A Pyrrhic Victory

While I was surprised at the election of Donald Trump as President (and wrong about predicting his defeat), I found consolation in the idea that his victory reflected a rejection of an inconsistent and self-defeating worldview that had permeated society for the past couple of years. That worldview being the smug elitism that looked with disdain upon anyone that dared disagree with the so called "correct" way of thinking.

To me, such a catastrophic misreading of the situation by people, who, in hindsight appear completely out-of-touch with the views of the average citizen, was exactly the sort of experience needed to bring about the sort of self-reflection that leads to an ideological humility that is sorely lacking in today's political environment.

So far, I have yet to see any contrition from most people whose worldview has been found wanting, and frankly, I do not hold much hope that it will eventually happen either.

However, after having had the chance to see Trump interact with the world after his election, I have come to the conclusion that the supposed rejection of progressive ideals has come at the cost of elevating someone into a position that they're drastically unfit for.

From the Twitter tirades to the recent inaugural news conference high jinks, it's become apparent to me that President Trump will be no different than candidate Trump. The mental gymnastics I went through to convince myself that the administration would be different than what it campaigned as was merely an attempt to medicate my own shock.

What does this realization mean going forward? I frankly do not have the slightest clue, other than to proffer the observation that we are undergoing a societal shift where the rules many (those many being in positions of privilege) have grown accustomed to no longer apply.

An entire generation has watched as the so called experts in the room have been mercilessly discredited by the flow of time. In the wake of this, established forms of debate will no longer be taken seriously, and people will increasingly make decisions based on representation and an identification with personal circumstances. Hard-nosed, technical analysis will find few buyers.

To move forward, those who have fundamentally misunderstood the viewpoints of the majority will need to build bridges and truly understand where these opinions are coming from. This is not to say one must abandon their principles, but in engaging with those one does not identify with, one can go a long way in understanding the shortcomings of their own perspective. It is this fuller perspective that is desperately needed to build a society that can satisfy the desires of all of its participants.

Cognitive dissonance, or modern progressive thought.

I must be upfront with you. I'm going to make assumptions from time to time, and use these assumptions to support an argument. I'd appreciate if the reader focused on the arguments and not the assumptions when reading this blog.

So with that out of the way, my first grandiose assumption is this. That the present time (being the year 2016) reflects an era increasingly defined by the views of a secularized society. As a result of this secularization, the notion of objective truth (as it relates to the concept of knowledge, philosophy, and religion) has become an antiquated perspective. By and large, people exhibit a tolerance for differing opinions which can often be summarized as "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me."

In light of this above assumption, I therefore found myself incredibly bemused as I read the comments on Paul Krugman's blog, The Conscience of a Liberal. Now you might ask what someone like myself is doing in the middle of such a place. To which my answer is simply that I wanted to see what people I tend to disagree with were saying after the recent US presidential election.

The comment that stood out to me was from a "DSolomon" that seemed very concerned that the newly elected Trump administration had once again ushered in a period where objective truth was irrelevant when it came to politics, and where few voices of reason remained on the ideological landscape.

My ensuing thought upon reading this comment was rather blunt; since when did we as a society give a damn about objective truth? I can't speak for all of DSolomon's views, but if this commentator mirrors the broadly held views of society, then they're on rather shaky ground. Namely, that if one believes that objective truth is meaningless when it comes to epistemology, it would be deeply inconsistent to believe that objective truth is somehow applicable when it comes to politics. The ideology is opposed to the practice.

Furthermore, the notion of objective truth in public discourse is naturally predicated on the idea that truth is something that can be discovered in our existence. But if no one can agree as to how we're supposed to know that something is true, how can we be expected to recognize truth when it's in front of us, or make decisions based on discerning truth from untruth. It's like trying to launch a rocket without understanding the physics behind it.

So where does that leave us? I believe there are two choices.

The first (and preferred) option is to re-embrace the pursuit of truth in the realm of philosophy. Once we regard truth as something that can be attained in the more foundational aspects of knowledge, we can begin to resolve practical matters through a similar lens.

In contrast, if we fail to resolve the tough questions of life with the basic tools of reason, evidence, and empiricism, our society will treat the exercise of these methods in all subjects as a pointless futility. Our subsequent frustrations at others for failing to be objective will echo a yearn for a system that we do not actually believe exists.

To close, I urge the reader to examine themselves. If you find yourself pained by the "failure" of your compatriots to evaluate the so called facts with pure objectivity, a dispassionate evaluation of your own worldview may be necessary before hurling the first stone.

A vent.

I've spent enough time living in my head and engaging in the occasional flippant discourse to decide that I should start airing my dirty intellectual laundry.

It is therefore with somewhat auspicious timing that my need to begin polluting the already crowded waves of public opinion has arrived. Namely, that the cracks of the progressive-liberal hegemony in politics are beginning to show across western democracies.

If you want to put me in a box, said box will identify to inhabiting the centre-right of the political spectrum. However, more significantly, I despise intellectual discontinuity, a lack of self-awareness when it comes to opinions, and post-modernism (as it relates to epistemology) above all else. My attempts at composing original thoughts will largely reflect these premises.