Whether our democracy dies or not depends, in part, on how many U.S. citizens actually vote in November and who they vote for. It will also depend on how many U.S. citizens actually stay informed about what our political officials say and do before and after they are elected—and what actions we take to course correct any who stray from their promises and the tenets of our democratic Constitution.

As I overheard on Ezra Klein’s June 18th podcast (The Biggest Political Divide Is Not Left vs Right), a mere 20% of our citizens are “involved voters”. They follow mainstream media on a regular basis and/or consume political news and opinions pretty much full-time. The other 80% are uninvolved and mostly uninformed: they have either lost interest entirely in staying informed or rely on acquiring their awareness of what’s happening in the political arena through social media and word of mouth. Interestingly, research reveals that a preponderance of the uninvolved are self-proclaimed cynics, averse to even listening when the subject of politics comes up in conversation.

Back in the 1990s, the presumption was that widespread cynicism in the American electorate would stunt political participation to dangerously low levels. It did not. Now it seems the presumption is a major percentage of those cynics, even though they are disengaged from mainstream media and everyday political conversations, will still vote.

Any leader who is attempting to create positive change or contribute to improving on the status quo will want to be on the watch for cynicism.

The Poison of Cynicism

I believe cynicism is the saddest and, perhaps, most self-destructive state for any human being. Like resignation, cynicism can be a way to protect ourselves from disappointment, from becoming a victim of a circumstantial reality that seems to render us powerless or excludes us from participating in life. (As I’ve said before, resignation is a mood of “no possibility”, a mood that can easily shift as soon as you begin to imagine or create a new possibility.)

Cynicism is a belief in and a commitment to the view that “no possibility” exists, along with a story of why no possibility exists and who or what is to blame. 

Unlike resignation, cynicism is not a mood. It is a closed and dead-end point of view that not only has a person stop thinking about something they don’t want to think about, but also has them actively defend their “no possibility”point of view and simultaneously attempt to persuade others to join them in their assessments and expectations of nothing but the worst from other humans and “the system”. In this, cynicism fuels conspiracy theories and undermines the confidence and political campaigns of those leaders who would “do good”.

As poisonous as cynicism can be to a campaign, a conversation, or a relationship, it is even more damaging to the cynic themselves. A cynic believes humans are exclusively motivated by self-interest—and this to the exclusion of all other possible motivations. This blinds them to seeing or appreciating other human virtues and locks them into a kind of self-righteous certainty that: 1) they can only win at another’s expense, and 2) they must manipulate or persuade other people to respond in the ways they want. The cost of this approach to human relationships? The cynic will eventually find themselves alone, isolated from the rest of humanity.

My major disappointments in coaching thousands of people over the last 50 years have always and only been in working with cynics. Mostly, they are stuck in a habitual way of being in which they argue against possibility, even when, ironically, the possibility is in their own self-interest. They are consistently committed to what they consider to be, to them, the undeniable limitations of what they can accomplish and who they are and can be.

While I will never give up on anyone, my challenge to a cynic is to consider that their view of the situation or the person does not allow for a breakthrough or, for that matter, possibility. They have embodied and are deeply embedded in a way of being that blocks them from being able to  achieve what they say they want to achieve. I let them know that, while I have a lot of compassion for how difficult it can be to set aside their beliefs, that is the first step they must take to learn anything new.

Finally, I suggest to them that what holds their cynicism in place is a fear of being responsible for how they see and relate to the world. I acknowledge that it will take courage and a willingness to trust the other person or the situation before there is evidence that person or situation is trustworthy. Sometimes, I also suggest they may want to try prayer (specifically, pray that the burden of cynicism might be removed).

In the September 16th episode of the podcast “Hidden Brain”, host Shankar Vedantam interviews Stanford psychologist Jamil Zaki, author of Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness.  Zaki suggests three closely related factors contribute most to the persistence of cynicism: isolation, loneliness, and lack of human connection. He offers what he calls “hopeful skepticism” to reconnect with other people and, in doing so, with yourself. Hopeful skepticism is essentially a practice of consciously noticing the positive aspects in your everyday life and environment, along with challenging the assumptions you and others have.

One of the principles of my work is the idea that all of us respond and behave consistent with how we perceive the world. When something appears to you to be a threat (whether the threat is real or not), you will respond to it however you respond to a threat. If you view the world as a cynic, you may well respond with despair and self-isolation. Zaki suggests that this starts a vicious cycle in which your mood and behavior feed your cynicism, and your cynicism feeds your isolation and despair.

Like Zaki, in spite of what is happening in our nation now, I am consciously choosing to not be cynical. I’m choosing to believe in and continue to create possibility. At the same time, I remain, like many of my clients and colleagues, generally skeptical of many things, including the integrity of America’s electoral and judicial systems. Our challenge is to remain skeptical without falling into cynicism.

The Promise of Skepticism

Skepticism is essentially a mood of doubt, coupled with an openness to other perspectives and to possibility.

Skepticism is prudent in this age of fake news, misinformation, and disinformation. I see it as a positive, even sensible way of relating to our world. The key is to resolve your doubts so that you can make decisions and move into action, instead of being stuck, indecisive, on the sidelines.

Resolving your doubts requires critical thinking, and, as I mentioned earlier, doing additional research into the who, what, where, and why of whatever is being communicated. It requires breaking the habit of reacting to what is being proposed and being open to possibilities without being naïve. It is also important to be committed to either accept a premise, reject it, or, if left with “I don’t know”, to then be willing to learn whatever needs to be learned to have, at least, a point of view that is informed enough to allow you to make the decision one way or the other. The result of resolving your doubts should be a clear commitment and action (including, if appropriate, a commitment to no action).

I am a self-confessed skeptic. I am also committed to action. Yet I don’t want to spend time I don’t have doing my own research on every topic or subject that comes across my desk. Lots of people, for instance, ask me to buy into their ideas or proposals. In most cases, those ideas are well conceived, well-grounded, and make sense. For the practical reason that I work with a lot of individuals and organizations from all around the world, it is essential I have a network of trusted advisors and coaches who can assess and evaluate these incoming ideas, proposals, and information. I dislike advisors who say, “You can do X, Y or Z” and then give me a list of pros and cons for each option. Personally, I prefer and expect the advisors and coaches in my network to be 100% responsible for any recommendations they make. I want individuals who say, “If I were you, I would choose X and this is my rationale for making that choice.” I want individuals who use their own skepticism to think things through. Of course, at the end of the day, I am responsible for the final choice I make. But it is their rationale that I am either trusting or challenging, along with their responsibility for the consequences for taking a particular action.

Satisfy people’s doubts about a particular point of view—by either giving them information or direct experiences, challenging assumptions, or creating a new way of looking at the situation—and they can become among the strongest advocates for that perspective. This is the hidden promise in skepticism for us and our political leaders.

Speaking of which, both skeptics and cynics may be leaders. However, the skeptic is more likely, by far, to succeed. Typically, a cynic will lead in a context of control and present a more authoritarian style. A skeptic, on the other hand, will often lead in a context of inquiry and present a more collegial style, demonstrating a curiosity and openness to having others challenge their assumptions and beliefs. In today’s real-time world, prediction and control are no longer reliable foundations for leading.

_____

Originally published October 11, 2024 on Jim Selman’s Substack “At the Crossroads“