The Lunacy of Automatic Equivalence

It’s become an accepted fact that each side has retreated to its own corner, or bubble if you will, and no longer feels compelled to debate the ideas on their merits or with objective information and data. It doesn’t really matter which side we’re talking about or what field of inquiry – anywhere there is a roughly equal division of opinion you will hear the refrain: both sides are equally valid; you need to respect my point of view. Hogwash.

The notion that merely because two sides exist they are equally valid and reasonable and worthy of respect has never been the case. While equivalence is possible, perhaps even common, it takes a lot more to establish that and a quick look at history or even some of the more egregious examples of false equivalency thrown about today. Any opinion needs to be supported by its own logic and moral justification without claiming equivalency ‘just because’, and we do have plenty of precedent to guide us in evaluating correctness and validity. Let’s start with the historical/political:

At some point in the past, most every significant topic of politics has been divided into two opposing sides supported in roughly equal numbers. Slavery, women’s right to vote, gay marriage, Social Security, etc. At some point they were all hotly contested, but with the accuracy of hindsight and a hopefully more evolved and improved view of humanity, we now know that quite often one side was wrong, really and truly wrong. So, by a true equivalence, there is nothing foundationally different about the many topics of today: transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Muslim bans. There is every reason to believe that future generations will clearly see that one side is right and the other is wrong, and while we can argue about which side is which, we cannot simply claim they are both equally valid or likely to win out in the long term. Respect is not automatically given, it must be earned through supporting evidence, sound reasoning, and moral justification.

A modern example is Evolutionary Theory versus Creationism. One is supported by decades of scientific study, literally tons of physical evidence, and built upon a logical structure vetted through the scientific method, while the other is based on the words of a religious text and relies upon the denial of any level of critical thinking or independent thought. So while 40% of the population may believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, the idea does not deserve respect or consideration – it simply is not equivalent in any sense of the word.

This isn’t to say that we are free to ignore any dissenting opinion. The point is that each argument must be judged on its own merits: raising the minimum wage has a slew of contradictory evidence and very reasonable arguments that it will either stimulate economic growth or crash the system through increased costs. Neither side can claim clear superiority though everyone can certainly decide which argument is most convincing. We have to take more time to listen to the facts presented, consider the connections being made, and compare that to our own beliefs and understanding of the world. It’s okay to take a side, and it’s necessary to listen to the other, but there is no need to admit equivalency where none exists.

Lessons from an Election

It’s been ten days since the election and there’s been a lot of talk and hand-wringing about the lessons to be learned from the result. What shows up most frequently in my feed is the idea that the elite coastal liberals are guilty of neglecting the rural working class, so they are to blame. Before we sink too comfortably into the narrative that blames those who fought against Trump for his victory, let’s review the facts.

First, when the final counting is done, Hillary will have won the popular vote by around two million. By a significant margin, more people in this country wanted to continue down the path we’re on under Obama than flip the applecart over. This isn’t to argue against the legitimacy of Trump’s win, but to point out this wasn’t a radical change in the nation as a whole as much as a shift at the margins and quirk of population distribution. It’s worth noting that those who make less than $50k went strongly towards Clinton while those in the next bracket up went slightly towards Trump and the rest were evenly divided. Trump won with the less educated and with whites, especially with the less educated white males. Clinton won with women and minorities of all persuasions.

But let’s get back to those neglected working-class whites, the ones in Middle America who feel abandoned by our government. They think the system is rigged against them, and maybe in some aspects it is, but our representative democracy is actually rigged FOR them: a vote in Wyoming carries four times the weight in the Electoral College as one in California; the two Senators from South Dakota have just as much influence as the two in New York. It’s this disproportionate representation that allowed Trump to win despite losing the overall vote. And if you look at the government these people say has neglected them, it’s primarily Republican. While our national government has been mostly split for the past couple decades, at the state level rural America is in Republican control. The majority of red-state voters have a Republican governor and a Republican legislature, and most rural counties have Republican leadership, so to blame the liberals for government’s failings requires looking away from the everyday reality of governance.

Compounding this error is the idea that we can re-cast this election as one of economic hardship and lack of empathy from the left. This is post hoc reasoning. We must remember that Trump entered politics pushing the racist birther conspiracy against our first black president. He launched his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists. The chants at the Republican convention and his many rallies were to ‘build the wall’ and ‘lock her up’, not ‘increase GDP’ or ‘stop TPP’. The only consistent theme in his campaign was hatred of the other. His economic policies, like his foreign policy and social issues, were inconsistent and incoherent. From saying wages are too high to agreeing to increase the minimum wage, to arguing against social security while promising not to touch it, to modifying his tax plan multiple times but still ending up with large tax cuts for the wealthy while INCREASING taxes on the middle class – the very people who supposedly voted for him on economic, not racist, grounds – Trump’s economics are a disaster for the poor and middle class. The very fact that we have to spell out it was the WHITE working-class who supported him, not the working-class as a whole, shows that this is about race no matter how much people want to talk about something else (anything else). I’m being asked to believe that these good, hard-working (white) Americans did not respond to the overtly bigoted rhetoric, but instead chose to believe a billionaire, one who inherited his wealth, with a documented career of screwing over the working-class, when he said that he would fight for them, despite stated policy that proves he will not. That seems far more insulting to their intelligence than simply calling them racist.

