An article I’ve written nearly a year ago. Given recent ground-shaking events, I felt it would provide the most insight into politics now.
Why political ideology cannot address the complex issues of the present and future:
American politics have been deadlocked on critical issues both big and small. What size and shape should our government be? How should we design a sustainable, efficient health care system? What combination of energy policies will be the most effective? What kind of family planning services and sex & health education should we offer? These polarizing issues will not be solved until we change the way we think about politics on a fundamental level.
Whether the political philosophy you subscribe to is Republican or Democrat, Liberalism or Conservatism, Libertarianism or Socialism, religiously-based or your own personal philosophy, it cannot address the complex and multi-layered issues we face today. The fundamental flaw in political philosophy is just that– it is philosophy. Philosophy is a logical framework that operates purely in the imagination. It does not answer to research and evidence. It has no responsibility to line up with reality. Its only responsibility is to work "on paper" in the realm of human imagination.
Communism is a popular example of a political philosophy that inspired millions with its brave, emotionally-charged idealism. However, Communism failed spectacularly in practice due to its oversimplified assumptions of human nature. There are still some "true believers" of communism who say if only the conditions were more ideal, more pure, then perhaps the communist states would’ve succeeded in creating utopia. This highlights the disconnect between the simplified viewpoint of philosophy and the complex workings of the real world.
On the near-opposite side of the spectrum sits libertarianism. Its "elegant" free-market logic and simplicity of government attracts a significant number of followers. Of course you can point to examples of (fiscal) libertarianism gone haywire– China with its smog-filled cities, rampant exploitation and other nasty effects of uncontrolled capitalism, and Somalia which is not unlike Robert Nozick’s vision of a budding Libertarian utopia when you get down to it, sans the unification of disparate factions that occurred in his imagination. Again, proponents will simply say that these states are too chaotic, not ideal, not pure; not in line with what exists in their imaginations. Rather, the lack of pure libertarianism in the world shows that so-called"elegant" philosophies cannot tackle the complexity and chaos of the real world. They can only function in the radical simplicity and uniformity of imaginary worlds.
The performance of ideologically moderate governments in the real world still produces a mixed picture– one of great successes and boneheaded policies (which often occur when research and evidence are rejected in policymaking). The reason why governments, particularly those of larger countries like the US, have difficulty in creating policies with the nuance and sophistication required to tackle intricate problems is due to the fact that political philosophy is the current mode in which issues are debated.
This mode will ultimately become ineffective in the future. When genetic engineering and other technologies grant us the ability to change our biology, what relevance will our constitution hold in a future where all men are not created equal? How will the constitution protect individual freedoms and punish individual wrongdoers when technology will eventually allow us to merge and augment our personalities and memories? How will the state defend humanity against next-generation, decentralized WMDs like bio-engineered viruses and nanomachines?
Far-out futurism aside, our right to free speech is already being stretched in the face of mass media conglomerates and unprecedented political campaigns approaching billions of dollars. The Founding Fathers drafted our fundamental rights in the days when "free speech" meant distributing a pamphlet. There was no way they could have conceived of the technologies we enjoy today, and the revolutionary technologies we will create in the future. Technological issues require solutions with a level of nuance not attainable in our current political mode of ideology.
No politician or political party is going to pull the answers to complex modern-day issues right out of thin air. We’re already struggling with the tremendously multi-layered problems of immigration, foreign policy, privacy, security, abortion and family planning, race issues, education, health care, environmental issues, and economic recession just to name a few. Bills with some of the sophistication to tackle these issues have been shot down by ideological polarization or watered down and compromised to the point of ineffectiveness.
Ideology muddies the water in political discourse. In a culture where we’re taught that an opinion is as valid as any other, whether they are stemmed in religion, ideology, or statistical wizardry, the end result is polarization on critical issues and an open door for wealthy, focused special interests to disproportionately influence the political process in a variety of covert ways. In order to clear the waters of corruption and polarization, ideology must be replaced by practical problem-solving as a basis for political discourse.
One of the main problems with ideologies is that they are top-down in their approach. They rely on philosophers and politicians having "grand visions" about how the entire world operates. These grand visions do not even begin to address the intricate problems listed above with anything beyond a sweeping generalization of policy, because no man can legitimately claim to understand the deep inner workings of the world. What is needed is a bottom-up approach. Individual issues need to be researched, and their intricate solutions extrapolated from evidence. When policies are implemented, their performance should be further analyzed and refined over time in the face of new evidence. I know this solution sounds frighteningly faceless and "scientific", but it is the only way to find adequate solutions to these problems, because the alternative is to pull the solution out of someone’s imagination or religious scripture.
A Case for Practical Problem-Solving
Science is, at its core, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Scientists and researchers study the world, and through the evidence gathered, create theoretical models like gravity to explain that evidence and predict future evidence. In the face of new evidence, theories are refined and updated, like gravity into Einstein’s relativity and more recently into quantum & string theory. Through evidence and theoretical models, science produces an increasingly finer and nuanced picture of the deep inner workings of our world. This is the one and only system that has achieved this feat. It does not rely on a single philosopher that claims to understand the world. Instead, it is an intense collaboration of thousands of dedicated people in search of aspects of the truth, whatever those truths may ultimately be. This "faceless" but collaborative approach has been astoundingly successful in creating all kinds of liberating technology over the years and expanding our (theoretical) understanding of our world and beyond. The fruits of science and research have allowed us to remain healthy beyond the age of 30, topple despotic governments such as the former Soviet Union with increasingly decentralized communication technologies, and publish articles on the Internet, which places the entirety of human knowledge at our fingertips.
