To Fight or not to Fight

One of the comments made often during the presidency of Bill Clinton was that he is a lover, not a fighter. This characteristic was both applauded and demonized. Democrats applauded Clinton for being able to feel the economic and emotional pain of ordinary people. This sensitivity was deemed a valuable trait after the insensitivity of the Reagan-Bush years. So, even when Clinton took this sensitivity a bit too far by having an affair with a White House intern, Democrats and other citizens forgave him, arguing that everyone lies about sex, and sex is not something that is worth impeaching a president. Republicans criticized this sensitivity because Clinton was very weak on foreign policy. Republicans accused Clinton of failing to recognize the threat of terrorism and radical Islam. They accused him of failing to recognize the rising threat of China. Instead, Clinton cooperated economically with China. Clinton was the head of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, which sought to lower trade barriers, engage economically with foreign countries, and lower taxes for the middle class while raising taxes on the rich. Democrats accused Clinton of selling out the working class, but they were willing to live with these policies. Al Gore promised to working on behalf of the poor and the working class, and thus the country, including labor, voted for Gore over Bush.

However, Bush stole the election from Gore by rigging the military absentee ballots, and getting the Supreme Court to stop the counting of votes. The neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party was fooled by Bush, thinking he would promote the same centrist policies that Clinton had supported. Instead, Bush turned out to be a fighter, not a lover. Bush ridiculed everything the Democrats wanted, refusing to even hear their perspective. Then, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01, Bush turned a single day into the raison d'etre for the country: the U.S. finds its identity in fighting radical Islam. Initially, the Democrats went along with this new national identity, until they discovered they were being replaced by Republicans in the 2002 midterm elections.

Hence, Democrats, as David Brooks notes, have ceased being the party of lovers of free trade, compromise and negotiation. Instead, Democrats want to fight the Republicans. Brooks attributes this new belligerence to the old age of the neoliberals, but in reality it is due to the mendacity that led to the Iraq War. Frank Rich notes that the reason Democrats, and the rest of the country, are so angry is because the Republicans are great at stage craft and public relations, but terrible at governance. The Libby trial revealed just how much lying has taken place at the Behest of the Bush Administration. As a result, Rich argues that it is inevitable that Libby will be pardoned. Libby knows too much damaging information for Bush not to pardon him.

Yet, the biggest lesson out of the Bush White House is that a fraudulent president can do anything when not seriously challenged by the opposition party or members of the same party. In late 2002 and early 2003, the Democrats were afraid to challenge Bush. Now, not only are Democrats challenging Bush, the Old Left wing is challenging the neoliberal wing for being a wimp in the face of Bush's lies.

In other words, Bush has paved the way for the fighting Democrats, last seen in the guise of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.

What We Want in a Presidential Candidate

George F.Will quotes Bill Clinton saying "regarding presidential candidates, that Republicans like to fall in line and Democrats like to fall in love. Which explains the Clinton campaign's palpable panic: Democrats have fallen in love, but not with her. Republicans tend to nominate the next person in line: Vice President Richard Nixon, not Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, to follow President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960; Vice President George H.W. Bush, not Sen. Robert Dole, to follow President Ronald Reagan in 1988; Dole rather than Lamar Alexander or any other contender in 1996; Gov. George W. Bush, whose dynastic lineage propelled him past Sen. John McCain in 2000. There is a Republican tinge to Sen. Clinton's campaign: She is next in line. That fact -- combined with the Clintons' (how often the plural is pertinent) money machine, combined with the Clintons' earned reputation for ferocity -- is supposed to impart to her an aura of inevitability." This is true about the psychological dynamic, but Will never asks why this is the case. After all, both liberals and conservatives have a set of beliefs, or litmus tests, that they apply to presidential candidates. Both Republicans and Democrats must hew to the party line at least somewhat, even when they claim to be maverick politicians, independent thinkers, or a "New" Democrat or Republican. So, on the surface, there is no reason why Democrats should not "fall in line".

In fact, this was one of the biggest critiques of presidential politics articulated by William G. Mayer at the Northeast Political Science Association. Why, he asked, do the Republicans select a nominee early without much conflict, while the Democrats engage in constant intra-party conflict, leaving the nominee virtually crippled at the end? It would make much more sense for the Democrats to settle on someone early, or for the Republicans to engage in intra-party conflict. But that is not the case.

