Here’s a question for you: “Do introverts commit acts of violence? The only way to try to answer this question is to acknowledge that at least one premise of the statement is probably faulty. It is unlikely that there are individuals who are introverts 100% of the time. It’s more likely that we are all live on the Introvert / Extrovert continuum and depending on the situation we are in; we slide to different points on the scale.
But there clearly are people who spend more time to the left of the center-point (Ambiverts), and ones who spend more times to the right. So, for those people who live more to the left on this continuum (in the comfort zone of being an introvert), it seems likely that they would avoid violence. They would not be the people on the streets of America’s cities who are smashing windows, looting, and possibly even scuffling with law enforcement officers. In fact, they may be far less likely to even be on the street protesting.
To march, picket and protest, someone has to feel pretty confident about going into crowds and asserting oneself. My hunch is that most introverts would much rather watch what is happening through the digital pictures from their televisions, computers, or even phones. But that does not mean that introverts cannot, or do not, engage in actions promoting social change.
Many introverts are frequently in thought about how to change our society for the better. They often put their ideas to paper and provide us with clear purpose and direction as we work to help society clean up its ailments.
One could argue that societal change happens best when there is either formal or informal collaboration between those who are in a frequent state of reflection about what is happening in our world, and those who comfortably take to the streets and other public places to let the world know what they think and the intensity of their beliefs.
But this picture of the thoughtful non-violent introverts has the requisite exceptions to the rule. One of the quietest, most secluded and reclusive individuals in modern American history engaged in over twenty acts of horrendous violence. His name is Ted Kaczynski; also known as the Unabomber. Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 also had many attributes of an introvert.
Maybe if we eliminate from our universe of introverts those who harbor extreme amounts of anger and hate, then we can more clearly state that introverts tend to be non-violent. But in all fairness, we could say the same about extroverts.
It’s all complicated and I certainly do not have clear answers. But, it’s something that I’m pondering now. Can those of us who spend considerable time functioning as introverts, be helpful voices for moderation when are streets are rioting? Can we also be leaders in promoting progressive solutions to problems that send so many others to the streets? As Donald Trump shows us every day, those of us who believe in rational thinking and embrace empathy must take whatever non-violent action we can to help solve America’s and the world’s problems.
Q: Is there a certain demographic of non-voters we should target? [Jean Dugan – STL League of Women Voters]
A: This is a tough question because it really depends on your reason for asking. Let me posit four possibilities with suggested answers to each:
You are asking because you want to promote democracy.
In this case, you probably want to get the most likely non-voters to flip the switch and vote. This would be regardless of their political persuasion. I would suggest that political introverts would be a good group to target, because with our current “shut-down,” it is within the power of politicians to communicate in more of a “quiet” way to them.
Another group would be those who are angry. We see that on both the left and the right. Anger is a good motivator as opposed to apathy which by definition is never a motivator. Conventional wisdom is that college-educated non-voters would be a good demographic to target, but their reasons for not voting may be more philosophical than laziness. It is my contention that if we want more people to vote, we need to reform schools so that students naturally identify with the political process and come to see engaging in politics is the way to promote their own interests as well as that of society as a whole?
You are asking because you want to benefit the Democratic Party.
In recent years, Democrats have appealed to identity groups, racial minorities, women, the young, the elderly, the economically disenfranchised, others whose civil liberties have been abrogated. Democrats indeed try to reach these groups by trying to offer something to virtually every one of these groups. But one of the great failings of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 was insufficient appeal to what she called “the basket of deplorables.” FDR would have referred to them as the core to his base, blue-collar workers.
Democrats need to understand that the FDR base, which has now morphed in part to the Trump base, is just another minority among the patchwork of groups that make up the body politic. Appealing to white working class voters and non-voters is not mutually exclusive from working to enlarge the traditional bases of modern Democrats. Bernie did that well; others can as well. Most policies advocated by Democrats will be of economic benefit to any subsection of Americans. Therefore, it is wise for them to appeal to all.
You are asking because you want to benefit the Republican Party.
