the conditions necessary for democratic prosperity.
Mourning losses is natural, but allowing grief to harden into disengagement or absolutism only serves to contribute to the forces that weaken the institutions that enable change. If democracy and all it embodies is to endure on our campuses, in our communities, and throughout our nation, we must resist the instinct to retreat into ideological silos. If nuance in casual political discourse cannot survive the grief we feel in loss, then we cannot hope to sustain healthy communities and the belief that defeat now is not the end of positive political possibilities. Political dialogue is an evolving process where current adversaries may become future allies. Among the greatest challenges of democratic participation is not just savoring the advantages of victory, but in responding to loss with resilience, to not let mourning unseen possibilities isolate us from conversations that can shape our future.
Kommentare