hopelesshappiness.com

Some believe that good government protects the individual by not allowing him or her to be swallowed up or bullied by a majority. Some believe that good government shapes the individual by encouraging and/or dictating behavior consistent with majority thought. Those who believe that good government should protect, believe the individual free to pursue (and to change direction and to ultimately determine) their own path and outcomes. Those who believe that good government should shape, believe all individuals to be raw materials necessary for efficient administration in the service of social harmony. Major arguments for the first scenario include individual autonomy, potential for greater satisfaction, and a sense of free will. Major arguments for the second scenario include a focus on equity and education, greater equality of outcomes and less individual hardship. We believe these two schools-of-thought to be mutually exclusive and in practice we have made them so.

I grew up as a fervent believer in individual autonomy. In hindsight, based on the white, male, middle-class opportunity I was afforded, my passion for pursuing my own path (some would say) was misguided. Some would say that my skeptical, angry nature led me astray. Some would say that I have made mistakes. And I acknowledge that I have created some hardship that could have been avoided by playing it safer. Regardless, my white, middle-class, male upbringing has been and remains a mitigating factor which from a distance makes me appear not-so-different from other white, middle-class, males of my era. Yet I believe that many (and perhaps most) of those who may judge my path to here as (even minimally) erratic, would claim to prefer individual autonomy; but it appears (to me) that our current day-to-day reality is effort toward social harmony and less individual hardship. Most anyone though, that would claim to prefer individual autonomy, would likely not argue that social harmony and less individual hardship is a bad thing; but they might argue it is not possible. And on the flip side, those who claim to prefer social harmony could not argue against individual autonomy because they do argue (as seen in their behavior and actions) for a selective individual autonomy granted only to those in power. So who do we choose to lead us? Those who empower their constituents but lack confidence in them? Or those who make rules for their constituents then exceptions for themselves? Or, in a less cynical light… Those who are realistic? Or those who are idealistic? Today, those in power, (both the realistic and the idealistic), are not those best suited for power. Today, our argument should not be about the ideology behind good government, but should instead be about the distinction between good government and our current state of affairs. Today (and until we figure out what good government truly is) perhaps we should focus more on specific definitions (such as defining hardship) and less on big picture ideology. Today there is a huge gap between the well-being of those few in power and the well-being of the (individual or collective) majority. I believe collective well-being does not necessarily have to preclude individual well-being. I believe truly good government could find a way to merge individual autonomy with social harmony and less personal hardship. The status quo would have to change. Current power structures would have to be toppled. “Radical” is not a word the old guard wants to hear. “Radical” is a word that the majority of us should embrace.

I have previously suggested a radical change, arguing for a universal basic income and the elimination of real property ownership. I believe this change could narrow today's ridiculous gaps in wealth and power, thereby creating a foundation from which individual autonomy AND social harmony is possible.

Many believe power corrupts. Many with wealth and/or power disagree, pointing to (anecdotal) examples of good that have come about as a result of their personal wealth and/or power. I believe that the blinding light (or eclipsing shadow) of wealth and/or power will always distort or skew reality and will always confuse or tarnish the ideal.

Freedom. The realistic want the individual to choose. The idealistic want to choose for the individual. Those leaders who lack confidence in their constituents don't work very hard to right wrongs, believing today and tomorrow should take care of themselves, thus maintaining selective equality of opportunity. Those leaders who make rules for their constituents work very hard to right wrongs, seemingly haphazardly, leaving little time for effective or efficient administration of today and tomorrow. Without today and tomorrow, right and wrong loses its meaning. Without today and tomorrow, there is no freedom to strive for.

…to strive for. This is important. I had a dream earlier this week that reminded me, nothingness is filled with freedom. Existence is filled with restrictive obligation and responsibility. Existence creates a longing for freedom but will never allow it in any sort of pure or perfect form. The realistic desire an individual freedom. The idealistic desire a collective freedom. Both are laudable. Both are worth striving for. Both are ultimately, (in this existence), unattainable. (And perhaps) both are getting in the way of good government.