In 2016, Donald Trump brought many people who previously had rarely or never voted into his coalition. Most of these people were white, not well-educated, and struggling economically. Many were also angry, and also lived by what Kellyanne Conway called “alternative facts.” Quite frankly, they were fodder for a demagogue. There are more of these people who did not vote in 2016 and who could join the ranks of voters in the future.
Reaching them is a key part of Trump’s strategy. However, if you are a non-Trumpian Republican, you have to find other strategies. These probably include appealing to wealthy people who think that the best way for them to remain wealthy is through “trickle-down” economics as well as others who may subscribe to a “rational non-hateful libertarian” philosophy.
You are from a third (or other alternative) party.
The answer here depends on what issues are most important to your party and how you think that you can interest non-voters in joining your ranks. The Green Party has a natural constituency in environmentalists, but the party has a long record of not winning, in fact, not even coming close to winning elections (though at times play the role of spoilers as Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000).
If we change our system of voting, it will be friendlier to third parties and beyond. In Political Introverts, we mention Ranked Choice Voting. This makes it much easier for alternative parties to thrive, while still vesting considerable power in the two major parties. Andy Bossie and Anna Kellar are both very knowledgeable about Ranked Choice Voting with information on the Maine Citizens for Clean Elections web site. – Response from Arthur
Q: What is the biggest misconception about people who are introverted. [Anonymous]
A: The biggest misconception is that introverts do not like people. The general belief is that extroverts get energy from being with others and introverts get energy from solitude or quiet environments with one or two people. The truth is all people get energy and feel better after being with others. This information was discovered through a study quoted in Quiet: The Power of Introverts by Susan Cain. Introverts struggle with high levels of stimulation, which may or may not come from people. – Response from Brenda
Q: Can you name any current, well-known elected officials who you would call introverts? [Anonymous]
A: From Brenda: First one to come to mind is Barack Obama. Some say Hilary Clinton is also an introvert. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, also fits the description of an introvert. A former Trump administration official referring to Trump and McConnell, said, “It would be hard to find two people less alike in temperament in the political arena.” McConnell is known for saying as little as possible but thinking a lot. – Response from Brenda
A: From Arthur: Technically, he may not be current, but the first who comes to mind is Barack Obama. He is a prolific writer, and thrives on loneliness when he is doing that. My hunch is that when he was making policy, he rarely made decisions in a group; rather he would take in others’ ideas and then make his choices in solitude. We’ll learn more about that when his memoirs come out, hopefully shortly after the 2020 election.
Others who might lean towards being more introverted than not might include Montana Governor (and Senate candidate) Steve Bullock, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot – but these are all conjecture; labeling is clearly an inexact science. – Response from Arthur
Q: What can we do to get more people to vote in this pandemic? [Anonymous]
A: There is a natural connection between “stay-at-home” life and vote-by-mail.” There are five states in which vote-by-mail is not only legal; it is the norm (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah). Since many voters in these states are currently living domesticated lives, it is likely that they would have ample time to vote from home. Interest level should be high because so much of what happens in their lives is determined by governmental decisions. However, returning their ballots to election authorities may be a hurdle. Most voters would have to venture out to a mailbox, post office, or Ballot DropBox (similar to mailboxes). Some would be able to avoid even leaving their homes if they have one of those mailboxes in which they can leave outgoing mail for pick-up.
In other states, many voters can request absentee ballots. But that is different from vote-by-mail because rather than automatically receiving a ballot at home, these voters have to request the ballot. Also, states vary in terms of what are valid reasons for voting absentee and whether the ballots need to be notarized.
For those who would vote by going to the polls, there will be countervailing forces. Many will be reluctant because of the risk of coming in contact with other voters or poll workers who might be infected with COVID-19. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine an election in which the stakes would be higher than in 2020, and in which there will be such a clear choice among the candidates.
