| Tuesday, 03 September 2008 |
The ideological political spectrum (IPS), as I see it, is inadequate and should be replaced. I have two main concerns. The first is that the current political spectrum does not represent political action. Actions are important, because they make beliefs more relevant to a person's political affiliation, and in the end we have to be responsible (and therefore give an account of ourselves) for our actions and not our beliefs. Second, the beliefs that comprise the IPS run the gamut of four extremes without considering their correctness. While this latter concern is controversial and somewhat subjective, my point is that we should not think it wrong to say that the intellectual framework behind totalitarianism is flawed. Furthermore, the concern for action and the concern for correctness are closely related. The political process is, after all, a decision-making process, and the correctness of a decision correlates directly with the goodness or usefulness of an action. No one contests this fact. The problem remains, how does one build an objective political spectrum that addresses these two concerns? I admit, it is a very tall order; and yet I feel that addressing these concerns not only paints an accurate picture of practical politics, but also points us in a progressive direction. As a quick sketch, the IPS is a political compass, with a horizontal spectrum between "left" and "right" intersecting a vertical spectrum between "libertarian" and "authoritarian." Anarchism is plotted at the extremes of "left" and "libertarian," while totalitarianism is at the extremes of "right" and "authoritarian." An ethical political spectrum (EPS) will replace the spectrum between "left" and "right" with "good" and "bad" critical thinking, and intersect that spectrum with another between "non-oppressive" and "oppressive" actions (essentially, actions that promote and deny human rights). Leaving the previously mentioned ideologies in place, anarchism is plotted at the extremes of "good" critical thinking and "non-oppressive" actions, while totalitarianism is at the extremes of "bad" critical thinking and "oppressive" actions.
Most ideologies, however, shift markedly. If we lay the IPS over the EPS, socialism moves upwards, while communism, strangely enough, moves towards the center (in my subjective view). Yet, because I want to address actions in addition to beliefs, I must use people instead of ideologies. Systems of thought may create the motives for actions, but only people can be responsible for actions, and it is to people, not ideologies, that my concerns apply. Theoretically the IPS is accurate, but I feel its practical application ignores the actions that make politics relative to human beings, which include actions that contradict ideology. On the EPS ideologies are charted in accordance to the actions they represent. Stalin was a communist on the IPS, but on the EPS he shifts towards Hitler and fascism (Stalin and Hitler both being totalitarians). It is noteworthy to point out that just as good decision-making correlates directly with good action, good critical thinking correlates directly with non-oppression. What we have, essentially, is a political spectrum that becomes a scatter chart. As we will see, most ideologies fall along or near a diagonal line drawn between anarchism and totalitarianism, while individuals tend to deviate from that line. It is not hard to imagine people like Stalin and Mao preaching one thing while doing another (alas, Hitler did exactly what he said he'd do, and few called him on it). There are also the hapless hippies whose confused world-views prevent them from hurting a fly, and the idiotic youths who see anarchy at the bottom of a Molotov cocktail. That is, essentially, the type of picture that the EPS is intended to capture. It is a picture of people carrying--and failing to carry--their responsibilities to their logical conclusions.
In one respect, the EPS has become very subjective. It is essentially saying that communism is better than capitalism, socialism is better than fascism and anarchy is better than totalitarianism. Our saving grace is that the EPS ultimately relies on critical thinking in its making. The basic rule to follow, as has been mentioned, is that as that critical thinking has an inverse-relationship with oppression. As a group uses critical thinking more effectively, that group's actions become less oppressive. Imagining a line chart with its X-axis labeled "critical thinking" and its Y-axis labeled "non-oppression," the aforementioned diagonal line begins with totalitarianism at (0,0) and ends with anarchy at (100,100). It should be kept in mind, however, that depending on one's view of the world one can just as easily position theocracy or totalitarianism at (100,100) and anarchism at (0,0). Fortunately, such a person would be delusional, and this fact can be proven objectively. Other ideologies such as communism and libertarianism are less certain than anarchism and totalitarianism, because other ideologies are greatly more complex than anarchism and totalitarianism. Anarchism and totalitarianism are, after all, very simple principles. The former denotes complete freedom of individuals and the latter denotes complete control over individuals. Hence communism and libertarianism are in the air, because they both denote complex systems whereby individuals trade freedom for security--essentially freedom for being controlled. Anarchism is, objectively, by virtue of what it is, completely non-oppressive. Conversely, totalitarianism is, by virtue of what it is, complete oppression.