Many (especially those with wealth and power) believe wealth and power enhances freedom. In our current state, across all strata, material well-being is often seen as freedom or at least a path to freedom. If we could reduce our longing for inordinate material well-being, perhaps we could reframe freedom into a context of interdependent individual and collective well-being. So perhaps the focus of good government should be on radical change that would reduce our collective desire for material well-being by drastically decreasing the ever-widening gap between the privileged-and-inordinately-well-off upper class and the former middle class. Perhaps the focus of good government today could begin this radical change, (as I said approximately 500 words ago), by defining hardship and (now) by defining inordinate so we may begin the process of shortening this spectrum.

I am committed to the idea that radical change is necessary for progress toward freedom and (perhaps, ultimately) radical change is necessary for survival. Tomorrow depends on us moving away from the daily divisive minutiae of today.

There is a difference between educating an individual and changing the nature of an individual. Traditional Conservatives want to educate and be educated. Progressives want to change and be changed. Granted, some things need to be changed, but I believe the change should come about as a result of education and choice, not as a result of big government dictating a collective sense of acuity or morality. Unfortunately in this process of discussing and arguing conservative thought vs. progressive thought, in recent years we have created a new power conservatism that interprets education as instructive exhortation. This elite conservative has no desire to learn as the progressive learns – from credentialed expertise. This new conservative believes he or she has all the knowledge necessary from tradition and from his or her own indoctrination. This elite conservative believes that because a progressive desires to use their learning as a tool to manipulate and change the nature of an individual, the learning is bad. This could not be further from the truth. The learning is not bad, (though personally I would agree that the progressive slant is skewed). For the conservative though, the learning could be used differently: as a tool to conserve and advance equality of opportunity, allowing the best of an individual to come about; (which as I understand it, is the original purpose of Traditional American Conservatism). To deny learning because it is a progressive tool to be feared, leads the elite conservative to work to advance regressive thought, which plays out as oxymoronic as it sounds. It is closer to the truth to make the following observations:

1. The elite conservative leaders use fear as a tool to encourage the majority conservative to deny knowledge, and
2. The progressive leaders use fear as a tool to encourage the progressive majority to deny equality of opportunity.

I believe in knowledge and I believe in equality of opportunity. But in our current state, what we are left with is ignorance and a feeble, unworkable attempt at equality of outcomes. Education is not populist rhetoric. Education will not magically transform reality into a Garden of Eden. Education should not incite arrogance or insecurity or fear. Education should lead to knowledge that first facilitates survival, then allows one to pursue personal well-being, and only then naturally enhances a collective well-being. As a culture we have become averse to education. We have come to think of learning as a social exercise that encourages amicability and conformity. We have come to think of debate and argument as an activity that builds confidence and reinforces certainty. We have come to think of activism as a learning exercise that encourages allegiance to a specific faction or ideology. We have lost our way. We no longer know “how” to think. Thinking has become a superficial exercise in futility that offers an illusion of free will. We no longer know how to listen for understanding. We no longer know how to consider a differing opinion, how to analyze the process by which another individual may have come to their belief, or how to incorporate the best features of their thought into my thought. I promise that every ideology has best features and to understand the thought process will lead to a melding and evolution that can only result in greater depth and advancement toward (both individual and collective) well-being. And isn't that what we are all striving for? Imagine: A purposeful entanglement of old and new knowledge that will enhance and advance individual and collective well-being.

E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler to a congressional committee in September: “We are committed to the highest quality science. Good science is science that can be replicated and independently validated, science that can hold up to scrutiny. That is why we're moving forward to ensure that the science supporting agency decisions is transparent and available for evaluation by the public and stakeholders.”

Translation:

E.P.A.: In order to determine public health regulations we require transparency which means we need your raw data to validate your study's conclusions and yes that includes patient information which we realize you can't give us because of privacy protections which means your science is not valid.

Science: so you are saying that in the interest of science, you are going to ignore science?

Uncle Sam: Yes. And furthermore we are going to invalidate previous science that does not meet our standards for transparency.

Trump Voter: Great! So for example if you outlaw the science on cigarette smoking, I have no worries. Right?

Uncle Sam: Sure. Got a light?

