I often hear normal people decry the way that everything seems to be politicized in a way it didn’t used to be years ago, when they just want to get on with their lives. They assume other people feel the same way and that all the division is just an unintended side effect of freedom. They find the apparently polarizing and tone-deaf political statements ridiculous but they figure the people doing it are out of touch and losing their minds.
Maybe they are losing their minds, but the decision to polarize is purposeful. Every disagreement is an opportunity to rule. Advocate for one side or regulate the conflict, and your political significance grows. In an American-style democracy, power is diluted and institutional gridlock is built-in by design, so those looking for their own slice of power benefit from creating more overall conflict and have patronage networks to make this happen.
This creates the odd scenario where normal people hate conflict but still take sides. They don’t carefully deliberate. They passively receive their beliefs by gut feelings, their environment, and the media they consume. They may be capable of critical thinking, but hate dialectical conversation and find topical debates annoying.
The Rise of the Issue-Guys
My readers are probably not like this. If you are like me, you find this kind of person annoying. How can you not care about the bedrock issues of your society? Why have the same conversations repeatedly about the weather, sports, and how work is going, but never broach any serious topics, all while society comes apart at the seams?
Outnumbered, the philosophically-minded seek enclaves for these conversations online, and with them a world of questions that need answers. They find a lifetime of content to churn through and tease out where they stand on the issues and how to defend them. Armed with new information and enthusiasm, they test the arguments on the normies, only to find the same vehement rejection and dismissal they use to decry polarization. They don’t agree, but offer no rational reasons, just reflexive feelings and are desperate to change the subject back to the weather. Issue-guys learn to have a public “normie” mask, and relegate serious conversation only to settings they trust.
The pattern of rejection issue-guys face from normies fosters a rhythm of life where they keep to themselves while at work, school, and church, but during the off-beats of life, squeezing in reading, listening, and discussion. Taking sides on the issues becomes a sort of hobby that is mostly separate from real life. Whether they are right or wrong, it increasingly becomes an intellectual exercise with only minimal impact on life outside of the mind or the internet enclave, only showing up in real life when it fosters a serious life change, like a religious conversion seemingly out of nowhere.
An Issue-Based Identity
A different kind of annoying person emerges. Rather than wisdom informing right living, one’s position on the issues simply becomes a badge of identity. Like the intellectual corollary to preferred pronouns, online bios everywhere list the combination of religious, political or philosophical positions: “Postmil Abolitionist. Free Market Agorist. Post-structuralist neo-reactionary. Agnostic Ancap. Calvinist Presuppositionalist. Trad Cath Thomist.”
It’s not all bad. It signals invitation to serious conversation, and done correctly, the dialectic can make people more careful thinkers, but more often these labels are tribal markers. They signal who belongs, which can produce high-school-clique characteristics and meaningless online drama. When your positions become tied to identity, arguments are personal and being wrong is threatening, which strongly discourages dispassionate investigation into the truth. The whole point of learning about these topics is to understand how the world really works so that you can live accordingly.
Who Can Issue-Guys Trust?
This becomes more significant when dealing with matters of trust, especially concerning who to be friends with and which leaders to support. Unlike normies who make their decisions based on impressions, issue-guys are much more concerned with where the person stands. They see incorrect or under-emphasized positions as the root of most problems, and so try to solve them by promoting correct positions.
Consider politicians. Issue-guys look for candidates with the right combination of positions on guns, abortion, the free market, or whatever. Similarly with churches. Where does the church stand on baptism, music, politics, tradition, or eschatology?
As the world becomes more polarized, it is tempting to lean into the polarization by focusing completely on the issues. Obviously, the truth is important, but there is a danger in believing that holding to the right position automatically makes them trustworthy. Don’t get me wrong, I am an issue-guy at heart, and I assume most of my audience is as well, but think for a moment about this.
Take one of the most sober and grievous political issues of our day, abortion, and think of how infrequently a politician will have any opportunity to act upon it. The vast majority of their work will involve mundane work of approving budgets, applying for grants, and dealing with infrastructure, all while exchanging favors with one another.
Similarly with a church, the vast majority of a church’s ministry involves prayer, sermons, and the Lord’s Supper, not taking sides on all the most popular debates.
Each specific “issue” will only be dealt with rarely, but the daily activity of the leader and how they address challenges when they arrive have a much larger impact. Consider the difference it makes to have a politician who will build a coalition and network to support people like you but is weaker on the issues, compared to someone who holds perfect views but isn’t effective at getting the support needed to implement them. Consider a pastor who holds your opposite view on baptism but powerfully preaches the scripture and applies it to the heart, and is carried along by fervent prayer, compared to a pastor who holds your view but is functionally coasting.
Being right on the issues also does not translate to superior character. It won’t make them loyal, honest, or morally above reproach. They can also be right while incompetent. Worst of all are those who assert the right positions, lack character or competence, but don’t even rally for the right position in the rare opportunity when it matters.
Key Takeaways
Gain self awareness. Take some time to think carefully about the topics you choose to learn about. Think of the purposes that learning serves and organize it intentionally, not impulsively.
Do not define yourself by your issues. Your identity needs to be much deeper than your opinions. It’s fine to apply appropriate labels to your beliefs, but make your identity rooted in being created and redeemed by Jesus, your origins, your people, and your mission.
Don’t argue with normies. Normies don’t accept positions based on arguments. Influence them through their feelings. If you win them on the feelings, they’ll accept any rational argument you supply to support it.
Keep a sense of perspective about which issues are most important. Jesus being Lord is central. Beliefs about the Nephilim are not.
Prioritize real world results over hypothetical positions. There are exceptions where we must be willing to suffer on principle, but most of our actions should be pragmatic.
Only trust people as much as they deserve. When you trust people, you willingly become vulnerable to them. Don’t submit yourself to this vulnerability merely because they can spin the right words together. Listen intently to their words and compare them to actions over time. Listen to your gut and see if something is off. Focus on the tangible over the abstract.
Thank you for reading, my fellow issue-guys and normies alike! I am grateful for you all and especially thankful for helping me reach 100 subscribers. Please continue to pass along your favorite articles to your friends, and I hope you enjoy the new logo.
Insightful.
I'm an issue guy. But I can also argue against my own positions. I can see both sides of the coin. I study "the enemy" and try to understand their positions. I try to exit the echochambers as much as possible, to see if I am wrong in my own assertions. I attempt to be as open-minded as possible.
The only thing I truly know is that I do not know. I hold this truth close to heart, in all things.
Excellent article. Describes my experience exactly. I see greater things ahead for you as an author and a leader