Many political philosophers have called the field of political philosophy dead, citing liberal democracy as the end of the line; the pinnacle of political design because it recognizes all essential human rights and needs. The last significant advance in political philosophy came from 17th century philosophers like John Hobbes, Thomas Locke and Adam Smith, of whom the American Founding Fathers were greatly inspired by. Liberal democracy has spread all over the world to become measurably the most stable and effective form of government. Since then we’ve only seen the inapplicably far-out ideologies of communism, libertarianism, and the hopelessly lost-in-space writings of Friedrich Nietzsche come out of the field.
One way to advance political philosophy and human civilization is to throw out "philosophy" altogether. Instead of relying on grand but inaccurate visions of civilization, let’s instead use our human ability to solve problems by creating pools of evidence through dedicated research and theoretical models (as policies) that appreciate how the world actually works. Much like how Einstein merged the theory of gravity, electromagnetism and time together into a new space-time framework, each iteration of a theoretical model will often merge existing models. Likewise, as more evidence is gathered and more policies are implemented in a problem-solving government, solutions can evolve into greater solutions. For example, a theory of health insurance can merge with other heathcare ideas to become a grand theory of health care, rich and nuanced enough to become the most effective and efficient healthcare system in the world. As more of these policies are consolidated, we will be working towards an all-new, all-encompassing theory of government, much like science’s ultimate goal of finding a “theory of everything“. This design, whatever it may be, will have the potential to become the successor to liberal democracy after centuries of philosophical stagnation, because it is the only form of government that has the potential to solve all of our current problems and tackle the rapidly transforming nature of future technology.
Implementation and Despotism
What will a research-based, problem-solving system of government look like? How will we transition to it? In short, I don’t know. That question warrants a research project in itself, but I can tell you what it won’t be. It won’t be about granting The RAND Corporation seats in congress. It won’t be about withholding voting rights behind an intelligence test prerequisite. It won’t be about launching a conspiracy to sneak proponents incognito into political power to "strike" at the right moment and activate the new system. Ideas like these are recipes for despotism and exhibit an extreme pessimism of mankind. They represent a step back from what we currently have.
Something to appreciate about our current form of government is the numerous anti-despotism safeguards in its design. The freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, the balance of power, the separation of church and state, transparency, time-limited terms of office, elections and malleable amendments are just some of the examples of how the constitution prevents disconnected, despotic regimes from forming. Those rights and systems were created specifically for that purpose, not for their own sake. Even the right to bear arms was granted as a last resort measure of armed revolution by the chance our federal government ever turns sour. It was not granted for the sake of "ownership" or self-defense. The office of the president was a hotly contested aspect of the original constitution because the position was seen as overly despotic. Same story with lifetime supreme court appointments by presidents. Because the constitution was proposed in the context of a republic, such compromises were necessary for its passing.
Transparency and collaboration are critical measures in fighting despotism. Because each federal policy must acquire some minimum level of approval, power remains balanced and stability is maintained. The more transparency measures we have in our system, the less prone that system is to corruption and despotism. Therefore, the design of a research-based government will likely have to include these elements. It should be highly collaborative, highly transparent and accessible. Each article of evidence or each proposal of a theory and policy will undergo extensive public/peer review. The Internet should also be involved. Because of its unparalleled power in the rapid exchange of ideas, only an Internet-based system will be able to keep up with the quickening pace of technological development and the increasing sophistication of our country’s problems. With transparency, collaboration and the Internet, am I proposing a WikiGovernment 2.0? Maybe. However it’s just a loose idea. As I’ve said, design and implementation itself will require a serious research project, not a grand projection out of my imagination.
Will Such an Idea Be Accepted in America?
America in particular has a strong phobia of logic and logical people. Atheists, engineers and scientists in comparison to other countries are practically absent from the government. Scientists, engineers and researchers in popular American fiction are commonly caricatured as mad or amoral, gambling away human lives for the sake of progress and achievement. Science, research and technology are often presented as a horseman of the apocalypse through weapons of mass destruction and bio-engineered terrors. Why? Because logic throws out the emotional aspect of decision-making. At their core, logical systems are caricatured as faceless, godless machines, something that pushes us in an ambiguous direction that we can’t foresee. It is the fear of the unknown at work. Political ideologies in comparison put leaders in control of the direction of civilization with strong, tangible, inspiring visions of the future. They package their visions in meaningful, emotional contexts.
This cannot be helped, because half of all humans process the world on a fundamentally emotional level rather than a logical one. The seemingly counter-intuitive scientific method of politics will not be accepted by a significant majority of Americans without help. This cannot be changed because people rarely ever change themselves on such a fundamental level. Instead, what is needed are leaders who can translate the logical ideals of research-based legislation into emotional ideals. In other words, we need powerful inspirational leaders who can overcome the old phobias of logic and bridge emotional voters to the potential of politics based in practical problem-solving.
Where to Start?
Two-party systems are an inevitable result of our our “first to the finish†electoral style. There will never be a viable third party. For a new party to to gain significant power, another party has to implode spectacularly, and due to the nature of two-party politics, the new party will eventually evolve to the one it replaced to even out the competitive ideological balance.
Making a new party is not the road to take. Instead, we only have to support non-ideological politicians in order to push the emphasis in American politics towards problem-solving. For instance, our recent president-elect, Barack Obama, has been inspiring voters with a vision of a new technology-driven age of non-ideological, practical problem-solving by touting Internet-enabled transparency and grass-roots collaboration.
It’s within the realm of possibility to implement the next generation of political action and discourse. Arguably we are about to embark in that direction. Regardless of the performance of Obama which has yet to be seen, more proponents of logical, inclusive legislation will appear on the campaign trails of future election cycles as disconnected ideology increasingly fails to address modern-day issues. Support these candidates wherever they may appear.