“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”
Mark Twain
Who can’t get behind that one? We all know politics sucks.
But today, in the Western world, everybody can be involved in politics so everybody is obliged to have an opinion, even though the best most of us can do is pick a party and defend everything they say or do to the death.
I said in my essay about individuality that politics is not my focus and I’m going to try to avoid talking about it as much as I can. Because any discussion is going to be radically oversimplified.
At its core, politics is a group of imperfect, non-omniscient human beings trying to predict how a billion unique imperfect, non-omniscient human beings living different stages of different lives in different environments are going to react to a million different impeti (I know it’s supposed to be impetuses).
And besides, if you are actively interested in politics, I’m sure you have people who specialize in political rhetoric that you like listening to. But whether you actively participate or not, politics is important. So today, I’m going to talk a little bit about political philosophy. Just a heads up, I’m human. Which means I’m biased.
This is going to be a long and complicated one, so strap yourself in. First, we’re going to talk about the origins of the political left-right spectrum and the ideal of equality, then we’ll have a discussion on the role of the government in solving the problems of society, and finally we’ll mention the long history of government participation in morality.
And just in case you get bored, let me get my thesis statement in up front: Politics is hard and there are no right answers. All we can do is the best we can.
Chapter 1: The Origins of the Political Left-Right Spectrum and the Ideal of Equality
The terms “liberal left wing” and “conservative right wing” originated during the French revolution. In the French parliament, you had the president of the parliament in the middle, and to his right sat the nobility, those in support of conserving the way things were, traditions, the pre-existent hierarchies of power and wealth. To his left sat those opposing the monarchy, seeking to fight the inequalities of power and wealth.
To simplify, ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics center around the single ideal of social equality. On the hierarchy of political ideals, the higher you place “equality”, the further left. So theoretically, the furthest left you can be is to hold “equality” at the top of the list of ideals. But no one does that. Because there are more important things than equality.
No one puts equality over, say, life. The radical, oversimplified interpretation of political leftism says that if you are all the way on the left, you’d rather every single human being be equally dead than unequally alive. Can we all agree it’s more important that humans be alive than equal? Can we also all agree that it’s impossible for humans to be both alive and equal? For starters, some people are 6’ tall and others are 5’2”.
And sure, we can give the short kid a box to see over the fence, but we can’t chop off the giant’s legs so he can fit in the McPlayPlace. Perfect, utopian equality is impossible.
Now, obviously my point isn’t that equality isn’t an important ideal. Of course it is. It’s one of the most important. That’s why the entire modern political spectrum seems to be based on it. My point is that everyone is somewhere on this spectrum and no one is really at either end.
In fact, the majority of, if not all, the “right wingers” I hear talking today are advocating “equal opportunity over equal outcome” or “equality over equity”. Equal opportunity is on the left half of the spectrum. We’re a lot closer than everyone seems to think.
So political debate is just about comparing sociological and economic ideals and deciding which ones to prioritize. Here’s a nice significant and complex debate, equality versus prosperity. That’s not two ends ends of a spectrum. That’s two completely independent spectra that happen to overlap.
So we can all agree that some level of prosperity is more important than perfect equality and we can all also agree that some level of equality is more important than the highest possible levels of cumulative prosperity which invariably favor the tiniest fraction of the population. So how much of each do we want? Where exactly on each spectrum is the sweet spot? I don’t know, do you?
And we’re just talking about abstract ideals right now, don’t even get me started on the 573 billion individual real-world policies and attitudes at every level of government and society in general that may or may not, depending on the statistics you subscribe to, have some level of impact on either the cumulative prosperity of the United States or the relative equality of its citizens, or both.
Am I illustrating my point effectively? Politics is hard and there are no right answers. All we can do is preach about ideals, pursue those ideals, and then die, if we’re lucky having gotten a little bit closer to one or two of them.
Chapter 2: The Role of Government in Solving the Problems of Society
(Quick note: I know I just defined the left-right spectrum based on the ideal of equality, but in each of my next two chapters, I’m going to use the “left-right spectrum” to describe different spectra. This is just one of the problems with oversimplifying things that aren’t simple. I hope it’s not too confusing.)
Every sane, reasonable human being, and I would contend that at least the majority of people are sane, reasonable human beings (argue that if you like) believes that the problems that societies face need to be addressed. Homelessness, hunger, disease. No one likes that crap. The political left-right spectrum looks like this: the further left, the more solutions should come directly from the government and the further right, the more solutions should come from outside the government, from individuals and corporations and charities. And again, no one is all the way on either side. No one thinks the government should do and be everything and no one thinks the government shouldn’t exist at all. I mean, some people do, but they’re idiots.
And there is a very real, very constant, and very reasonable debate on each problem that society faces as to where on that spectrum we pursue our solutions.
Let’s look at hunger for an example. The vast majority of people would agree that people going hungry is fixable and doesn’t really have an upside.
