Choosing Sarah Palin Ruined John McCain

I have always thought the biggest reason to choose McCain over Obama was his proven ability to make ethical choices he believed to be correct in the face of opposition and in disagreement with his own party, his maverick quality, if you will. On tough issues like climate change, judicial nominations, torture, and immigration reform he had refused to march in lockstep with his party, instead doing what he believed to be correct. Early in his presidential campaign, when the Democratic candidates were pontificating against the surge, and even the other Republican ones were wavering and engaging in copious amounts of double-talk, McCain never wavered in his support, famously saying he ould rather lose an election than lose a war. Clearly it is not enough just to make decisions one believes are correct irregardless of public opinion and presssure, as we have found out to America's detriment during the Bush presidency. What sets McCain apart is that he is so often right, whereas Bush has been so often wrong.

In choosing Sarah Palin, however, McCain has failed this test on both levels. It has become clear that he initially wanted to choose Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, two men who share many of his idelogicial views, are moderate, and have years of experience in Washington. Unfortunately, they are both pro-choice, and the evangelical base made it quite clear that they would be unwilling to support McCain if he chose one of them. Already weak with the religious base, he caved in to the pressure and chose someone who appealed to them instead.

In choosing Mrs. Palin, McCain went against his own judgement for political gain, and in so doing undercut what I believe was his strongest argument. Not only did he not follow his inner convictions, he also chose someone who will bring no substantive benefit to governing. Think about it. Can you imagine her doing anything substantive as vice president? Furthermore, one of McCain's greatest weaknesses has long been his age. I have always argued that this should be a moot point, assuming he chose a vice-presidential nominee who would be qualified to lead the country should he ever be unable. Having listened to Ms. Palin for a few weeks now, she is quite clearly unprepared to lead this country. Her lack of knowledge and comically absurd views are hard to reconcile with her possible future as head of the most powerful country on earth.

John McCain may not have been willing to lose a war to be president, but he was apparently ready to lose his reputation for honesty, good judgement, and independent decision-making. It pains me to write this, but I think John McCain is a maverick no longer, and I have come to believe he may not be the best choice for president.

Principles to Think On

In this election season, I think it is essential that we explore the underlying principles upon which each one of us should be basing our choices, and upon which we build our views and interpret the policies of the various candidates. What follows is a brief overview of my own principles. It builds upon the two previous posts, which lay the framework for my worldview.

My conception of humanity means that every human life is unique and valuable. This will manifest itself as a protection of individual rights and freedoms. As a unique individual, each person has right to choose their religious beliefs and to express their thoughts through publication and gatherings. Every person has the right to any thought they wish to think, no matter how heinous we may view it. When introduced into the public realm, however, each person’s rights do not extend infinitely. There is a natural limit whereby their rights meet another individual, and beyond which they cannot further extend without harming that individual. Thus, while a person has the right to believe as they see fit, and to introduce their original thoughts into the marketplace of humanity, they lose this right if, for example, their religion is dedicated to the subjugation of women, or their speech is specifically meant to incite violence against Muslims.

With the freedom of protecting one’s individuality there comes also responsibility, where each person as a human is responsible for their own good. I reject, as a limitation of each person’s liberty, the idea that such things as health care, food and water, and employment are innate human rights, on both practical and rational grounds. Each individual is accountable for his or her own actions. Each is responsible for these actions, and to put into place a system where the government operates on the assumption that as humans we have a right to a physical good means that the government has an ethical duty to provide it for all. It must do this by constraining its individual’s choices, either through mandatory entrance into certain programs as a condition of citizenship, or through increased taxation. We reject the idea that government has the right to restrict our freedom (therefore harming us), in order to care for those who have, as self-conscious human beings, ignored their rational drive and done something such as engaging in risky sexual behavior as directed by their survival drive, and have acquired HIV. However, I acknowledge that this issue quickly descends into a gray area, and while I will attempt to clarify that in the following sections, I admit it that there will always be areas of confusion, which are best solved at the ballot box.

