As far as politics go, I would describe myself as economically conservative and socially moderate. But what about my meta-politics?
See, here’s the thing: forming an opinion about specific leaders is trivially easy. You barely even have to think about it. But forming a coherent philosophy of the nature of power is hard. It takes time, and reading, and reasoning. And quite frankly, you at least have to find it somewhat interesting (and I’m not saying that I do). This is where politics turns me off: nobody really seems to be pursuing objectivity, and social relationships are almost stratified based on politics. There’s nothing interesting about that. Toeing a political line never teaches me anything. My goal is to understand the world around me, not fit it into my existing ideas.
One of the worst things about politics, in my opinion, is that it can instantly stratify a conversation. I have a strong interest in colonialism because I’m kind of fascinated by images of empire and the exploratory spirit, notwithstanding all the horrible things that were caused by colonialism. I briefly brought this up with my parents one day, and it immediately sparked some political opinions from my dad, because Obama had once said something controversial about colonialism. I just sat there like, “Uh, okay. Um, not where I was going with this, but okay”. I also remember one day when my roommate’s family was over and the topic of vaccines came up and I briefly mentioned how amazing it was that smallpox had been virtually eradicated. But because vaccines had become something of a political topic, even two years ago, there was this odd social chill of awkwardness where it seemed we were all nervous what “side” of things everyone was on (which I’m pretty sure was generally the same, if that matters).
It’s just like…screw you, human nature, I just want to talk about interesting things! Not pre-defined dichotomies! Please! And there’s no shortage of people who, if you express even the slightest disagreement, immediately assume you are on the opposite side of them. I’m learning to avoid those people.
And even with only about 100 Facebook friends, I still manage to see the occasional outrageous political comment. And all I can really do is roll my eyes. I would much rather read books about subjects then sit around on news sites, which are basically shitty blogs (…), finding things to, I don’t know, get angry about? I feel like it’s an extremely loser-ish thing to do, soaking up all the news, rather than pursuing a deeper understanding of the world, or working to make a positive difference within your network of influence. That’s not something I really want to speak into people’s lives, but spending all day finding things to be outraged about is…yeah, a loser move. It’s really a waste of life, in my opinion.
What’s also disturbing is seeing US political concerns and ideologies being applied to the rest of the world. BLM riots in Europe. Like, what? Brazilian leaders being called “far right”. Some countries have more than two political parties, but I wonder if it is only a matter of time before the world is polarized between “right” and “left”. I fear the day.
This past year’s ballot actually had me voting for some red and blue. There was one office, which I can’t remember right now, which was between this old bat (D), who struck me as having grown up with a silver-spoon in a wealthy liberal family (pure bias, but still represents how I felt), and this young punk (R). I tried to find out what the young punk stood for, but he had refused to reply to absolutely every polling website. He had his own campaign website, but it said absolutely nothing about where he stood on anything. I couldn’t believe this. What kind of arrogant shit do you have to be to run for office and think it acceptable to stay dead silent about what you believe? I guess that’s maybe better than lying, but it’s still pathetic. So I voted for the Old Bat. “Well, she keeps getting re-elected. Maybe she’s doing something right?” I just couldn’t believe that other guy. That just made me sick.
One thing that’s become especially interesting to me is understanding the nature of authority and expertise, so I recently read Jamie Watson’s book, “Expertise: A Philosophical Introduction”, which I found to be really engaging, and not at all like those crappy “best-seller” non-fiction books, which are largely fluff. Although a slightly different topic, it’s interesting seeing the different opinions on this pandemic and how selective people are about their news sources. What is definitive knowledge? What can be trusted? What makes one news source better than another? Some people will accuse you of being a sheep for having one opinion, simply because they are reading a different narrative! Who’s the sheep? All of us, or simply those who disagree with you? What does it mean to trust a particular news source, and in a world of specialization, how can one be reasonably close to the truth by believing one source over another? What happens if your entire worldview is shaped by others out of necessity and the inability to be intimately knowledgeable in numerous fields of study? These are compelling questions that will probably be taken more seriously from now on.
This is random, but I remember being at a Christian bookstore, probably nearly a decade ago, and looking at some books on the Middle East. This old guy comes up and gets that weird, maniacal expression that some Christians get, and was like, “Oh, I’ve read all about that! I’ve got some real interesting books talking about those subjects!” Uh, okay dude, I’m gonna…leave now. Thanks. It reminded me of times when people in church get really excited to talk about why Mormonism is wrong, because, I don’t know, they are really excited to win a non-existent argument to…prove their prowess? It’s weird, but it’s a legitimate thing. You have to be a church-goer to know, but I’ve seen it occasionally my entire life. People often get really excited about things they think they are really smart about, and it’s kind of creepy. As I like to say, thinking you are right is one thing, but simply wanting everybody else to be wrong is another.
Also, political books are the worst. They are designed to tell people what they want to hear, but they rarely make any attempt to actually inform people about the world, unless that information is along the lines of “So-and-so (R | D) is a doo-doo head, and if you chose to believe this, you are a smart and intelligent person!”
I’m getting depressed just thinking about this. Maybe I should just spend less time on social media. Probably smart. You have to realize, on very rare occasions, someone will post something truly thought-provoking, but it’s pretty rare, which is why I don’t look to social media or news for my philosophy.