SURVIVING WORLD CRISES, BEST PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

Ukraine

Taiwan

Covid

Inflation

We as a nation face gigantic, perhaps even existential challenges. Without taking a more sane and unified approach to solving our problems, we are sure to fail and the results would be catastrophic not only for the United States, but for the World as well.

A big reason why reasonandbalance.com places priority status on objective factual determination is that problems cannot truly be resolved without knowing the facts. Telling your spouse that you put $20 in their wallet to buy groceries, when you only gave him a $10 won’t pay the bill when he gets to checkout with $18 worth of beer. And this is true no matter how many times or how many different ways you tell him you put $20 in his wallet.

The same is true for solving social problems. Decisions made on faulty facts or faulty assumptions won’t solve the problem. Sometimes there may be a short-term hiatus of relative calm, but sooner or later cracks will appear in any faulty solution. And many times faulty solutions can make the problem worse.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats, conservatives nor liberals or progressives, or moderates for that matter should condone having their political allies make faulty claims or report factually incorrect propaganda. Continued condonation of misrepresentations by one’s political allies, is frankly disloyal.

When we say disloyal to our Constitution and the true American way. Why? Because our democracy and whole system of government depends on an orderly governmental process based on rational and peaceful debate and a willingness to accept defeat on policy and legislative matters every now and then all with some reasonable assurance that the other side will also peacefully acquiesce in a better policy idea of yours at some point in the future. In democracy you win some and you lose some. And everyone is expected to accept legislative and other governmental policy outcomes when the rules for enacting laws and adopting policies are legally followed. But all depends on peaceful rational debate and being gracious and accepting in both victory and defeat. In other words democracy depends on mutual respect, and especially on respect for the Constitutional and legal rights of your political opponents.

A winning at all costs attitude (WAACA) is anti-democratic, because WAACA is by nature an autocratic philosophy. Those who seek to prevail regardless of the facts are inherently untrustworthy liars. And worse, are the types who would support dictators. In short, liars and those who support politicians who make a habit of being fast and loose with the facts really do not support the notion of peaceful rational debate. Debate that is not based upon some genuine attempt by all participants to find or determine the true facts is not rational—it’s a huge waste of time that puppet legislatures of dictators engage in, that allows them to create the false illusion of democracy.

Similarly, it goes without saying that those who wish to tamper with vote counting and/or fair election rules that allow a fair and objective determination of the will of the people is patently undemocratic.

We face huge challenges that threaten peace and stability, not only here in the United States, but around the globe. Disagreement is fine. Rational peaceful debate is great. But somehow we’ve lost our way. Everyone must recommit themselves to determining the true facts underlying any policy question or political issue. Sometimes this means seriously questioning the factual statements of political leaders and news sources that we generally follow or listen to. This means pointing it out when we know someone is factually incorrect or misrepresenting the facts.

We should never vote for politicians who seem to make a habit of being fast and loose with the facts.

And in the interests of making our policy debates more coherent, rational, respectful and even peaceful

we should not vote for politicians who make a habit of calling their adversaries names. Name calling

poisons rational debate and relations between folks of differing philosophies.

To be clear here, everyone is going to make a misstatement every now and then. Everyone is human. The occasional misstatement, innocently made, can and should be forgiven. But unfortunately we have gotten to the point where it appears that too many politicians live in an intentionally contrived fantasy world that only serves up “red meat” to satisfy the hunger of their constituents for any news or propaganda supporting their views, and/or to support their own political agenda and re-election efforts.

