The Ideological War That is Moving the World to the Cliff
What is the overriding theme of Donald Trump’s America? It started a long time ago, but it grew stronger since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. It is extreme posturing and divisive and dirty politics that play illusion and deceit on a grand scale. All political parties are guilty of this, and the toxic state of the public debate is a symptom of democratic cancer. People don’t think. Not new, fair enough. But now the media and politicians are also plagued by broken thinking…
Humans build an identity which they constantly strive to validate and reinforce by unconscious cognitive capture and information bias that becomes denial and often flirts with insanity and obsessive behaviours as it consumes mental energy and time to entertain and preserve.
“I am old school about xyz.” “I am a Libertarian.” “I am a Saltwater/Freshwater-leaning economist.” “I am Keynesian/Liberal/Progressive.” “I believe in equality.” “Immigrants are messing up the country.” “I think global warming is a hoax.” “The only answer is the Scandinavian Model.” “The USA is the best system.”
It is so widespread that it is impossible to disentangle from the picture we have of life, of ourselves, our country, our life events, and our purpose. Of reality. Personal relationships, religion, money, social class, political and economic ideologies, views about women and men, technology, abortion, vegetarians vs carnivores, the meaning of life, nutrition and health, and the list goes on forever. These are all important and debate-sensitive subjects, but too many people cling to uninformed or overly biased positions due to self-selected and incomplete information, data, and opinions. This creates quick associations through “identification errors”: you use a “cause” for an observed phenomenon that works with your belief system, not necessarily with facts or reality.
Mental poison.
We cling to stories and we double down on them in the face of facts that say we are wrong. The more facts accumulate against our point of view, the more allergic our reaction and the stronger and complex the processes become in order to keep the beliefs and point of view alive. We enter defensive posturing. Us and them. “They” are wrong and “we” are right. We kill, hurt, isolate, manipulate, and more all in the name of the delusions we cling to with denial and selective information, friends, and stories. We justify our actions by our beliefs and values, which are validated by our identities.
Our brains build fast associations to make sense of the world, but again those associations are tainted by our “priors” and prejudice, which are the result of accumulated experiences. You were attacked by a dog in your childhood and that caused the association of “dog = mean = danger” and you can’t get yourself to really get rid of it, even when being repeatedly presented with proof that says otherwise: the huge majority of dogs are friendly and playful, and those who are “mean” have often been abused or ignored in a cage for years.
Nuance, curiosity, and reason are NOT natural human reflexes. We have tribal reflexes that are oriented on strong association with us and dissociation with them. Our identities determine a lot of our opinions and choices, and our identity is so complex and meshed into the fabric of our immediate social context that we don’t even imagine the day-to-day reality of those in totally different lives and worlds, let alone build the ability to “at least try” to see things through the lens of others.
Do you know that the annual growth rate of GDP per capita of the USA for the past 30 years is no better than that of Germany, Sweden, Canada, and many others? How do you feel about that? Do you know that the global poverty rate has been on a secular downtrend for the past 50 years and is currently at a historical low? Does that jive with your everything-is-lost world view? Do you know that the global murder rate has never been as low as it currently is? Yes, Trump is a disaster-waiting-to-happen and unfortunately clueless about policy design and consequences, but beyond him, life goes on and will continue after him as well.
I tend to be quite open, because I am 1) excessively data-and-statistics-driven and 2) I don’t particularly “care” about my specific point of view. I used to be argumentative and debate a lot to “get my point across” and, more importantly, make others change their mind and agree with me. No longer. I also know that people push their agendas and will keep at it, even when they have nothing special to lose if they change their mind… because most people associate their personal value and feeling of purpose and meaning with their social, religious, political, and other associations. On their opinions and beliefs.
For example, for a long time, I was a “climate skeptic.” I looked at the global temperature since 1 million years ago and noticed there were periods of extreme warming and cooling during periods without human industrial activity, such as the time of the Romans or 10 000 years ago, and many more periods. I thought to myself that maybe such a warming was happening now due to a small imperceptible change in the orbit or angle of the sun, inner-earth volcanic activity, and a million other possible reasons. When I would mention these doubts to my green rock climbing friends, I would get something like “omg you are not one of THOSE who still think like that.” After much data research and reading as-neutral-as-possible papers (hard to find) and trying to see through the haze of ridiculous extreme posturing about the environment and climate from the mainstream media and opposing rogue blogs, I made up my own mind and I am now reasonably convinced of the human-driven nature of climate change, although I remain skeptical of the true and realistic “very severe consequences” freely distributed by alarmists, as well as propositions of the true impact of proposed policy changes to the overall outlook on greenhouse gas emissions. Mainstream media says it presents a “balanced and informed” view. No it doesn’t. Liberty blogs and think tanks also do not, as well as “progressive” or Unions or environmental websites and lobbies. I still think Trump’s decision to exit the Paris accord was an error, and I will tell you why in a minute.