In order to escape a system of injustice, we must provide each of our citizens the tools necessary to engage their rational drive. As we examined in the tour of human history, it took humanity thousands of years to escape from the singular compulsion of the survival drive. This was accomplished through knowledge and through a ready supply of food. Thus the constitution will have within it the guarantee that each child receives an education and a secure physical environment (including food and safety). As children are not yet mature, and are still developing the self-awareness which allows them to access the rational drive, we are able to take certain decisions on the nature of the good for them, specifically that of education. This education must be one which teaches rational thought, and opens the mind for the rational drive. Thus it must teach such scientifically valid concepts as evolution and the currently accepted scientific theory of the earth’s origins. It will teach the distinction between man as subject and man as citizen. Man as citizen is the embodiment of the rational drive, and they should be taught that this can be fully expressed through voting and through government service. Man as subject is the embodiment of the survival drive, and students will learn that they must seek to harness it and utilize it only in certain instances.

I do not believe in home schooling, unless it conforms to the curriculum, and will likewise govern any private schools (they may teach religious explanations, but may not do so in a science class, and they must teach scientific theories). I do not advocate a Platonic system where the concept of parents is completely obsolete, but nor do I believe that parents have any rationally exclusive claim to determining the good for their child. If they are unwilling or unable to provide for them in a manner consist with giving them the ability to exercise the rational drive, then society will either remove the child from their custody or properly equip them to care for their child, on a situational basis.

This raises the important issue of where the government has a right to intervene, and here it is important to reiterate that the government is the ultimate guarantor of each individual’s innate rights. The clear conclusion is that the government will intervene to protect them, but will always seek not to infringe upon them. If these come in conflict, the future right of the child to be free will be upheld over that of the adult’s, as it is assumed that the adult has made a poor decision which has resulted in them infringing upon the child’s rights, whereas the child is blameless. In this way one can justify removing a child from the home of an abusive parent or a drug addict. One will always seek what is best for the child.

What if the person whose freedom is being violated is not a child, but an adult? For example, if a man is abusing his wife. Based on the principles so far, one might assume that, while we will arrest and jail the violator, we will not engage in pity towards the victim, as she likely entered this relationship as a conscious choice, and thus should bear the responsibility.Society is not so callous as to ignore that she is likely now in a state of reduced freedom, and her choices may be constrained by fear and emotional damage. While I assert that through proper education, these situations will be lessened, I acknowledge that their will always be manifestations of the survival drive, as we are human, and that these may manifest themselves in a way which leaves others in a state of reduced freedom. Society will thus cautiously proceed in such situations, at times attempting through the state to restore people to a state of freedom, at other times letting them bear the full responsibilities of their actions. The decision will be based on whether we feel the responsibility is theirs, or whether we find extenuating circumstances which have lessened their ability to make these choices.

A good example is that of a child born HIV positive; they are clearly completely innocent of the situation which they were born into, and deserve to be taken care of as best as the society within which they are born into can do. Clearly most cases lie in between this and the other HIV case mentioned above, such as when a young girl may become HIV positive by engaging in dangerous sexual behavior when she is not educated on the dangers, or not fully engaged in the decision-making process. Similar moral dilemmas can be found in the cases of drug users seeking to escape from awful lives, the mentally ill, or those who have become HIV positive through a longtime partner’s unfaithfulness. In these cases society does have a certain ethical responsibility to take care of its less fortunate, and government programs will be initiated to do so. However, these situations will be considerably lessened with a successful education program. All of our citizens, as humans, have the right to a fair trial if they are accused of a crime. Every person has the right to a trained defense attorney to advocate on their behalf, and that there is a burden of proof which the state must surpass before it has the right to take away anyone’s individual freedom. We are not legal experts, and as such are unsure of how to implement a system which would provide a defense disentangled from the trapping of wealth, and guarantee an equal defense to a person regardless of their material well-being; we would however actively search for and advocate such a system.

