Thanks for another banger of an exposition, Mike. I too pine for the days of nuanced thinking, though I’ve long come to realize that a disturbingly large proportion of the US population believes their own philosophical framework and worldview are superior to those of the Framers. I also couldn’t agree more about the corrosive effects of reductionist thinking and the death of nuance, but I feel you missed naming the obvious villain in your call to action. We don’t “need” nuanced thinking any more than we “need” a more educated populace. The view from the ground often sounds like, “I have this profound insight, and if only others could see it, things would be better.” This, I believe, is counterproductive. As much as you fancy yourself a philosopher, I sense you’re after something more actionable than mere navel-gazing.
Consider this: if we hold Enlightenment as the ideal to strive toward, what stands as its antithesis? I would venture that it is a worldview that upholds unquestioned authority, conspiracism, and an uncritical adherence to the status quo. Coupled with the reality distortion field of post-truth thinking, your writings consistently sound the alarm over these pernicious tenets taking hold. This begs the question - who in their right mind wants to see such a worldview come to pass? We know the answer and it's not the masses. Those who are driving off the cliff are well-aware that the most dangerous reality in America is that most people, in substance, agree on the vast majority of significant policies.
Yet the elephant in the room remains: a mind-control propaganda apparatus that transcends politics, poisoning the minds of the masses, relentlessly concentrating money and power in the hands of the those who seek total dominion. This goes beyond mere class warfare, for there are plenty of “good people” who happen to be rich (yourself included, I suspect). An ingrained, powerful meme now seeks to normalize sociopathic behavior by eroding shared values and vision, substituting an enlightened civilization with a dystopian machine whose sole purpose is to feed the insatiable appetites of broken men.
Mike, if you’re going to rally us toward the ideals of Enlightenment, I believe shifting our focus to exposing and dismantling this apparatus (the true engine behind our collective descent into tribalism and anti-intellectualism) will resonate more deeply and demonstrate the practical power of philosophy beyond mere intellectual exercise. Let’s not settle for a call to nuanced thinking when what we truly need is a battle cry against the forces that corrode our shared values and undermine the very foundations of a just society. There’s a reason the word “woke” was weaponized so vehemently; the mad kings burning the enlightened world fear nothing more than a mass awakening, when we realize that together we can reclaim humanity and cast them back into the shadows where they know they belong.
It's such a shame that the United States almost immediately fell into a two party system. Combined with our system of checks and balances, a multi-party coalition system like they have in Europe and ranked-choice voting... we could have such a strong democracy. Alas, those that wish to see our democracy destroyed built a propaganda machine that used wedge issues and language like "left" and "right" to rip our country in two. For most of our history, the two parties at least agreed on the bedrock value of democracy. That's definitely no longer the case.
The emotional pressure of tribalism tends strongly to suppress free speech. Most of us are extremely cautious in voicing a view that seems to contravene the rules of the tribe - who wants to be cast out? It hurts. I, for example, favor nuclear power as essential to a low-carbon economy, but I seldom voice this opinion among my Democratic friends unless asked. Likewise, I oppose the inclusion of biological males in female sport - an issue that has become so incomprehensibly politicized that I could accuse someone on the other side of Transgender Derangement Syndrome. Note that I have looked at much of the scientific research on transgender "women" in women's sport from a layman's perspective, and almost all of it points in one direction. I write a newsletter for the running industry and follow athletics closely, and I'm glad that World Athletics--the governing body for elite athletic sport--bans biological males from competing at the elite and professional level. It's another view I keep mum about among people who know little about sports physiology and charge me with bigotry. Few people are motivated primarily by rationality when it comes to issues they care most about. Regrettably, that's just human nature.
It's worse than you think, Mike. "Left" and "right" are artificial constructs that are used to aggravate the nothing but trouble concept of "us" vs "them." It really doesn't matter what it is, as long as it promotes emotion, usually anger. George Orwell wrote about this so well in "1984." Ken Burns said to Steven Spielberg, "Steven, there is only 'us.' Anyone who thinks there is a 'them' is in serious trouble," He is so right!
When you say it's "worse than [I] think", I worry that you haven't fully integrated the gravity of what I'm saying, because I think it's pretty grim, actually. The artificial nature of "left" and "right" as constructs is precisely what I'm getting at—but it goes beyond just being tools for division.
These labels aren't just aggravating an "us versus them" mentality; they're fundamentally reshaping how we think about politics, society, and even reality itself. They're not just dividing us; they're limiting our ability to conceive of solutions outside this artificial paradigm.
The Orwellian aspect you mention is apt, but I'd argue it's even more insidious than simple manipulation. These constructs have become the very framework through which many people understand the world, making it nearly impossible for them to think outside this binary.
Ken Burns' statement that "there is only us" is profound, but I fear we're rapidly losing the ability to even conceptualize what that "us" might look like. We're not just in trouble because we think there's a "them"—we're in trouble because we've forgotten how to think without these categories at all.
