10. My Request to You
Misunderstand me, if you must; disagree with me, if you will; but if there is one thing I must ask of you, it is this: please do not oversimplify me.
Published: June 6, 2022.
Last edit: June 6, 2022.
9. Oversimplification
Oversimplification plays a primary role in the etiology of America’s current political malady. Oversimplification is not a symptom of a dumb population so much as it is a tool used (in a manner which, at this point, I believe we must take to be intentional) to render the general population increasingly divided. Often, oversimplification assumes the form of false dichotomies within our political discourse: regarding abortion, for example, our media institutions dictate either that you favor killing babies or that you don’t care about women’s bodily autonomy. Regarding immigration, either you want to destroy our domestic economy or you want to tear hardworking parents away from their children. Mainstream media institutions—along with most alternative media groups—present no other potential stances with respect to such hot-button topics.
Such oversimplification relies on emotional manipulation to maintain a political environment rooted in ignorance and division. Oversimplified political narratives appeal to our feelings of shame and fear: they enhance social pressure surrounding political stances by creating and then consistently reinforcing an “us versus them” dynamic within public discourse, all but forcing people to “choose a side” and then stick to it.
“Either you agree with us,” the media effectively says, “or you agree with those stupid, evil people over there, those people who are logically and ethically wrong.”
Afraid of being castigated or seen as an outsider, many of us buy in to one side of a media-established dichotomy or the other; media institutions thus leverage our feelings of shame and our fear of alienation to create cultural buy-in relative to their oversimplified political stances. By buying in to one side of a false dichotomy or the other, we automatically pit ourselves against our fellow citizens in a battle of ridiculous and unnecessary ideologies spoon-fed to us by a malignant media.
Such discourse also encourages division by making it difficult or impossible for an interlocutor to make concessions within an argument while maintaining her overall position. Media narratives tend to view even minor concessions as total capitulations; in place of a balanced debate, media institutions would rather have us think that one interlocutor is entirely right and the other entirely wrong. As a result, interlocutors on opposing sides of the political spectrum do not feel free to make concessions in public, lest they be reprimanded by media commentators and, in turn, by constituents. Because fear prevents them from making concessions during public debate, interlocutors from opposing parties cannot arrive at compromise positions during public debate, either—such positions would require concessions from both sides. The net result is that no compromise positions can be established in the eye of the American public.
In a two-party system with near-equal support for both parties, if no compromise positions can be established, no progress can be made: our policies with respect to a few hot-button topics may shift left or right from time to time, offering one side or the other the chance to gloat awhile in smug self-satisfaction, but with respect to serious impediments to human freedom and flourishing, we accomplish nothing. Thus, oversimplification ultimately serves the purpose of maintaining the status quo within American politics. Media institutions continue to rake in money by serving us the most sensationalistic, divisive political rhetoric they can possibly dish out without instigating the demolition of their broadcasting studios, and—victims of a sort of emotional hacking—we continue to gobble up their oversimplified narratives.A
Given its tendencies to coerce the adoption of oversimplified, cookie-cutter narratives in place of complex, independent thought, I believe it is fair to say that the type of discourse perpetuated by American media groups is largely fascist by nature and antithetical to the advancement of human freedom. If there is a path forward in American politics, that path undoubtedly demands the acknowledgment of complexity and nuance in all political debates, as well as a public understanding of the tremendous difficulty of crafting smart policy that benefits the majority of Americans.
Published: May 30, 2022.
Last edit: May 30, 2022.
8. A Note on the Purpose of Debate
Debate should not be about passing oneself off as morally righteous, nor should it be (at least not centrally) about exposing hypocrisies in our opponents’ views; rather, debate should be a matter of engaging with other people’s ideas in order to craft and hone arguments that more closely align with reality. If our debate brings us closer to reality and mutual understanding, then we have engaged in a successful endeavor. If, on the other hand, our debate leads us to heightened rancor and increasingly staunch adherence to our previously held beliefs, then we have failed.
Published: April 2, 2022.
Last edit: April 2, 2022.
7. A Reflection for Persons Still Living
Today, you are an “is”; someday, you will be a “was.”
Think carefully about the type of “was” you want to be.
Published: March 13, 2022.
Last edit: March 13, 2022.
6. That Conservatives Can, in Many Cases, Be Quite Progressive
In their calls for voting reform, and in their desire to eliminate the influence of big money (e.g., lobbyists funded by large corporations) from politics, many conservatives actually exhibit quite a progressive streak. Instead of fixating on areas of difference and disagreement, modern liberals and conservatives should seek to find more areas like these, upon which they can establish common ground. Doing so would promote the formation of political coalitions and might eventually lead to the disintegration of our obnoxiously antagonistic two-party political system, which most people would agree is getting us nowhere.
Published: February 8, 2022.
Last edit: February 8, 2022.
5. On Political Stances
Each stance a person might take with respect to a matter of public policy must fall into one of three categories, which can be summarized as follows:
Although people generally do not use these terms this way in common discourse, I find that the above definitions generate a useful typology. Furthermore, I am obliged to include the critical observation that none of these stances constitutes a useful political framework on its own. Politicians and citizens interested in making beneficial policy decisions must, through a process rooted in logic and empirical observation, develop a unique stance relative to each issue of public policy. I am also obliged to add that any politician who fails to do so is a charlatan.
Published: February 8, 2022.
Last edit: March 12, 2022.
4. The Moral Arc
Martin Luther King assured us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The quote—taken out of context, at least—seems to imply some sort of natural tendency of human societies to become increasingly just over time, as if when it comes to public policy we can just “let it sit” for a while and expect the socioeconomic conditions of the most disadvantaged among us to improve. In reality, we can never let it sit. Debates surrounding questions of public policy are active, lively debates, and they always will be. If the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, it is only because we apply pressure in the right direction.
Published: January 9, 2022.
Last edit: January 9, 2022.
3. To the Genius
To the genius, I advise that there is no use in being brilliant without also being good. A clever person might make a thousand inventions, but if these inventions serve no moral purpose, then what are they? Most likely, they are either distractions or novelties made for the sake of profiteering, or both. Similarly, an evil mastermind may develop a powerful new technology with tremendous scope—but if he uses it only for his own gain, we label him a villain, not a hero.
In our time, Mark Zuckerberg is the preeminent example of a highly intelligent man with no moral sense. The consequences of his invention have spun out of his control, and on the whole the invention has had deleterious effects on both domestic and global society. Zuckerberg now refuses to enact measures that would be necessary to alleviate the negative externalities of his invention. It would have been better if he had created nothing at all.
Published: January 7, 2022.
Last edit: January 7, 2022.
2. Against Fear
When we act in fear, we preclude the possibility of acting in accordance with our highest values. It is fear that tells us to favor the safe path toward a modest goal over the hazardous path to an ambitious one. Likewise, it is fear that prevents us from speaking truth to power or revealing our genuine selves to the public. Nobility does not seek to command power so much as it seeks to conquer fear. Any kind of life—including a life of poverty—may well be preferable to a life comprised of choices motivated by fear.
Published: January 7, 2022.
Last edit: January 7, 2022.
1. A Simple Precept for Government
A political candidate with no understanding of the average citizen’s work and daily concerns has no place in office.
Published: January 7, 2022.
Last edit: January 7, 2022.