Exit Stage Neither: Intellectualism and Indecisiveness

I have noticed that the more I learn about a a political subject the more muddled it usually becomes.  When I first read about it, it is easy to come to a quick conclusion about the right solution.  However, as I continue to dive deeper into the subject, the more muddled the issue becomes for me.  All of a sudden the righteous indignation I may have felt at first transforms into apathetic surrender.  I surrender to the overwhelmingness of all the different arguments and facts coming at me from all different directions.  In such cases it has been easy to become aloof about the whole thing.  Instead of partaking in the debate, its easier to simply exit stage neither (left or right).

I have noticed this among other overeducated people as well.  Its easy to become apathetic because one sees everything as a game of tradeoffs, with no real right or wrong answers.  However a part of me misses the days when I had the simple conviction of right and wrong.  I miss the days when I was part of a side, and when I could be in camaraderie with those that agreed with me, and when I believed it was my duty to help convert the wayward to my way of thinking.

See, the less educated almost always have far more confidence in their convictions.  And often this confidence converts into more ready action.  While action is not always desirable, surely it must be better than the resigned apathy I often feel.

I just read an article about a play that has been out about Lyndon Johnson, the American President during the 60's.  He was not a well educated man, however he had conviction and knew how to get what he wanted.  It compared him to President Obama, who is very well educated but often seems encumbered by his education.  He wins a lot on style points and making well articulated speeches, but often he seems to lack the aggressive assertiveness and conviction to get his agenda passed.  It especially came through in Syria.  While he believed that an airs strike was the right thing, he was hesitant to act.  He clearly thinks things through, and is a very analytical person.  However it often seems this same tendency that often comes with education can become a a crutch.

Acting quickly is not always best, I mean the way Lyndon B. Johnson impulsively handled the Vietnam War certainly was a disaster.  He didn't think through enough what really needed to be done to win the Vietnam War, and whether he was really prepared to do what had to be done.  Instead he improvised piecemeal as was his style.  He lacked the downrange vision to plan ahead.  I imagine President Obama would have been far more hesitant, and based on my pure conjecture, I doubt he would have escalated tensions and probably would have let Vietnam fall to the communists earlier on rather than let thousands die in what proved to be a pointless war.

The contrast between the two Presidents shows that education is very useful because exposure to different views forces us to grow up in our own beliefs.  If utilized properly education can help us prevent knuckle headed mistakes such as getting involved in wars without a clear goal in sight or the proper means to achieve whatever those goals might be.  Vietnam was a classic case of war without a definite goal.  Essentially we wanted to just keep killing the North Vietnamese until they stopped coming.  However they had been fighting for 2 decades before we came.  Anyone that studied the history should have known that their resolve would not have been diminished by the numbers of their dead.  Meanwhile the government did not anticipate how quickly Americans would grow fed up with war that had no end in sight.  We certainly need to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them.

However while everyone can agree we need to learn from our mistakes, it becomes sticky once we try to decide WHAT exactly we should learn from those mistakes.  Their is no single moral lesson to draw from the Vietnam War.  Hawkish Conservatives learned that if one finds a cause just, one better dedicate the necessary resources in order to win it.  In essence, what was needed in Vietnam was an all out war rather than the restricted one we had.  We restricted war to South Vietnam, while conservatives argued we should have invaded North Vietnam.  Likewise in present conflicts we need to, "Go Big or Go Home."  Meanwhile, dovish Liberals learned that we shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs because they are too costly in lives and are unlikely to achieve much.  In fact they may even do more harm than good.  When the Iraq war was going on both sides kept arguing whether to increase commitment or to withdraw, both drawing from the Vietnam War for their beliefs.  

The fact of the matter is that one can make a perfectly valid argument for either, and that ultimately what it comes down to is the values you had before you approached the conflict.  Conservatives were committed because they saw the Communists as evil and a threat to freedom.  The liberals opposed the war because they did not see the communists as the enemy, but capitalists.  Then the argument takes on a whole new layer of complexity.  Now its not just if the war was winnable, but if it was justified.  Essentially the argument for or against a war can be made from not just one but several different angles.  The complexity quickly becomes apparent the deeper one looks into an issue.

You might have noticed yourself doing this even as you have been reading this, as you have digested the arguments for or against the Vietnam War you may realize that its not so simple.  This realization may even lead you to wonder how correct your beliefs are about everything else.  Before you know it you find yourself questioning everything.  You keep looking for the argument that will blow you away but you cannot find it.  Eventually you decide just to believe what you want to believe, but your faith in what you believe will never be the same.  You are now the jaded skeptic.

