Politics of Reason
A search for ethical and philosophical coherence in politics, media, and discourse.
In the wake of tragedy, violence, and catastrophe there are certain things we seem to hear over and over. We hear about the senselessness of the act. We hear arguments about how to stop it from happening again and speculation about missed opportunities to prevent it in the first place. And of course we also hear so much about selfless and heroic acts of citizens and first responders, and the moving ways in which the surrounding community banned together in order to persevere and face the aftermath together. Many of these sentiments are summed up by the idea that the perpetrators of these acts of violence and terror have messed with the wrong city, state, or nation, because the people of that community are strong, resilient, undaunted, and will persevere and come out stronger. One can always cite the history of these people and places as reasons to believe they were a poor choice of target for someone looking to instill terror. This was most obviously apparent following the attacks of September 11, 2001, both in relation to New York City as well as the country at large. But also after hurricane Katrina we heard of the special character of the gulf region, New Orleans in particular, and how it ensured that the area would bounce back from the depths of the calamity with renewed vigor and determination. And of course most recently we are hearing and reading about the tenacity and gritty determination of Boston, MA.
Hearing that terrorists chose the wrong city or nation to strike sometimes makes me wonder about the implication of such claims. Does it mean that there are certain places and people who would have been better choices? That there are some communities that will just roll over and crumble in face of tragedy? If only they’d attacked Detroit, or San Diego, or Canada, maybe they’d have been more successful at bringing the citizens to their knees? That seems absurd.
So maybe we should conclude that these sentiments are mere platitudes – empty, meaningless responses wielded in the face of the incomprehensible as attempts to quell our collective dismay and convince ourselves there is nothing to fear. But something seems wrong here, too.
Instead, I believe that taken together these statements of solidarity, perseverance, undaunted strength and determination attest to the universality of these qualities in human beings. It seems to me that virtually any human community has a profound story to tell. They all can attest to a history that is both uniquely their own and yet also indicative of these more universal characteristics to which we aspire. We are unified by our vulnerability and our ability to suffer, and in some way we all exist in proximity to histories of suffering and tragedy.
And yet we remain hopeful. We continue to start families, dream and innovate forms of life, fall in love and make music, and by loving each other and the world we share we leave ourselves open to life and vulnerable to all of its potential for ugliness and destruction. And so while one thing we share is an existence guaranteed to occasionally bury us in unimaginable tragedy, another is a steadfast resolve to climb out, rise from the ruble, and open ourselves up once more to the beautiful, intense, staggering, and often tragic truth which we’ve no choice but to love.
I believe very deeply that value judgments are an essential component of politics. Law and social policy can be understood as a society’s expression of that which it believes to be both valuable and public. By valuable I mean that which is an expression of rights, principles, or utility which the public believes ought to be institutionalized. And by public I mean something which doesn’t preclude assent by anyone based upon their culture, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. (For political philosophy nerds, the idea I am attempting to imply here is John Rawls’ conception of overlapping consensus.)
Since communities and societies have limited resources, large collaborative expenditures of these resources should be open to criticism, beginning with some basic questions. Such as, is a practice worth all it demands and consumes? Is there anything more productive, more basic, or more responsible we could be doing with these expenditures?
I don’t know much about mining gold. I imagine most people don’t. Nonetheless, a little research reveals that it necessarily involves the expenditure of an immense amount of resources. Modern gold mining requires massive and numerous pieces of machinery and equipment. Mines cut scars across otherwise wild land, dig into the earth, destroy habitats, and require considerable infrastructure to run.
But this isn’t really an article about gold mining. It’s an article about values, and what society is willing to expend, risk, and destroy in the pursuit of those values. It’s just that gold mining serves as an especially productive motif for reflection on these questions. This is because gold is essentially non-essential. While it is true that gold has certain properties, such as electrical conductivity, malleability, and resistance to corrosion which make it especially useful for certain industries, industrial use constitutes a minuscule portion of overall gold consumption. By far the largest and most primary uses for which gold is consumed are jewelry and investment, respectively.