It is important to note that critical thinking is not the same as rationality. Rationality should be measured by its ability to achieve certain ends. Hence the Nazis were very rational, insofar as their actions matched their beliefs. Yet it cannot be said that the Nazis were good critical thinkers, especially because they ignored the basic principle of critical thinking: evidence shapes belief. The rule that evidence shapes belief paints a new picture for the EPS. The X-axis can be labeled "evidence shapes belief." As a group applies the rule of "evidence shapes belief" its actions become less oppressive. This last statement may explain why primitive societies and uneducated populations tend to be more oppressive than advanced societies. The intellectual framework of a primitive society is based on the little-changed beliefs and traditions handed down from generation to generation, while in an advanced society beliefs and traditions change rapidly as they confront new evidence. This statement may also be the source of a common view that the history of world cultures is progressive. After all, it takes time for intellectual frameworks to mature. Coupled with expanding populations and the rule that groups are more rational than individuals, it is little wonder that advanced societies are, well, advanced. Their intellectual frameworks mature with population and age. That cultures progress is just another way of saying that cultures are becoming more and more critical in their thinking, and less and less oppressive, as time goes by.
But what does it all mean? It is a hard turn to tell the oppressiveness of an action. Many apparently identical actions are in fact very different, and it is difficult to assess which may have been justified. Perhaps one reason that we still swear by an ideological political spectrum is that beliefs are easier to judge than actions. Yet I think that an ethical political spectrum is truer to life in many respects, most of all because it makes an attempt to account for people who say one thing and do another. Stalin was no communist. Fidel Castro had great ideas, but that does not justify his human rights record. George Bush is not a conservative. I have said that the EPS can be very subjective. I also have said that its subjectivity can be avoided if we are willing to place evidence before belief. What this essentially means is that, in addition to utilizing good critical thinking, we must count actions as evidence for a person's beliefs. As a rule, ideologies can't say one thing and then do another--which is why they fall so close to the diagonal line. Individuals, however, can say one thing and do another. It is an unfortunate truth that, if we count actions as evidence for belief, people tend to be more oppressive than they let on. We also tend to be more irrational than we let on, which is one reason we thrive in large groups. The collective actions of society do tend to be rational, if not likable in the bigger picture. That being said, we do need governing, whether we are the self-governing, socially-conscious individuals of anarchy or the zealous, compartmentalized automatons of totalitarianism. What we need most of all is a government that is representative of the governed. Only then can we have actions that truly reflect the beliefs if most people--non-oppressive actions for good critical thinkers.
| Friday, 29 August 2008 |
People like to tell me, when I say I'm voting for Nader, that he is the responsible for the last eight years of Bush. "I would vote for Nader," they then proceed to say, "if doing so wouldn't cost us the election." At this point I am dumbfounded. "Cost us the election?" I think to myself, "Doesn't voting against your favorite candidate cost you the election?" This is a point that I wish I had said aloud, because it isn't heard much in this country. Unfortunately, for many people, voting isn't about electing the person you want to be your president, but about averting the biggest threat. John McCain certainly is the biggest threat to this country, even if you lean just a little to the left. John McCain is the biggest threat to this country, not because he is the worst candidate ever to run for office, but because he is the worst candidate who is also likely to win. That is what many Obama supporters feel when they think about McCain. Likewise, many McCain supporters feel the same way about Obama. We have to avert the biggest threat. Therefore, we have to vote for the other guy who is most likely to win. That is the logic of United States elections. With two parties in power the choice is always between the biggest threat and the other guy. Of course, in reality the choice is between the biggest threat and the second biggest threat. That is, because your choice is always narrowed down to the two candidates who are most likely to win, and you must decide between the worst candidate who is most likely to win and the second worst candidate who is most likely to win. There is no getting around this logic. It is true for every person who has ever voted Democrat or Republican just because he/she didn't like the other candidate.
There are always the people who will read the above and think, "Well, electability makes one a better candidate." To these people we have to break down the meaning of "electability." That is, what factors affect the likelihood of being elected? Well, the biggest factor is positive exposure. The more people who hear something good about you, the more likely you are to be elected. Unfortunately, positive exposure is quickly being overshadowed by another factor of electability: exposing the other guy negatively. The more people hear something bad about your rival, the more likely you are to be elected. Negative campaigning like this is big in a two party system, and it goes hand in hand with the logic of United States elections: voting for the second biggest threat.