The truth is anything as large and complex as a Presidential election is going to have many stories, many intersecting issues that make reducing it down to one simple narrative incomplete and unsatisfactory. But we do it because it’s easier to comprehend. It’s somehow reassuring to say that our country chose Trump not because of its bigotry and moral failings, not because it was duped by a thinly veiled con-man who spouted easily disproved lies, but because our economy is not as good as it could be for white people in rural America. Yes, there is some truth in that, but if that’s your takeaway, if you hold that thought above all others from this episode, if you disregard the racism, sexism, and bigotry, if you ask for empathy for the middle-class white male while not demanding it for the oppressed minorities who suffer even greater indignities, there is something wrong here. Once again it’s White America calling for understanding and compassion towards white Americans while downplaying the concerns and considerations of those with darker skin. We have a lot to learn from this election, don’t let it be the wrong lesson.     

Don't Vote Your Conscience

Public request: Please don’t vote your conscience. Your conscience means nothing to the rest of the world. Your actions, and their consequences, are what matter. True morality is concerned with others, and results affect them, motivations do not.

I’m not telling anyone how to vote (or not), I’m just telling you why to vote (or not). You make your choice based up a realistic expectation of what you think will bring about the most good and the least harm for society as a whole (if you vote in your own self-interest you are being selfish, pretty much by definition). It takes a fair amount of understanding of the political system to do that. It takes a careful analysis of the past and real knowledge of not only what positions different candidates take, but what their possibilities of implementation are. There isn’t always a good answer. There definitely isn’t a quick and easy answer. If your only goal is to feel morally comfortable with your choice, chances are you’re not looking hard enough. Politics is ugly but it does make a difference in people’s lives – more so for those who have the least ability to influence it. Ask yourself some tough questions and be honest in the answers. 

If you want to send a message, will anyone hear it? Is it realistic to expect your message to make a change in the world? What's likely to happen in the meantime? A quick look at history suggests that any messages sent by ballot have gotten lost - the only thing people remember in an election is who won and who lost. 

The policy positions, the moral character, and the good intentions of the loser don't amount to anything. Voting for who you think will make the best President only matters if that person has a realistic chance to win. If you value voting for the best person, chances are we could all come up with someone we think is better than any candidate on the ballot, but we don't vote for our intelligent and kind cousin because even though she might make a perfect president, we know such a vote is wasted because she will not win. It's the moral equivalent of not voting, which simply lets others decide who gets to run things.

Does your vote support a party or group you want to benefit? Again, in our system, especially at the Presidential level, winning is the only benefit of an election. Voting for a candidate sure to lose does little to support their party. Donating money or time, voicing your support in public forums, expanding their reach and exposure all are good ways to help a party, but a throwaway vote does little.

If your goal in voting is to allow yourself to sleep well at night, to feel comfortable that you stayed above the fray and avoided the messy and imperfect choices that democracy delivers, you are being selfish. On the other hand, if you think your actions, however imperfect and regardless of the outcome, had a good chance at creating a better, more just world, then you did the right thing. Accepting reality is the first step in being able to improve it.

The Internal Inconsistency of Libertarianism

People at the extremes tend to believe their difference from the majority is proof of their correctness. Anything supported or believed by the masses is despoiled by its very popularity. It wouldn't be a great truth or world-changing idea if everyone knew it. While such reasoning may be reassuring to members of small groups who rail against the larger world, when you break down the logic it tends to more properly be a refutation of those ideas themselves. For example: Libertarianism.

The concept of Libertarianism is fairly straightforward: the government should not make choices for people; society will be better off if everyone makes their own decisions free of interference or guidance. It assumes that people are the best arbiters of what is in their own self-interest and will choose accordingly - the free market will save the day.

While you can argue about the efficency of the market, whether it is truly free, and get into an econometric debate that has no end, the real problem lies underneath those issues, because the vast majority of people, the vast, vast majority, are not Libertarians. The Libertarian Party has existed in the U.S. for over forty years and has accomplished nothing. It polls around 7% of the population (everyone's excited now because it might gather about 10% support this election). Those numbers show that when people make their choice, they do NOT choose Libertarianism.