Trump Voter: Here you go. Heavy smoker?

Uncle Sam: 3 packs a day. You?

Trump Voter: No. Not at all. Only after sex.

Uncle Sam: (under his breath) – Yeah, same here.

This week I am learning. This week I began reading the book “The Conservative Sensibility” written by George Will. It is difficult to keep up with the constantly changing political landscape. I believe this book, (though I already realize some disagreement in philosophy), will help me to better understand some basic structure and ideology. I will start with some definitions noting that I am less than 50 pages into the book so planning to come back and see how my understanding changes. The terminology in parentheses reflects my impression at this time.

• Traditional / Classical Liberalism or (Foundational American Conservatism) – champions the rights of the individual; aspires to protect individual liberty and individual choice; believes individual rights are natural rights; believes government should be limited government; and believes there are universal political truths based on universal reason. According to classical liberals, classical liberalism is what the Founders intended.
• Empirical Conservatism or (Practical American Conservatism) – Like classical liberals, empirical conservatives espouse individual rights and limited government but empirical conservatives are skeptical of universal political truths. They believe a political system should be based on experience, must fit the circumstance, should include a small bit of nationalism, and will change/evolve over time. Empirical Conservatives work to uphold the Constitution. According to empirical conservatives, the Founders believed that a universal political system would not work for all nations.
• American Progressivism – Goal is to strengthen the power of the state; progressives are afraid that industrial society, (banks corporations, etc.), may become too powerful. Progressives work to upend classical liberalism and reinterpret the Constitution. Progressives work toward equality of outcomes at the expense of equality of opportunity.
• (Centrist Liberalism) – Centrist Liberals are not interested in conserving a social status quo but they do acknowledge the importance of maintaining traditional rule of law. They are wannabe progressives who work to accommodate change and autonomy (perhaps unavoidably) by prescribing political correctness and dictating (their idea of) morality, which leads to bigger government.
• (Speculative Nationalism) or (New American Conservatism) – Posing as populism, it appeals to emotions and a yearning for the good-old-days; attempts to maintain status quo and (perhaps unavoidably) threatens to do so by strengthening bureaucracy and the power of the few, falsely claiming this maneuvering as equality of opportunity. New American Conservatives pick and choose particulars from the Constitution (and from Foundational and Practical Conservatism, and even from Centrist Liberalism and American Progressivism) that will aid in their battle to maintain a favorable power structure.

According to my understanding, Foundational and Practical American Conservatism had been (for the most part) aligned and working well (or at least okay) together, keeping conservative ideology intact; and they are continuing to work together to find a single compatible identity. But because Foundational American Conservatism has not translated well to other nations and other circumstance in recent decades, in recent years a segment of Practical American Conservatism has evolved or morphed into Speculative Nationalism; i.e. a New American Conservatism. Where Practical American Conservatism is trial and error, Speculative Nationalism appears to be error and trial. To speculate is more impractical than to practice, assess and learn.

So now instead of two schools of thought – Conservative (which is liberal) and Progressive (which is not liberal) – we appear to have four:

1. Progressive, which remains as defined above;
2. Centrist Liberal, which is suffering from an identity crisis, wavering between progressive and liberal;
3. Conservative, which is working to find a liberal identity built on its strong foundation but offering greater fluidity and flexibility; and
4. New Conservative, which is full of bluster and promise and national pride and nostalgia and (from where I sit) hubris and arrogance and overconfidence and derision and division and ignorance.

Yet in upcoming elections, at least for the near future, it appears we will only be offered two selections:

1. Progressive/Liberal (depending on the candidate), or
2. New Conservative (with sprinkles of Foundational and Practical Conservatism for effect).

