On Integrity and Persuasion

 Woodrow Wilson believed in the League of Nations, precursor to the United Nations... and he spent his last days campaigning to an American public that just didn't want to hear it. He didn't live to see the US join the UN.

I think about that, because I think that's an important commentary on... well. Democracy, the will of the people, and the social contract.

Sometimes the public doesn't go along with what we think is right. Maybe the timing isn't right, maybe it's too early. Maybe you're the one who is wrong and they'll never go along. But if we are to hold true to our founding beliefs, we have agreed that this is how the game gets played.

You can campaign. You can protest. You can write op-eds and make speeches. And then people vote. And if they don't vote the way we want, then we just have to keep working at the campaign.

I didn't like what I had heard about Obama using his executive powers to get around Congress, because workarounds to deal with a broken system don't generally fix said system. I thought that the longer, slower, harder (but more appropriately American way) would be to campaign loudly about all the things he couldn't do due to lack of control in Congress.

And in the next election, if people wanted what he was selling he'd gain more seats.

That's overly simplistic and naive, I know. Incumbents have a tremendous advantage in keeping their seats, mid-terms almost never favor the incumbent, convincing people to pay attention to complicated and boring messaging like that is hard. Most elections are more about local politics then national, etc.

So also work on fixing those things. And understand that (no matter how much you despise the other side) everyone who has been elected represents a segment of our population. I may personally think they are wrong, but I wouldn't ever completely disregard that opinion because doing so also means disregarding the millions of Americans who, for whatever reason, voted for that official.

What's currently going on undermines all of that, undermines the peaceful mechanisms we've had to resolve our differences, and threatens to destroy the social contract.

I won't dwell on that because you either know that already, or you're probably never going to be persuaded. I want to add on something a little different.

It's always challenging, and frustrating, when you believe in something deeply and other people just don't seem to get it. Sometimes it even feels hopeless, or like a lost cause. I wrote the other day about how illogical we are, but if logic is useless then what hope do we have?

And I generally think - why do I value logic so much? If we're hopelessly irrational, if being unbiased and logical seems so impossible, then how did we ever develop such strong preferences for logic and rationality?

It can't truly be that hopeless. 

Answering those sorts of questions sometimes means digging deep. It means realizing that what seems like a simple statement 'using logic is good' actually comes from a deep foundation. On the importance of science, critical thinking. That there is a truth (at least for some things), that that truth can be discovered. That we can create experiments and test hypothesis and use our minds to reason things out.

I didn't bring that up because I wanted to actually discuss the importance of logic and rationalism. (I lean towards what Khalil Gibran said about it.)

I brought it up because of the process I described. Of trying to persuade people, digging deep into our reasons for believing... and the thing is, if it persuades us then it has a pretty decent change of persuading others. Going through that process helps make good arguments that can change people's minds.

Arguing in such a way also comes from a deep place of integrity. Not 'integrity' in the sense of 'someone who is honest and forthright', but 'integrity' in the sense of 'integral', and 'whole'.

You are speaking your truth, and I have the distinct impression that speaking in such a way resonates more. You can call it 'speaking from the heart' or saying things that have 'the ring of truth', whatever you want to describe it. It can be powerful.

The reason I talk about bad faith actors so disparagingly isn't just about how they're trying to manipulate people into doing what they want. It's not just about the arrogance involved in thinking you know better than everyone else, and are entitled to lie to them  in order to get them to do what you are utterly convinced is right.

It's also because doing so loses that integrity. If you think one thing privately, but argue differently in public simply because you think that's what will get people to support your cause, then you are not speaking your truth. What are you scared of? You believe those things for some reason. Afraid that if you say it publicly, if you let everyone hear and argue, that someone will point out the flaws in your arguments?

Are your beliefs that poorly thought out, that weak? Maybe they should be challenged then. 

Either way, what you are trying to do is completely at odds with our deeply rooted belief in the social contract and the importance of government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

Democracy, Biases, Self-Interest

I think the Founding Fathers had a pretty good read on human nature, so they set a system up that tried to take our own foibles into account.

I am not so sure it works, in the long run.  It's amazing how we can laud democracy in the abstract sense, talk about how wise the public is in choosing who they do...

and in the more specific sense, there are a lot of people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, or are poorly informed, and it seems amazing that we get anywhere at all.

But I didn't start writing this post to go into all of the curious blend of optimism and pessimism I have when watching our political process in action.

I brought it up because I wanted to talk more about self-interest, and biases, and what makes our system work.

We have this whole separation of powers thing, all these different competing groups, because the whole idea was that the competition between these groups would prevent any one faction or branch from dominating.  Worried about the power of the presidency?  Let's appoint a Supreme Court justice for life.  And insist that Congress approve.  Worried about a legislature that's out of control? Give the president veto power.  Worried that public opinion will be easily swayed by emotions and poorly thought out yet popular programs?  Add in an electoral college, and a Senate that (originally at least) was appointed by state governments rather than popular vote.  Worried that your less populated states will dominate politics unfairly?  Make half your legislature based off population.

Worried that the effect of that will crowd out less populated states?  Give each state two senators in the other chamber of legislature.

This whole intricate system is supposed to keep government working, not because it's necessarily perfect (it can be messy, and slow), but because the self-interests of each different group should help balance out the growth in power in another group.

Students of American history apply this concept to all sorts of things.  They may decry the rise of presidential power, because they think we are losing that balance.  Or discuss the freedom of the press as yet another balancing force.  One not created in the Constitution, but one that plays its role.

We have a system where individuals can have a say, which is pretty amazing.  Yet more and more people feel like it's broken.  (Though many feel it's broken in different ways...so it's not like there's unity on which way we should be going)

How can a democracy work when people don't participate, and don't vote?  When political parties get a stranglehold on the system, making it harder for third parties to rise?  When parties seem to be more and more polarized, and cater to the extremes of each side?

I'm not even talking about the role of money here, though any internet search will find plenty of articles on it.

And how do we come to a consensus on good policy, when self-interest dictates certain policies even at the expense of the whole?

That's a problem that's been with us throughout all of human history...

It's too easy to get cynical and depressed, to think everyone is always out for themselves and that it's unrealistic to expect anyone to think of the greater good.  Especially when we can be so subtly biased. 

Take any class on human cognition, or logic, and you'll discover how horribly illogical we all are.  How easy it is to get biased, to jump to conclusions.  To only listen to those who agree with and confirm our existing beliefs, and to shut out and deny the ones who challenge what we think.

And yet somehow, history shows that this isn't always what happens.  That sometimes people do listen to evidence, and change their minds for clear and logical reasons.  That sometimes leaders do act for the greater good.

How did we ever come to value logic, and the role of the devil's advocate, and all these other things if human nature is so determined to be self-centered, illogical, and biased?