An Overview of Human History

Eons ago, humanity slowly emerges out of Africa and begins it 200,000 year journey to the present day. In the beginning, this is an extremely violent time, as the survival drive manifests itself supreme upon the various hunter-gatherer groups which slowly spread across the planet. There is very little time to develop rational thought and knowledge, which is the path of escape from the singular impulses of the survival drive. Life is short and the physical struggle relentless. The physical processes of finding food and ensuring the survival of the next generation take up most of the day. Humanity is organized in small groups, which is a remnant of their evolutionary past, and allows them to better survive in the hostility of nature. When groups meet, they are just as likely to war with each other over scarce resources as to trade or share fledging technological advances. Groups must continuously move in search of food, and never settle in one area permanently (This also ensures that they eventually span much of the globe).

This savage condition of humanity continues for a seeming eternity. Then, 10,000 years ago, we can see another man (or woman), who suddenly makes the most important discovery known to man, the invention of agriculture. This is revolutionary. There is now both a means and reason for permanent settlement. There is a surplus of food, which leads to an increase in population. Urban settlements arise. Whereas before work had been merely divided between hunting and gathering or along other rudimentary lines, it now becomes increasingly specialized, with large sectors of the population escaping the tedium of a lifetime spent searching only for food. The surplus of food and increased specialization leads to some people engaging in jobs which need knowledge and information not found merely within the survival drive. Large societies arise around 6,000 years ago, and around 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, empires in Rome and China arise. The study of knowledge becomes increasingly important, with the Greek philosophers perhaps the most famous example. Technological and philosophical innovations continue, and drive humanity relentlessly forward.

This is not to say the survival drive has been abandoned. Its manifestation as power becomes ever more important as societies grow larger and larger. Whereas the initial division of power within small tribal groups was often based on physical strength or a predilection for finding food, it becomes an increasingly complex affair. Whole systems of government arise to entrench leaders in power, organized militaries appear, and rulers do everything they can to attempt to maintain their evolutionary advantageous position at the top of human society. Religions emerge, either as attempts to explain why the power system is naturally inequitable, or to foment revolution and attempt to bring a new group into power. In this way civilization is slowly built up, but the survival drive is the dominating force, and the species survival matters far more than the individual.

Man’s ability to overcome the survival drive also begins to irregularly manifest itself. The sciences arise, and a rational explanation is sought to explain nature’s compulsions. Political systems are developed which seek to advance the concept of man as having self-worth, and in which the individual is more than just a cog in the survival of the species. In the beginning, they prove unstable and prone to domination by the few (Greece and Rome quickly devolve into totalitarian systems). Theorists such as Hobbes seek to provide a justification for authoritarian political systems.

Then, in the 17th century, the Enlightenment brought about a new interest in rationality and the uniqueness and importance of the individual. Theorists such as Kant, Mill, Locke, and Rousseau imagined different concepts where the individual had innate value as an individual. New governments were put into place guaranteeing individuals certain rights, and stating that they had the same human status as their rulers. However, the French Revolution was an abject failure; it quickly transformed itself from the triumph of rational thought to the animal will of the mob, and then returned to its previous system of authoritarian rule. This is because the theorists of the time attempted to build a political system based solely on the rational drive, which we can recognize as impossible because man is not solely a rational creature. Other political systems which relied on man acting as only a rational being were also doomed to failure, with the perversion, rise, and fall of Communism as a prominent example.

Finally, we reach the present-day, and see much that is good in the world and has built on the lessons of history, but much that is left undone. There are many government systems which rely on some combination of our two drives, although there are also many which are still structured solely around the survival drive. Economic systems which seek to utilize only man’s rational drive have been abandoned, as it became clear they were untenable and inherently prone to abuse by those citizens who exercised merely their survival drive. The world has embraced the market system, and varying societies have advanced different mixes of the two drives to form unique combinations. Respect for the individual is on the rise; a few troubling counter ideologies remain, such as Muslim extremism, Fascism, and in a few places remnants of Communism, but humanity can glimpse a not too distant future of peace and plenty, with a basic respect for the individual enshrined as a global norm.

