The rationality argument is a kind of oppression. It’s saying, your mental processes are inferior. You must be insane to reach that conclusion. Are we looking at the same information?
The dissonance is caused not by faulty rationale in either side. It’s caused by the differential weight of priorities.
Clinton supporters tend to give social wedge issues a higher amount of weight. Sanders supporters give economic wedge issues a greater amount of weight.
Clinton supporters ask, “How can you be against the first woman President?”
Sanders supporters ask, “How can you be so content with the economic contract’s status quo?”
It comes down to this. Do you think social issues outweigh economic issues, or is it the other way around?
I happen to think economic reform has a greater power to solve social issues than social reform has to solve economic issues.
I think that only making the contest fairer is small potatoes if you’re not making the prizes on offer any greater, and if you’re not offering any consolation to the vast majority that can’t win the gold medal.
That’s why I’m in favour of Sanders.