<This non-essential quality of gold contrasts with something like oil drilling, for which there is an arguable case to be made for the pragmatic value derived from the practice, despite its massive environmental consequences.>
There is another reason I’ve selected gold mining. It is because it is a relatively non-controversial product. It is extremely normal to sell, buy, and own gold. Nonetheless, a reflection on its implied value judgments raises serious questions. And this goes to the heart of the matter; that in analyzing practices in this way we might clarify our collective values and position ourselves to conscientiously direct the expenditure of our limited resources toward the promotion and preservation of that over which there is overlapping consensus.
That is to say, we might stop wasting so much time on empty pursuits and move things forward more efficiently. To direct our wills, and therefore resources more coherently and powerfully toward things like fighting poverty and climate change, improving education immigration health care and the prison system, national security, mental health services, infrastructure, etc.
So think of gold mining merely as an example, of something which could represent any expenditure of resources, any political interest, any societal practice which involves a questionable value judgment. And consider ways in which policy and practice could alter its circumstance.
Is gold mining worth it? Is it worth cutting roads through forests, tearing up the earth, and burning fossil fuels? An analysis of this question has two aspects; the costs on one hand and the benefits on the other. But insofar as the benefits are minute and mainly superficial, the costs need only be acknowledged in order to suggest the practice cannot be worth the cost.
One might ask, what does this have to do with the social and the political? One could argue that endeavors such as mining for gold are private enterprises; the type of pursuits to which any person has a basic liberty. This is most certainly true. However, in a society, concepts such as consent, restraint, and collective responsibility are centrally important to issues which have societal consequences. And it is this context that a matter becomes a social and political issue.
On issues like mining, oil drilling, hydro-fracking, etc., the political emerges in terms of environmental funding, legislation, regulation, and conservation. It has to do with federal research grants, and whether these funds are in the interest of society at large or some industry. It has to do with what we permit on public lands, and what kind or power we grant government agencies like the EPA.
As a social issue, these questions emerge in terms of the choices we make. And this is where the concerns raised by mining for gold and other precious metals are especially troubling. We value gold because we find it beautiful and shiny and elegant. It’s a status symbol. And it is from this that we derive investment value. “Gold is pretty, people love it, always will, the price is going up, buy buy buy, etc.” But is it worth it? Is all the destruction and consumption of resources worth it?
When we make a purchase we make statements which have consequences. We contribute to the collective knowledge of what people value, consume, and demand. We demand that more of that thing be made. We suggest whatever went into bringing it to market was worth the costs and efforts. I therefore urge an ever increasing curiosity regarding the costs and benefits of all that to which one contributes as a citizen and member of society.
The world is currently confronting scarcity of resources in an unusually direct way. Resources have always been and will continue to be limited. However, of late, as governments are running deficits and unemployment is especially high, we are having to make difficult decisions as both societies and individuals regarding how best to employ what we have.
This makes these questions of values especially pressing. So I urge you, as citizens and members of communities, to vote for that which expresses what you hold to be valuable for and essential to society. I ask you to weigh broad environmental impacts against the localized and transient economic booms brought about by drilling and mining. I urge you to consider what it means to make a purchase. In so doing, you consider what it means to be a citizen, to live in society, and to be a human being among all others.
As I am sure you know, there was tragedy in a Colorado movie house last night. A young man opened fire on a packed theater, killing at least a dozen and injuring over fifty more. Thoughts and prayers to everyone involved or affected.
Over the coming days and weeks, the media will be analyzing every aspect of these events in a speculative frenzy. In fact it has already begun. The shooter’s state of mind and motives will be assessed by everyone from doctors to pundits to politicians. Were there political or religious motivations? I’m here to say that isn’t the point.
Tragedy is extremely difficult to accept for many reasons. It’s tricky to attach labels to the parties and define some common enemy of all good persons which is at the heart of a truly tragic event.
Tragedy has no concrete solution. Tragedy is borne in agony and manifests in paradox.