I got the same reactions when I candidly said to my mostly-progressive friends that “I totally understand the violent reactions of pro-lifers” in the debate over abortion, even if I am pro-choice myself. After all, a real “pro-lifer” sees abortion as nothing less than murder, so I see their point of reacting strongly — don’t you? Is this so hard to understand? If the baby was just-born 10 seconds ago, killing the baby would be murder… what about 10 seconds BEFORE being born… 1 hour… 1 week… 1 month… 2 months? When, exactly, do we decide that “that thing in the womb” is a human that we can’t kill without punishment? I know: modern medicine kind of provides the answer with the ethics of brain development and so on, but if you are at least open minded, you DO see how some people see it very differently and all for good reason.
The same debates exist in the treatment of animals in slaughter houses and other places, but “we don’t want to know”… denial is easier to manage and allows us to continue living without challenging status quo…
I have points of view that can change if challenged with rigorous research and hard data, as well as wise and reasonable arguments. Reasonable. A word that has left the building in too many social and political circles… I will not cling to a position if I see that I should change, and frankly I don’t see why this is so hard for others.
This is what is driving the world to conflict. Childish defensive posturing about various subjects that are of supreme importance.
The environment and energy debate is rife with emotional responses to debates that should be data-driven. Trump chooses to ignore hard facts OR select only the facts that confirm his biases. OTHERS do the same on the other side. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, wrongs accumulate to build bigger divides and conflict, because the public debate is devoid of nuance, wisdom, or often even basic fact-checking.
Trump is wrong to have pulled the USA out of the Paris Accord on Climate because it isolates further the USA at NO tangible benefit, while staying IN the accord had no significant costs or even binding constraints, so it is not only a net loss, but it also causes extra social norms reinforcement due to the perception it sends: everything about the environment is not important, which is not true.
That said, the drama over climate has created a sense of end-of-world that is not even close to what the climate experts themselves suggest in the IPCC reports, because when you actually take the time to read these reports (I do), you see that the “scenarios” they have depend on very fragile hypotheses and the most realistic scenarios are nowhere near the Apocalypse suggested by the media or by the messengers… there is some “loss in translation” in the process, and the sound bites that emerge are all hype and drama without rigorous grounds.
The thing that is taking us to the cliff
Illusion. Everything has become a war to win the perception of the people in the media and social networks and play lobby games by the backdoor. You can now order a crowd to create fake popular support for your cause with “Crowds On Demand.” You can buy social network popularity on Facebook and Instagram with fake likes and clicks. You can buy “studies” or twist data to make it say just about anything. This is true on ALL sides of the ideological spectrum. How can we know that what we are seeing is “real” in such a context? We can’t, unless we rely on our own judgement. Yes: we need to learn how to think for ourselves, and for real… for the first time in History.
It is not normal or healthy for democracy that climate alarmists and pro-choice “well-educated scholars and politicians” are the only points presented fairly in mainstream media, while opposing points of view are only supplied by biased think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, Green Peace, and the Suzuki Foundation. Where are the true free thinkers who still know how to think and who do not care about pleasing the people, pleasing their “base” or niche market or ideological crowd or academic department, or pushing a lobby agenda for special interests???
Is this Street Smart publication on Medium the only place we find sanity and common sense? :) (just kidding).
The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, FOX, CNN, and so many others present such biased and one-way opinions and analyses that they are preaching to the already-converted, namely their own base, and participating in a twisted and biased picture of reality! The readers and watchers of these media outlets never get a fair, balanced, well-worded, well-documented opposing view.
Why? Because nuance does not sell. My motto is from Einstein: “Make everything as simple, but not simpler.” That’s was what I sought to do in my book and it is what I seek to do in my posts and my courses. One must present things as they are, and even provide reasons to be against and for whatever policy or opinion, and let the people make up their own mind, based on their values. But maybe people don’t WANT to make up their own mind… that is the war for democracy… the real one… we must fight to make people seek a balanced view of the world, so that their voting and their opinions are at least informed, and also to bring public debate towards sanity and civil exchange that allows the world to move towards the light of knowledge and debate, rather than the darkness of bias and extremism. A tall order, but we can do it, and that is certainly what we strive for here on Street Smart and what I do personally all the time. Please like if you appreciated the insights and follow me and Street Smart for more insights.
Pascal Bedard
pbedard@yourpersonaleconomist.com
