The Rational Anthem

Bringing Back Rational Discourse

About Me

Jan 29

The Paradox of Centrism

By Christopher Hayden Philosophical, Political No Comments »

Most people I know claim they want a leader to lead from the center. I’m talking politics here, not sports. On Wednesday night, as I sat listening to President Obama’s State of the Union address, I started pondering what it would be like if we really did have a leader who led from the center. It seems like a reasonable idea – lead in a way that recognizes the merits of the arguments made by every faction and synthesize them into proposals that give everyone a little bit of what they want. But as I thought a bit more, I realized that leading from the center is even less tenable than leading from the extreme. It has two factors going against it: mathematics, and human psychology.

Imagine there are ten factions, each of which has ideas regarding some particularly contentious issue. Suppose also that there is intense partisanship among members of these factions, so much so that they refuse to communicate with one another, and so have no hope of crafting a proposal viable to each of them. The benevolent centrist comes along and asks each faction to give him (or her) it’s best idea. He uses the ten ideas he gathers to create a proposal that gives each faction something that it wants. It seems as though this practice should be at the heart of any well functioning body that has as its fundamental purpose discursive negotiation. However, instead of being cheered, the centrist is scorned by all! Why? Because each faction is dissatisfied with 90% of the proposal – the 90% comprising ideas that are not its own. Mathematics, it seems, cannot be beaten.

In the psychology department, humans are more likely to react to proposals that they find offensive than they are to react to proposals that they find agreeable. Suppose you have a centrist leader that puts forth proposals for two issues. Now take a group of people, each of whom agrees with one of the proposals and disagrees with the other. If you poll these people regarding their satisfaction with the job of the centrist leader, I am certain you will find that most of them are dissatisfied. It’s just easier to be opposed than it is to support. Evolution, it seems, cannot be beaten either.

The patterns I suggest above are rampant in our political system, and in our society at large. I won’t insult your intelligence by telling you where to look for them. I will only say that if you’re skeptical, take a few moments to rehash the health-care debate.

Word of the Day

irredentist (ir re den tist) [ir-i-den-tist]

(noun) a member of a party in any country advocating the acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural, historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.
(adjective) pertaining to or supporting such a party or its doctrine.

Feb 11

The Buck Stops Here

By Christopher Hayden Literature No Comments »

So goes one of former US President Harry Truman’s favorite colloquialisms. I recently completed a biography on the 33rd President, titled simply Truman, and authored by David McCullough. McCullough is well known for several other works, including his scholarly portrayal of our second President’s life in John Adams, which I have also read, and his consistently solid, erudite prose. In that regard Truman does not disappoint. It is a vivid recounting of the intriguing life of one of the twentieth century’s most influential patrons, a man reviled in his time only to be revered by later generations.

Harry Truman was the definitive influence on the course of US foreign policy during the latter half of the last century. The Marshall Plan, the Korean War, NATO, the United Nations, the Berlin Airlift, the atomic bomb, Israeli recognition, the Cold War: these are the veins through which the blood of our time flows, and at the heart is this man. Generally speaking, the consequences of these initiatives are overwhelmingly auspicious. The Marshall Plan constructed not only governments and economies in Western Europe, but the bonds of brotherhood through which durable alliances were formed; the Korean War let it be known to communist aggressors that transgressions on the freedoms of men would not be without retribution; the Berlin Airlift broke the imperialistic will of the Soviets in Europe, and later the Cold War broke their backs through peaceful attrition. And perhaps most importantly we are yet to see the day when wars will again be fought with sticks.

This is not to say that President Truman was infallible; quite the opposite is true, in fact. He had a penchant for employing executive power in creative ways, much like a recent President, for what he believed was the benefit of the nation. It is conceivable today that a President could draft the whole of the railroad union into the Army or seize the nations steel manufacturing out of private hands, both failed endeavors of Harry Truman. If his successes were plentiful, his failures were no less omnipresent.

Historical biographies are invaluable portraits of times past. They are unique in their ability to bring context to events and cultures because they are based on the perception of an individual who lived them. What we find in these tomes is not the regurgitation of detached historical fact found in text books, but a very real and nuanced experience of an individual that provides insights into the complexities of life. Too often we abscond from responsibility only to pass judgment on the work of others, shrouded by the darkness of willful ignorance and failing to appreciate the intricacies of nearly intractable conundrums. In Truman, I felt the President’s struggle to walk the line without stepping over. Truman gives one great respect for the agony that inevitably comes with being a benevolent commander of men, and it serves to reaffirm a notion we would all do well to keep at the forefront of our thoughts: things are never as simple as we perceive them to be.

Word of the Day

rodomontade (rod o mon tade) [rod-uh-mon-teyd]

(noun) vainglorious boasting or bragging; pretentious, blustering talk.
(adjective) bragging.
(verb) to boast; brag; talk big.

Feb 01

Do We Need Rich People?

By Christopher Hayden Money and Finances, Philosophical, Political No Comments »

I’ve heard several talking heads on television lately claiming that President Obama and Vice President Biden are using rhetoric that may rekindle class warfare, that their focus on increasing the lot of the middle class at the expense of the wealthy is anachronistic in this time of plenty. (Never mind that the recession is redefining that word plenty.) The talking heads fall back on their standard arguments: rich people do most of the investing, free market capitalism is the most efficient distributor of wealth, and the oft quoted aphorism coined by President Kennedy that, “A rising tide floats all boats.” I think the pundits of the rich are misguided, and I want to use a few sentences to give a simplified explanation of the complex reasons why. To be clear, I am not overtly opposed to wealth, nor am I an advocate of class warfare, but my political predilections are well known to lean to the left and I am myself a member of the middle class. As such, it’s reasonable to assume that my ruminations on the matter will be no less biased than those of the talking heads, who, it’s important to note, are themselves generally rich relative to the standards of a middle class citizen. Nonetheless, I hope that my thoughts regarding the matter at hand inspire others to forumlate some of their own.

Economists have conducted extensive research on the effects of economic inequality, and most, though not all, of that research indicates a correlation between economic and social dissonance. In other words, as the disparity between those who have and those who have more grows, social cohesion weakens. Communal ties degrade and trust among parties attenuates. Criminal behavior rises and community activism lessens. Those of moderate means grow resentful as their voices become marginalized by the ever loudening lobbying of the elite. In fact, I am not aware of a single positive consequence supported by or even tied to a widening gap between those of excessive means and those of average means.

I favor capitalism. I believe it the entrepreneurial spirit and the notion that those who succeed deserve to savor the fruits of their labor, and I am not opposed to the accumulation of wealth. But I also believe that the welfare of individuals and society is paramount, not least because I believe that people leading enjoyable lives is of more importance than leading materialistic lives, but also because it is the welfare of the individual and society that encourages the accretion of wealth in the first place. Much research has shown that unabated economic growth is impossible under the reign of chaos, which, ironically, is precisely the consequence of ever growing economic disparities. Those of greater means owe substantially more to society because it is society itself that has made their enrichment possible. The greatest investment the wealthy can make is back into the society from whence they sprang, for that is the only guarantee of future prosperity for all of us. So, by all means, be rich, but by means of participation with and investment in, rather than exploitation of, society. It would be recidivistic to assume that this time society will somehow respond differently.

Word of the Post

ratiocinate (ra ti oc i nate) [rash-ee-os-uh-neyt] -verb