Menu

Concepts

political thinking limits

Logical Limitations

, , 0

Political discussion are inherently challenging. When talking to someone who holds a different perspective, emotional tensions often flare and misunderstandings abound.

If we can let go of some of our assumptions, and approach the conversation with virtue, we are much more likely to achieve a positive outcome. It might be a good time to ask a few obvious but often overlooked question:

What is the desired result? Why do we have political debates? Why should we entertain the conversation?

The short answer? Because it builds character.

Talking to people who hold radically different views can feel like a lost cause. But, that is only true if we are hellbent on converting them. It’s not easy to convince someone they are wrong.

You might consider a different approach. Try re-framing difficult political conversations as a learning experience. Maybe even allow the emotional provocation to shed light on your personal convictions.

We’re not just playing patty-cake, so what’s the point? The point is to allow wildly different ideas to penetrate the defense of our personal bias, thus affording empathetic insight into another way of thinking.

It sounds a little touchy-feely, but there are logical reasons to do so. Entertaining initially offensive ideas builds emotional resilience and bolsters EQ. This actually stretches the mental fibers, increasing our capacity for critical thinking.

Understanding Logical Limitations

What are our logical limitations? Given our finite lifespan and limited time and energy, we can only do so much thinking. Similarly, we can only accumulate so much knowledge. The fact is, our learning is limited.

This is important to understand. This is the reason that collaboration is essential. If we are trying to resolve super complex and pervasive social problems, we need to have the broadest scope of consideration possible.

Think about one person trying to examine and analyze a large building, say the White House. They could run around the outside and sketch a surface level description. Or, they could focus intensely and ascertain the finer details of some particular aspect. Let’s suppose there’s not time to do both.

It’s may be a silly hypothetical, but it makes the simple point. Logically, a larger number of people are better equipped to examine and analyze a complex situation.

Working toward political solutions at the local, state, or national levels, means working with limited time, energy, and understanding. When we work together, we expand our capacity think outside the box and find creative solutions.

Understanding Political Limitations

That said, there are other limitations that need to be acknowledged. Specifically, it would be wise to wrap our heads around certain inherent and unavoidable political limitations.

Political concepts seek to define and establish social roles between government and citizenry. It really boils down to authority. What authority does the government have? What authority do the citizens have?

Authority is an intriguing concept. Some might say it is a very seductive idea. We allow the government to exercise authority over our individual autonomy in exchange for perceived benefits, such as security or convenience.

What remains to be examined are the logical limitations of this authority. We won’t dive into the deep end here. Suffice it to say, there is a pressing need to reassess the currently accepted preconceptions surrounding government authority.

For now, let’s focus more on the practical aspects of political limitations. Politicians are just ordinary people, albeit with a propensity for social influence. Furthermore, government is just an abstract concept that confers authority on a small group of fallible human beings.

Clearly there are limits to what the government is capable of doing. We should keep in mind when supporting regulations that designed to rid the world of some perceived evil.

Understanding Consensual Limitations

Have you ever tried to get a large group of friends to agree on something? How about a hundred perfect strangers? Follow this train of thought a little further out, and you’ll abruptly encounter the inevitably frustrating consensual limitations.

In large groups of people there are more perspectives being represented, which makes it increasingly difficult to reach consensus. This is precisely why it is unreasonable to expect 315 MILLION people to agree on anything.

So, why does that matter? In theory, government authority is validated by the mutual consent of the governed. But, as you may suspect, it’s a shaky theory to say the least.

Consensual limitations should correspond with political limitations, which would balance government authority with the will of the people. Unfortunately, in the modern political context this plays out in a more dictatorial fashion.

You may have heard the phrase “no taxation without equal representation.” If that doesn’t ring a bell, it might be good to buff up on some history. The idea is that government doesn’t have the authority to take peoples money (tax), without consent.

Put simply, citizens may consent to taxation or other government shenanigans if they feel that politicians are adequately representing their best interests. This representation validates the conference of authority.

But, political consensus is a shifty beast. Emotionally charged social issues are as fickle as the weather. Policy that seems agreeable today, may sound outrageous tomorrow. What is a responsible citizen to do?

