How to Be a Decent Person With Rational Political Beliefs (Part 2)
By: Tyler Piteo-Tarpy
Tags: Conflict, Society, Philosophy, Politics, Principles

How to Be a Decent Person With Rational Political Beliefs (Part 2)

If We Can Agree on the Following Principles, We Might Be Able to Actually Improve Our Country

Clarification:

In the last essay, I pointed out that cancel culture is like violence in that it can only be prevented by the threat of retaliation, and I used a quote by Philosopher Karl Popper about violence as this analogy. However, I now believe I need to include more of that quote to better convey the message I intended:

If he is willing to listen to your arguments without shooting [canceling] you, then he is at least infected by rationalism, and you may, perhaps, win him over. This is why arguing is no waste of time — as long as people listen to you. But you cannot, by means of argument, convert those who suspect all argument, and who prefer violent decisions to rational decisions.

So, what I meant is that those who value harming others over rational engagement with disagreements should be treated accordingly. Anyway, moving on.

Respect history:

This principle relates to another aspect of the previously mentioned cancel culture, but it also goes beyond that. The recent rise in popularity of tearing down statues is a specific attempt to “cancel” or erase the meaning of the statues, whatever the mob thinks that is. Now, I am not completely against removing certain statues; I understand how monuments to Confederate figures can be seen as inappropriate.

For example, Robert E. Lee’s historical significance consists mostly of his attempt to split the Union apart and ensure slavery continued in the South; I would likely vote to remove a statue of Lee from my community if others presented a petition with a solid case because I don’t think his actions are worthy of memorializing. However, there are limitations to how far I would go with this stance because of the principles of rationalism and respecting history.

No one should be tearing down statues illegally because they are offended by them; we live in a democracy that should value rationalism, so the only way to go about removing statues should be through the legal process, petitioning our government and voting, after hearing cases from both sides. Mob rule is inherently irrational and destruction of property or vandalism is criminal activity that all decent people condemn.

The second problem with the way this movement has been conducted is that it disrespects history by ignoring or even rewriting it. While starting out as removing just Confederate statues, the mob has now broadened their definition of “unacceptable” by tearing down or defacing statues of people like Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Matthias Baldwin, and Ulysses S. Grant.

We can debate if the flaws of these people are bad enough to overshadow their good accomplishments, but we must also place them into historical context while doing so. The mob specifically objects to both these conditions, both principles, and so show their hand as specifically attempting to rewrite the history of America and Western civilization. It is impossible to improve society this way.

Many countries have already been examples of what happens when people disrespect history; Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China most notably. The reason for these failures, apart from the massive problems with Communism as a whole, is that without history, or with a fake history designed for political power, we have no record of our mistakes and successes. Without that record, humanity is little more than a bunch of infants crawling around lost in a dark forest.

As George Orwell expertly put it in his book 1984:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

In an endless present, it is impossible to learn. When it is impossible to learn, humanity has no freedom. When humanity has no freedom, those with power control them. It isn’t worth seeking retribution for feelings of offense about the past when your actions will inevitably create a worse future.

Tell the truth:

Everyone knows this principle, and most people try to adhere to it inside and outside of the realm of politics, but there are some recent cases that perhaps some don’t recognize as an instance of lying. Everyone knows of the “black lives matter” slogan, and of the Black Lives Matter organization; however, while everyone agrees with the literal meaning of the slogan, some, myself included, disagree with the political agenda of the organization. By conflating the two, activists have engaged in semantic overload which lets untruthful people vilify and silence anyone who disagrees with the organization’s policy by calling them racist.

More examples of this problem are the slogans “all cops are bastards” or “defund the police” as they are hyperbolic language designed to attract controversy and therefore attention. The problems with this method of activism are that it doesn’t accomplish anything good and you have to lie to engage in it. Having the goal of drawing attention to an issue through controversy attracts irrational people and confuses rational people, which is the opposite of what you want in order to improve society.

Irrational people aren’t going to engage with you intellectually no matter what you say, so you should always aim to attract rational people. When using these hyperbolic slogans, rational people, who would still have engaged with you had you not lied, have to go through the process of having the lie explained to them before the rational discussion can happen. Even after that extraneous step, the rational person will have lost trust in you because you lied to them initially.