So yes, it's grim. It's a crisis of imagination as much as it is a crisis of division. And that's why I believe we need to do more than just recognize these labels as artificial - we need to actively work to construct new frameworks for political and social thought that reflect the true complexity of human values and societal challenges.
Thank you for engaging with these ideas. It's through conversations like these that we might begin to chart a path forward.
If people thought of left and right in terms of altruist and selfish, respectively, that might add some clarity. Instead, it's become woke and fascist, respectively. That's not to say the left can't be fascist, as obviously there can be extremes in either direction, which aren't supportive of a healthy society where everyone has all their human rights respected. It still beggars belief that people consider the right to education and health care to not be human rights in the USA.
Came to the realization (it takes me a while—duh!) that we’re being manipulated. The scary part is people’s response; will that response play into the hands of the Puppet Masters?
Since 2017, I've referred to myself as a "moderate"...just trying to get past the right vs. left type casting. Before then, I had never assigned a label to myself because there was no need to. I had voted for both R's and D's depending on the candidate, policies and issues. This whole tribalism thing is fairly new to me. My parents were never diehard Republicans or Democrats. I also shudder at extremism of any type. It has been both interesting, and challenging, to engage in conversations where I don't 100% agree with the other person. Even in my attempts to find common ground, the other party typically tries to type cast me as a way to rationalize in their minds (I suppose). why my viewpoints are invalid. I have also found that "agreeing to disagree" on polices (I'm not referring to character and morals here), has also become a thing of the past (sadly). I think I missed when that memo came out.
A decade+ ago, the “Political Compass” online test, which placed one on a two-dimensional political spectrum - left/right and libertarian/authoritarian - seemed like a breath of fresh air. But today that is just as useless as the single left/right dimension, with the actual emergence of “political persuasions” in the USA and Europe that are not tied to the full set of any one ideology’s wagon. I despite political ideologies almost as much as I despite the two-party systems taht dominate US, Australian, and other liberal democracys’ politics.; in the immortal words of ‘Jed Bartlett’ (West Wing), “you have to be allowed to push, or pull, on ALL the levers”.
The Enlightenment project was never completed, it got stunted and bypassed by Capitalism, particularly the USA’s most extreme ‘version’ of it, by that i mean the set of rules of what is valued and what isn’t; the levers which could, and could not, be push-but-not-pulled; what can and cannot be taxed to provide the inherently unprofitable services and infrastructure needed by modern societies.
Thanks for another banger of an exposition, Mike. I too pine for the days of nuanced thinking, though I’ve long come to realize that a disturbingly large proportion of the US population believes their own philosophical framework and worldview are superior to those of the Framers. I also couldn’t agree more about the corrosive effects of reductionist thinking and the death of nuance, but I feel you missed naming the obvious villain in your call to action. We don’t “need” nuanced thinking any more than we “need” a more educated populace. The view from the ground often sounds like, “I have this profound insight, and if only others could see it, things would be better.” This, I believe, is counterproductive. As much as you fancy yourself a philosopher, I sense you’re after something more actionable than mere navel-gazing.
Consider this: if we hold Enlightenment as the ideal to strive toward, what stands as its antithesis? I would venture that it is a worldview that upholds unquestioned authority, conspiracism, and an uncritical adherence to the status quo. Coupled with the reality distortion field of post-truth thinking, your writings consistently sound the alarm over these pernicious tenets taking hold. This begs the question - who in their right mind wants to see such a worldview come to pass? We know the answer and it's not the masses. Those who are driving off the cliff are well-aware that the most dangerous reality in America is that most people, in substance, agree on the vast majority of significant policies.
Yet the elephant in the room remains: a mind-control propaganda apparatus that transcends politics, poisoning the minds of the masses, relentlessly concentrating money and power in the hands of the those who seek total dominion. This goes beyond mere class warfare, for there are plenty of “good people” who happen to be rich (yourself included, I suspect). An ingrained, powerful meme now seeks to normalize sociopathic behavior by eroding shared values and vision, substituting an enlightened civilization with a dystopian machine whose sole purpose is to feed the insatiable appetites of broken men.
Mike, if you’re going to rally us toward the ideals of Enlightenment, I believe shifting our focus to exposing and dismantling this apparatus (the true engine behind our collective descent into tribalism and anti-intellectualism) will resonate more deeply and demonstrate the practical power of philosophy beyond mere intellectual exercise. Let’s not settle for a call to nuanced thinking when what we truly need is a battle cry against the forces that corrode our shared values and undermine the very foundations of a just society. There’s a reason the word “woke” was weaponized so vehemently; the mad kings burning the enlightened world fear nothing more than a mass awakening, when we realize that together we can reclaim humanity and cast them back into the shadows where they know they belong.
It's such a shame that the United States almost immediately fell into a two party system. Combined with our system of checks and balances, a multi-party coalition system like they have in Europe and ranked-choice voting... we could have such a strong democracy. Alas, those that wish to see our democracy destroyed built a propaganda machine that used wedge issues and language like "left" and "right" to rip our country in two. For most of our history, the two parties at least agreed on the bedrock value of democracy. That's definitely no longer the case.