There are two main reasons I can think of for this phenomenon. First, the liberal temperament is oriented toward political participation, dialogue, and intellectual exchange. There is a very strong connection, after all, between educational achievement and liberal politics. Academia is based on promoting intellectual exchange and criticism. Those people who cannot hold their own in an intellectual debate are quickly removed from the environment. This temperament naturally extends to politics. Liberals love the idea of freedom of speech, especially on a college campus. Liberals love the idea of participation for its own sake. Yet, participation is really supposed to mirror the classroom environment, with the professor as a facilitator of dialogue and the students as eager learners. The objective of the classroom environment is not merely to pass on information. Instead, the objective is to develop the ideas, personality, and abilities of the student and the professor. All of this takes place in an environment characterized by caring and compassion. The professor cares for the intellectual, emotional and even spiritual growth of the student, and the student cares about the development of the subject matter as a discipline. Hence, the liberal temperament, at its best, uses the collegiate environment to turn all participants in the public sphere into better versions of themselves.

This temperament orients the liberal to specific areas of intellectual exchange. Health care, for instance, is a favorite liberal topic because it identifies an area of economic life that currently prevents individuals from becoming healthier. The economy is another favorite topic because it identifies the economic pressures that prevent people from improving their circumstances. Yet, even if these topics weren't favorites for liberals, there would be some other topic aimed at developing human potential. In essence, liberal politics is primed for falling in love with candidates, because the voter's relationship with the candidate is nearly identical to the voter's relationship with a potential spouse: the candidate offers the ability to become a better person through interaction with the candidate. Public policy discussion and political participation are merely means to that ultimate end. Hence, the ideal liberal candidate is akin to a best friend, a lover, a spouse, or a mentor. All of those relationships involve nurturing and caring, in addition to the exchange of information. This is the reason ultra-left candidates and voters call each other names that are reminiscent of family. Their ideal politics leads to a recognition of the family of man. In case the reader is wondering, this ideal is a direct descendant from the religious ideal of the family of God. After all, in monasteries and churches nuns refer to each other as "sister" and monks refer to each other as "brother", with church heads called "father" and "mother" after the ideal relationship in Heaven. The academy started as a training ground for priests and religious scholars, so the model has simply transferred into liberal politics.

The conservative temperament is the opposite. Even though the liberal temperament starts from the same origin as the liberal temperament - using the model of the religion or the church as the model for ideal relationships - the objective of the relationship is not the intellectual, emotional, psychological, and personal development of the participant. Instead, the conservative assumption is that personal growth is impossible. Rather than experiencing personal growth, an individual merely fulfills a role that has been designated for him or her. This assumption leads directly to the idea of a "calling", as in individuals are "called" by a supernatural force to fulfill a destiny that is preordained. The central problem is that no one has direct access to this supernatural force, and so there is no way to tell why the person has been called for this duty. This automatically precludes and challenge to the called person. The most one can do is accept it, hoping that there is a good reason the chosen person has been called.

The conservative temperament leads directly to the acceptance of authority in various institutions: the church, the family, the military, and the business. The military's chain of command, for instance, dictates that a soldier must follow the orders of the superior officer, not merely because the superior officer has a higher rank, but because the superior officer inevitably has access to information that the lower-ranking officer does not have. The same goes for the relationship between the priest and the follower, the father and the child, the CEO and the employee. More specifically, the conservative temperament acknowledges that each institution has its designated role. It recognizes an inherent division of labor that must be respected. Consequently, the role of the academy is to educate; the military defends; the church provides a relationship with God; the business makes money; the family provides love. The public sphere and politics maintain these roles for each institution. The proper conservative politicians is a good caretaker, preserving these institutions so that they can continue doing their job in the future.