The suspect in this case is a young man named James Holmes. He is exactly my age - 24. He is a Ph.D candidate at U Colorado. I am starting a graduate program this Fall. James took the SAT, graduated from high school, had a nerve wracking first day of college, took finals, probably ate in dining halls and went out with his friends and drank too much. He’s probably had his heart broken once or twice.
There is a picture of James, as well as the basics of what happened, here http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57476449/james-holmes-24-identified-as-suspect-in-deadly-mass-shooting-at-aurora-colorado-movie-theater/
I see no answers in his face, only a bit of myself or someone I could have known. I anticipate we will spend the next several weeks asking questions with troubling answers, or no answers at all. Why did this happen? What went wrong? Who’s to blame? Why didn’t the parents…? Media violence? Politics religion? Increase movie theater security? and on and on.
But the truth, as I see it, is that the seed of tragedy abides in the soul. Not in political fervor or religious extremism, or even in things like bad parenting or childhood strife. It is neither nature nor nurture. It is human. The existential turmoil that underlies our discontent. Most people manage to ignore it, though not without cost, while others struggle against it, and some even manage to conquer it. But some don’t. Sometimes people with great parents, high IQs, warm smiles and close friends, full of talent, promise, and ambition crumble, disintegrate, and lose touch with whatever it is that keeps the rest of us at relative peace.
And I can’t help but also think of all of the people who perpetrate tragedies under a myriad of banners all over the world. Al Qaeda, for example is made up primarily of people younger than myself who are looking for something to cling to and become a part of. Who isn’t looking for something to believe in and belong to in their life? But what happens to those kids that hasn’t happened to me?
I don’t know what James Holmes was thinking about last night, or what it was that brought him under. And I think it’s important to accept there will always be great mystery to life, especially at its extremes, and that tragedy is a slippery creature. But to attempt to quell our fear or avoid self reflection in the face of society’s so called monsters by labeling this man psychotic, or as some kind of extremist would be a blatant self deception. Because it cannot explain why some people slip below the water and become swallowed by the waves, while so many others find a way to keep kicking.
I am in no way apologizing for what James Holmes is alleged to have done. But I am saying that there are often thin lines between our deepest fears and what we see in ourselves. And if we are ever to come to a greater understanding of tragedies like this, defining our world in terms black and white, good and evil, us and them, will only lull us into a vulnerable state of self denial. We must confront ourselves; we must confront the universal human struggle of existence, magnify our compassion accordingly, and bravely wade through these shades of grey.
I was born in 1987. The people who name and describe generations claim this makes me a “millennial”. And I couldn’t be more proud. According to the experts present for a very interesting first hour of the “Diane Rehm Show” this morning, we are those who were born between the early 1980’s and late 90’s/early 2000s. We are the teenagers and twenty-somethings of our world. We are in high school and college. We’re recent grads, unemployed, or newly employed. Our experiences, decisions, and beliefs will shape the next several decades in America and around the world.
We are coming of age in a time of unusual hardship. Our primary education is less prestigious worldwide than ever before, our higher education costs more than it ever has, and our jobs will pay less and provide fewer benefits for more work than any modern generation to come before us. We are living in a time of economic hardship and growing income inequality. We are being told not to count on Social Security or pensions. And we aren’t. Our social safety nets are being cut left and right, and meanwhile we overhear our elders’ demands that politicians keep their hands off of “our (their) medicare and social security.” The rich will get richer.
The new era of budget cut backs will be borne upon our backs.
This is all very disheartening. Yet despite this reality, we are far and away the most optimistic demographic in America. Our parents wonder what will become of the world. They wonder what sort of waste land will emerge from the rubble. Meanwhile, my generation is working on advanced degrees, starting not for profits, engaging with the political process, occupying streets and cities, supporting democratic movements around the world, inventing things, fighting climate change and curing cancer; creating a new and better world. Because the reality is that the world is changing, and it must.