I write all this simply to state that I do not wish to exit stage neither anymore.  I am going to try to throughly read the different sides on each issue then I will come to my own conclusion.  More than anything I am determined to come to a solid conclusion.  I know my faith in my beliefs my not be the same as it used to be.  I may no longer have that "child like" faith that Jesus praises in the Gospels (books in the Bible if you are unfamiliar), however I am determined not to passively float by in my beliefs as I have.  I have let too many questions float around in my head, and it is time to resolve them.  

Hayek, Hipsters, and Nazis

I was reading Hayek, a libertarian philosopher/economist/sociologist, because as of late I have been seriously questioning the basic assumptions of my political philosophy.  Therefore I have decided to start reading various thinkers of different political persuasions.  However, the funny thing was that while reading "Individualism and Economic Order" I came across this passage that struck me violently. The author while discussing individualism, whom is German, discusses his first encounter with English and American contemporaries:

 "I remember well how surprised and even shocked I was myself when as a young student, on my first contact with English and American contemporaries, I discovered how much they were disposed to conform in all externals to common usage rather than, as seemed natural to me, to be proud to be different and original in most respects...Again and again you will find the same surprise about this tendency toward voluntary conformity and see it contrasted with the ambition of the young German to develop an "original personality," which in every respect expresses what he has come to regard as right and true.  This cult of the distinct and different individuality has, of course, deep roots in the German intellectual tradition."

Hipster

........sounds to me like he was describing Hipsters!  I could barely believe what I was reading.  Keep in mind this was written in the extremely early 40's, while the goose stepping Nazis ruled Germany.  I could hardly believe that the land of goose stepping Nazis could possibly have been the source of Hipsterism.

In a way it makes sense.  Germany in the 20's was notoriously known for having thrown off the yoke of all past traditions and to have fully embraced "modernity" and "individualism".  It rejected all that came before the first War, believing that all of it is what threw the nation into the "Great War" in the first place.  Many Germans embraced a "YOLO" lifestyle you might say.  Living as fast as they could cause you never knew when a day might be your last.  Also being unhinged from the past, tradition, and religion, many Germans turned to a ultra rationalistic individualism in which Reason reigned supreme.  Essentially everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

Dude from 20's era German movie that looks like a Hipster...
in fact he looks strangely like the hipster in the other picture.

The problem with that was that there was a lack of conformity.  Yes I said it, a lack of conformity.  As Hayek mentioned above, he was surprised that the Americans and British, so enamored with individualism themselves, would be so conformist in dress and appearance.   However, he goes on that they were dedicated to a different breed of individualism, theirs focused on the individual as an actor in society that must make the best with the limited information he has, while the German individualism placed infinite confidence in the individual conscious to Reason (with a capital R).  The two types of individualism lead to very different conclusions.  The British version lead to a degree of conformity because it was practical for the functioning of society, while the German version lead to extreme differentiation.  Many Germans, trying to attain perfection, went whichever direction their own, and only their own, Reason took them.  Therefore extreme differences in opinion, dress, etc. was inevitable.

The extreme differentiation led to a chaotic condition in German society where different factions were absolutely convinced that they were right, and that their way was the only way (sound familiar at all?).  Since their own Reason was supreme, discussion was not necessary, they already knew they were right.  However such a condition is not very workable for a democracy.   In a democracy the people must be willing to work together to a degree.  If compromise is not an option and is seen as evil, then its inevitable that democracy cannot work.  In this case only a absolute despot can impose order, since society is so fragmented.  His one particular view that he believes is absolutely right, will have to be shoved down the throats of everyone else, all of whom believe that their view is absolutely right.

From extreme individualism to extreme conformity

Thus the extremely individualistic and rational Weimar Republic (the name of the German republic in the 20's) morphed into the extremely conformist and irrational Nazi Regime.  Everyone believed they were right, but this absolute trust in individual reason led to absolute chaos, the only remedy was absolute dictatorship.

There is my history lesson.  Now please keep in mind that is only one element to the story, I do not claim that this was the only factor in the rise of Nazi Germany.  It was multi-faceted for sure, but looking at it from this angle gives an interesting perspective on our own society.  Hipsters are just one example of the extreme social differentiation that has taken place in our country.  We take "just be yourself" to such an extreme that we don't believe that we should have to change for anyone.  Even though we all do conform very much so to most societal norms, we still hold on a pedestal the supreme individual.  We believe nothing is more sacrosanct than the individual will, just like pre Nazi Germany. Thus we hold on high individuals that we agree with such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, as if their individual will was what shaped America into what it should be.  Its also explains why we so utterly and completely villainize those we disagree with politically, afterall we are all absolutely right.