These opposing temperaments lead to the political outcomes George Will describes. In the Democratic Primaries, there is either the "Next-In-Line" or the romantic suitor. If a candidate is not one of those types, it is nearly impossible to attract money, media attention, or pledges of support. Thus, even though David Brooks lauds New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the most likable, down-to-earth, experienced, and ideologically qualified candidate in the Democratic race for president, everyone else knows that Richardson is not the next-in-line, and not attractive as a romantic suitor. Instead, Edwards and Clinton are competing for "Next-in-Line" votes, and Edwards and Obama are competing for romantic suitor votes. The only candidate who can fulfill both roles is John Edwards, but his appeal as a romantic, transformative candidate is nil next to Obama's potential. Thus, even though Edwards has obvious charisma, detailed policy proposals regarding education and poverty, a reasonable position on Iraq, and the ability to win enough Southern states to win the electoral college, Edwards is another white male who doesn't present the possibility of voting for change.

Hillary Clinton cannot adopt the romantic suitor role, even if she tries to seem more like a compassionate human being, because so many voters thing of her as the third wheel on the romantic relationship between Bill Clinton and the voters. In other words, Hillary Clinton is the annoying roommate who can't take a hint when you get home with a hot date and start making out on the couch. Even though Clinton has tried to make herself as attractive as possible, there is no getting around the fact that, unlike Bill Clinton, Hillary has no sex appeal. She's more a dominatrix than a potential lover. So, yes, she has the money and the attractive policy positions, but she's not someone anyone could imagine getting to know personally. Without the ability to engage personally and aid in a voter's personal growth, Clinton has only "change" to offer: vote for me because I am a woman. That's not enough for most voters. It's like dating a guy/girl who you know is all wrong you simply because you are on the rebound from a very bad, destructive relationship.

This is why Frank Rich notes Hillary Clinton's only remaining skill: personally destroying other people's character. Clinton knows, as the rest of us do, that the only way we are going to choose a mate that has no sex appeal is if all the other potential mates are worse. If a person has just left an abusive relationship, then yes, a person with no sex appeal begins to look pretty good. Clinton's problem is that, unlike the 1990s when there really were just two options - the Clintons or the radical Republicans - the 2008 election is presenting several great options. Indeed, many people I have spoken to think a great democratic ticket would include Edwards and Obama - the sexiest candidates the Democratic Party has given us since Clinton/Gore, but with the potential to be as nationally transformative as Kennedy/Johnson. Obama seeks to bring back the spirit of John and Robert Kennedy, while Edwards is bringing by the spirit of Lyndon Johnson. In contrast, the Republican party is offering very uninspiring candidates. More important, Bush has created such a bad relationship with the country that the last thing voters want now is another Republican President with the same policies and the same shaky use of the truth.

The Authoritarian Personality and its Consequences

If nothing else, the past 6 years of American politics and culture have revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the authoritarian personality. The cult of the personality surrounding Bush's few remaining supporters, and the general concern that his supporters have for national and personal security, shows how much the authoritarian mindset can stick with us, even as we make more progress in technology and culture toward a more tolerant society. As Arbitrista says, there are two kinds of unity. "The unity propagated by the right is one that demands obedience to authority, while the unity of the left calls for civic engagement." In addition, Arbitrista points to the central problem of liberal politics. "The key problem with liberal politics [is that] it doesn't know how to cope with an anti-democratic minority. You can't reason with them, you can't ignore them, and you can't silence them and remain true to your own liberalism."

There is a solution to this problem. The solution depends on an understanding of what makes a person susceptible to anti-democratic ideas. The first step is to understand the two dominant ways of viewing the world. I call these ways the "relational model" and the "information model". The relational model is based on relationships. The most important relationship is between the individual and God. God is viewed as the source of everything because the individual has no other explanation for the workings of the world. If the weather is cold or warm, that's God's doing. If a person is healthy or sick, that is God's doing. Since God is the source of everything, the individual must have a relationship with God in order to do God's will. The strength of this relationship in turn determines the individual's level of happiness in life: the individual is doing what they should do (according to God) and what they want to do (pleasing God) simultaneously. For such an individual, there is no greater source of joy. All other relationships in the individual's life mirror this primary relationship. These include the individual's relationship with family: husband-wife, father-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, older-sibling-younger sibling. The family is mirrored in society: the leader adopts the role of mother or father; a boss adopts the same role, or the role of older sibling. All of these relationships provide a great deal of structure and certainty for the individuals, so the individual is able to depend on these relationships for everything.