I think our parents worry because they see only the dismantling of the past - while we remain optimistic because we are able to envision the future we will create. And I believe very strongly that the change is for the best. If things are so terrible right now, how did they become so? How did we get here? Obviously, that is a complex and loaded question. Nonetheless, it seems to me that continuing to make the same decisions, continuing to elect leaders with the same “traditional” ideas, and generally doing things the way we have been for the last several decades can only result in more disaster. And this does not mean that the future will look nothing like the past. Rather it is a matter of distinguishing between methods and ideas that have survived because they’re sound and effective, and those which we’ve held onto because of empty traditionalism, entrenched special interests, or xenophobia. It’s progress.
According to the aforementioned experts - we are as politically disparate from our parents and grandparents as any generation since the 1960s. Many might try to compare this generation to the counterculturalists of the 1960’s. Others lament that we’re now less motivated or mobilized. But I disagree with both points. I believe we are now wiser and less naive about the solutions we seek to the problems we see. The hippies wanted revolution - some sort of new world order. Most now understand several things that this revolutionary mindset neglects. First, we cannot all live on independent communes without rules or government. The most important thing government does is protect the innocent and vulnerable. And I don’t believe a conscientious humanitarian can neglect this fact. Secondly, we believe in democratic government. So we are not trying to tear down the American system at its seams. Instead, we see a good idea, an idea we love - freedom and representation - being abused, corrupted, and executed foolishly. This motivates us to get involved, run for office, vote, campaign for candidates we believe in, spread petitions, and demand accountability. We want to solve problems and improve society, not destroy it.
I hope to be a part of a generation of world citizens that is more open, engaged, motivated for change, optimistic, socially conscious, gritty, industrious, and interconnected than any before us.
There is nowhere left to go but up right now, and if we’ve our heals dug in and our eyes to the sky, we’ll prove em all wrong.
There is an endless amount of lenses and perspectives through which one can view this wild world of ours. But tonight, for brief consideration, I submit two such viewpoints I consider to be pragmatically but not logically opposed. Each, I believe, posits the existence a distinct type of equality.
*Please note - I am making up these terms.*
1. The Equal Opportunity Argument. It is important to first point out that I have yet to hear anyone actually vocalize a belief in this concept as such. Nonetheless, an implicit adherence to its general principles drives a substantial amount of rhetoric and legislation (or lack thereof) in this country of ours. Here is how it goes…
2. The Equal Worth and Value Argument. This concept is a developing constituent of my belief system. I’ve no intention of hiding that. Here is how it goes…
As usual, I have focused on the American dynamic in my discussion because that is my point of reference. However, one can see this debate playing out regarding international affairs as well; one need only substitute wealthy and poor nations for people, and America for Earth, and voila’. Personally, I believe that most people would agree with the equal worth and value argument as such, but nonetheless hold issue specific views on politics or humanity that stand in direct conflict with the concept and are actually more coherent with the equal opportunity claim. And this goes to the heart of why I write these articles; to work to force myself, and hopefully to influence any readers I might have, to better align our values and principles in the abstract with the things that we do, say, and vote for in our lives as human citizens.
Is there are fundamental conceptual difference between broccoli and healthcare? Of course, you say – this question is ridiculous. However, if the Solicitor General of the United States cannot clearly and persuasively describe this conceptual distinction, The Affordable Care Act, or “ObamaCare”, may soon be deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land.
{As a side note, per the associated connotations of the phrase “ObamaCare”, it is a peculiar circumstance indeed wherein the joining of a politician’s last name with the word “care”, (also see “RomneyCare”) can become a rhetorical tool successful at characterizing said politician as a socialist crusader aimed at usurping our personal freedoms.} But I digress…
In arguing for the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the government is claiming that since congress is authorized to regulate interstate commerce, and that since an individual will almost certainly need healthcare at some point in her or his life, and attaining such care without insurance places an enormous financial burden on healthcare providers, a burden which is passed down to the consumer, that each person can be required by congress to purchase health insurance.
Members of the Supreme Court are questioning the constitutional basis for creating a market in order to regulate it, and secondly, whether there is a relevant difference between the universal nature of needing healthcare and the universal participation in other markets, such as food. Justice Scalia asked the Solicitor General whether the government can require individuals to purchase broccoli, given that everyone participates in the food market and requiring everyone to buy broccoli would make it less expensive.
