On Politics

I have experienced regular cognitive dissonance observing how some members of the far-left have attempted to advance their political agenda over recent years. Perhaps you can relate. This has been an uncomfortable experience since I typically align with liberal principles and values. I’ve wondered, what is it that seems off to me about how members of the left are fighting real issues, such as forms of discrimination, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, and fascism?

I’ve come to realize that my cognitive dissonance is a result of this: it appears to me that, in attempting to fight forms of discrimination, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, fascism, etc, some members of the far-left are advancing worldviews and using tactics that actually perpetuate forms of discrimination, racism, sexism, bigotry, oppression, and fascism, not to mention forms of illiberalism. So I am concerned that at least sometimes members of the far-left are actually perpetuating the very problems they claim to oppose. Hence the dissonance.

If this is true then this a real problem. We can’t be fighting fire with fire. It’s no solution unless we want to burn things down. Indeed, “darkness cannot drive out darkness.” So what is the solution for the left? I don’t know what the whole solution should look like. It’s something we’ll need to figure out together. But I believe one solution is for members of the left to reclaim principles and values advanced by liberalism, which have shaped so many progressive left-wing movements that have sought to remedy social injustices.

For example, liberals can begin by viewing people, first and foremost, as individuals, and by treating individuals as possessing inherent dignity and freedom for self-determination. A person should not just be judged as a stereotypical member of some tribe, unless we want to revert to a primitive state of tribalism. A person is also an individual possessing personal agency who should be judged based on the content of their unique beliefs, values, and character, regardless of race, sex, gender, age, religion, non-religion, etc. And liberals can stand for the values of diversity and tolerance, recognizing that openness to diversity, including ideological diversity, supports and strengthens our efforts in commonly pursuing what is true and good as a society. In other words, liberals can begin by standing up for liberal principles and values.

I believe the left has an important role in our society and important contributions to make. But I increasingly believe liberals need to restore liberal values in the politics of the left in order to do so.



On Politics

How do we form a healthy, thriving society together?  What should be our highest ethical values and goals?  Should we strive to create a free society?  An equal society?  Or should we strive to create a free and equal society?  Lately the political right and left have become even more deeply divided along these ethical fault lines than usual.  The right wants a free society (sometimes to the neglect of promoting social equality), while the left wants an equal society (sometimes to the neglect of protecting individual freedom).  Rarely do I hear individuals voice an interest in transcending the dominant dichotomy by seeking to create a society that is both free and equal.  Most public voices are so partisan that they appear to assume talking positively about the ethical values promoted by “the other side” would be perceived as a violation of trust, a punishable act of betrayal, by members of their own tribe.  Stepping out beyond the safe boundaries of a one’s tribe to express independent views or suggestions can surely be a harsh and dreadful thing.

One rule of warfare is never cede any ground to your enemy unless you absolutely have to.  The current political landscape has become so combative that opponents tend to approach one another in ways that are oddly like warriors engaged in some tribal conflict.  Attempts are rarely made the understand the moral motivations of “the other side,” let alone affirm some of their legitimacy.  The extreme right (which has increasingly become the mainstream right) wants smaller governments and less state intervention in the lives of individuals for the purpose of maximizing individual freedom.  The extreme left (which has increasingly become the mainstream left) wants bigger governments and more state interventions and controls for the purpose of maximizing social equality.  The right promotes their own agenda in ways that focus on positively expanding individual freedom and interprets the left’s agenda in ways that negatively restrict individual freedom.  Whereas the left promotes their own agenda in ways that focus on positively promoting social equality and interprets the right’s agenda in ways that negatively diminish social equality.  In the process neither side tends to acknowledge the inherent mix of potentially positive and negative outcomes associated with promoting freedom or promoting equality, but rather only those potentials that serve their partisan priorities.   This isn’t to suggest there aren’t some on the right who also care about creating an equal society and some on the left who also care about creating a free society.  But the public discourse has become so polarized that nuanced discussion has no place in it.  It doesn’t fit or support the dominant narratives.

