Personality. Some like to put their kids out into a hurricane with them crying to build character, knowing they're not in any real danger. Some people wish their children well when they are struggling as adults. There's no one way to be, but politicizing toughness and obedience over expressions of love in a messy world, that's not really getting any further traction in helping us to unlock this country. In fact it's the partisan bickering that is holding us back. No one way of being, personality wise, is superior. Some people like to emphasize the toughness you need, some people like to provide empathy. Some people like empathy, and some people like tough love.
Whether we want a smaller or a more activist government is also something that comes out of the cauldron of the mind. Some people are tired of being out-woke by intelligent people, and sometimes people trust authorities too much, ignore their instincts. There's all kinds of situations.
The culture wars and division can aid one party more than another.
One party makes extravagant promises based on rhetoric of hope and another kind of personality type that is inclined to vote the other way, based on a politics of resentment, feel very betrayed by imagined broken promises. See government doesn't work.
What is the true and best level of governmental interventions? How much can you really help people? Are we negligent if we don't work on systemic injustices?
Do we really learn to see clearly by doubling down on an political ideology? Can the other side bait us into being more partisan?
We're never going to have a right wing fascist dictator and we're never going to have a communist state if people are allowed to vote, but if one side or the other tips things somehow, these dangers become more real and eliven the opposition.
Actually we can't know the previous statement, because it is possible to vote against democracy, and it is possible to change economic organization.
Being skeptical of the other side's metaphysics is natural. 40% of the people who died of Covid are Trump's responsibility. Where did that come from? If I don't like taxes, then that seems less real. The government doesn't really tell on itself that often. What is the price of helping people, and making a third of the people feel like there are too many free riders? A third of the people are obsessed with the free riders, and a third of the people are obsessed with systematic injustice, and never the twain shall meet.
We could easily decide to defund police, prisons, defense, and ramp up entitlements, infrastructure, education, health care, public transportation, housing.
We could easily reduce taxes and make everything pay to play. Roads, schools, public transport, health care.
I could point to these countries that are moving more towards my ideals, you could point to the countries that are moving more towards your ideals.
There's a theory that presidents are always handicapped. Obama by racism and political obstruction. Trump by selfishness and no vision. Bush by being a addled dry alcoholic. Clinton my his womanizing and arrogance. Bush by his patrician ways. Reagan by his dementia.
Conservatives are always going to look like selfish idiots to progressives. Progressives will always look like self confounding elitists to conservatives, moonbeam do gooders.
It's hyper partisan when one side tries to use objective science and the other side relies on conservative instincts.
Taking identity politics to the growing white minority is seen as Hitlerian, fascism.
Stocking libraries with alternative lifestyles books seems threatening to certain personality types.
Disgust at homosexuality and confusion with transgender experience can be harnessed. Anti-taxation sentiment can be harnessed. Political jealous and frustration can be harnessed. Harnessing base motives is realistic and pragmatic for one side, and listening to the baser self on the other side. Incitement to evil. One side feels over responsible, the other side never takes any responsibility.
We're in such a psychological mess because the world is big and there are no easy steps to understand everything. Leadership is about making the right decisions, but we can't even agree on what a right decision would be. A certain way of being wants to always win out. In a democracy that won't happen, there are all sorts of factors.
Godel's theorem didn't destroy mathematics or logic, it just proved it couldn't be the be all end all and prove itself to be so. The Heisenberg principle didn't kill physics, it just showed the limits to knowing. Humans are limited in intelligence, life span, personality and by circumstances. Theories spring up to try and get a handle on complicated phenomenon. We are groping around in the dark. Sometimes I don't have a good move in chess, so I just make a move, any move, so I don't waste time. Pragmatic decision making uses assumptions that are not metaphysically real, just a way to figuring out a move. We watch sports because we don't know who is going to win.
I still think paying attention and developing thought, and advocating for what seems right is the way to be, I'm not arguing for apathy, inactivity and rejection of thinking, or a might makes right ideology. To adopt a utilitarian viewpoint does not solve problems in some crucial ways, and understand all the hidden costs. There is no one course of action that doesn't weigh some costs, and there's always an antithesis in the dialectical dance. Humans have a long way to evolve as a society.
Comments
Post a Comment