A WAACA approach to politics (and/or anything else for that matter) inevitably leads to corrupt government. Why? Because if winning is the ultimate objective “at all costs”, it inevitably means that

the politician with the WAACA philosophy is willing break the law to win—or at least is more likely to if the pressures to win are sufficiently high. And further, it means that they don’t care enough about the rights of anyone else enough to set aside their WAACA desires from time to time to reach consensus with others in order to resolve societal issues and problems. As such, when push comes to shove, and Constitutional rights, duties and obligations are on the line those who pursue a WAACA philosophy are too often inclined to subordinate the rights, duties and privileges of the Constitution to their own win-at-all costs desires. The U.S. Constitution demands, requires that each of us respect our governmental institutions, the Bill of Rights, as well as notions of due process, equal protection and respect for the rule of law and, importantly, the rights of others who might disagree with us. The more someone cares about winning at all costs the less he or she is likely to care about others. This, in turn, means that they are usually less willing to compromise and reach consensus with others to resolve societal issues. Given, the foregoing, it is highly probable that politicians who are obsessed with winning at all costs, are more likely to support autocrats and would-be dictators. Democracy and the Bill of Rights demand and require that the voices of all be heard and seriously considered.

At reasonandbalance.com we adhere to the philosophy that the best decision-making process is one that emphasizes the critical need to objectively determine the facts first making sure that one gets their facts from as many objective and reliable sources as reasonably and practicably possible given time and economic constraints.

And let’s face it. Anyone who has been in a marriage, who comes from a family, or has ever worked in or been associated with an employer or organization of any size knows that in real life some willingness to compromise is necessary to get broad-based support and keep everything functioning, including this country and our cherished form of constitutional government. From a political perspective the emphasis must be on peaceful and effective problem solving and not winning at all costs.

The internet, jets, large container ships, computers, cell phones all have made the world economy more inter-connected. It’s now a World economy. Folks move and integrate, not only for business purposes, but also to flee poverty, oppression and war. Life on this planet is infinitely more complex now than it was when Adam Smith, Karl Marx and a whole host of other philosophers hundreds of years ago gave us what we now call capitalism, communism and so on. Folks from various nationalities, religions and races have intermixed. The United States is no longer the dominant economic power that it was immediately after World War II when Japan, Europe and the U.S.S.R laid in ruins. Global warming and environmental concerns were largely unknown just a few decades ago. We are no longer the frontier, big sky largely agrarian society that we were when the framers adopted our cherished Constitution back in the 1780s. These facts should make us all question the continued legitimacy of the viewpoints espoused by adherents of various political, social and economic philosophies and even of our own political parties.

And we should also remember that many if not most religions teach some version of the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Don’t most religions also teach that judgment is God’s alone? No one can fairly judge another unless they’ve walked many many miles in their shoes. The point is that respect for others is crucial if we are to live in what many might call a heavenly world…or at least a peaceful democratic one like we are supposed to have under the United States Constitution.

Remembering that no one (including oneself) is perfect and that usually it’s impossible for anyone (or any one philosophy) to know all of the facts and/or to draw the correct conclusions from those facts, and/or to employ the best analytical techniques in making decisions, it is thus virtually always true that all decision-makers should consult with persons with various perspectives and/or opinions (and yes, even views and philosophies contrary to ones own). This just makes sense if one really wants to learn the “truth” (if that’s even possible) and cherishes peace and fairness. Overlooking or not caring about those with opposing views risks faulty factual determinations and in the long run just invites faulty decision-making and/or future conflict.

The bottom line is that we should all be much more willing to subordinate the goals and views of our respective political parties (which are more often than not based on overly generalized, historically antiquated political, economic and social theories and assumptions) to much more practical, realistic and effective approach to governing and life in general. In other words, conservatives, liberals, progressives, communists, fascists, and all other political groups must subordinate the objectives and goals of their political groups and focus more on accepting and pursuing a fact-based, pragmatic, balanced problem-solving philosophy that considers the views of the many and not just the desires of their one group. We urgently need to elect leaders and representatives who adhere this far more realistic and balanced approach to life and governing. So, a big question is how should and/or can our system be modified to make such an approach more likely to be used. Should we minimize the influence that money has on elections? What about term limits? We will leave those topics for later.

David D. Lentz February 24, 2022