We Are All Flying Through Space Surrounded by Mad Hairless Apes

[Jasper]

Moderates are more dangerous than extremists. That's the basic claim of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Aside from the fact that this claim originates from a man whose reputation is beyond reproach, this basic idea has exceptional merit that extends well beyond the scope of his struggle for equality. In politics, moderation or "centrism" is, to state it simply, the belief that the best stance on any issue lies squarely in between both extremes. But this approach is non-idealistic, and lacks any real convictions, and puts one in mind of realpolitik. I would argue that the strongest position in politics is one that makes bold claims based on sound ideological principles. In the case of white moderates in Dr. King's letter, the moderates were mere quislings. In the case of moderation in the political arena, they are treacherous opportunists. To make your political judgments based on a "happy medium" between the most outlandish of extremes of an issue is to say "I do not care about the issue, I care only about settling the controversy." It implies lack of involvement, and it relegates control of what rhetorical frames are used to the people whose views are possibly too extreme to reconcile with your own. No, politics is not the arena for lukewarm compromise. I would rather have a 100% American War Machine or a socially progressive pacifistic nation than suffer the torment of crippling indecision. In my mind the downfall of our political system is that the duality of politics, along with the plurality voting system are coinciding to make consistent decisions impossible. What I mean by the duality of politics is probably obvious to you. You cannot look at any instance of politics without seeing an example of it. Red vs. Blue. Liberal vs. Conservative. Democrat vs. Republican. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. The list is tiresomely binary. What I mean by the "plurality voting system" is possibly less plain to see, since so few American citizens have ever considered it. Why do we only allow one vote per person? In a nation where every decision is made on the basis of some ideological polarity, why must we choose between one or the other? It is the "false dilemma" writ large. Do you want to pay for health insurance, or do you want an economic recession? Do you want to have your baby, or do you hate God? Perhaps you have noticed these sub-textual arguments in the news and other media, as I have.

Have we even stopped to think about the very basic - and very frightening - question: "Why do we even have political parties?" In a system where each person gets only one precious vote to choose their leaders, yes we do need parties. A hypothetical example: if my main political motive is gun rights, but I don't necessarily mind either way about abortion rights, why not pool my votes with the anti-abortion people? They vote gun rights and I vote pro-life. I stand to gain more votes for my cause, and I don't lose anything I didn't already care about. Also, the might of a political party makes it hard to vote for the candidate you want, rather than voting against the candidate you don't want. In other words, we vote "yes or no" to each candidate, and so each candidate will have a number of votes ranging from 0% to 100% of the population, and the person with the greatest percentage of approval wins. It is a system that is naturally more inclined to yield elected officials that more people are happy with. For example, in election '08 I would have been very proud to vote for Dennis Kucinich, but I knew two things: Firstly, that he was very unlikely to win, and secondly that if the Republicans won, I would have to leave the country, never to return due to the catastrophe of Sarah Palin. So, scared of a crazy idiot vice president, I voted for the guy most likely to beat McCain, President Obama, who isn't exactly liberal, despite his opponents' spin. From a game theory perspective, political parties make a lot of sense. But people have become attached to politics that are "color-coded". Perhaps cognitive dissonance has changed their minds about those other views that come prepackaged with the party they chose. If I don't like taxes to begin with, I might become a Republican. But with time and exposure, I might start to "buy in" to the other ideals of Republicanism, since they come as a package deal. It's part of how we think, speaking from a cognitive science perspective. But what if we didn't have to band together like wild animals to fend off ideological bogeymen? Would we need political parties? No, but how could that ever happen? It turns out that there is a different voting system, called "approval voting", that lacks the pitfalls of our plurality vote. It is exactly the same as our current system, but for one detail: You can vote for whomever you approve of, no matter how many people you approve of. It may seem unfair, until you start thinking about it: If everyone has unlimited votes, it fundamentally changes the dynamic of our democracy. Since our government is based on representation, it is essential that the people who represent us are accurate depictions of our attitudes and beliefs. This way, one need not play games with color-coded politics. If a candidate shows themselves to be of good quality, one can support them without worrying that one is wasting a vote. This is one likely cure for the blight of moderate positions, because when we vote for the people we really want, instead of against the people we don't want, we are no longer compromising. And when nobody has to compromise, everybody wins. Approval voting would be conclusively more likely to mitigate the ill effects of centrism, while striking a balance of desirable traits in our electorate.