The informational model entails the opposite dynamic. It relies on science, or at least careful study and scholarship of the environment, in order to produce happiness. The information model argues that the individual's understanding of the world through information is the source of everything. This gives the individual much more importance in society. As a result, the individual does not need relationships as much. Indeed, very smart individuals will likely see relationships as suffocating, because relationships may be a hindrance to the acquisition and understanding of information.

Thus, the informational model poses a significant threat to the relationship model - so much of a threat that the relationship model takes measure to limit or eliminate the influence of the information model. Under the relationship model, information serves a useful purpose only if it reinforces and strengthens relationships. Accordingly, the people who provide information are restricted, or censored, so that they provide only that information that reinforces relationships. At the extreme, the relationship model excludes people who consistently provide information that threatens relationships.

The information model leads directly to liberal democracies. The enlightenment thinkers, such as Kant and Mill, argued that absolutely certainty about the physical world is never possible. Thus, everyone has equal claim to Truth because everyone has access to information and the ability to use reason to understand that information. The problem is that it is impossible to know if one person's understanding of information is the best or most complete understanding. Therefore, every individual lives under a constant cloud of doubt - doubt of other people and self-doubt. This doubt is alleviated only by the exchange of information between individuals through conversation; publication of articles and books; performance of plays, operas, movies, television; exchange of information through debate. All of these ways of exchanging information become part of a culture. More important, the state acts to preserve all of these methods by protecting individual rights to self-expression, and by having elections that depend on campaigns to exchange information. This is also why the liberal democracy cannot suppress the intolerant, anti-democratic minority. It is impossible for the liberal state to know for certain that the anti-democratic minority is not saying something important.

The relationship model leads directly to authoritarianism. Relationships exist in a binary world. Either a person is in a relationship or he is not. There is nothing in-between. There are many simplified ways of thinking that are very similar: either you are with us (in the relationship) or you are against us (outside the relationship); you are good (supporting the relationship) or you are evil (threatening the existence of the relationship). These simplified ways of thinking do not provide a supportive environment for the information model because most information does not have an obvious and immediate impact on relationships. Most information is neutral. However, the act of acquiring information poses a threat to relationships because acquisition of information depends on anti-social behavior: reading books, conducting experiments. Reading is the most anti-social behavior because, until we learn to read each other's minds, the relationship between the author and the reader cannot expand to other people. While it is possible to give a speech to millions of people, it is impossible to read more than one book or article at a time. As a result, the relationship model requires that all interactions occur between the higher authority and the lesser authority in order to prevent the information model from destroying the unity between people under the relationship model.

David Brooks argues, for instance, that parents must act under the relationship model, an be an authority figure for their children instead of trying to be buddies with their children. "I mean, don’t today’s much-discussed hipster parents notice that their claims to rebellious individuality are undercut by the fact that they are fascistically turning their children into miniature reproductions of their hipper-than-thou selves?" For Brooks, the authoritarian personality is the only defense against the more violent elements that are part of human nature. The problem, as Frank Rich points out, is that the authoritarian personality, as evidenced by Bush, is simply incapable to responding effectively to changing facts that can be understand properly only with the information model. Thus, while the authoritarian personality tries to promote security through unity at home, the inevitable result is that we become more vulnerable to threats abroad because we simply are not aware of them, or we cannot adapt quickly enough once we do become aware.

Since the authoritarian model has such disastrous consequences, most people turn to the information model because they want to be able to understand and adapt to change. Yet, there will always be anti-democratic minorities that think information is a threat to their relationships. The best way to soothe these minority groups is to make the relationship a natural part of information acquisition and exchange. This means that relationships should be the primary mechanism for communicating information: speeches, town hall meetings, electronic discussion boards, classrooms, campaigns and protests are the best ways to use relationships to exchange information. This means that direct democracy through the referendum process is the best form of government because it relies on personal relationships to work. Signing petitions can work only if a person has enough relationships to get other people to sign.

Using fragmentation to seek truth

In his latest piece, Stanley Fish argues that, in a secular state, cognitive dissonance is inevitable. it is impossible, he says, for every person's belief or idea to apply equally in every situation. "An attorney may believe that a client is guilty as sin, but that belief, while not abandoned, is put to one side in deference to the belief that everyone is entitled to a defense. A professor of literature may believe that a particular book is barely worth reading, but if a departmental syllabus requires it, she will teach it because she also believes that she has a duty to abide by departmental decisions. An administrator may believe that a policy is foolish and counterproductive, but he will nevertheless implement it because he also believes in the chain of command. A mother might preach a lesson (like don’t ever stop to help someone) that she would not defend in a philosophical discussion, not because she was being dishonest, but because she was honoring the difference between being a parent and being a philosopher." In this particular piece, Fish is implicitly arguing for the division of labor in life, not merely as practiced by a capitalist firm or corporation.