You can notice the biases in the one-sided narratives partisans present of themselves and their opponents, which sometimes verge on parody.  Right partisans say things like, “We’re just standing up for the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves how they want to live their lives and what they want to do with what belongs to them without outside interference.  The left just wants to create a tyrannical totalitarian state that controls our lives, forces assimilation, and eliminates independent thought and freedom.”  On the other hand, left partisans say things like, “We’re just standing up for justice and equality for individuals and groups, especially for people who are poor and marginalized.  The right just wants to get rid of the government so our lives will be thrown into anarchic chaos and the rich and powerful will be allowed to ruthlessly exploit the disadvantaged and increase their dominance to no end.”  The way extreme partisanship has steadily become more mainstream on both sides is certainly cause for concern.  There is a disappearing middle ground typically occupied by moderates where most of the productive dialogue and debate usually happens.  But this middle ground is hard to hold when the political battle becomes so polarized that the only way to find some social support and shelter is by exclusively allying with one of the two warring tribes.

titanwar - zeus

Our current problems and situations are strangely reminiscent of those found in ancient polytheistic cultures.  These were times when separate tribes worshipping separate gods would go to battle to determine whose god was more powerful and therefore deserving of collective allegiance.  Typically each god (consciously or unconsciously) functioned as a personified representative of particular ethical values and hierarchies in these wars.  With the collapse of Western society’s shared, cultural monotheism—a cultural system which, among many things, provided our recent ancestors with social stability, coherence, and orientation—we have functionally returned to a kind of cultural polytheism where different tribes (and individuals) ally with different gods as they battle out their differences on both earthly and heavenly planes.  The current battle escalating between the high gods of Freedom (exclusively worshipped by the extreme right) and Equality (exclusively worshipped by the extreme left) deeply threatens to disrupt the already-shaky stability of our society, especially if we accept the increasingly popular assumption that this war is a mortal struggle between irreconcilable enemies where only one can emerge victorious.  We consider it a sacred right for each individual and tribe to pursue their separate interests and ultimate concerns, and for good reasons.  But one potentially dysfunctional consequence of the collapse of our society’s unifying values and narratives is each tribe fights to remake society in the image of their separate gods.

Is there any way of moving beyond participating in a mortal battle between Freedom and Equality and instead seek a society that simultaneously promotes freedom and equality?  E.F. Schumacher has offered a helpful distinction between “convergent problems” and “divergent problems” that is relevant here.  He says convergent problems are problems that clearly have only one answer.  So the answers to these problems converge on a single solution.  For example, what does two plus two equal?  What is the capital of Canada?  What temperature does water boil at?  Convergent problems are problems that have been solved.  In contrast, divergent problems are problems that tend to elicit multiple, sometimes equally legitimate answers that may even conflict.  So the answers to these problems tend to diverge into many solutions.  Does God exist?  What is God like?  What is the highest good?  What is the best way to educate and raise our children?  How do we create a healthy, thriving society?  Divergent problems are of a different order than convergent ones since properly respecting and addressing the dilemmas they present requires tolerating ambiguities and paradoxes without hastily forcing them to resolve into easy but inadequate certainties. Divergent problems, then, are problems that are unsolved and perhaps even unsolvable.

Schumacher writes that “Everywhere society’s health depends on the simultaneous pursuit of mutually opposed activities or aims.  The adoption of a final solution means a kind of death sentence for man’s humanity and spells either cruelty or dissolution, generally both.”  He notes that the only ethic that is able to reconcile the ethics of freedom and equality in human communities is an ethic of love.  For love both honours the freedom and dignity of individuals, and yet voluntarily acts to promote the wellbeing of others.  Love does not coerce or force or oblige or impose itself on others.  And love does not neglect or ignore or exploit or abuse others to get what it wants.  Love freely seeks equality amongst the people within its sphere of concern.

This highlights an inherent limitation of governmental solutions in addressing all social problems.  For love cannot be forcibly legislated by any authority—not even by God.  Love may inspire and invite, but it cannot coerce.  Otherwise it ceases to be love and becomes something else.  Interestingly, the Christian theology of God understands God as Love: three Personalities eternally existing in perfect freedom and equality of Being, and thus intrinsically concerned with promoting the freedom and equality of all people made in God’s image.  God as Trinity is a transcendent reality that actively hold the ethics of freedom and equality together in loving harmony.  Is it a coincidence that our deepening social and political divides seem to be worsening in the recent wake of our culture’s monotheistic collapse?  Are we witnessing a functional return to a more polytheistic, tribal society that is fragmenting ethical values once held together by our recent ancestor’s trinitarian vision of God?  It’s hard to say for sure how related these events are.  Though it seems to me to be more than a mere coincidence, to some degree, that these polytheistic patterns have been emerging in the aftermath of monotheistic breakdown.


On Politics

Perhaps our democracy and politics would improve if we consciously modelled them more after evolution.  Evolutionary development is simultaneously conservative, liberal, and progressive.  Conservative in the sense that successful forms of development are conserved in lower levels of organization which support higher levels of current development.  Liberal in the sense that unfolding development occurs by an open and free pursuit of better adaptations.  Progressive in the sense that conservative and liberal processes combine in producing ever-progressing forms of life.