Applying political logic means being real about the intrinsic limitations of the political process. It seems wise to keep these limitations in mind as we work toward a mutually beneficial future.

myth of equality

Myths of Equality

, , 0

Life is not all rainbows and unicorns.

Mythical creatures are cool, but they cannot withstand the crushing weight of reality. Nevertheless, myth has an enduring appeal. Our innocent imaginations are forever reshaping fantasy into political ideals.

Nowhere is this more prevalent, than in the knavish ideals rooted in the myth of equality. So cunning is this concept, scarcely a word is spoken against it. Few ever question its validity.

What is equality? It is a concept that implies sameness in quantity, quality, value, or status. It is a comparative evaluation, the idea of equivalence, of two things being essentially equal or balanced.

Politically speaking, equality is the antithesis of discrimination. The term connotes a sense of fairness, that everyone should get a fair chance, regardless of race, sex, or religious affiliation. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, this appealing ideal is inherently flawed.

Equality has become a blanket term that is used to cloak a whole lot of wishful thinking. Can you dunk a ball like Michael Jordan? Can you craft calculus equations like Albert Einstein? Tell me, where is the equality in human aptitude or ambition? 

Equality simply does not exist in the natural world. Equality is just an irrational idea, a cute little concept, a lovable ideal, a magical myth in the mind of humanity.

Like all myths, there will be those who insist on its plausibility. But, applying the vice of intelligent inquiry, let’s carefully consider the following fallacies:

Equal Rights, Really?

Questioning the concept of equal rights is like desecrating the holy shrine of liberal ideals. I get it. But, I don’t believe that asking intelligent questions constitutes an act of evil. Do you? My intent is not malicious.

If trash-talking equal rights makes your head explode, take a deep breath and bare with me.

Let’s start with the basis. Let’s assume for a moment, that every person on the planet should have equal rights. Some go so far as to claim there are in fact ‘certain inalienable rights’ that have been endowed by a creator. Is this a solid premise?

What are these rights, specifically? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Those are arbitrary concepts, are they not? Who gets to define each of these specific rights?  What do these rights mean to you, specifically?

What if I disagree? What if I think there are a different set of rights? What if I think that you don’t have the rights you claim to have? Chew on that.

The first problem with the myth of equal rights, is defining exactly what those rights actually are. If all these rights boil down to the myriad opinions of humanity, then we are unlikely to ascertain a definitive list. 

Now let’s take the scrutiny up a notch. Let’s assume there are certain rights that everyone should have, say as defined by the constitution. Now they must be distributed to everyone equally. We’re on the right track, right?

To make that plausible, we need to work out some logistics. Let’s assume that everyone plays perfectly nice, and nobody breaks the rules or infringes upon anyone else’s rights. Thus, minimal oversight from some consensual legal authority easily keeps the peace without incident, ad infinitum.

Okay, now back to the real world.

Rights in the Real World

You neighbor stabs a baby because it was screaming all night long. You saw the whole thing, you tell the police, and the lady goes to jail forever and ever… or at least until some upstanding, well qualified citizen decides how and when she should die.

Pause the story. Did you assume the neighbor was a man? Who would stab a baby? Is it humane to cage a person in prison forever? Can capital punishment ever be justified?

Take a moment to notice any emotions you may be experiencing. What are you feeling? Why do you feel that way?

Most of us live lives that are relatively insulated from the trauma of such horrors. But, terrible things do happen. Some people seem to have no regard for their fellow humans. Stealing, stabbing, or selfishly sabotaging the joy of others is not uncommon. It is a frequent manifestation of human behavior.

Keep that in mind, always. Not only is life not fair, but there are people in the world who would do much worse than just steal your lunch money. This is the context in which we must discuss equal rights.

 So, how do equal rights play out in the real world? 

Let’s pretend the lady baby stabber is a very wealthy woman from Bolivia. She pleads innocent and pays her high powered attorney to make the case of temporary insanity. After all, the screaming baby was clearly infringing upon her right to a peaceful night’s sleep. Plus, the screaming was a trigger for some serious trauma she suffered in her own childhood.

The verdict is in, and she walks away a free woman.

Does this sort of thing happen? You bet your ass it does.

