Re: Trump Watch
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:17 pm
Jinx.
Like most superstition, it's a variety of acausal significance, as Jung would have it. Meaning nobody in their right mind believes that a simple prediction, especially if based on the polls, could cause a karmic backlash that causes the election to tilt differently than it would have. But the hint of a possible mysterious source of influence is a warning to our unreason, a warning against arrogance. Against thinking that, because you know something about how things work, you can go on with your privilege and ignore those who might be run over by the steamroller you think you are riding.
So it's worth thinking a little in advance about who we should not run over if the Democratic Party wins.
First, we should not indulge in the same "because we can" grasping that has been so offensive from the Republicans. If our guy is caught in a crime (even perjury about sex) let him take the consequences. Let the course of justice follow impartial norms, rather than quietly knifing the uncooperative and freeing the henchmen. Rule of law is not to be trifled with. I'm going to go so far as to say that the Supreme Court should be let alone, or reformed on non-partisan lines.
Gerrymandering could well be dismantled, but on a non-partisan basis. We already have a rule that equal protection under the law requires that Congressional districts be roughly equal in size. The same principle can be extended to say it must be balanced, subject to equal populations, by income and education or at least put in coherent units of common economic interest. Assigning the job of balance to non-partisan commissions would be good.
There's a limit to avoiding taking advantage of opportunities for power, but it should be defensive rather than acquisitive. (By which I mean, a reasonable degree of procedural fairness is more important than forcing what we see as equitable outcomes, because everybody wants equity for their own case, but we are remarkably good at ignoring it for others.) We do not need to pack the court even over a reversal of Roe v Wade, but if the Supreme Court goes so far as to declare abortion to be murder, then self-defense requires that the court be at least given a composition reflecting the principles of the population as a whole. Reversing Roe v. Wade would devolve the issue to the people, but imposing limits on what the majority can legislate requires that the underlying rationale be one that the bulk of the population can agree to accept.
Likewise, there is talk of rolling back the law on Interstate Commerce to the situation before the 1930s when the Supreme Court held that New Deal programs were unconstitutional by virtue of being Federal. A constitutional amendment might be the best solution, but packing the court to save Social Security, Medicare and even Obamacare should not be ruled out.
Second, we need to learn to respect traditional values. Even if we don't agree with them, or we don't agree on how to implement them, a measure of mutual respect and even empathy can go a long way toward creating solutions that honor them. There is always a question of where to draw the line - some would say laws against mixed race marriage are just about "traditional values". But I am sure we can draw it much more respectfully than we have been. My general rule is to give everyone the same level of respect that I would give my boss, or other person who has power over me. I fear I broke that rule with KindaSkolarly on more than one occasion, but I tried mightily to frame things in terms of particular behaviors and not to characterize him as a person.
That means not insulting women who stay home to be homemakers (or men who do) or people who are into guns. It means a clear system of immigration control until such time as a clear majority of the population rejects that, and not accepting insults and dehumanization of those opposing immigration any more than we would of those seeking to immigrate.
And finally, the educated classes need to look out for those who are marginalized by economic trends. Serious thought needs to be given to developing employment for those who are not academically or technologically inclined. Incentives, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, are important and so are training opportunities to upgrade vital skills that might go neglected by the marketplace. Software to make services more efficient can be fostered by the government and not turned over free of obligations to corporations. (I list specific examples to illustrate the general area of priority rather than to raise these specific items as requirements.)
Instead of rejecting superstition as a simple violation of rationality, we need to learn to listen to it, and understand what it is telling us about our deep motivations and allegiances. Don't give it the last word, but think about why it is there, in a teleological framework rather than an explanatory framework. In other words, think about what values and feelings it represents and communicates, rather than stopping with an evaluation of its explanatory correctness.
Like most superstition, it's a variety of acausal significance, as Jung would have it. Meaning nobody in their right mind believes that a simple prediction, especially if based on the polls, could cause a karmic backlash that causes the election to tilt differently than it would have. But the hint of a possible mysterious source of influence is a warning to our unreason, a warning against arrogance. Against thinking that, because you know something about how things work, you can go on with your privilege and ignore those who might be run over by the steamroller you think you are riding.
So it's worth thinking a little in advance about who we should not run over if the Democratic Party wins.
First, we should not indulge in the same "because we can" grasping that has been so offensive from the Republicans. If our guy is caught in a crime (even perjury about sex) let him take the consequences. Let the course of justice follow impartial norms, rather than quietly knifing the uncooperative and freeing the henchmen. Rule of law is not to be trifled with. I'm going to go so far as to say that the Supreme Court should be let alone, or reformed on non-partisan lines.
Gerrymandering could well be dismantled, but on a non-partisan basis. We already have a rule that equal protection under the law requires that Congressional districts be roughly equal in size. The same principle can be extended to say it must be balanced, subject to equal populations, by income and education or at least put in coherent units of common economic interest. Assigning the job of balance to non-partisan commissions would be good.
There's a limit to avoiding taking advantage of opportunities for power, but it should be defensive rather than acquisitive. (By which I mean, a reasonable degree of procedural fairness is more important than forcing what we see as equitable outcomes, because everybody wants equity for their own case, but we are remarkably good at ignoring it for others.) We do not need to pack the court even over a reversal of Roe v Wade, but if the Supreme Court goes so far as to declare abortion to be murder, then self-defense requires that the court be at least given a composition reflecting the principles of the population as a whole. Reversing Roe v. Wade would devolve the issue to the people, but imposing limits on what the majority can legislate requires that the underlying rationale be one that the bulk of the population can agree to accept.
Likewise, there is talk of rolling back the law on Interstate Commerce to the situation before the 1930s when the Supreme Court held that New Deal programs were unconstitutional by virtue of being Federal. A constitutional amendment might be the best solution, but packing the court to save Social Security, Medicare and even Obamacare should not be ruled out.
Second, we need to learn to respect traditional values. Even if we don't agree with them, or we don't agree on how to implement them, a measure of mutual respect and even empathy can go a long way toward creating solutions that honor them. There is always a question of where to draw the line - some would say laws against mixed race marriage are just about "traditional values". But I am sure we can draw it much more respectfully than we have been. My general rule is to give everyone the same level of respect that I would give my boss, or other person who has power over me. I fear I broke that rule with KindaSkolarly on more than one occasion, but I tried mightily to frame things in terms of particular behaviors and not to characterize him as a person.
That means not insulting women who stay home to be homemakers (or men who do) or people who are into guns. It means a clear system of immigration control until such time as a clear majority of the population rejects that, and not accepting insults and dehumanization of those opposing immigration any more than we would of those seeking to immigrate.
And finally, the educated classes need to look out for those who are marginalized by economic trends. Serious thought needs to be given to developing employment for those who are not academically or technologically inclined. Incentives, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, are important and so are training opportunities to upgrade vital skills that might go neglected by the marketplace. Software to make services more efficient can be fostered by the government and not turned over free of obligations to corporations. (I list specific examples to illustrate the general area of priority rather than to raise these specific items as requirements.)
Instead of rejecting superstition as a simple violation of rationality, we need to learn to listen to it, and understand what it is telling us about our deep motivations and allegiances. Don't give it the last word, but think about why it is there, in a teleological framework rather than an explanatory framework. In other words, think about what values and feelings it represents and communicates, rather than stopping with an evaluation of its explanatory correctness.