The problem with Fish's analysis is that he fails to recognize the mediating role of fragmentation. The claim of nearly every religion is that there is a single truth that can be accessed only through that religion. The claim of the liberal state is that, while there may be a single truth, it is not the duty of the state to help an individual seek that truth. Instead, the liberal state claims to protect the rights of individuals to seek that truth, as long as one individual does not infringe on the rights of another individual to either seek a different truth, or no truth at all. Most people would agree that the liberal state should make this claim, but Mr. Fish is going further, arguing that there may be no single truth to begin with, only different, not competing paradigms. Hence, Mr. Fish switches from a debate between a theocrat and a democrat to a debate between a believer in a single truth and a believer in multiple truths. For the believer in a single truth, the idea of multiple truths is tantamount to nihilism, or the belief in no truth. It’s just like the debate between the theist and the atheist, with the theist claiming that “if there is no God, then anything goes”.

Most people, including me, agree with the theist’s argument, but we don’t want the state to be an enforcer. Few people are willing to accept compartmentalization and fragmentation as the natural condition of human existence. Instead, as pragmatists, we accept compartmentalization as part of an ongoing debate between opposing ideas about the nature of a single truth that we believe in. I do not agree that this compartmentalization is an end in itself. If that were the case, there would be no basis for civilization because we would have no reason to even communicate with each other. Compartmentalization would extend to language, philosophy, politics, religion, and economics. We would create an infinite number of paradigms with little or no incremental progress. Indeed, the very idea of progress would be abandoned.

One reader, John Webb, argues that Fish is echoing Isaiah Berlin's argument in “The Crooked Timber of Humanity”. "Berlin’s argument is that there can be no ideal form of organization of public or private life. (Humanity, whether as individuals or collectively, cannot build a permanently safe house, only an imperfect house.) All ideas, when taken to their logical conclusion, are destructive of other equally valid ideas. As we live day-by-day and year-by-year, we encounter, we absorb, we reflect on several basic questions about life - personal relationships, knowledge, history, love, work and so on. At any time what conclusions we reach are not compatible with each other, if pursued to their logical ends. 'Liberty and justice for all' is an impossibility, so are industrial organization and human rights, good government and self-government. Our knowledge and commitments exist together in an unstable equilibrium which will collapse if we try to push one idea to its logical end. That is why the journey of life, not the end of it, is what matters."

For me, the fundamental problem posed by Fish and Webb is one of scale, not of belief. On a small scale - in a family, a village, a small town, or a tribe - it is quite possible to be consistent in one's beliefs because one rarely, if ever, finds contradictions. More important, the division of labor that produces all of these inconsistencies can only exist in very large systems: large families require a division of labor, as do large corporations, large governments or bureaucracies. When the scale is kept small, one person is often forced to perform many different tasks, and that one person can use those different tasks to pursue a single goal. After all, an painter will use many different colors and brushes to paint a single portrait. As the scale enlarges there is a natural push toward functional specialization to improve efficiency. Specialization of function leads to specialization of thought, which in turn leads to specialization of ethics. Hence, one ethical system that applies to one specialization will contradict an ethical system in another specialization.

Fish is trying to pay respect to this specialization and the different ethical modes that go with it. I aim to eliminate this specialization and keep systems small. Fragmentation is fine, but only if you can use it to pursue a greater truth. When you lose sight of the greater truth, fragmentation begins to serve its own ends. Fragmentation must always be a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Iraq: Lessons for Human Nature and American Government

As we get closer to the 4 year anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, it is compelling to note the different liberal and conservative reactions to the invasion and its aftermath. The liberal reaction is based on the lies and fraudulent methods used to get the U.S. to go to war. For Frank Rich, the lesson of Iraq is that Bush has empowered Iran while simultaneously trying to push the U.S. into attacking Iran. The problem is that Bush has lost the ability to control the lies. David Brooks draws a much bigger lesson from Iraq. Brooks writes from the context of movement conservatism, which denigrated the benefits of government, arguing instead that humans did not need government to spontaneously organize. Thus, Brooks concludes that Iraq proves human nature is inherently violent and tribal.