I believe Justice Scalia has employed an analogy which, though flawed, highlights a serious potential problem if there is no clear differentiation between healthcare and other markets. Other markets which, he fears, would be open to undue governmental regulation if we cannot define the government’s authority/obligation to mandate universal health insurance narrowly enough. That is to say, I believe the Justice raises an important, yet completely answerable question.
Broccoli, or food in general, has one thing in common with health insurance; each supports a human being’s basic right to life. (If anyone would like to argue that the right to life is unconstitutional, I would be very interested to hear your reasoning.) The relevant conceptual distinction between healthcare and broccoli is as follows: There is no need for the government to mandate that people buy food in order to keep prices down, obviously, given that everyone needs it everyday. Healthcare on the other hand, though also necessary to the preservation of life, does not function the same way.
Affordable health insurance is a necessary facet of an endeavor to protect and uphold the basic human right to life. Under a market driven system, wherein individuals are free to purchase or not purchase health insurance, there grows a significant portion of the population who do not have insurance. These individuals drive up the cost of healthcare, and therefore the cost of health insurance in two ways. First, the fewer people with insurance the smaller the market, and higher is the relative risk incurred by an insurance company for each individual they cover. This drives up premiums. Secondly, countless individuals without insurance nonetheless need emergency or lifesaving healthcare every year. Given that doctors and nurses have hearts and consciences, these people receive the care they need, and rightly so. But this often leaves these individuals with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, tabs which virtually no one can afford, much less someone who cannot even afford insurance in the first place. So these costs are absorbed by the system and eventually passed back to the consumer in the form of higher insurance premiums and higher healthcare costs in general. This makes health insurance continually less affordable, thereby increasing that group of people without insurance, who then in turn drive up costs at an increasing rate.
I believe the scenario described above is a threat to Americans’ basic right to life, sufficient to require governmental intervention. The government demands we pay for many things which ultimately protect our lives. Our taxes pay for police officers, fire departments, the military, and those handsy people at the airport. Is it logical or practical to allow people to save money on their taxes if they abdicate their right to police protection? What if I agree that the fire department should let my house burn to the ground if I can save a few bucks on my property taxes this year? That sounds like an absurd state of chaos to me.
There is a reason the police and fire departments of this country are not privatized. We consider police protection a basic and unassailable tenet of a civilized society; too essential and important to be left to the will of the markets. If the government failed to provide such protection it would be widely considered a massive failure to protect its citizens in a basic way. Why then is it permissible or patriotic for a government to fail to ensure that all of its citizens have access to affordable healthcare, something with the singular goal of protecting life? Is affordable healthcare a luxury? A mere commodity? Or is it a basic tenet of a civilized society?
I am confident the highly educated, highly trained legal representatives of the United States government can formulate and communicate a distinction between healthcare and broccoli, centered around the direct relationship between affordable healthcare and the right to life, sufficient to ensure we find ourselves atop no slippery slope. And I believe the court would welcome such a distinction.
The Affordable Care Act is not an usurpation of personal freedom, as its opponents claim so vehemently. Nor is it an assault on the “American way of life”, (whatever that means, anyway). It is a watered down yet significant piece of legislation which seeks to place some regulation on a market which fails to adequately provide a human right to our citizens.
A national commitment to human rights and personal freedoms requires that we, as a society, make value judgments and prioritize our rights. We protect our highest priorities, occasionally at the expense of lesser ones. So I ask, which right gets priority in this situation, which right do we value more; the right not to buy health insurance, knowing that such a decision makes healthcare more expensive and less accessible, or the right of all people of all means and backgrounds to access affordable insurance and adequate healthcare?
We draw many lines in our lives. We run up against many as well. We draw lines in schools and by neighborhoods. We draw them according to wealth, status, religion, and race. We draw borders, and then borders upon borders within them. These concentric circles, on maps and in our minds, divide us and incite us against one another. They create the illusion of mortal or existential rivalry when really there is something kindred. Is all the blood, treasure, and tragedy worth any value reaped from such an unshakable allegiance to these lines? I venture to say, no, most certainly not.