So we must ask the question: why? Why are there so few Libertarians in this country? Why is there no great Libertarian country in the world? If people are truly rational, if their choices are in their own best interest and they reject Libertarianism, then it has to be because the idea itself is flawed.

Or - as most Libertarians will argue - people are wrong. Tthe only explanation for the lack of support is that people have not thought it through. They just don't understand. They aren't making the simple and logical choice that would lead to a betterment of their life. Of course, if that's true, if so many people over so many decades are simply incapable of making the correct choice, then the entire basis for Libertarian beliefs is flawed.

Whichever side you come down on, whichever flaw is in play, doesn't matter as much as the simple fact that Libertarianism's unpopularity proves it is impractical.

So why does anyone argue for it? Because it is in their self-interest. If you look at the demographics, it becomes clear. Libertarians are white. Mostly male. Mostly young males. They are the people who suffer the least amount of structural disadvantage in society. Not that they would admit that, but in our unequal society they have it the best. If life is a race, they are the group that has the head start, so it's not surprising they argue against any interferrence that might reset the race, any laws that would reduce obstacle for other people, or principles for organizing a society that involve redistributing the wealth acquired under unfair circumstances. Libertarians are true to their principles and have chosen a path that will benefit them the most, which is perfectly fine, but it's their argument or assumption that what is best for them is best for all that collapses under closer inspection. Society has rejected their logic and by so doing proved it false. For that, Libertarians have no answer. There is more wisdom in the masses than many individuals recognize.

A White Person’s Primer on Racism

I grew up a white boy in a white town. I never had to think about race. In school I learned about the history of racism - the horrors of slavery and the ultimate victory of the Civil Rights Movement - but I never was taught about the reality of today. Like most white Americans, I have mostly white friends, mostly white neighbors, and live in a mostly white community. Race just doesn't enter into my life.

As I got older I learned more about the world, started paying attention to viewpoints different than my own. When I heard a large group of people stating that racism was a current problem, not a relic in the past, I didn't see it directly. But as is my nature, I sought out information and facts to analyze their arguments; an attempt to find the truth for myself and come to my own conclusion. It took a lot of time and reading to get to the point where I feel comfortable that my opinions and judgment are based on reality and not merely a worldview limited by my necessarily small window onto society.

The other day I decided to write a post to collect many of the sources I found in my years of learning in the hopes that it would make such an endeavor easier for others and would encourage them to become more informed before passing any judgment. But in my research I came across someone who had already done the same. Instead of replicating his work, I want to direct people directly to his site and give him the credit for a clear and cogent summary focused on information. No preaching, no emotional appeals, just the facts:

[EDIT: Mr. Tucker's post is no longer available for some reason. Here are some alternative links instead:

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/08/racial-disparities-in-the-criminal-justice-system-eight-charts-illustrating-how-its-stacked-against-blacks.html

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002175/its-not-just-ferguson-americas-criminal-justice-system-is-racist ]

As Mr. Tucker lays it out, the data is hard to refute. Some people try - and he addresses most of the common arguments you'll hear in the comments. Before we can have a real discussion on the topic of race in America, it's especially important for those who don't have to experience it to understand what the rest of the country gets to see in their own lives. 

And for those who want to learn more, once again, I'll direct you to voices and information that has more legitimacy than my own, to people who know what they're talking about and deserve to be heard. It's a very small thing to ask that those of us who have been at the center of every narrative in our country to take the time to listen to a different perspective. Open up, show some empathy, and put in the effort to really learn.

If you don't want to put that much time into things, here's a fairly short article showing just the tip of the iceberg, but still enough to make the point: Institutional Racism is Our Way of Life.

Ta-Nahesi Coate's excellent summary of how we got to this state - know the past to understand the present. The Case For Reparations.

The seminal explanation of White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

Or for those who don't want so many words, so much reading, try listening to this kid: Royce Mann slam poem.

Hopefully this will get you closer to understanding the modern civil rights movement known as Black Lives Matter. The best way to understand it is to listen to what they are fighting for. You'll find it's much harder to dismiss their demands when you know what they are: Campaign Zero.

And to go with that, though it shouldn't need to be said, here's why 'All Lives Matter' (or any claim that we are beyond racism) misses the point and does a disservice to humanity. 

And if you want even more knowledge, here's another list of great resources: Curriculum for White Americans.

As a white man in America, I've been able to go my whole life without ever having to deal with race. A lot of people want to continue in that manner. Until those of us who are in the majority consciously choose to listen to the minority, to force ourselves to face something which might discomfort us, the people of color who are oppressed will continue to face injustices without the option of looking away. It's inhumane to ignore them, it's arrogant to deny the truth, it's too easy to let the status quo stand when it leans in your favor. I've chosen to enlighten myself and I hope others will do the same.