Fixing a broken system: Identity Politics

The divide in our country grows ever wider. Kids are now being raised with a unifaceted approach to politics, as per their parents MO. Many issues are stuck in the middle of this divide serving as illumination to the mounting fervor. 

Generalizations: 

The left uses morality and emotionality to persuade people of their positions
The right uses logic and numbers to persuade people of their positions

Left is primarily concerned with care taking and equality of outcome
Right is primarily concerned with equality of opportunity and rule of law above all else
So what is more powerful rule of morality or rule of law?

A definitive answer not withholding, it seems as if people are starting to utilize their bubbles of conformation bias all too effectively and view these concepts, morality and law as two separate and distinct entities. I believe it is this separate and distinct view that only adds fuel to the fires of identity politics. Unfortunately a question such as this leads us down a very perilous road, the road of government as an active player in our daily lives.
Sir Isiah Berlin (grew up in the midst of the russian revolution in 1917)  wrote an essay on two concepts positive and negative liberty.
It is my contention that a democratic republic such as ours must remain, however transient it may be, in a state of existence between these two concepts.
To stray beyond either concept leads us down a path that is dangerous, bloody and downright frightening.
So let us define our terms so we may all occupy the same intellectual space.
Positive liberty is most commonly defined as the ability to act upon one's own intuition and free will.
Negative liberty is most commonly defined as the freedom from external restraint of one’s actions.
Typically people view positive liberty as the government providing something someone does not already have so they might be able to carry out their free will. A prime example of this is the concept of welfare. Negative liberty is more simply the inability of the state or government to coerce you into doing or not doing something.
The interplay between these two is quite evident.
So to get back to the original question. What is more powerful the rule of morality or law? Well if morality is taking from one person to give to another then that would be positive liberty. But if taking something from some person inhibits then from carrying out their free will then that is in opposition to negative liberty.
Thus we see the issue that a democratic republic must remain forever between these two points or else descend into totalitarianism via positive liberty or anarchy via negative liberty.

The antidote to identity politics is remembering that within this framework of negative and positive liberty we retain the most freedom from the government and the most freedom to live our lives as we see fit. 

Slide scale between law and morality

We MUST remain between the two, sliding back and forth with the changing times and cultural norms. 

This is obviously easier said than done. However a powerful way which we can move towards accomplishing this are to remember the wise words of John Stewart Mill, “He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”

Either way, the only way to proceed forward is to work together. Look across the aisle, see your own humanity reflected in your political opponents eyes. Realize that the only way to move forwards successfully is to conduct yourself alongside people you may not like. So … 

Welcome to real life. Suck it up buttercup and move forwards. We are all that we have, but we are all that need. 

When a concerned citizen pauses to reflect upon the democratic republic he finds himself in he may notice things that require further illumination. The need for a an educated populace such as Socrates noticed, the way in which selfishness overtime worms its way into the bureaucratic monolith, the way in which democracy tends to trend towards oligarchy if left unchecked, and the successful implementation of certain prerequisites for societal progression or troubleshooting. While these are all factors quite important to the structural integrity of a democratic republic, both from within and from without, it is this last item that I think serves as somewhat of an umbrella term for aforementioned. With this in mind let us explore this idea further and hopefully come to a semblance of a solution that is both robust and lasting. 

Before doing so, however, it must be noted that all of these factors both independently and synergistically play a role not insignificant in the degradation of such a democratic republic. After all what is a democracy/republic if not merely a human artifice, beholden to the changing times and machinations of the populace. It can be seen how each of these items plays a role in the degradation independently, but when you have two or more of these simultaneously there is a snowball effect. Sadly, this is precisely where we find ourselves at the moment. It is plain to see, for anyone who wishes to put forth mental energy, that our republic is in dire need of a tune up. 

This umbrella term, this set of prerequisites, if implemented properly I believe not only retain the initial concept of freedom and democracy, but also allow room for improvement and evolution. Let us outline it briefly now. 

• The first prerequisite condition is that you have a collective of people and/or groups dedicated to proactive observation. They must be keenly aware of the troubles that are sure to befall us in the near or long term future. They must, with as much foresight as is possible become aware of the troubles that loom ahead in our path. 
• The second is that of synthesis and analyzation. The observers must pass their observations to the collective synthesizers, whose job is to analyze this observation keeping in mind potential measures and/or course corrections which will bring about successful circumvention of said troubles. 
• The third and last is the dissemination of the possible solutions to the populace. These are the people who are in the public eye, who have the ability to articulate the responses the synthesizers have come up with. They must disseminate this information quickly and efficiently while at the same time not tainting it with personal or emotive forces to the public at large. 

After the public has been informed properly they are then in a position to make an educated vote on their desired solution. Voting into place the politicians who they believe will stay true to the solution they desire. This is the way in which a democracy should and must function if it is to navigate the pitfalls of the human experience. The interesting thing here is that there is no set group on a societal scale for either of these three stages. Thus, any person who so desires can become a part of any of the three stages. If one seeks to monopolize two or more of these stages we have only to look to the authoritarian past to see how this ends, the result is inevitable. While this is quite a complicated methodology of maintaining a democratic republic, it must be the goal. Simplicity is the enemy of nuance, and nuance is the friend of any democracy. 

Now let us examine this tri-pronged system more closely, let us take a deeper look at each stage in turn, getting to know the trials it will face. 

• Within step one, the observation stage, we will come up against ignorance in several forms. Both naivete and willful ignorance are detriments to observation. Therefore, it is in our best interest to allow those who have been gifted with foresight to lead the charge into the future and the unknown.
• Step two has an entirely different set of principles at play, namely, those that pertain to the ability to synthesize and analyze. Focus, mental capacity, abstract conceptual ability, and data analytics are all paramount to this step. Obviously, the negation and certainly the opposite of these are highly detrimental to this step. The uneducated, the lazy, those who possess a lack of wit, and shallow minded individuals are all advised to put their volition in either steps 1 or 3 or else remain part of the voting public. 
• Step three is prone to messy arbitration and information dissemination. Therefore, it would be highly desirable that those of the highest levels of integrity and tact among us make their place here. The dissemination of information has always been a troublesome thing, it has given rise to an entire historical/philosophical school of thought called historiography. Academics have made their life’s work off of studying how this has been done in the past. It is imperative that the people who make a space for themselves here are not only comfortable being in the public eye, but also comfortable not always being perceived as the good guy. You are not the solution yourself, you are merely a conduit of information passing it on to the public. 

Once and if this has all taken place, and all pertaining to a singular issue, that is to say not getting muddled up with other troubles simultaneously, we can then ask an educated populace to make their choice about how to proceed forwards. If we were to skip or neglect any of these steps the entire democratic structure falls apart. If you skip step 1 you end up with an oligarchical group of people pushing the society in a direction they so desire. If you skip step 2 you have an oligarchical group making decisions based on their own prerogatives which may or may not be beneficial to you. If you skip step 3 you have a tendency to sway to anarchistic tendencies, with a population disintegrating into differing and possibly even warring views about the future. 

Here we can see how it is necessary to maintain the integrity and efficacy of each of these three phases/stages. They must be done properly and they must be done in order. Observation, synthesis, and dissemination all lead towards a robust and educated voting populace that a democracy/democratic republic requires for its consummation and maintenance.