Uncertainty in a time of conviction

15 July 2024

In the wake of US President Biden’s recent shaky debate performance, there’s been an undeniable shift in the political landscape. The media, once cautious in its critique of the incumbent, has now unleashed a torrent of speculation about his cognitive capabilities. This sudden change in narrative is striking, not least because it overshadows the equally important issue of his opponent’s relationship with the truth. Trump might have spent 90 minutes of the presidential debate spewing falsehoods, but the following media fracas fixated on the president’s declining faculties. Anxiety about Biden’s age that for years had been set at a constant background simmer has now boiled over. The calls for Biden to step aside are growing louder, from the halls of The New York Times to Democrat donors in Hollywood, George Clooney being the latest to join the chorus. Yet the President stands firm in his re-election bid, invoking time-honoured democratic principles to justify his continued candidacy. (This week Biden sent Congress Democrats a letter reminding lawmakers that ‘the voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that.’)

And while it’s a noble sentiment, it’s one that potentially ignores the looming spectre of a second Trump presidency — an outcome that seems increasingly likely with each passing day.

I was thinking about this scenario and how it calls to mind a broader question about our political culture. Why do we often find ourselves locked into courses of action that seem destined for failure? It’s reminiscent of the recent Voice referendum where Prime Minister Albanese pressed ahead despite a clear lack of bipartisan support — a factor historically necessary for any constitutional change.

In both cases — in Albanese’s crash-or-crash-through process for constitutional change and Biden’s pedal-to-the-metal, Thelma-and-Louise approach to re-election — we see a kind of political myopia at play. There’s an assumption that the righteousness of the cause will somehow overcome practical obstacles. It’s as if acknowledging uncertainty or changing course is viewed as a greater sin than risking catastrophic failure.

This rigidity of thought isn’t limited to one side of politics. Rather, you could argue it’s a common symptom of our times, where conviction is prized above flexibility, and where admitting doubt is viewed as weakness rather than wisdom. But in a world of complex challenges, isn’t there value in

INTERNATIONAL

Uncertainty in a time of conviction

Subscriber login