I believe that ultimately the New Conservative movement will once again be absorbed by Conservatism and (once Conservatism redefines itself) we may be stronger from the experience. If I had to choose one, I suppose this week's thought marks me as more of a Practical American Conservative. But I definitely lean toward some elements of Centrist Liberalism; I am also attracted to some Progressive thought, but in an ideal world I would prefer a Foundational Conservatism if there were such a thing; (I don't believe it exists). I believe this is consistent with personal belief and philosophy throughout my adult life, though in recent years it may appear that I have taken a hard left. This apparent change in direction though, (I believe), is a direct result of two things:

1. Continued learning, and
2. The evolution of an element of Practical Conservatism into Speculative Nationalism.

Even if/when Speculative Nationalism is reabsorbed by a coherent conservatism, I will remain to the left of where I was a decade ago. This personal effort and ongoing enlightenment though is wasted as long as I have only two choices. Our two party system is outdated. Within my limited understanding, currently our Republicans represent Conservatism and our Democrats represent Liberalism and Progressivism. It is too bad that we cannot have (at least) three or (better yet) four or five choices that would more accurately represent the three or four or five schools of thought predominant at a given time. Within the complexity of today's politics, either/or is not adequate to discern the subtlety and nuance (or lack thereof) within a given individual or ideology as represented by an individual. In this two party system it is too easy to sell broad strokes, sweeping gestures and blustery promises.

I will continue to read George Will and perhaps revisit this week's written thought as I continue to learn.

I am passive-aggressive. I am also assertively-aggressive. I began this week concerned with the disdain of others. I have discovered connections.

Disdain: to openly speak to or of another as a servile subordinate; an overt act of hostile humiliation; contempt.

In fairness I am not subject to excessively unbearable disdain, but I have come to realize that when directed towards me (often) the disdain is brought about by me; specifically by my overt (or assertive) aggressiveness.

Aggressiveness: a vigorously energetic display of initiative resulting from (for me) a striving for excellence.

I realize that what I do on a daily basis is not terribly important. And I realize that I have very little power in the grand scheme. And because of this circumstance I understand why one with more power would react with disdain to what they perceive as an unprovoked offensive initiated by a minion.

Still, what I do on a daily basis is what I do, and I cannot NOT strive for excellence.

Unfortunately, to be passive-aggressive is less productive than to be assertively-aggressive, but to be assertively-aggressive invites disdain which brings on passive-aggressive.

Question:
Is there a way for me to strive for excellence and not be assertively-aggressive?

• Simple assertiveness? I believe this would become semantics and still be defined as aggressiveness by many of those with more power.
• Persistence? I believe this is the cycle I am in now which defaults to periods of passive-aggressive.
• Redefine excellence as mediocrity and keep my mouth shut? Though I acknowledge that my definition of striving for excellence may very well result in (or appear to be) mediocrity, keeping my mouth shut is apparently not an option for me.
• Anticipatory empathy? If the purpose of the empathy is to foresee and then thwart or avoid my assertive-aggressive behavior, then I believe that will lead me (more quickly and more frequently) back to passive-aggressive behavior. If the purpose of the empathy is to create actual empathy so I may more quickly move past the proffered disdain, in theory I see how this might increase overall productivity but I am not sure (as a human) if it is possible for me to 1) consistently find empathy for another whose disdain is directed toward me or 2) consistently invite unwarranted beatings.

Perhaps instead of the question above I should ask the following:
Will we ever live in a world not divided into taskmasters and their minions?

• Likely not in my Lifetime.

So how the Hell am I to maintain my efforts toward excellence, increase productivity and avoid beatings?

Of course. The next most obvious answer is to become a taskmaster; because some of us are more suited to play that role, than others. Right? And because a taskmaster must have minions, the others are suited for that role. Right? It is clearly a division that reflects survival of the fittest. Right?

As a taskmaster though, no matter how my power is bestowed, (whether the title and role of taskmaster is warranted or not), I will come to believe that the title and role of minion is (far more often than not) warranted and deserved; and I will treat them accordingly. And as a taskmaster I will exaggerate my power and come to believe it is more deserved than it actually is; and I will wield that power in unnecessary and hurtful ways. Some taskmasters may learn to mitigate the inevitable exaggeration in varying ways, but wouldn't it be better if we each were our own taskmaster and minion, all in one? Wouldn't it be better if we could first interdependently suggest and discuss, and then choose our own contributions that would complement and support other's contributions? Wouldn't it be better if we would each and all strive for our own excellence? As one?

Likely not in my Lifetime.