Elections in 2020 should be much more attractive to political introverts. Most of the “noise” in politics will be diminished without big rallies, and possibly without conventions. If there are debates, they may not be in front of audiences, which again would make them quieter. Issues should become more important; image less so. All of that would be appealing to political introverts who may find politics more inviting than they have in the past. Many political introverts would also like to vote from home rather than going to the polls. – Response from Arthur
Q: Do political introverts donate to campaigns, as a way of participating behind the scenes? [Anonymous]
A: Excellent question, but I have seen no evidence to either affirm or deny this contention. Since the definition of a political introvert is vague, it will probably be difficult to determine. – Response from Arthur
Q: Back to education. What role do parents play in the competitive climate of high school? In my teaching experience, I sensed lack of empathy often came from home. [Stephanie Gavin]
A: It takes a strong person to live a life in which competition and empathy are mutually compatible. I’m far from good at this, but when watching a sporting event, I usually feel as bad for the team that I root against as I do feel good for “my team.” We tend to demonize opponents. I don’t believe that this phenomenon frequently occurs in elementary school, but it ramps up in middle school and often becomes close to out of control at the high school, college and professional levels. In this regard, the United States is no worse than the countries in which soccer is the be-all and end-all of sports, and to a certain extent, life.
Competition in schools goes far beyond sports. There are constant races to get ahead – grades, test scores, admissions to private schools and then to college. Parents often stoke the fires within their children. In a sense, the parents, and then the children are being rational. After all, a student can rise to be the valedictorian only if other students get lower grades than he or she does. A student’s chance of getting into the college of his or her choice with a good financial package not only requires him or her to do well, but also for others to do less well. If a parent is thinking about the best interests of his or her child, then it makes sense for that parent to not be empathetic towards the competition.
In a society in which it is equally important to promote the common good as it is to protecting individual liberties, we need to be sensitive to the needs of others. American schools are not designed to give students the skills to strive to be the best while concurrently being empathetic to the needs of others (at least those who are not in each students’ “inner circle”). If schools can look at their communities as being a microcosm of the world at large, then students can have the opportunity to learn to value each individual student with respect. If a school is successful at that, then the students will be more likely as adults to be empathetic towards others in their localities, their nation, and the global community. – Response from Arthur
Q: What’s your observation on how introverted students respond to the competitive environment of the school you work in? [Anonymous]
A: Academically, they are competing just as diligently if not more so than extroverts. They feel the pressure and, in my opinion, experience a lot of anxiety. There is a lot of inner turmoil trying to complete assignments, speak frequently in class (a common requirement), take part in extra-curricular activities (often mentally and physically draining) and maintain a high GPA. It helps if they find an understanding teacher and activities that align with their preference for quieter expression like in a drawing class or writing class. I see many introverts in the AP classes, especially the math classes. Technology classes also give introverts a place to thrive. – Response from Brenda
Q: Has cheating really changed that much from 30 or 40 years ago until now? I’m not sure I think so. [Dan Weinberg]
A: My hunch is that cheating has increased from what it was 30 or 40 years ago, and much of that is confirmed by Rutgers study on cheating that we cited in the forum. In my mind, there are two reasons why.
First, there seems to be a multiplier effect to the acceptance of cheating. The more frequently that people do it, the more acceptable that it becomes. If we go back further than 30 or 40 years; let’s say before the Vietnam War, I think that it is likely that students had more respect for the schools that the attended, and the values of honesty that many schools seemed to promote (though did not necessarily faithfully practice). In my mind, the Vietnam War opened the door to much great cynicism about our society. Cutting corners became more acceptable, and that is central to cheating. Add to this that the competition has become fiercer, and I think that there are more reasons for students to think that cheating is almost a necessity. In most cases, they do not have to look far to find someone else who is cheating.
Second, technology obviously makes cheating easier. Plagiarizing was more difficult when it was not so easy to copy and paste. Students can see much more of one another’s works now with shared platforms such as Google docs. Hacking is something that hardly existed 30 or 40 years ago, but now it is an option for many students who want to access information that provides them with a shortcut. Hacking can also be an avenue for students to actually change their grades.