I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate much on the falsehood of racism, classism, and religious or cultural intolerance, except to say that humanity has much more to gain from dialogue, collaboration, and tolerance than we might ever achieve from fear, violence, and dominance.
What I wish to touch on most, though, is nationalism and nativism in terms of the significance of borders and political organizations. It is an ambition of mine to truly understand the nature of the forces behind the events of our world. It seems an investigation into the metaphysical and moral significance of borders and nations is indispensable to such an endeavor.
The photograph above is of the Milky Way Galaxy. Our solar system exists approximately two thirds of the way out from center on one of the galaxy’s “arms”. The galaxy is between 100,000 and 120,000 light years across (one light year is approximately 6 trillion miles), and is a member of a local group of 54 galaxies, which is a part of an incomprehensibly large supercluster of galaxies called the Virgo Supercluster, of which such giants we have discovered dozens. This is all according to the NASA website.
http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/cosmic/nearest_superclusters_info.html
What I am suggesting, in light of the scale of existence of which we are a part, is a reconsideration of the meaning of borders and of the rationality of clinging to nativism and nationalism. Nations are political collectives contrived out of the need for organization and efficiency within communities of human beings. We organize this way because it is convenient to do so, not because of some metaphysical significance derived from the spot of earth upon which one first emerged on this planet. Therefore, I implore a meditation on the benefits of a reorientation of one’s conception of where he is she is from, as well as on that which the individual considers her or himself a part.
This massive, beautiful, spinning, green and blue cosmic spheroid belongs to all life - past, present, and future. We’re already but a point of light amidst an unthinkable vastness, and it seems a fateful delusion to dice it up further so we have something to argue about and die for.
I believe it’s safe to say that many more people know much more about the events, inhabitants, and realities of our planet than ever before. This progression of awareness has many consequences. For example life, from the single celled organisms drifting through the oceans to human beings, strewn about virtually every inhabitable land mass on Earth, continues to reveal its diversity, perseverance, beauty, and magnificence. We are able to share and spread culture and art across the world, with the potential to collaborate artistically, socially, and culturally on a global scale.
Yet, there are far more solemn consequences of our new found popular access to an incomprehensible amount of information. We now know of famines in places such as Somalia which immanently threaten groups by the hundreds of thousands, we know that millions of women and children, at this moment, live in conditions indistinguishable from slavery, and that in cities around the world the aristocracy self congratulates in palaces and skyscrapers while the poor and disenfranchised beg, quarrel, protest, and sleep in the streets below.
There are two more consequences of our expanding knowledge base which, if improperly conceived can come into conflict with one another and stall our determination against injustice. The first consequence is open-mindedness of the individual. To avoid ambiguity or cliche’, I will define open-mindedness as one’s willingness to tolerate, accept, and understand the beliefs, practices, and individuality of others. The more one is exposed to other cultures and the diversity of life, the more difficulty one has in maintaining narrow attitudes and divisive beliefs. Though not without notable exception, this is a wonderful consequence and an absolute necessity toward a more peaceful and less adversarial world, so long as it is tempered by moral reason - but I’ll get to that in a moment.
The other consequence is an increased sense of social responsibility, both locally and globally. For many and hopefully more, the unavoidable and consistent confrontation with global tragedy and injustice compels reflection and action. News of an uprising or oppression or injustice will often be followed in the subsequent days and weeks by online campaigns generating hundreds of thousands of letters and petitions to leaders and lawmakers in matters of days. This is remarkable and unprecedented. Small activist projects in places such as South America, Africa, and the Asia can coordinate with faith based groups in small towns in America and succeed in making tangible, positive steps toward fostering education, self sufficiency, and upward mobility for people who likely would never have been afforded such opportunities otherwise.