Musings on Human Nature

Every living being on this planet shares a survival instinct, refined and reformed over millennia by Darwinian evolution. Each plant and animal engages in a variety of functions which are aimed at survival for its particular species. The singular purpose of every organism is to reproduce, and thus to ensure species survival. A chicken’s only evolutionary goal is to produce as many eggs as possible, and to give them the best chance to survive until they too can procreate. Understood through this framework, it is simple to look at any animal’s physical characteristics or behavior and realize that it is all driven by this evolutionary mechanism of nature, which we will term the survival drive.

Each individual member of their species is merely acting out of evolutionary impulse to further his personal drive to procreate. This survival drive is composed of natural tendencies, of engaging in actions based on the laws of nature. All living things have this drive, and it is a particular drive, composed only of moments of necessity in time. Thus the senses are a product of this drive, as they are each organism’s individual mechanism for physically navigating through the world. This drive then depends on the individual, and the specific place and time in which he is doing the experiencing. Despite this dependence on the individual to physically navigate nature, it is important to realize that in the sense of having meaning, there is nothing at all different between every living plant and animal on this planet, as each one has emerged as it has in its specific time and place out of a long series of evolutionary choices made by the survival drive, and its particular manifestation is unimportant. Despite its particular manifestation as an individual organism, it has no claim to individual importance, being merely a set of impulses and instincts.

At some point in the distant past, however, which contemporary research suggests was about 200,000 years ago in Africa, there emerged a new species. This was a species unlike any other. It certainly contained the survival drive, as it was a living thing, and thus its members often behaved in a fashion which was fitting with that concept, attempting to procreate and further their species. However, it had the unique ability of self-realization, with which an individual member of this species could look upon their actions and consciously recognize the heavy hand of the survival drive as a compulsive force. While we may never know who made that first revolutionary realization, we can imagine a situation where a primitive man looks upon his actions, suddenly realizes that he had been engaging in them out of a compulsion, and begins the eternal struggle to resist the survival drive’s hitherto unchallenged rule over the actions of all. This capacity of resistance is what makes man unique in the cosmos. Having been fitted with self-realization by the process of evolution, he can now resist the compulsion of nature, and seek to make decisions based on concepts of knowledge, to advance a concept of morality and ethics, of the eternal and unchanging. This ability we call his rational drive.

Here it is important to note that we can never fully escape nature, nor would that escape be desirable. We, as human beings, cannot fully conquer our survival drive, as that would be synonymous with saying we are no longer physical beings. Clearly, we will always exist as physical beings within nature. Thus, while we may, through the utilization of our rational drive, make specific decisions based on our concept of the good, instead of in our self-interest, we can never fully escape our predilection for acting in our own self-interest.

We must now consider what that means, and to explore more fully how this interacts with our rational drive. This drives finds truths across space and time, which are eternal regardless of the individual experiencing them, and the specific time and place in which he is doing the experiencing. Perhaps man can exist without this drive, but he will do so at the expense of his humanity. If man becomes only a product of his survival drive, he ceases to exist as a human being with content, and becomes merely an instinctual force, driven on by his natural tendencies, simply reacting to each situation as it arises, following his feelings, much as any other organism within nature. Conversely, if man becomes only a product of his rational drive, he ceases to exist as an individual, and thus has no form, but is merely an automaton existing outside of time, with no individual identity (an impossibility, or at least outside of our conception).

Our unique human condition is thus found in the interaction between our survival drive and our rational drive, and the way this manifests itself within us. This also makes each individual unique and sacred, as through self-realization one can escape being merely a cog in nature’s complex system, and become a being which has the capacity to make decisions opposed to the designs of nature. Thus, while we always exist as specific instances in space-time, we also have the ability to connect these instances with unchanging eternity, and concepts which are valid regardless of their specific manifestation in the physical world. This is how we contact ethics and a sense of acting for the good, not simply for the pleasurable or for sensory satisfaction. Humanity, then, always has the compulsion of the survival drive, but can only sometimes act in according to the tenets of the rational drive. Having established this framework, we will go through a brief overview of human history, in order to explore how these two drives have manifested themselves throughout history, and to gain a better understanding of how to build a good political community.