I’ll take the risk of saying that if pressure to achieve and to match the accomplishments of peers is reduced, then the “need” and desire to cheat will diminish. There is an element of rationality (not necessarily to be confused with morality) in cheating. If students are more motivated to learn because of their individual inquisitiveness rather than external pressure to perform well, then I suspect that cheating will diminish. Regrettably, I’m not sure that very many educators are looking at it that way. – Response from Arthur
Q: Do you think that any of the election reforms that are being discussed would encourage introverts to vote? [Anonymous]
A: Voting by mail makes it easy for introverts to not have to leave their homes. This is convenient and avoids small talk at the polls. J Candidates more like themselves might encourage introverts to vote as well. I’m not sure if rank choice voting or changing political funding laws will convince an introverted non-voter to vote. –Response from Brenda
Presenting at League of Women Voters Forum in October, 2014
Twice
I have run for Congress, as a Democrat, but I might as well have run as an
introvert. You may have heard of me had I won, but it’s important to note that
the real reason that an introvert like me got the Democratic nomination was
because nobody else wanted to run in a strongly Republican district (which
fortunately is changing now and may turn blue this November).
I am
passionate about politics. I find it very troubling that in the United States
we leave millions of people behind. For many, it is economically; for others it
is socially; still others educationally. You know the drill; there are a myriad
of ways to be left behind in any society. I became more aware of this around
the time that I was seven years old. Many Sundays I would go to St. Louis
Cardinals games with my father in what was the first if three iterations of
Busch Stadium. I knew that something was wrong by what I saw as we walked five
blocks from where we parked to the stadium. North St. Louis was different from
the suburb where I had grown up. Virtually everyone was African-American, most
of the homes were in disrepair, and the looks on many faces were ones of
despair. Why was this so? I wasn’t sure, but I knew that somehow, some way,
when I “grew up,” I would try to do something to in some small way remedy the unfairness
in our society that I was experiencing for the first time.
I
first visited Washington, DC when John F. Kennedy was president and then became
even more committed to wanting to be a positive agent of change. My career
choice was a teacher, because (a) it was an opportunity to try to provide
empathy and support to young people, and (b) by teaching in inner-city St.
Louis, I was exempt from the draft, and this was during the Vietnam War.
I
have enjoyed virtually most minutes of teaching. However, by 2010, I wanted a larger
platform from which I could address national and global issues. But I was
scared to run for office; I did not think that I belonged. There were things
that were absolutely abhorrent to me, fund-raising for example. As a person who
largely sees himself as an introvert, I could hardly think of anything worse
than asking another for money. Let me begin to count the ways: (a) I don’t want
to be beholden to anyone else, (b) the person whom I am asking may well need
the money far more than I did, and (c) what gives me the right to argue that
giving money to me or my campaign is a worthy endeavor?
Public
speaking was something in which I had experience; it’s hard to teach without
doing it. But I’ve never had a day of teaching when I wasn’t anxious about
getting in front of the students and even more unnerving was my time as
director of an independent school when I had large audiences of, can you
believe this, adults.
So,
in 2010, when I first ran for Congress in MO-02 (against the infamous Todd
Akin), I wanted to reach voters, but I didn’t want to have to do it by reaching
voters. Does that sound familiar to any introverts? Fortunately for me, the
expectations of what I should do were low. As far as party Democrats were
concerned, the only thing worse than me running would have been for there have
been no name on the Democratic side of the ballot. I limited myself to three or
four campaign appearances a week.
Nobody endorsed me, but that was fine because it would have meant standing on a stage and saying disingenuous things about the endorser as he/she did likewise about me. There were no rallies to attend, because the Dems were just that down in the ‘burbs of St. Louis (as I said, fortunately that is changing now). There were “meets-and-greets” and gatherings at voters’ homes. While those were never easy, they were small and contained. I had chances to recharge my batteries both before and after.
I
like to say that what I did was to run a campaign with integrity. I say this
with reservations, because it strikes me that integrity is like honesty and
courage where there is no clear sense of what it is and what it is not. But
let’s use the term ‘integrity’ as a handle to describe what I was trying to do.
Attempting
to run with integrity meant that I did not force myself to do “stupid human
tricks” the sorts of things that so many politicians are forced to do. I’m
talking about mindlessly waving at everyone at a parade, kissing babies who
might most of all want distance from a stranger, and dressing up in team colors
regardless of where one’s loyalties might lie.