It's almost sad to see Brooks renouncing key parts of conservative doctrine. I also have libertarian tendencies, and I sympathize with conservative economic arguments that that state is inherently oppressive, while individual humans are a constant wellspring of creative innovation as long as the state does not intervene. However, Iraq is a special case because it was never possible for Iraq to be a testing ground for conservative ideals. From the beginning, Bush had a singular vision of Iraq as a vibrant capitalist democracy that simply needed to have Saddam Hussein removed as its dictator. Thus, as Thomas Friedman always says, the central question about Iraq has been whether Iraq fits one of two descriptions. The first description, which can be called "good Iraq", says that Iraq is filled with good, creative, generous people who simply need to be relieved of Saddam Hussein's oppressive rule in order to express their natural goodness. The second description, or "bad Iraq", says that Iraq is filled with greedy, unscrupulous, murderous, tribal, sectarian people who will kill each other without a moment's notice if they aren't separated or oppressed by a dictator.
In short, did Iraq need Saddam Hussein to maintain order, or not? Brooks concludes that Iraq needed Saddam Hussein to maintain order, and he extends this conclusion to all aspects of society: human nature is cruel, and without order we will kill each other. Humans need structure and order in education, parenting, and society in general.

The problem with this perspective is that Brooks makes a conclusion from a false test case. If I were going to test human nature, I would not do it with inmates in a maximum security prison where the inmates have simply learned how to be cruel to each other. Brooks' conceptual flaw is thinking that Iraqi human nature can be separated from the effects of Saddam Hussein's tenure. It's the same flaw as thinking that a person is somehow rehabilitated by serving 30 years for murder. Instead, the person merely learns to become a better killer.

Conservatives have a strong tendency to ignore the effects of one's environment, assuming instead that all human behavior is determined by human nature, or some sort of fixed internal mechanism. They blame liberals for going to the other extreme in thinking that the environment is responsible for all human behavior and that there is no such thing as personal responsibility. In reality, human behavior is the product of the interaction between individual intentions and environmental context. The general term for this view is "situation ethics", but the reality is that one must know the details of the environment in order to understand the effects of human intentions on that environment. One cannot be separated from the other.

On Creating

One of the reasons I enjoy academia is because I am able to use the classroom as a forum for discussion and debate about issues that affect the world and my students. There are many professors, such as Stanley Fish, who disagree with my reason. Fish thinks a university is supposed to do two things: uphold standards and show students a diversity of resources. When it comes to anything else, such as helping the world or affecting people, Fish argues that only those people who are trained in the profession of helping the world or affecting others should be doing that. In contrast, the university should become a sphere of analysis that is isolated from the concerns of the world. In his latest piece, Fish argues that even the act of creating itself must be divorced from the concerns of the outside world. Whether it is painting a picture, taking a photograph, writing a story, composing music, or any other act of creation, Fish argues that the act must be considered on its own terms, no matter what other people think of the final product. Thus, whether the audience likes the product or hates it is no concern of the artist. The artist's sole concern is the art. The affect the art has on other people is incidental.

The best way to understand Fish's stance is to accept two principles: the idea of Platonic Forms and the idea of a division of labor. The idea of Platonic Forms entails a specific conception of truth: According to Plato, truth exists apart from human considerations. In this way Truth is very much like math. It never changes. More important, truth still exists even if humans don't. In order to perceive truth, the effort must be divided into separate tasks. That's where the division of labor comes in. If, for instance, we want to pursue the truth provided by math, we turn to a mathematician. If we want to pursue the truth of literature, we turn to a novelist. Each task has its own standards such that it is a craft that can be perfected. Outside of the academy or the artistic process, this would be like saying Tom Brady, the quarterback for the New England Patriots, is interested only in winning football games and improving the process of winning games. The affect on the crowd is incidental. If a person wants to see a great football game, that person should turn to someone who is specifically trained to play football.