The far left response is to say that the government should control all food production and distribution to make sure that everyone gets what they need.
The far right response is to say that, because free market forces dictate what food is produced in what quantities and for what price, in order to feed people who can’t afford it, people who care can spend their time and/ or money privately distributing food where necessary.
Of course, what exists, and what most people want, I imagine, is something in between. Some level of government participation in a free-market system.
There are a lot of options in that middle road. The government could artificially influence the prices of certain foods through subsidies and pricing legislation, or use tax dollars to provide food to people who can’t afford it. I’m pretty sure they’re doing all of the above.
Beyond that, there is the added complexity of nutrition. In the United States, people who are “food insecure” as the official term goes, are almost exclusively overweight not underweight. Because in the US, it’s not that people can’t get access to food, it’s that the food that is easiest to access is horribly unhealthy.
So on the one hand, congratulations us! No one starves. Do you realize what a big deal that is? I mean, we can argue about the value of nutrition in a minute, but for right now, let’s sit back and appreciate the fact that it is not just possible, but cheap and easy to produce and distribute enough food for everyone in the entire country. And with that model, it is conceivable that soon, it will be cheap and easy to produce and distribute enough food for every human being on the planet. The poor will be disproportionately prone to heart disease, but they won’t be starving to death. One problem at a time.
Now back to nutrition. Let’s say it is the government’s responsibility to make sure everyone has access to food. Great. Is it the government’s responsibility to make sure everyone has access to more expensive healthy foods? Is it the government’s responsibility to make sure people are eating healthy foods? Is it the government’s responsibility to define what is healthy and what isn’t? Because, remember, health science isn’t exactly fixed. Some say corn is good, some say corn is bad. Some say eggs are good, some say eggs are bad. In 1992, the USDA unveiled the Food Pyramid which is pretty much universally despised by health scientists today.
And how about this one: some people can die from a tiny amount of peanuts. Should the government outlaw peanuts?
And on and on and on and on and on.
There are a million things that a government can be in charge of or not be in charge of and that’s just within the field of food production and distribution. It’s complicated. Politics is hard and there are no right answers. All we can do is try things one way then try them another and then die, if we’re lucky, with things having worked alright.
Chapter 3: Government Participation in Morality
The final spectrum I wanted to discuss is about social morality. In a twist on the theme, I’m going to say it’s the further right, the more morality should be defined and enforced by the government and the further left, the more morality should be defined and enforced outside the government by individuals and families and churches.
I had this great piece a while back about how everyone follows some code of morality. And governments are no different. Morality is just a hierarchy of values and ideals and governments exist to pursue and defend values and ideals.
So by my spectrum, the right extreme is a government that makes every decision in every individual’s life and the left extreme is anarchy. So I guarantee no one wants their every move controlled by a government and anarchists are a vibrant but small host so once again, everyone falls somewhere along this spectrum.
Let’s talk about a quick example: Alcohol. Alcohol is closely associated with a number of immoral tendencies. From violence to sexual indiscretion to facilitating accidental death and injury. There is a long and storied history of various governments outlawing alcohol. They all have one uniting motif. People still drink when it’s illegal. Be it Sharia law in Kuwait or Prohibition in the US, there has never been a government that has prevented all alcohol consumption.
Another example: Killing people. Like I mentioned in my morality video, most people think that killing people is sometimes okay and usually not. And just like alcohol, there is a long and storied history of various governments defining and outlawing murder. And like alcohol, people still kill people illegally.
I think I speak for at least the WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) majority when I say that, in spite of their similarities, alcohol SHOULD be legal and murder SHOULD NOT. So why?
As a general rule, I support individual freedom to make mistakes right up to the point where those mistakes affect other individuals. But if you take that statement to its furthest iteration, meth should be legal, cocaine should be legal, butterfly knives should be legal, and automatic weapons should be legal.
All moral objections to those things, including alcohol, are centered around the menace they represent to society. And they are menaces to society. Except butterfly knives. But so are cars, unvaccinated children, sports, social media, and political debates and those are all legal, protected individual freedoms.
So we’re drawing lines in the sand, logically defensible but ultimately arbitrary lines in the sand when litigating morality. Politics is hard and there are no right answers. All we can do is try to help people live the best lives they can, then die hopefully having lived the best lives we could.
Now I’ve spent this essay being a little bit obtuse. Yeah, things are more complex than we like to give them credit for. But we know our ideals, and we are really good at making the world do what we want it to. So when our ideals don’t match up with the way the world is, we have to try to make it that way. We do. And just look at the things we’ve accomplished by trying!
But it’s a universal truth of existence that sometimes, the world doesn’t do what we want it to. Everyone wants to believe that there’s a right answer and that we know it. But all that leaves us with is a blind, violent allegiance to our own opinions.
I guess it all comes down to that famous thing that some Greek guy said over 2,000 years ago and it’s still right:
“The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing.”
Socrates via Plato