But that’s not really the question. The question is, do you think the woman had the right to stab that baby? Did the lawyer have the right to plead insanity? How about this: Do you think that society has the right to lock her up and throw away the key? Better yet, does society have the right to execute the lady for such social taboo?

The point is that rights are complicated, to say the least. This lengthy hypothetical was meant to pull the assumption of equal rights into the quagmire of human opinion. From here we can proceed with humility.

Anytime we find ourselves in a conversation about rights, it is critical to uncover some basic assumptions:

  • How do you define that right?
  • Who decides who gets that right?
  • How do you handle disagreement?
  • How do you handle enforcement?

At the end of the day, any so-called ‘rights’ are really just nice ideas. Rights are concepts that are created inside the conditioned human mind. The same can be said for the concept of “equality.”

While it may be tempting to think of these terms as expressions of social justice, logic should cause us to reconsider. Without a universally agreed upon premise, these ideas amount to little more than passionate opinion. Making any assumptions of equality, or of equal rights, constitutes a seriously short-sighted consideration.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, it does not seem wise to aggressively legislate or pursue regulations based on fickle assumptions. Much wiser would it be to dig deeply into the value of these concepts, to identify a set of common principles that can be practically applied, and to then move forward with logic and humility.

But, unfortunately, that will have to wait for a later time.

false-hope

False Assumptions

, , 0

If you are human, you make false assumptions. We all do it. It’s just part of life.

Unfortunately, when our false assumptions go unnoticed, we are at their mercy. Sometimes the subsequent outcome is benign, other times it leads to a catastrophe. Making false assumptions in our political considerations is particularly problematic.

Suppose we assume that most politicians are sincere and intend to make good on campaign promises. Thus, we vote for the best sounding idea, for the most polished pitch. What could possibly go wrong? I’m glad you asked.

First, the politician may prove to be utterly dishonest and self-serving, pocket the campaign contributions, leverage political clout for personal gain, and totally ignore the campaign promises. Do you think that ever happens?

Or, assuming a more earnest sincerity, this politician may roll into Washington DC only to watch their bundle of good intentions go up in smoke, thanks to the incendiary ambiance of bitter partisanship. Political naivety must have the whiff of prey to those predators lurking on the hill.

Worse yet, what if all the good ideas, all the campaign promises, were actually illogical, impractical, or literally impossible to implement?

It is clear that even the simplest false assumptions can have a wide range of unintended consequences. That alone should give us cause to pause and assess the infiltration of assumptions into our own political convictions.

Further contemplation unearths a disturbing truth. There are several false assumptions that feed perniciously on our genetic predispositions. We are highly susceptible to self-deception.

Here’s a look at a few of the most destructive and pervasive false assumptions:

The Assumption of Superior Knowledge

It easy to assume that we have the most accurate perspective because we have facts to back it up. We allow the assumption of superior knowledge to validate our opinions. Obviously we would think the way we think if we knew we were wrong.

There are several problems here. One is that we seldom questions the source of our facts when they align with our emotional convictions. Another is that we seldom evaluate our facts within the context of macro level considerations. That is, some facts may be right, but they may also be completely irrelevant.

The fact is, most facts are slippery. It’s way easier to fling a spoon-fed fact in someone’s face, than it is to examine the validity of our own assumptions.

The outcome of this assumption is that everyone else is wrong and their facts are inaccurate, because our facts are right. This effectively shuts down critical thinking and brings productive conversation to a screeching halt. 

It is essential that we shed the assumption of superior knowledge in order to engage in difficult conversations that can potentially help lead us toward logical conclusions.

The Assumption of Moral Supremacy

What’s worse than assuming superior knowledge? How about infusing the assumption with a passionate sense of moral supremacy.

There are two contrasting facets to this fallacy.

On the one side, there are those who claim to stand on divine authority when dictating their moral demands. On the other, there are those claiming intellectual authority, so convinced of their own infallibility they cannot see the flaws of their moral mandates.

Both sides feverishly defend their justifications without proper application of rational thinking. Arguments for or against moral supremacy are inherently flawed. The chasm between these contrasting concepts reflects the diversity of humanity.

Morals are a sense of right and wrong. Philosophers and religious leaders have been mulling over these concepts for eons. Consensus comes and goes. At the end of the day, individual definitions vary beyond the scope of this post.