Whether it manifests out of an honest attempt to adhere to a principle of open-mindedness and cultural respect taken too far, from an unabashed embrace of moral relativism among cultures, a self deceptive rationalization for social indolence, or some combination thereof, it is clear that being open-minded without tempering such a disposition with objectivity at a certain level can lead one to a dangerous indifference to the moral atrocities of our world. And I believe it is imperative that progressive minds not become so open that they’re devoid of conviction; for it is such principled conviction that flames the outrage and determination which sustains those who fight for social justice in the face of ubiquitous and grotesque affronts to their cause.
For example, many cultures, societies, and governments oppress, marginalize, and abuse women. In many places women are considered the mere property of men, denied education and personal freedoms, and even sold into forced prostitution. Often times this mistreatment and inequality is rooted in some manipulation of God or religion and entrenched in generations of tradition. In the face of such atrocities, it ought to be impossible to hold that all beliefs and practices are equal due to their being morally subjective according to culture. Such a claim would not only render a multitude of valuable causes for social justice obsolete, but even immoral insofar as these causes are construed as cultural interference. This seems a very undesirable consequence. Nonetheless, I argue it is the logical conclusion of a belief in remaining open-minded if that belief is not rationally limited by a higher principle.
I argue that a moral system can have only one principle devoid of contingency. As I endeavor to work out such a system, I believe that highest principle must be the absolute and equal moral value of every human life. This principle tempers open-mindedness in a useful and desirable fashion which I believe can help one recognize the distinction between difference and entrenched injustice. Adherence to a belief in open-mindedness, tempered by the principle of equal value, compels one to at once maintain respect for and tolerance of all cultural and social differences, insofar as such an attitude does not conflict with one’s demand that all people of all circumstances, in every diverse and unique manifestation of humanity are treated equally and justly.
One should never feel obtrusive or meddling when working for the freedom of others. Each and every human being has the right to be free - free from oppression, slavery, hunger, powerlessness. No society or individual has a right to deny this freedom. Moral relativists seem committed to a principle of cultural self determination, which seems an absurd fidelity when one has the choice of actual self determination.
“For the state is not in fact a superperson. It does not have feelings, thoughts, aims, or interests independently of those projected into it by individual persons. Nor as an imaginatively personified superbeing is it the fitting object of devotion, much less of the sacrifice of human lives. Only individual persons feel and suffer, live and die. Only their survival and quality of life can be of ultimate moral concern. To think otherwise is to generate myth from metaphor, to mistake the convenience of language by which we speak of nations deciding, choosing, as though they were rational beings for a literal reflection of reality.”
~Robert L. Holmes, On War and Morality
Dr. Robert Holmes is a Professor Emeritus of philosophy at the University of Rochester in Rochester, NY. His work regarding war, morality, and the concept of the state was a central influence on my undergraduate thesis, and conceiving of the state as an illusion is a concept I will likely pursue repeatedly on this platform.
I believe it is important that one considers exactly how he or she conceives of the nation of which he or she is a citizen. I believe it is equally important to consider how one thinks of the “people” of that nation, i.e. “The American People”. Finally, one must consider whether his or her concept of either is actually tenable. I propose two questions: 1.) Is there such an entity as The State, conceptually distinct from the individuals who make up that collective? 2.) Do phrases such as “The American People” make sense or mean anything? I will leave these questions open, formally, while continuing to episodically unpack these ideas and my arguments.
Why does this matter? Philosophically, it matters because I propose to search for some truth regarding these related concepts so ubiquitous in our lives as citizens. Politically, this is important because these concepts are so regularly leveraged as reasons, goals, justifications, and objects of servitude, scorn, and mobilization in the political discourse and making of national and international policy decisions. To be mistaken or misled about these ideas is to be open to manipulation, delusion, illusion, and a fundamentally flawed political discourse. Furthermore, and I believe most importantly, it creates the conceptual framework for subverting reason and morality to an absurd and grotesque degree.
How often is it that we hear of protecting or defending America, or “The American way of life”, or of taking back “our” America? Politicians promise to take back America constantly, presumably from those who took it back from them 4-6 years ago. And so often it seems that it is someone’s America which is at stake - usually “ours” “yours” or “mine”. So what, then, is this America, and to whom does it belong? And what would these answers mean for things like politics, war, and the morality of each?