I reject these principles. Truth is highly dependent on human perception. It cannot exist apart from human existence. This is because the only reason we seek truth is to improve human existence. We care about truth because we care about ourselves. In order to pursue truth, we need an improved understanding of the various elements of human existence. This improved understanding can only come through the study of the systems that affect humans. Every system affects every other system, and so we require interdisciplinary study to understand all of them.

In short, we cannot separate all issues from the contexts that produce them. Now, there are some cases in which we do want to separate an issue from the context that produced it. Wise words may be uttered by a person who is clinically insane, just as a sane person may produce falsehoods. It is important to consider the words with the context. They must never be considered in isolation. It follows that art, or any creative work, must be considered both on its own terms and in terms of how it affects the audience. One cannot be separated from the other.

What is a Democrat? What is a Republican?

Most political thinkers and analysts do not bother with party affiliations. Instead, they discuss political orientations. They talk about liberalism and conservatism, and how these ideologies or political philosophies are reflected in government. However, over the past 2 years the party label has become much more important and significant. Part of this is because of the influence of the Iraq War on American politics, and part of it is because of the influence or globalization. The rest is the emergence of political candidates that are either repulsive or appealing, but seldom in between.

The Iraq War is a major force because it is the most pressing issue driving today's political environment. Many Democrats have created a litmus test for democratic presidential candidates: if a candidate was against the war all along, or was initially for the war and has since turned against it, that candidate is viable. As a result of thie new litmus test. the previous standards for being a democrat have been tossed away. It used to be, for instance, that a Democratic candidate for any office was judged on two related criteria: (1) how long the candidate had served in a previous office and (2) how many innovative proposals the candidate could produce. These previous standards existed for a simple reason. Most democrats identified government as a source of positive, constructive change in society, and so a candidate for political office had to prove that he or she had the experience working with government, and the ingenuity to apply government solutions to difficult problems. However, before the Iraq War many Democratic Politicians voted to authorize it for various political reasons, including a desire to get the subject back to liberal issues (health care, education, social security, the economy) and the belief that war would happen only as a last resort. Thus, many democratic politicians were fooled by Bush, and are now suffering as a result. To be a Democrat to means that you cannot be fooled by political calculations to do something that is wrong.

This litmus test thus excludes Sen. Hillary Clinton as a viable presidential candidate, despite her years of experience and her detailed policy proposals, because she is deemed by many democrats to be the quintessential calculating politician, whose calculations obscure her judgment concerning right and wrong. In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama is a viable presidential candidate because, despite his lack of experience and detailed policy proposals, he is deemed by many democrats to have shown good judgment all along about right and wrong. As Frank Rich writes, the prevalence of judgment as a criterion over experience and policy expertise implies that, for many democrats, Obama should run for president now, before the Senate turns him into just another calculating politician who lacks sound judgment about right and wrong.

Globalization is the other force that is shaping our politics. The central challenge posed by globalization is this: Can the United States turn its citizens into educated, hard-working employees and entrepreneurs who can compete with educated, hard-working employees from China, India and Eastern Europe? Even if the U.S. can do this, do American citizens want this? The answer, for now, seems to be that the U.S. can train its citizens for a globalized world, but American citizens don't want to be trained yet because globalization only benefits the very rich, not the poor or the middle class. Many democrats are highlighting what they call the "middle class squeeze", which entails middle class Americans losing good jobs and replacing them with worse jobs. "Good" jobs have the middle class troika: high income, pension, and benefits (education, health, dental, eye care, etc.) "Bad" jobs, in contrast, lack these things. Instead, they are likely to have minimum wage, no pension, and no benefits. The Democrats point out that many hard-working Americans have lost the good jobs and now have 2 or three bad jobs to replace them. Thus, with globalization, the income levels for poor and middle class Americans have dropped while expenses for a middle class lifestyle, like real estate, education and health care, have risen. The debate is over how much income levels have dropped and how much expenses have risen.

For Democrats, the income levels have dropped dramatically while the expenses have risen dramatically. For example, a typical democratic argument may be that, because of globalization, a married father of 4 has gone from a 100k/year job as a software engineer to three $20k/year jobs working at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Arby's on a contract basis. This story is simple: American workers are suffering under globalization because all the high-skilled knowledge-based jobs are being sent to India, China, or Eastern Europe, and American workers have to choose from a small pool of poorly paid service jobs. However, David Brooks writes that globalization isn't as bad as most Democrats think it is. He argues that income levels have not dropped much and expenses have not risen much.