Applying logic, we should acknowledge the wedge of emotionally driven ideologies (concepts of morality) and seek to circumvent the impact of this assumption in political debate.

The Assumption of Inevitability

We might suppose that it is inevitable for political common sense to prevail, but is this safe assumption? Similarly, it would be nice to assume that human progress will eventually lead us into a utopian society, but is this really a safe assumption?

To assume inevitability means to extend speculation beyond the horizon of certainty. Change is inevitable. So is chaos. Taken together, these two cosmic ingredients are a recipe for disaster when it comes to the assuming the inevitability of any outcome.

We might assume the victory of a particular candidate is inevitable and decide not to vote. We might assume that some ideas are such a lost cause, there’s no point in trying. We might assume the inevitable acceptance of some new idea, only to be shocked by the rejection from the general public.

The assumption of inevitability is an insidious beast.

There’s more to say, but I’m out of time for today.

political family

Right Spectrum Politics

, 0

America is suffering a critical shortage of free thinkers.

 

Don’t add to the problem.

If you generally resonate with more traditional right-wing conservative roots, please resist the urge to loiter here in the familiar. Do yourself a favor, and take a walk on the wild side.

Click over and explore some of the illuminating liberal libations. You won’t grow much by steeping yourself in self-affirming commentary.

If you are still working out your own political philosophy, there is a ton of information in this post. Beware of getting bogged down in the vast array of apparent contradictions.

If you dare brave the catacombs of conservatism, please proceed with an open mind. Fresh and contemporary commentary will be provided free of charge.

As with the left-spectrum post, rather than pontificate my own perspective, I will offer a variety of links to thought provoking articles and resources.

It’s up to you to identify the pros and cons of conservatism.

It goes without saying that you could simply Google “conservative principles” or “why conservatives are crazy” or whatever. The problem is, it’s exceedingly difficult to discern right from wrong, fact from fiction, truth from utter BS.

Wisdom says be skeptical of your sources. It is essential to scour every source for slant and bias. What’s their angle? How do they skew the information being presented?

Of course, academic types love to point out that we all have an unconscious, implicit bias. It appears that we are helplessly ensnared in our own humanity, destined to be judgmental and prejudice, bitterly clinging to self-serving perspectives. So be it.

Still, in the face of human fallibility, there are many great thinkers in the world. Some helped to establish the precedents of logic and the pillars of rational thinking. Others continue to explore the enigmatic nuance of existential experience.

The point is, clear thinking deserves healthy respect, regardless of political affiliation. Contemplating perspectives that offend our own requires a good measure of mental discipline. To do so is an enriching exercise that is certain to cultivate wisdom.

With that in mind, let’s move to the links.

Like liberalism, conservatism has a lot of history. The definition has undoubtedly shifted through the years, making it difficult to digest the full scope of right-spectrum politics.

As we wade into the right-wing waters, it is critical to be aware of the current cultural conditioning that that presupposes conservative thinking is backwards and unintelligent. From Google’s skewed search results, to social media’s liberal bias, it is difficult to find a fair shake.

Do you have a college degree? Are you aware of rampant bias on campuses across the country? Here are a few articles to explore:

Here we want to shed such assumptions. To try and get a flavor for the historical context and core principles of modern conservatism, you might consider these reasonable commentaries:

Since social change seems to be accelerating all around us, you might also consider a more central perspective on conservatism in the Age of Trump.

If you want to truly immerse yourself in conservative ideology, you could dig into the right-wing propaganda of some prominent right-spectrum think-tanks, such as:

Word of caution: NEVER trust the words “non-partisan.” That’s code lingo for “Come on in sucker.” You’re about to be duped.

Hopefully you’ve taken the time to get familiar with the intellectual pillars of right-spectrum politics. You’ll be a more well-rounded person because of it. Don’t forget. Balance is the key to happiness.

If all the right-wing theory is driving you nuts, don’t worry. Breathe deep. Keep your eyes on the prize.

Remember, we are trying to grasp an understanding of right-spectrum politics, and why it is that millions of people advocate a conservative perspective. Right, wrong, or indifferent, there must be reasons.