Short of a miraculous change in the way American democracy works (or doesn't), what are the other options? America has always done democracy one way, and despite it's recent failings few will be amenable to a fundamental change in procedure. And many will say that, since approval voting is untested, it can't be trusted with anything as important as a presidential election. It seems to me that the only possible outcomes here are: We accept things the way they are, or not. If we are to reject the current state of affairs, how are we to go about it? Henry David Thoreau is one of America's most historically significant intellects, and in his essay "Civil Disobedience", he argues the need to hold personal conscience over the law itself. He claims that a wise man will not leave justice to the chance of a majority vote. Everyone is aware that certain laws and legislations are unjust. The question is not whether to try and change them, the question is whether we should obey them while they are law. At risk of using a slippery slope argument, I would say that to suffer injustice even whilst speaking out against it is to accept that it will never change. What congressmen need to know is that their laws are so unpopular that they may be voted out of office for supporting them. The best way to demonstrate that a law is unpopular is to disobey it in front of everybody, repeatedly, with complete conviction. I am confident that even basic laws such as theft and homicide would be repealed if enough people were to stand up against them in this way (Luckily, that is incredibly unlikely). Thoreau argues that in some cases the remedy is worse than the injustice, and that in those cases it is permissible to allow injustice. But many situation are remediable with a relative minimum of trouble. What, really, would we lose by ending the Iraqi occupation, or the Patriot Act? There are many arguments about this, but my answer is not very much. Thoreau's way of fighting these injustices would be to illegally resist these legislations. So far, voting against them has not borne any fruit, nor has speaking out against them. We are complicit in their execution because we allow it to happen at all. Is Thoreau wrong about civil disobedience?




People say this country believes in democracy, or that we are founded on principles of freedom, or variations on that theme. What people don't say is that this country is controlled by a binary electoral shenanigan propagated by an obsolete voting method that systematically marginalizes the interests of the majority to the benefit of preeminent economical powers. And they don't fail to say that because it's a cumbersome, rhetorically heavy-handed sentence, they fail to say it because it is a notion that is at best incompletely articulated by the prevalent voices of contemporary politics to this day.

[LMNO]

Despite the blocks of text, there are some good thoughts up there.

You can't always ignore the system, so how do you get what you want? 

The problem I have is where you say, "Everyone is aware that certain laws and legislations are unjust."  There is no agreement which law falls under this umbrella

There are a large amount of people (a majority, perhaps) who don't agree with you.  And a lot that don't even agree with your premise, no matter if they have been brainwashed, or honestly believe it.

So, how do you convince the masses that they're wrong?

[Jasper]

Ha, you don't.  You show them, and let time do it's work.  The only way to convince some people is to institute an idea for a few decades, because those people are convinced that the only good ideas are already old and established, or were new when they were younger and more open minded.

[Richter]

Moderates = Making sure NO ONE goes home happy? 
Chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry?  Give everyone a cheapass freezerpop, or melted, low fat neopolitan instead.

[Jasper]

It's not that moderates are intentionally ruining everything.  It's just how our system handles them.  They can't help it.

It's like Dok's thoughts on democracy.  50% + 1 is not the best system for pleasing a wide majority of people.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The only issue I have with the idea is that I have yet to see an extremist that held a rational position. They may hold a great position on a specific topic, but then they also hold several others that appear just on the other side of Crazy Town.

I mean the extremists on the Right have some good ideas like "..." well that was a bad example.  

No, seriously... Some of the extremists on the Right, are really all about a fiscally responsible government. They don't want the government to spend money that they don't have on stuff that isn't truly necessary. Out of all the arguments for or against Iraq, Rep. Ron "I'm a crazy extremist from Texas" Paul has the best argument.

'We can't afford it. It's not our business. WTF?"

Of course, most of his other positions make me want to puke.

"More blacks are in jail, because they commit all the crimes!!"

I think extremists, by nature, believe that they KNOW the TRUTH and the FACTS and are as troublesome as any True Believer.


That being said, if everyone were moderates, nothing would ever get done. The extremists seem 'extreme'ly useful in pushing the boundaries of what the Middle is willing to consider.If it hadn't be for Dr King, civil rights may not have happened for years, or at all... Yet, without the support of the moderates... those 'extreme' issues would never get the traction they need.


As for political parties, I think it boils down to tribes. People line up with one side and then see it as a competition between their Team and the Other Team. I don't think that consciously consider what the platform is beyond whatever their touchstone issues are. (Most, not all... YMMV)

[Richter]

It's not that moderates are intentionally ruining everything.  It's just how our system handles them.  They can't help it.

It's like Dok's thoughts on democracy.  50% + 1 is not the best system for pleasing a wide majority of people.

Also keep in mind we're not democracy, we are electing representatives to vote for us.  Too many lesser of two weevils situations.
A moderate may seem lackluster and spineless compared to an extreme of either left or right, who's passionate about resolving a certain issue.  Right issues + right constituents + extreme possition on them, and it gets easier to get elected. 

Sidenotes:  -we voted for change, and it worked.  I've never seen money fly out of people's pockets so fast.
                -50 Cent is a metaphor for change. 

[Jasper]

Well,

I did say the best stance was "one that makes bold claims based on sound ideological principles."  The example being Dr. King's ideological principle of equal rights, which is sound.  He then took a bold stance on its implementation.  That's sort of the pristine example of what I'm talking about.