However I would like to offer some hope as well.  Americans nowadays do not hold their own individual Reason as high as the pre Nazi German did.  Back in the day Reason and rationalism were held up as supreme, but nowadays its tolerance.  Most people, especially amongst the younger generation (the millenials), are much more humble about their own opinions, allowing room for much more finesse and doubt.  It would seem that at least in one category society is drifting away from the conditions for absolute despotism.  Nevertheless its hard to imagine this trend continuing indefinitely, because those that are more humble in their beliefs tend to get steamrolled by those assertive and confrontational (just look at Vladimir Lenin, seriously, perfect example, read a biography on the dude).  One can only wait for what is to come.  In any case it will be interesting to see how a society that is both extremely reliant on individual reason but is also extremely post modern and relativist will function in the near future.

P.S. just fyi I am not hating on Hipsters.  I just found Hayek's description of German students strangely like how one would describe a Hipster.  However I mentioned in the bottom paragraph that there is a very key difference between the two groups, mainly that Hipsters are tolerant and relativist in outlook while the German students Hayek was describing believed in the absolute ability of individual reason to find the truth.

The Elusive Art of Blogging

I will write about Toronto later, however I still need to upload my photos and I would rather include some cool pics with any article I write about that later.

So this post is going to be about the art of selling blog posts.  After writing blog posts for awhile one starts to notice what "sells".  Intriguing pictures sell.  Provocative titles sell.  Extremist rhetoric sells.  Pop culture sells.  Gossip sells.  Therefore the writer becomes torn between simply writing what pours from his heart and mind and writing what will sell.  Sometimes the two align, but often they don't.  I have had a number of articles that did "well" (as in a couple dozen views), and one that did really well. Coincidentally, the one that did the best, "Country Boys", my first post, was both heated in its rhetoric and about pop culture (I suppose people search on google far more for country boys than for Syria...).  Meanwhile my recent article on Syria did bad, only 6 views.  In it I was balanced in my analysis though I definitely made it clear where I stood.  It was political, and moderate, therefore, no views (Also I did not include a picture, another grievous error).

In many ways the battle a writer fights between his soul and his ambition reflects a larger debate on the influence of individual action in society.  I believe that a single individual can only have a voice in so far as he is willing to conform that voice to a group.  I am not saying that an individual cannot have a unique viewpoint and still succeed in writing or politics, etc., its just that the way he sells his message will have to be crafted in a way that society will accept it.  His argument or his beliefs will have to build off of where society already is.  If his argument requires dragging society too far from its place of origin, it will inevitably fail from simply being too cumbersome and complicated, even if in the end its the logical conclusion.

Here is an example, amongst "millennials" (my generation) it would be easy to argue for the legalization of all drugs.  We have been conditioned culturally to believe that individual freedom is absolutely sacred, plus we have a very negative view of government.  Both of these views makes it an easy step for someone to argue that all drugs should be legalized.  Meanwhile, if someone was to argue that cigarettes should be made illegal, most everyone in my generation would disapprove.  They would agree that cigarettes are bad, but that it is the individual's choice, even if second hand smoke along with  their poor health affects far more people than just the solitary individual who engages in the act.  Tie this with the implicit belief that government is unable to enforce almost anything (the failure of prohibition is bound to come up eventually, even if few if anyone has ever read about why prohibition failed), and you have a cocktail for complete failure for the anti-cigarrette activists.

The first argument is far easier to make amongst the millenials because of our cultural presuppositions.  In order for the anti-cigarette activists to make any headway, they have to prove that cigarettes are not only bad to the individuals involved, but that it hurts society as a whole, and that banning cigarettes is enforceable.  Its a far more formidable task, doable for sure, but would require a long struggle to change people's presuppositions.  Either that or they would have to find a clever way to sidestep the whole argument or align their movement in an entirely different ideological discourse (say try to make it an issue of inequality).

Sorry I digressed so much, but I believe this is vital to understanding the writer's dilemma, or really the activists dilemma.  One wants to stay true to one's beliefs, but often one must mold one's beliefs to the current culture to have any impact.  If I want to have a say politically, I would have to stay extremist in rhetoric to grab people's attention.  I would have to be indignant constantly, but then of course stay vague about any solution.  After all once you offer solutions you are bound to upset several of your readers.  Therefore just constantly go into raging fits about the latest political fiasco then voila! You will get views.

However doing so will essentially eliminate my voice.  While people  are reading my stuff, I am really not accomplishing anything.  I am simply filling demand in the market for political divisive bile (I know I have ranted before, but to be fair I was motivated by my own strong opinion, not a desire to get views).  I want to maintain my voice while still engaging mass society.  How in the world I will do that I do not know, but the answer must be out there, somewhere (If you have any ideas, feel free to share).

Syria: to Strike or not to Strike?

When it comes to foreign policy my views have changed radically from my youth.  I am in the same boat as millions of Americans that were once die hard hawks that believed America could and should spread democracy around the world, and have become embittered and disillusioned by 2 long, costly, and indecisive occupations.  Now many Americans that were once very enthusiastic about intervention overseas, now believe America should sit back and watch while all sorts of unmentionable atrocities occur.

This disillusionment has transferred itself over to people's views on Syria, and the recent debate over whether to intervene.  Assad, the leader of the regime, has used chemical weapons on his own people.  Back in the day, say 10 years ago, that would have provoked an outcry for intervention.  Nowadays most people just grumble about how military intervention of any kind or scale is a hopeless endeavor.

I believe we have learned our lesson, and rightly so, from our previous interventions of the last decade. We went in overly optimistic about how easily modern democracy will take root and spread in societies unaccustomed to it.  We also underestimated our enemies, believing they would cower before American might (In fact we were so confident we did not bother leaving troops to occupy towns we entered while moving through Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Guerilla fighters would come out and kill right after we left).  We have been humbled, and for the foreseeable future I doubt any American will be calling for some more nation building.

Nevertheless, I believe we have also over learned our lesson.  Many in America are veering towards extreme isolationism.  I believe whats going on in Syria is a case in point.  While its unclear whether the rebels are better than the Assad Regime, it is clear that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.  Over the last century the world has strictly banned the use of chemical weapons, and I believe to let Assad get away with using them would be a clear signal to the more unsavory regimes around the world that using such a weapon is okay, and maybe perhaps would even encourage the development of more WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Essentially I believe to not retaliate at all would be to open up a can of worms.  Once you let one get out, all of the worms are gonna reveal their ugly selves.  Regimes will know that chemical weapons no longer will stoke the West's ire.  In addition regimes like Iran may take it yet another signal that we won't do anything about their nuclear weapons program.

In addition while the chemical attacks so far have not been responsible for the majority of casualties.  If the regime gets desperate enough its very possible they could begin using them in even larger quantities than now, resulting in untold death and destruction.  We better makes its clear that using them is not allowed before such a travesty occurs.

Many may believe that killing with chemical weapons is no more terrible than whats already occurred in Syria.  a hundred thousand died before the attacks, why intervene now?  Well first off I already argued that the main reason is to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons, but secondly, while chemical weapons may be an arbitrary line, I believe its an arbitrary line worth making.  I believe its necessary to at least hold back the violence what little we could, plus stoping chemical weapons attacks is a far more feasible goal that stopping all the violence in Syria.  Sending a few well targeted missiles could scare the regime into holding back their chemical weapons, while trying to stop all the violence would be almost insurmountable in comparison.

One more argument many are bound to make is that to strike at Assad would essentially be throwing in our support for the radical Muslims on the other side.  I believe that this argument misses the point.  The point of the attack would be to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons.  If he stops using them we won't strike anymore.  If the rebels start using them, we will strike the rebels.  Yes, I acknowledge that striking Assad could wind up helping the rebels, but in my opinion so be it.  I think upholding a principle and preventing the proliferation of chemical weapons, along with other WMDs, is a worthwhile goal, even if Assad's terrible regime is replaced by another terrible regime.

Americans should think twice before instinctively denying all intervention in Syria.  Punishing the regime for the use of internationally banned weapons would help reinforce international standards of humane treatment and hold back the proliferation of chemical weapons, and perhaps even nuclear.  Meanwhile, doing nothing would only encourage their use.  Punishing the regime does not have to mean American troops on the ground.  Punishing the regime does not mean we are siding with radical muslims, it means we are doing what little we can to prevent current, and future, atrocities.

The Iron Cage

Recently President Obama proposed a "grand bargain" to Republicans.  He proposed a corporate tax in return for infrastructure and education spending.   In the hyperpartisan atmosphere in congress of course it fell through.  However what struck me most was how Republicans opposed it because it would "hurt small businesses."  I will not go into the details of the argument, but what it pointed out to me most was the disconnected most Americans feel.  We are long past the age of small businesses, now large corporations rule supreme.  Americans long for the age when everything was smaller scale, from businesses, to community, to agriculture, to industry, to politics.  Yet why do Americans long for this?  Why are Americans so opposed to the giganticism that seems to be taking over every area of life? 

I believe the reason why lies behind Sociologist's Max Weber's "Iron Cage" theory.  Basically the theory proposes that in large bureaucratic organizations where tasks are more or less automated and systematized, the workers will feel estranged from their tasks and will be powerless to improve them.  In Weber's words:

"Rational calculation . . . reduces every worker to a cog in this bureaucratic machine and, seeing himself in this light, he will merely ask how to transform himself… to a bigger cog… The passion for bureaucratization at this meeting drives us to despair."

The increasing scope of various enterprises from churches to companies inevitably means that more people will have less of a say in their organizations, and that more power will be concentrated in the hands of a few.  I have made a simple illustration below to explain my point.

Small businesses:              Manager Owner 

                                 employee            employee

Larger business:                    Owner

                           manager                    manager

             employee    employee     employee    employee

The point of the pyramid scheme above is to show the degree of separation between those who make the decisions and those who work underneath.  In the hypothetical small business above, the employees can directly communicate to the owner, who calls all the shots.  Meanwhile there is a degree of separation in the larger business.  The employees have to go through the managers first.  

Now imagine this magnified a thousand fold and you will have what many large businesses are like.  The "cogs" at the bottom, have almost no say.  Meanwhile, power is more concentrated and less dispersed than it used to be.  While in the past when most businesses were smaller scale operations, there were more people making the decisions, dispersing power.  As companies continue to consolidate and increase in scope, a smaller and smaller segment of the population will hold a larger and larger proportion of power.

Its a hard theory to grasp but it explains a lot of the animosity and frustration we have in popular culture towards big business and the federal government.  A society where local politics and small businesses rule the land will inevitably be a more democratic society because power is more dispersed.  More people are making the decisions, and the people making the decisions are more intimately connected towards the people their decisions affect.  If the CEO of a fortune 500 company lays off thousands of his workers, most likely he knows none of them.  Meanwhile, the owner a small restaurant likely knows everyone who works under him on a personal level.  The more intimate connection will make him more likely to think twice before laying someone off.    

The unfortunate thing is that the inevitably result of our socio/economic/political system has been the increasing scale and giganticism of everything.  Instead of going to Joe's diner, we go to Mcdonalds.  While explaining exactly why this has been the result is difficult and beyond the scope of this article, its clearly happening nonetheless.  

I have talked about this in a very academic fashion so far, so to better relate it to everyone out there I will give an example.  Joe is a worker at a company with a net worth in the billions.  He is a tiny "cog" in the behemoth, but he values his work and wishes to do well, thinking maybe he can move up in the company.  However he notices that a certain process is inefficient and needs to be streamlined.  He mentions it to his manager and goes back to his work.  He continues to make a fuss, but ultimately his idea goes nowhere.  He never hears back about it, and eventually he settles into defeatism and just does his job.  Instead of suggesting improvements that will actually make a difference, now he settles for doing things that will create the impression he is a hard worker, like staying late, working through lunch, and being a yes-man for his boss.  

While some organizations are better than others, its inevitable that systemization and specialization of tasks that accompany bureaucratization create an entangled web of functionality.  Changing your tasks affect several around you, meaning that changing one simple process could mean that the whole system would have to be overhauled to implement it.  Say you file application forms, and you notice the applications are unnecessarily long.  You suggest cutting out some parts and simplifying the language.  However since the form goes to several different departments, such a simple improvement would require the approval and coordination of several departments to implement.  The seeming low scale importance of the reform, along with the scale of the task, would probably result in this proposal being ignored, not to mention office politics.  

In essence our collective voices feel weaker and weaker.  The smaller organizations that provided channels for involvement and decision making are disappearing, resulting in the estrangement of Americans nationwide from the power wielding institutions.  Americans long for the day of small businesses because unconsciously they are demanding more power over their own lives.  Americans are sick of feeling helpless, and cry out for empowerment.  Both parties manipulate this longing for votes, without almost ever delivering on the promise.  The reforms that government has passed have either empowered big business or big government, while largely doing almost nothing to empower the individual.  Americans are foregoing involvement in the decision making process, whether of their employer, or of their government, or of their church, because they feel like their voice has no say.  Implicitly we are saying that trying to change the world, yet alone our cubicle, is pointless.  We have no say anyway, the elites now decide for us.  Welcome to the Iron Cage.