For Republicans, the requirements are different. Part of the problem for Republicans is that there is no real definition for being a Republican anymore. In the past, a Republican supported low taxes, small government, and limited foreign military activity. However, under Bush most of these principles have been violated. The federal government has grown enormous, and there is perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only part that has remained the same is low taxes. Thus, many Republicans are trying to define themselves.

The presence of repulsive or appealing candidates is also a big factor. Most voters consider the personality of the candidates in addition to the policy proposals. The Democratic party has the unusual benefit of being represented by three popular presidential candidates: Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In contrast, the Republicans are fielding some very unpopular candidates, or even unknown candidates. Bush is slipping below 30% approval ratings, while McCain is becoming unpopular for supporting the Iraq war. That leaves Mitt Romney and Rudolf Giuliani. Romney has switched has political beliefs to become palatable to different voters, first running as a liberal Republican in Massachusetts and then running as a conservative Republican in the primaries. Thus, many voters don't know if he has any principles at all. Giuliani gained fame as a mayor who responded to a terrorist attack, but otherwise most Americans have moved on from the terrorist attack.

Hence, Bush is repelling citizens from the Republican party while Clinton, Obama and Edwards are attracting voters to the Democratic Party.

The Great Mismatch

It is a general truism about American politics that two forces shape the country: market forces and the heritage bequethed by the founders. The founders play a significant role because they gave us the Constitution, and their words, specifically Hamilton's and Jefferson's, gave us the tools to interpret the Constitution. Thus, the history of the country has largely been a contest between Hamilton's emphasis on the need for a strong central government and Jefferson's emphasis on the need for states to have strong rights against the central government, and the need for limited government. Thus, the market should provide for citizens' needs first, and government last.

More important, the philosophy guiding the market is one of supply and demand. If there is a demand for a good, a supplier will arise to provide that good. Thus, the important historical areas of the country have been characterized by politicians who come to the rescue exactly when the country needs them. This starts with the first president, George Washington, the "Father of our nation"; continues with the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, who saved the union; then with Franklin Roosevelt (32nd president), who helped the country through both the Great Depression and World War II. In the post-World War II era, America has seen a number of so-called greats: President Johnson gave us the Great Society; President Reagan, the Great Communicator, gave us the end of the Cold War. Now, we come to the present time, which I call the Great Mismatch.

If every past era has produced nearly perfect leaders who responded to the needs of their time, our era has produced small leaders who are completely out of touch with the needs of our time. Our leaders are so small that they end up getting into colossal fights over irrelevant issues. We try to tell them which issues are important to us, yet they insist on looking the other way.

Take two examples: (1) the use of contractors to provide services that used to be provided by the federal government, and (2) Sen. Joe Biden's dismissive attitude of Sen. Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. In the first example, we see a mismatch between the requirements of waging 2 simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the use of contractors to do everything. The result is predictable: poor quality work, rampant waste, and lack of oversight by Congress or normal citizens through the Freedom of Information Act. In nearly every war that the United States has been involved, the size of the federal government has grown, taxes have risen, and there was a general sacrifice by the citizens to win the war. In contrast, during what the federal government calls the "war on terror", taxes have been lowered, the size of the volunteer army has remained the same, and federal government has allocated even essential services like intelligence and defense to contractors.

In the second example, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is probably one of the most articulate, if not the most articulate politician in the United States today. Obama is offering a remedy to our political culture that nearly everyone wants: unity instead of polarization, a willingness to work with the other side instead of demonize the other side, and, most important, a willingness to consider facts instead of ideology as a motivating factor in policy. Yet, Sen. Biden argues that Obama is just another flashy politician who lacks substance.

The United States does not need more expert politicians or policy wonks in government. We already have a very educated government that still can't seem to end what everyone considers to be a disaster, the Iraq war.
What the United States need more than anything else right now is vision: a vision of the nation that everyone can work toward, and a vision of the world that our allies can help us implement. Over the past decade, we have either had fear and paranoia, or a complete absence of vision. When politicians like Barack Obama or John Edwards start to offer vision, it's time for us to listen.