I
had the freedom to run this way, with a certain reckless abandon. Had I been in
a competitive district, that would not have been the case. The Democratic Party
would have cast me aside and gone with the traditional candidate, the one who
is an extrovert and does not mind, perhaps even enjoys, the silly things that
politicians have to do, including asking others for money and turning that cash
around to run misleading or excessively self-promoting commercials.
Those
of us who see ourselves as introverts often think that we have a special wisdom
on the world. I feel trepidatious about saying that; I would prefer that introverts
have different kinds of insights from people who live more of their lives as
extroverts. But introverts’ preferences for quiet, for space, for thought and small
group conversations strike me as entry-ways for those who run for public office
to communicate clearly with voters. They can resonate with voters in a way in
which substance takes precedence over image. There is room to have
give-and-take about the issues that our society faces and to explore ways to
try to solve them.
The
more candidates running for office who choose to either let “their inner
introvert out” the more politics will be acceptable, perhaps welcoming, to the
25%-50% or whatever the correct percentage is of the people who fall on the
introverts end of the intro-extro scale. It’s my contention that this would be
a very good thing, not only for introverts, but for the country at large.
Recently, I published a book, Political Introverts: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics. A basic premise is that our electorate does not seem to be up to the task of providing the country with the quality of leaders who we need. It fascinates me that in 1968 the country elected Richard Nixon and forty-eight years later Donald Trump won a majority of the vote in the Electoral College. During those intervening forty-eight years, we have reformed our educational system to presumably give us a wiser electorate. But no matter how much standardized testing we do, how many AP courses students take, how credentialed teachers are, we did no better in 2016 than 1968. So, my book advocates three types of change:
Make politics more welcoming to introverts. What do we have to lose? Introverts are frequently more thoughtful, deliberative and empathetic (not always, but enough to make a difference). How do we make politics more introvert-friendly? Part is by making it easier for introverts to run for office, but also to downplay “silly politics” like rallies and give greater importance to thoughtful conversation. Another big step would be to drastically shorten the length of campaigns, because two-year campaigns make it virtually impossible for introverts to recharge their batteries. In England, campaigns are generally six weeks long.
Acknowledge that changing schools is the gateway to changing politics. We need to make it easier for “natural teachers” to get into the classroom. Forget the credentials; look for individuals who are primarily concerned about the well-being of each student, individuals who communicate well, who have senses of humor, particularly the self-deprecating kind, and who most of all are empathetic.
Promote structural change in American politics such as eliminating the Electoral College. Get rid of gerrymandering and voter suppression. The houses of Congress should not be fiefdoms in which a Mitch McConnell can stifle not only the will of the minority, but also of the majority. Distribute the power equally among all members of Congress. The electorate will be more interested in government if they sense that it operates in a fashion that is fair and comprehensible.
Change
has to be thoughtful and deliberate. That is largely consistent to the ways in
which introverted people operate. So, to all of my fellow people who spend much
of their time on the introverted side of the continuum, consider trying to find
ways to engage in politics and still be in your comfort zone. It’s not easy,
but I think that that the country is really at a loss when our political
process keeps introverts to the outside. Let’s try to work our way in and
concurrently maintain our dignity. It’s not easy, but well worth trying.
According to 538, the candidate who spoke the least in the December Democratic Debate among presidential candidates was businessman Andrew Yang. Not only did he say few words, but he did not interrupt and he never raised his voice.
Andrew Yang in July, 2019
Is there a correlation between his subdued tone and the fact that he offers a special vision of the future that includes a recognition of the reduction of jobs that are available, replaced by artificial intelligence and robots. He asserts that American citizens need not be penalized by higher unemployment because a guaranteed income provides family revenue which essentially pays adults to engage in important tasks from parenting to being active citizenship.
If you think that you might be a political introvert, it might serve you well to follow Andrew Yang and his campaign. Just a thought.
![Political Introverts: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics by [Lieber, Arthur]](https://i2.wp.com/politicalintroverts.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cover-Jusha-2019-11-13-c-scaled.jpg?fit=692%2C1024&ssl=1)