In theory, positive and negative campaigning run the gamut when it comes to determining any candidate's electability. They are, after all, the things voters think about at the election booth. Of course, few people would say that these are the real factors of electability. Underlying positive and negative campaigning are several sinister factors. Money is the first. The amount of money your campaign is able to generate and spend on positive and negative campaigning will likely decide the election. As a rule, Democrat and Republican candidates are always well funded. Another related factor is free media exposure. Free media exposure is basically the positive and negative campaigning that the media does for you. Again, as a rule, Democrat and Republican candidates always have a bunch of free media exposure. Another factor is corporate backing and soft money--again, always reserved for Democrat and Republican candidates.
There is one last factor: the issues. For the Democrat and Republican candidates electability is pretty much proportional to the the above underlying factors. Ralph Nader's electability is always disproportional. He has very little money, he has very little free media exposure and he has virtually no corporate backing and soft money (other than perhaps from a few Mom and Pop corporations). What he does have is a firm grasp on the issues. People who vote for Nader vote for him for one reason: he is the best candidate on the issues. Very few people vote for him just because they dislike the other candidates (even though that is usually the case). I don't think anyone can logically vote for Nader based on his electability, because all Nader supporters know electability is a sham. If electability was based on anything meaningful, then Nader, or some other third-party candidate, would win every election. This is not subjective, because the factors that truly affect electability are not the factors that make a candidate a better candidate. To say that electability makes one a better candidate really and truly loses all meaning, because electability itself has lost all its relevance. By virtue of choosing electability over the other qualities of a candidate, you are once again narrowing your choice to the two candidates who are most likely to win. These are the two candidates who have the most corporate backing, who have the most free media exposure and who have the most money.
They are also the two candidates who are, necessarily, weakest on the issues. The great thing about a democracy is that it weeds out the nut jobs. In a relatively free democracy (the US elections are not really free elections) the Hitlers and Stalins can't stand a chance (although I sympathize with people who say that we've come close with Bush). Unfortunately, when factors such as money and corporate backing decide a candidate's electability, Democrats and Republicans lose out on the issues. Each party really just chooses the most electable person out of a group of people who reach a minimum standard on the issues. It's the third-party and independent candidates who get weeded out, leaving only the best. Funny how that works.
| Thursday, 28 August 2008 |
"Only the individual can think, and thereby create new values for society, nay, even set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms." --Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions
I see the preceding quotation as a gross affirmation of society's propensity, bred into us since infancy, to place the individual above the group. It is so, even at the expense of the individuals in the group. We have somehow created a realm of "the individual" that is separate from, and placed above, the realm of soceity. And our lust for individuality is not natural, nor do I think it genuine. Somewhere along the way individuality became the mode of being upheld by those in power to legitimate their positions. "Only the individual (i.e. I) can run a society." The new "God made me King" is "only individuals can run society efficiently and effectively." We let this preposterous notion make sense because we know that individual rights are the most fundamental rights. We know that what matters most is protecting the individual. But protecting the individual, if we believe Habermas, is also the best way of protecting the group. We can no longer pretend that placing an individual at the head of a group, a group of individuals, does not detract from the rights of others. No individual is so important to a society as to divorce that society's individuals from their rights, whether by directly denying the individuals some of their rights, or giving the "leader" extra rights--these amount to the same thing.
As anyone can see, I am treading a very thin line. Maybe that was not Einstein's intention at all. Maybe it was, and I am wrong anyway. Maybe Einstein would agree with everything I have to say. The difficulty of the subject of individuality and individual rights is such that I can be just a little wrong and also be way off the mark. This is because the consequences of wrongness are huge.
And yet I see that leaders are important. There is always going to be someone on whom the group will rely to make decisions quickly, to take the group on the path toward its collective ends. There will always be someone who will "set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms." But I see this individual as being closely tied to her/his community, and I don't see her/his "new moral standards" as being all that different from the standards of the group from which he/she came. I see the community hoisting up "one of their own" onto their shoulders. Sure enough, it must be someone who can bring something new to the table, but it also must be someone who is a part of the community in such a way that the group's hardships are truly her/his own, that he/she is held accountable, and I stress this point, for every move he/she makes, from her/his decisions on behalf of the community, to the speeches he/she writes, to the friends he/she keeps. This is not to say that a community should keep close scrutiny on the its leader's sex life, or that the leader should not have as much privacy as you or I deserve. It is to say that the accountability that a leader has to her/his community should be as much a part of her/his love and commitment to that community as it is a part of that community's careful and skeptical scrutiny. The leader should feel compelled to be held accountable for everything. It takes a town to raise a leader. Only such a leader would not, by her/his status, infringe upon the rights of her/his community.
That's a truly representative democracy. Unfortunately, the subject is also such that some may think I am saying "an individual cannot run society" and "only an individual can run society" at the same time.