There are those who believe that people can be divided into clear, simple categories, and those who do not. I am one of the latter, and having begun by doing what I do not believe in, will now do so again:
Motivations, particularly those in politics, are many and complex. Yet I have realized that behind many statements, beliefs, policies, ideologies, and campaign slogans, there lies a unifying way of thinking. Following the great philosopher of the twentieth century, Karl Popper, I will call this thought process Platonism, and attempt to summarize his powerful critique of Platonic thought (from The Open Society and Its Enemies).
As I said above, a Platonist believes that the world and the people in it can fit into simple, clear, set, fixed categories, ideas, and descriptions. Thus, those who believe one thing fit into a simple box, and we know all the other beliefs they hold. You are either with us or against us, and if you don’t agree with all we say, you are a terrorist/communist/fascist/anarchist/homosexual/etc. The documents that supposedly guide these beliefs are clear, simple, and perfect. Even non-religious documents must be treated as if they were religious, even when they are mutable, even when they directly contradict what the speaker is saying.
An example of this kind of thinking is the idea that if we can find a statement that someone has made that is in error, then we can dismiss everything else that speaker/writer has said or written. Put this way, the idea sounds ridiculous, yet it is an argument that is made over and over again, without objection.
Another common example is the idea that if some person or institution makes a mistake, then every other action of that entity or any other entity like it is wrong. Again, this bald statement sounds silly, but we can think of countless examples of the argument being used, without objection. Anyone can find examples of government regulations that have been put in place in answer to political pressures, or have become outdated, and thus need to be removed or changed. That does not mean that all regulations are thus proven to be wrong, but is often treated as if it does.
The above must seem simple and obvious to the average Kossack. But that does not mean that such sloppy thinking and erroneous statements do not fill the media and the politics of this country. All of us, especially people who appear in the media and debate spokespeople for corporate interests, or even have a political "conversation" with a Tea Party supporter or other dupe of the corporatists, need to be alert for this nonsense, and to jump on it immediately, because it is so common, so accepted, and so wrong.
The alternative to Platonism is what I have labeled Socratic thinking. This follows another practice in which I do not believe, that of tracing all ideas back to the Greeks. It is possible to have new ideas that were not thought of in the ancient world; it is a fact that though the Greeks were brilliant and creative and did get Western civilization started, they got a lot of things wrong. See the above about Plato.
Certainly, it is possible that a habit of thinking about the world in complex, empirical terms is not something that Socrates would have endorsed; we know little about his real philosophy because, unlike Plato, he was not a master of self-promotion or a prolific writer. But everything today needs a label, and this is the label I have chosen to use.
Anyway, Socratic thinking is simply the idea that we don’t start with all the answers. We experiment. We try things out and see how they work, and if they don’t, we learn from that and try something else. We don’t know where we’re going, we just, as Popper put it, “muddle through,” and try to make things a little better, gradually. We understand that thinking that we have perfect ideas and all the answers is both hubris and a recipe for disaster.
Today, of course, any politician who admits to this kind of modesty will be accused of having no answers at all (see above). Yet the triumph of the Platonists in the last decade has demonstrated to those willing to see that anyone who does claim to have all the answers is the real danger.
Often, the best weapon we Socratics possess is ridicule. How else to respond to the Bachmanns, Santorums, and Perrys of today’s politics? The problem is, though, that our ridicule is having a hard time penetrating both the corporate lock on the media and the very real lock that assumptions have on the opinions of too many people.
All I ask, and I realize this is a lot, is that we question our assumptions (as I ordered my children to do every day, along with orders to question authority). And that we try to find ways to get others to do so as well.
Treat liberty as more than a slogan. Treat it as a real word with a real meaning. Understand that when government acts to limit corporations’ assault on your ability to make choices, it is corporations that attack liberty, and government that defends and maintains our freedom.
Treat the economy as a living, growing, changing thing. Study networked goods and positive (and negative) externalities to understand what role the government plays to increase not just the fairness of our economy, but its prosperity, as well. Learn that Social Security was not a “sacrifice” we made to help our older generation, but a positive force in strengthening the middle class and the entire economy. And thus know why health care is just as important as universal public education (and infrastructure, and, yes, laws and regulations) in the growth and health of our economy. And why unlimited corporate power and concentration of wealth will lead to even more hardship, disasters, depression, and poverty.
So here’s to the growth of Socratism. Or Socratic thought. Or whatever. I’m a Socratic. I don’t care what it’s called. Which is a problem getting the meme into the conversation . . .