A different debate, part two: Four failed viewpoints

Most mainstream political discussion derives from three major points of view or ideological comfort zones, liberal, conservative and compromise. That can be thought of as the standard 3-point political universe, i.e., politics as usual. If pragmatism is included, one gets a theoretical 4-point political universe. However, that is not politics as usual. Pragmatism is of limited relevance to mainstream American politics, at least to the extent average people see it. If pragmatism in service to the public interest does dominate somewhere, it is buried in the bowels of obscure government or political party operations. But, there is another possible point of view for political thinking and belief and that is religion.

Japanese destroyers

It is the case that we already have a 4-point universe where religion or spiritual belief, not pragmatism, is the fourth foundation of politics. Presidents Carter and Reagan were fairly comfortable with religion in politcs. In the Bush presidency, Christian religion was a major part of thinking that guided policies and actions. President Bush made it clear that Jesus was his inspiration and guide. Cabinet meetings started with prayer. For a while, daily briefing cover sheets for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld included Biblical quotes. Those things, and others, made faith in Christian ideology plus faith in conservative ideology the two controlling viewpoints in the Bush era. With liberal and moderate ideologies are included, we had a 4-point political universe. That is what we have today.

So what?

How is any of this relevant to politics and our political and economic situation? That's what we should focus on, isn't it? Aren't we all reasonable people who use logic and reason to come to our political opinions? Those are reasonable questions. But are the answers to those questions true? For the most part, they are not. How people see the world and what influences perception is not irrelevant. It goes straight to the heart and core of the problems behind discontent with politics and political failures.

Japanese sailor on Japanese destroyer taking opictures

To get to the point, do average Americans mostly use pragmatism and reason to come to their political opinions? Or, do they rely mostly on ideology, faith and/or emotion? Listen to how hard core liberals and conservatives describe each other and the world as they see it. They can be intelligent and articulate. Nontheless, listening to opposing ideologues as they describe almost any fact pattern, situation or policy choice is hearing to two different things. The liberal and conservative perceptions of reality are usually mutually exclusive and they usually disagree about what ought to be done. Given that reality, and it is reality, if opinions are mostly grounded in facts and reason, how can such huge differences in descriptions of reality possibly come about?

Reality doesn't care what you think

Of course, such differences cannot and do not exist. There is only one reality and it is independent of anyone's ideology. What we get from the hard core extremes and people guided mostly by faith is their perception of reality, which is not necessarily true unspun reality. In politics, the dominant liberal and conservative ideologies give us their versions of reality. Those usually incompatible versions have to come from somewhere. The logical explanation is that it comes from innate human hard wiring that allows for faith in a perceived reality regardless of the real reality. Where else could such differences come from? There is no other source.

That leads to some straightforward conclusions. Pure faith distorts reality. It has to. If reality wasn't distorted by something, we would have smaller and maybe fewer gaps in how we perceive reality. If faith, religion in a sense, didn't distort reality, how would it be possible to maintain it in the face of conflicting reailty? Perception certainly is reality in the mind of one who perceives, but it is not necessarily reality in the real world.

Of course, most all ideologues of all types will disagree. They know they see it all clearly. They know their vision of reality is right. They know their political opposition lives a fantasy. They know it. Its an article of faith, especially for the religious. Yes, it is an article of faith. Does that make all sides right or wrong?  If they are all right, how does one reconcile the differences? If one is right, which one? Why chose one over the other? If all three versions of reality are distorted by faith, why think that any one version is acceptable?

What about the moderates?

Does that mean the moderate version of reality is a distortion as well? Moderates are often, maybe usually, interested in pursuing compromise between the liberal, conservative and maybe religious viewpoints. If that is true, does their world view feed off the distorted versions of reality coming from the left, the right and the spirit world? Or, maybe their version of reality comes from elsewhere. If so, where? Since the end of the second world war, moderates had political power and influence on occasion. Moderates are part of the story. Did they mostly fail? Or, did they mostly succeed by leaving us in a better situation than would have been the case if they did not have power or influence? Were they neutral? That's a hard call. It is easier to trace successes and failures to liberal, conservative and religious ideology than to moderate ideology, whatever it is.

On the wrong track

Many people believe that our political and economic affairs are unacceptable, in disarray and generally "on the wrong track." America recently dominated and had all advantages anyone could ask for. Despite the advantages, here we are. The same goes for religion in politics. It had its chances. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to reject the liberal, conservative, religious and maybe moderate versions of reality and politics as flawed.

They all had power on one or more occasions with access to great wealth and human talent. All four sources of authority had chances to succeed. Nonetheless, they collectively failed. What does that leave as a viable, but mostly untested source of authority? Unless you believe that moderates are mostly pragmatists, pragmatism is what is left.