Now it’s time to peruse some pithy conservative commentary on current political events. To put your finger on the pulse of current conservative chatter, check out some of these right-wing repositories:

You might also check out quasi-legitimate right-leaning news sights like Fox News, OAN, or try a popular aggregate site like Zero Hedge.

Please keep in mind, when media outlets (left or right) claim to be “news” they are lying through their teeth. Generally speaking, it’s pure propaganda. You check their slant at Media Bias Ratings.

Please proceed with caution, and all the critical thinking skills you can muster.

When attempting to evaluate articles from any source, it is important to understand the terminology that is being used. You might try and wrap your head around the scope of conflicting definitions by poking around on these sites:

Oh yeah, here’s a bonus read on why Bush wasn’t a conservative, and Obama wasn’t a liberal. They’re both part of the good old boys club.

Obviously this could go on and on and on.

If you want to help shift the political paradigm, you’ve got to be equipped for intelligent debate. That means understanding where your political opponents are coming from.

If you are left-leaning, and you actually dug into the resources provided, I applaud you. I commend you. I thank you.

If you are right-leaning and you still feel all warm and fuzzy, dig a little deeper. If you haven’t already, now is the perfect time to immerse yourself in the curious world of left-spectrum politics.

Go ahead. Be brave. Question everything.

Never stop learning.

Left Spectrum Politics

, , 0

America is suffering a critical shortage of free thinkers.

 

Don’t add to the problem.

Please stop steeping yourself in self-affirming commentary. If you fancy yourself a left-leaning liberal progressive, please resist the urge to loiter here in the familiar.

Do yourself a favor and step out of the box. You would be much better served exploring the many curiosities of conservatism.

If you are still working out your own political philosophy, there is a ton of information in this post. Beware of getting bogged down in the vast array of apparent contradictions.

If you are looking to dig a little deeper into the language and ideals of progressive politics, you just hit the jackpot.

Rather than pontificate my own perspective, here you will find a variety of links to left-spectrum resources. There are also resources to help you evaluate the pros and cons of each perspective.

It goes without saying that you could simply Google “liberal principles” or “liberal lies” or something along those lines. The problem is, very few people are keen to research opposition to their own personal preference.

Those that do are still left sifting through a whole lotta fluff, having to wade through endless contradictions to sort out facts from fiction. Which brings up a good point: Most sources suck.

“But what about–” … Yes, they suck…

“But surely not–” … Yeah, they probably suck too.

Wisdom says be skeptical of your sources. It is essential to scour every source for slant and bias. What’s their angle? How do they skew the information being presented?

As a side note, academic types love to point out our unconscious, implicit bias. Apparently we are helplessly ensnared in our own humanity. We are destined to be judgmental and prejudice, and only entertain self-serving perspectives. So be it.

Still, it would be foolish to flog human perspective entirely. There are many great thinkers in the world. Some established the precedents of logic and pillars of rational thinking. Others continue to explore the nuance of existential experience and profound natural enigma.

The point is, clear thinking deserves healthy respect, regardless of political affiliation. Contemplating perspectives that offend our own requires a good measure of mental discipline. To do so is an enriching exercise that is certain to cultivate wisdom.

With that in mind, let’s move to the links.

Are you familiar with the difference between classical and modern liberalism? Wanna buff up on some history? You might start by reading this informative article from Britannica.com

Keep in mind, just because it’s an encyclopedia, doesn’t mean it’s not bias, slanted, and promoting an agenda. It is impossible to remove the human element from any source.

If you want to get acquainted or fully immerse yourself in liberal ideology, you could dig into the left-leaning propaganda of some left-spectrum think-tanks, such as:

Word of caution: NEVER trust the words “non-partisan.” That’s code lingo for “Come on in sucker.” You’re about to be duped.

Now, having perused the history and the intellectual pillars of left-spectrum politics, you might be ready for some juicy progressive commentary on current events.

Or, you may have had all your stomach and take. Don’t gag. Breathe deep. Keep your eyes on the prize.

If you need a breather, and some alternate perspective to prop up your emotional well-being, check out the post on right-spectrum politics. Balance is the key to happiness.

But for now, we are trying to understand the thinking of progress politics, and why millions of people align with the liberal perspective. Right, wrong, or indifferent, there must be reasons.

To get your finger on the pulse of current progressive chatter, you should check out several different liberal blogs. Among the most popular are:

Please keep in mind, when left-leaning outlets claim to be “news” they are lying through their teeth. It’s pure propaganda. Proceed with caution and all the critical thinking skills you can muster.

You can check the slant of many sources at Media Bias Ratings.

When attempting to evaluate articles from any source, make sure you understand the terminology. To try and wrap your head around the scope of conflicting definitions, poke around on these sites:

Obviously this could go on and on and on.

If you want to help shift the political paradigm, you’ve got to be equip for intelligent debate. That means understanding where your political opponents are coming from.

If you are right-leaning, this section should have provided links to many challenging perspectives. I commend your courage for embracing open-minded consideration. Thank you.

If you are left-leaning, you probably got all giddy reading the well articulated support for your personal convictions. Now, are you ready for a challenge?

Now is the perfect time to immerse yourself in the curious world of right-spectrum politics. Go ahead. Be brave. Are the neo-cons really a bunch of crazy racists? Take the time to find out.

Political Logic

0

A Crash Course in Critical Political Thinking

 

So you wanna be wise, eh?

Then it’s time we drop convention.

Believe it or not, our country was not established for the benefit of the Republican or the Democrat parties. There has been a long, subtle, and pernicious plot to usurp the power of the people and consolidate power in the hands of these political parties.

There are many inherent flaws in our current two-party political system. Looking at political issues from the ordained left and right perspectives will forever produce shortsighted solutions. I’m sure the politicians hope we won’t notice.

With the Democrats and Republicans so deeply entrenched in the political establishment, they have effectively shutdown any outside political challengers. Though they bicker in public, both parties are members of an elite ruling class. That’s a problem.

It has become clear that these two political parties utterly fail to represent the vastly diverse perspectives of the American people. Worse yet, they have grown both bold and complacent, often demonstrating complete disregard for the will of the people.

Now, here’s where it get tricky. Are you ready to put on your thinking cap?

What is the will of the people?

Go ahead and try to define that. I dare you.

If 160 MILLION people think we should ban birthday cakes because they are undeniably unhealthy and clearly lead to heart disease and certain death… is that the will of the people?

If 150 MILLION people think that every child should be taught religious principles in school so they have a moral compass and can enjoy a spiritually fulfilling life… is that the will of the people?

If 210 MILLION people think that the government has no right to confiscate 35% of every paycheck to fund pet projects without any accountability, if they stood together in solidarity and demanded equitable tax laws… is that the will of the people?

Where is the logic in any such hypothetical? Logic is best applied in the following steps:

  1. Recognize that the will of the people is a stubborn, intractable beast, shifty and forever wild.
  2. Acknowledge that what sounds good to some will prove disagreeable to others. It’s a human thing.
  3. Attempt to establish a minimally intrusive government that allows unbridled diversity and protects personal liberties.

Hmmm… seems like there were some old white dudes that came up with something like that once… I remember because they did a damn good job. In fact, they wrote down their ideas and changed the entire course of humanity. What was that? Oh yeah…

The Constitution of the United States of America.

Boom. If we let the logic sink in a little deeper, we begin to see things a whole lot clearer. It’s all about personal freedom, which, rather ironically, can only function under the rule of law. Why is that? Well, that’s a topic we’ll discuss a little later.

The takeaway for this post should be this: America was found by a country of free individuals. The founders had just rejected tyrannical rule and fought a war to declare their right to self-governance. Their message was, “Leave us the f*ck alone.”

Soon after, they hammered out the essential policies of limited government and enshrined the principles of personal freedom in our Constitution. Keep in mind, this is all crazy relevant to the political chaos of today.

If our government was functioning as mandated, we would not be where we are at today.

Logic says we should take a closer look at the Constitution. It may be the critical first step to solving all our problems.

There is a great free course called Constitution 101 here.

Bringing it all together.

, , , , 0

This is where logic meets laughter.

Here we can laugh at ignorance and idiocy, shit-can political correctness, and pick at the scab of festering emotional wounds. We won’t tone it down, skirt the issue, or try to be nice. Instead, we’ll call it like it is, bash the bias, and call bullshit on the bullshit.

Does that sound refreshing?

If so, you’re in for a treat.