Certainly there are particular subforms of “conservative” or “liberal” or “progressive” politics that are not easily compatible.  But the underlying impulses of each political movement have important contributions to make to a stable yet evolving society.  Conservatives tend to recognize the need for society to conserve inherited social traditions and systems which order our shared life together.  Liberals tend to see the need for society’s traditions and systems to change to meet unfolding challenges by the free pursuit of new advancements.  Progressives tend to recognize the need for society to change in the pursuit of justice and equality for all its members.

Partisans only see the value in their own political impulses without seeing the value in others.  Political myopia, taken to an extreme, threatens the balance of values that sustain our society.  There is no inherent conflict between conservative, liberal, and progressive processes in evolution.  They coordinate in the unfolding drama of life.  Could we collectively embrace an eclectic politics which affirms our need for conservative, liberal, and progressive values?  Could we embrace an “evolutionary politics” which coordinates multiple social values and impulses for the sake of sustaining a thriving society?


On Politics

Isn’t the fundamental, supporting assumption of human rights that all people deserve basic respect, safety, and freedoms as human beings?  Human rights are not essentially racial identity rights or sexual identity rights or religious identity rights or gender identity rights, though they may include freedoms in all of these areas.   Basic respect, safety, and freedoms are afforded to individuals as inalienable rights on the basis of their human identity, no matter their race, religion, sex, gender, status, age, etc.  Hence the name, “human rights.”  The inclusive rationale for its doctrine is simple: “If you are a human being, then you are entitled to basic respect, safety, and freedoms.”  But the logic of identity politics has a subtle but important difference.  Its misplaced rationale is, “If you are a member of this group or that group, then you are entitled to basic respect, safety, and freedoms.”

I’m beginning to wonder if playing the games of identity politics is actually making us more racist and sexist and tribal.  I hope I’m wrong.  But I can’t shake the suspicion.  It would certainly be ironic, since reducing group-based prejudice is one of its assumed motive.  But prejudging others first by group identifications seems to be becoming far more common than judging others on as individuals.  The rise of certain forms of collectivist thinking is making it more challenging to see others first as unique individuals and fellow human beings, regardless of their sex, gender, religion, race, status, etc.

I’m concerned that the identity games we’re playing may actually be deepening divides between groups in our society rather than bridging them.  I’m concerned that we’re conditioning ourselves to see and judge others by their groups first, and then only possibly as individuals after.  I’m concerned we may be losing sight of our common humanity and shared life together by focusing first, if not solely, on group differences.  And I’m concerned about some of the directions our society is moving and the implications they pose for our democracy.

Is it possible to address group inequalities without judging individuals first and foremost by group-identities?  Is it possible to find some middle ground between a hyper-collectivism that fosters tribalism and a hyper-individualism that fosters selfism?  Is it possible to treat one another as individuals, as members of diverse groups, and as fellow human beings simultaneously?  Would it not be more unifying to argue—in classic liberal fashion—that every individual deserves basic respect, safety, and freedom because they are a human being, regardless of their race, religion, sex, gender, status, age etc?

Perhaps we need a good humanist revolution that raises our awareness of our shared humanity.



On Politics

I’d say I’m liberal because, as Marilynne Robinson writes, “I believe society exists to nurture and liberate the human spirit, and that largemindedness and openhandedness are the means by which these things are accomplished.”  I see individual liberty—of conscience, work, and expression, to name a few—as crucial for facilitating this human development.  Depriving individuals of basic liberties hinders their growth.  And yet, I’d say I’m a social liberal because I believe healthy societies freely seek justice and equality for its members.  Indeed, human development cannot be an entirely individualistic affair.  Forming healthy relationships and communities is also crucial for growth.  And I’d say I’m conservative because I believe healthy societies are built around enduring cultural traditions.  Though as a liberal-conservative, I see these as “living traditions” that should evolve as they endure over time.  Cultural traditions, at their best, represent tested wisdom from the past, which can powerfully support and guide human development.

I attempt to hold these positions together because I believe healthy societies and healthy individuals emerge from their practical interaction, even though they may not be easily or neatly integrated theoretically.  I wish to see liberal, socialist, and conservative principles coexist in dialogue in our society.  Ideological partisanship poses a serious threat to this, as well as to the integrity of our common life together.  Partisan perception restricts my vision and blinds me to the merits of other approaches.  On an even more practical level, this means we need each other.  We liberal-, social-, and conservative-minded people need one another if we are to form a healthy society for us all.  We need to intentionally balance our concerns and combine our strengths into a truly multi-principled, multi-cultural society.  We need an eclectic politics.  Democracy, at its best, accomplishes this.  Shifting our collective attitude from working against to working with one another is hard.  And not just talking about politically collaborating but actually doing it is even harder.  Truth is, practicing real democracy is very hard.  But our future depends on it.