I argue that in the realm of campaign politics, for example, when a politician promises to “take our America back”, or something similar, he or she is making a useless and misleading claim that has no object, the actual intention of which is to mislead an audience by allowing them to internally reference whichever vague and nostalgic sense they can summon that leads them to the belief that once, some time ago, things were better, and that everything will be right again if some politician or idea can take us back “there”, back to “our America”. This is absurd, and is not worthy of attention, much less elation and votes.
The United States of America is a political organization comprised of well over 300,000,000 individuals. America is shorthand for the same with the vague patriotic connotations of familiarity. Is it from these three hundred million that America has been taken, and to whom this person is promising to return it? Absent some sort of mass imprisonment, no, of course it is not. Inasmuch as we have ever been in “possession” of the U.S., we remain so.
But what about that which has been taken. Is America the people? Which people? The entirety of the population? Is it the populist majority on some issue, or the largest political affiliation at a given moment? This can’t be; America cannot refer to only a section of The United States of America. If however, America is the entire population, then no one can claim to take “us” anywhere. So then, if not “us”, then what?
To whom do you belong? To a politician? To your government? I urge you, to evaluate politicians, governments, their ideas, and their actions based upon reason, not objectless nostalgia designed to deceive. And most importantly, to always be mindful that no one owns you. For me, I belong to God and to myself, and I will neither relinquish this autonomy nor cast my vote for something I know is not real.
It has been far, far too long since my last post. The length and degree of philosophical and topical convergence of my last post instilled in me a sense of obligation to repeat it. Enough of that. Some posts will be long, others short. Some will be attempts at in depth (as far as blog posts go, that is) philosophical analysis, while others will be mere moments to point out absurdities, or even just mentions of thoughts or ideas. I have a propensity toward compulsive and unnecessary completeness, and so this attempt at an often fragmented litany of thoughts, arguments, and ideas should be productive in breaking down this frustrating tendency.
And therefore today I am but expressing some thoughts regarding the immigration debate/conversation in America. The political debate seems designed to perpetuate itself because it ignores the actual problem, and the presented solutions to the tangential issues regularly flirt with absurdity . And it provides further evidence to the suspicion that those in power are more interested in generating political capital out of problems than they are interested in solving them. In any event, our government and the news media focus on the violence near our shared border with Mexico, fences, double walled fences, electrified fences, the minutemen, etc. Conservatives call for militaristic border security and liberals cry out for compassion. I argue that is all representative of one or the other sides of the same empty coin that will never remedy the situation. I believe the productive debate begins with this question: Why is the United Stated of America, of all places, in the midst a crisis regarding immigration? The idea that America is a nation of immigrants is certainly cliched, but the reality is that the vast majority of Americans’ ancestors came from somewhere else.
Mexico is somewhere else.
I have a possible answer to the above question, and it can be found here—->http://uscitizenshiptestguide.com/text/apply.html
That is an online guide to becoming a United States citizen. Before applying for citizenship, an individual not married to an American citizen must be a legal resident for five years, and the application process can take as many as three years, if all goes smoothly. The process seems arduous, drawn out, and designed to discourage legal immigration. It provides no obvious assistance to those attempting to go through the process legally. This is especially problematic for poor individuals or families who speak little to no English, tasked with finding sufficient work and education necessary to pass the citizenship test. I am not arguing with the logic or morality of inclusion of any particular facet of the process. Such concerns are subordinate to the need to remedy the chaos generated by such a long, drawn out, and difficult to complete immigration process. I argue the absolute top priority of the debate should be to significantly reform the path to citizenship, such that making the choice to become a legal United States citizen is the more desirable choice to someone immigrating from Mexico. Millions of people risk literally everything attempting to enter the United States illegally, when they all technically have the choice to do so legally. And there seems very little obvious benefit to being an illegal immigrant in America, and yet tens of millions have chosen such a fate.
There must be a reason.