👇 More People Need To Read This Dude Button ❤️
Exactly. All of us live on a spectrum.
The emotional pressure of tribalism tends strongly to suppress free speech. Most of us are extremely cautious in voicing a view that seems to contravene the rules of the tribe - who wants to be cast out? It hurts. I, for example, favor nuclear power as essential to a low-carbon economy, but I seldom voice this opinion among my Democratic friends unless asked. Likewise, I oppose the inclusion of biological males in female sport - an issue that has become so incomprehensibly politicized that I could accuse someone on the other side of Transgender Derangement Syndrome. Note that I have looked at much of the scientific research on transgender "women" in women's sport from a layman's perspective, and almost all of it points in one direction. I write a newsletter for the running industry and follow athletics closely, and I'm glad that World Athletics--the governing body for elite athletic sport--bans biological males from competing at the elite and professional level. It's another view I keep mum about among people who know little about sports physiology and charge me with bigotry. Few people are motivated primarily by rationality when it comes to issues they care most about. Regrettably, that's just human nature.
It's worse than you think, Mike. "Left" and "right" are artificial constructs that are used to aggravate the nothing but trouble concept of "us" vs "them." It really doesn't matter what it is, as long as it promotes emotion, usually anger. George Orwell wrote about this so well in "1984." Ken Burns said to Steven Spielberg, "Steven, there is only 'us.' Anyone who thinks there is a 'them' is in serious trouble," He is so right!
My dear Michael,
When you say it's "worse than [I] think", I worry that you haven't fully integrated the gravity of what I'm saying, because I think it's pretty grim, actually. The artificial nature of "left" and "right" as constructs is precisely what I'm getting at—but it goes beyond just being tools for division.
These labels aren't just aggravating an "us versus them" mentality; they're fundamentally reshaping how we think about politics, society, and even reality itself. They're not just dividing us; they're limiting our ability to conceive of solutions outside this artificial paradigm.
The Orwellian aspect you mention is apt, but I'd argue it's even more insidious than simple manipulation. These constructs have become the very framework through which many people understand the world, making it nearly impossible for them to think outside this binary.
Ken Burns' statement that "there is only us" is profound, but I fear we're rapidly losing the ability to even conceptualize what that "us" might look like. We're not just in trouble because we think there's a "them"—we're in trouble because we've forgotten how to think without these categories at all.
So yes, it's grim. It's a crisis of imagination as much as it is a crisis of division. And that's why I believe we need to do more than just recognize these labels as artificial - we need to actively work to construct new frameworks for political and social thought that reflect the true complexity of human values and societal challenges.
Thank you for engaging with these ideas. It's through conversations like these that we might begin to chart a path forward.
If people thought of left and right in terms of altruist and selfish, respectively, that might add some clarity. Instead, it's become woke and fascist, respectively. That's not to say the left can't be fascist, as obviously there can be extremes in either direction, which aren't supportive of a healthy society where everyone has all their human rights respected. It still beggars belief that people consider the right to education and health care to not be human rights in the USA.
Came to the realization (it takes me a while—duh!) that we’re being manipulated. The scary part is people’s response; will that response play into the hands of the Puppet Masters?
Another great article! Thank you!
Since 2017, I've referred to myself as a "moderate"...just trying to get past the right vs. left type casting. Before then, I had never assigned a label to myself because there was no need to. I had voted for both R's and D's depending on the candidate, policies and issues. This whole tribalism thing is fairly new to me. My parents were never diehard Republicans or Democrats. I also shudder at extremism of any type. It has been both interesting, and challenging, to engage in conversations where I don't 100% agree with the other person. Even in my attempts to find common ground, the other party typically tries to type cast me as a way to rationalize in their minds (I suppose). why my viewpoints are invalid. I have also found that "agreeing to disagree" on polices (I'm not referring to character and morals here), has also become a thing of the past (sadly). I think I missed when that memo came out.
A decade+ ago, the “Political Compass” online test, which placed one on a two-dimensional political spectrum - left/right and libertarian/authoritarian - seemed like a breath of fresh air. But today that is just as useless as the single left/right dimension, with the actual emergence of “political persuasions” in the USA and Europe that are not tied to the full set of any one ideology’s wagon. I despite political ideologies almost as much as I despite the two-party systems taht dominate US, Australian, and other liberal democracys’ politics.; in the immortal words of ‘Jed Bartlett’ (West Wing), “you have to be allowed to push, or pull, on ALL the levers”.
The Enlightenment project was never completed, it got stunted and bypassed by Capitalism, particularly the USA’s most extreme ‘version’ of it, by that i mean the set of rules of what is valued and what isn’t; the levers which could, and could not, be push-but-not-pulled; what can and cannot be taxed to provide the inherently unprofitable services and infrastructure needed by modern societies.
Damn. Good stuff. Thank you. I’ll be keeping this handy.
Maybe an inchoate sense of this is why so many Americans now call themselves "Independent".