Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Groupthink and Pragmatism

Groupthink or the "mob mentality" is a very interesting phenomenon that we see all over the world, but I am particularly interested in the American brand of groupthink. While in other parts of the world groupthink is largely of nationalistic, ethnic or religious origin, American groupthink is different. Granted, we have elements of nationalistic, ethnic or religious groupthink in our country, but the American form of groupthink is highly political and frankly a little puzzling. Traditionally Americans have liked to think of themselves as individualistic and self-reliant, even the most ardent American progressive usually has an individualistic bent, but thats not exactly what I am talking about.

In a nation as vast and diverse as the United States of America I have a hard time understanding that nearly 100% of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast for one of the two major parties. Do these parties really represent our country? To the outside observer I think the two party platforms would seem to contradict themselves and appear to be bit contrived. So why do we tend to fall into line? Are we intellectually lazy? Do we like the comfort of being part of a larger group and were simply born into a two party system?

On one side of the aisle we have a party that embraces individual or "social" freedoms they don't extend that same tolerance to people of faith who are open about their opposition or disagreement with elements of their platform. When it comes to economic freedom they believe its the government's right and obligation to bend the will of the individual to achieve any stated goal that they deem necessary or beneficial to the collective. They often fuse their interests with large corporations and organizations in a fascistic attempt to achieve their goals.

On the other side of the aisle you have a party that embraces economic freedom and sees private property as an individual's sacred right. However, they don't see personal behavior on the same plane. They believe that morality and "family values" are of the utmost importance for societal health, which necessitates the use of government power to impose their moral will on the population. While they would never acknoledge it or agree, they are essentially seeking to create a Christian Caliphate inside the United States.

So where are their principles? I wish I could say that I cannot understand how people can compartmentalize their views and operate as though principles apply to one viewpoint and not another. 3 or 4 years ago I would have been counted amongst that latter party. So often I talk to people who apply sound reason in every other aspect of their life, whether its their businesses, their relationships, or a sporting activity, but as soon as politics or religion enters the equation they absolutely lose their minds. I think what happens when we stop the groupthink, we discover our principles. It is my assertion that if you stop the groupthink and discover your principles then you will never be happy with our current two party system. In my view the political spectrum is divided into three segments:

Classical Liberals-

A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html

Pragmatists-

A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism

Statists-

The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

When you break it down both of our parties are pragmatists, due to their irresistable urge for government action if anything undesirable happens. The problem with this is time and time again throughout history this has led to statism and tyranny in one form or another. So where do you stand? What are your principles?

6 comments:

  1. Well I don't Identify Democratic.
    What do you mean they don't extend the same tolerence to people of faith?

    When you were talking about a third Party I was saying you should start your own party. Don't you I dentify or support for the time being... Liberterian?

    I feel so long as corporations are considered persons, it will be much harder to form another party.
    As an individual I vote for the person closest to how I feel about something. I know now it takes much more than that. It takes nearly a daily activity to e-mail, phone calls to our representatives to remind them why I voted for them. I am proud of my representatives. Not a single one lacks integrity, however Oregonians, especially Portland is very good at keeping them in-touch.
    Honestly though I have to go back to the Campaign Finiance issue. Regardless of who we have voted for, on either side, plus third party.
    We have the best Congress money can buy! There is the problem for me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. that was my post Josh I don't know why it did it Anonymous. Tara

    ReplyDelete
  3. As far as the people of faith issue is concerned I am referring to instances in the past where Liberals mostly on the far left have tried to have Christian speech against the homosexual lifestyle labeled as hate speech and banned similar to what they've done in Canada. In the United States however, they have that right no matter how wrong or repugnant you or I may view that belief.

    Yes, I do count myself as libertarian.

    As far as campaign finance, I view that as a free speech issue also and the supreme court agreed with me. As far as corporate personhood, that is something that I am still on the fence about and that may be something that we can come together on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it's a little absurd to expect someone to check their religious beliefs at the door when they step into government, since their belief system affects their decisions about issues. It would be like asking an atheist to disavow belief in Darwinism before taking a seat.

    What you've made a good argument for however is limited government. Individuals are inherently flawed and can not be trusted with power. We should keep power for ourselves to the maximum extent so that we don't have situations where someone at the top can force their beliefs on everyone else.

    Case in point the abortion issue with the healthcare bill. Some believe abortion is ok and should be funded, others believe it's not ok and should not be funded. The argument lost in the debate is how about not allowing the government the power to provide healthcare, so you can use your money for abortions if you choose, and I can choose not to use my money for abortions. I think that is the rational solution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know that I know what your talking about as far as Canada banning Christian Speech or well labeled as hate speech. I remember some discussion over that here. What I remember from it is, much of what is being discussed now, in the news. "Inflammatory language inciting violence." Both, I think are rellevant to your "group think" discussion.
    I feel people can say what they want about homo's and recently Obama. Right, it is a free country.
    I feel that people in leadership rolls or speak to a mass populas, Pasters, Congressman, etc.
    have something of a responsibility to what they say if it has incited violence. Like the Abortion terrorist websites.
    It is a free country... so I just hope the Lord will sort it all out.
    If I hear stuff I don't care to hear. I can choose not to be around that person. I have the freedom to do that.

    Mr. Smith, I don't know anyone "ok" with abortion. I believe a person has a right to decide. Their own belief system. FREE WILL.
    Also look up the HYDE ammendment, there is already a law in place that says the same thing the Executive Order written recently for Stupak, No federal Funding for Abortions exept in cases of rape and incest!

    ReplyDelete
  6. John- I don't, "...think it's a little absurd to expect someone to check their religious beliefs at the door when they step into government, since their belief system affects their decisions about issues. It would be like asking an atheist to disavow belief in Darwinism before taking a seat."

    In fact the whole concept of limited government is rooted in the idea that on some level others check their beliefs at the door and choose not to impose their beliefs on others whether economic or social. I do acknowledge that an idividual's beliefs informing thier viewpoint and that's completely acceptable in my view as long as they respect every other individual's right to do the same.

    John, Tara- The individual is sovereign and owes no obligation to anyone or any institution to justify their behavior and they should be free to do as they wish as long as their behavior doesn't do physical harm or take away another individual's freedom. As far as abortion is concerned, I view the unborn child as a sovereign individual entitled to all the rights and protections of any other U.S. citizen. This is not due to some spiritual or mystical belief, but is an outgrowth of reason. I think most can agree that we believe that life starts before birth, and we can also agree that we really don't know when life begins before that. My thoughts are that due to our inability to prove when life begins we should err on the side of life and protect the unborn. In essence we are saying that the mother's rights end where the child's begin. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete