Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Even assuming you mean "objectively," this is more than a little bit sad, on a few different dimensions.
|
I do mean it objectively. And it is sad. Look around us at all the polarization. Are these mobs of animated and often angry people all thinking subjectively about each issue? No. They're emoting, or they're sticking to some ethos. It's impossible to not do so as I think those instincts are hardwired into us. But it's worth recognizing this flaw in our makeup.
And I don't think people have to become robots to overcome this. We merely need to remind ourselves everything is unique. There are endless scenarios we encounter, and hewing to some core set of "beliefs" can impede our ability to most effectively and cooperatively navigate them.
The "bundling" element of our politics, I think, has to go. I think it has a lot to do with this polarization because it compels people to get behind sets of issues rather than address each issue individually. It forms groups aligned against one another. It compels a devil's bargain with each vote, and it stifles innovation.
Right now, if climate change were a referendum issue, you might see a Green New Deal. But because climate change has to be bundled into a pile of other issues that split the people who'd vote to address it, it's going to be 85 degrees for the next three weeks in the Northeast, and Greenland is melting.
John McCain argued for unbundling cable packages years ago - for allowing an ala carte ordering of channels. We need to dust off his speech there and apply it our politics. This picking sides shit based on "beliefs" and "values" is just creating warring armies of idiots.
