When it comes to politics we ought not be so inclined to automatically choosing sides or adhering to dogmatic ideologies, as every issue holds contradictory yet mutually justifiable pathways to “solutions” in their intricate complexity. It is this complexity that allows complicated issues to rise to the forefront of political agendas, complexity in terms of the nature of the issues that face a country, of the different problems which arise in relation to the constituents of a nation, and the differing opinions in how to manage them. We ought to look at all political disagreements individually, and the optimal negotiation between opposing viewpoints is always to be found through using a Hegelian dialectical method. By this process we take a perspective, solution, or idea the conservative right has, with a corresponding yet contradictory view the liberal left has. Optical political solutions lie in something that transcends both of them in a new strategy, yet includes a consideration of both under its umbrella, and this is the job of our political system to actualize – as our country is almost completely divided in half. The American government relies on the temperament of the individuals that make up both parties, and forward progress relies on the preservation of values of the majority subgroups (liberal/conservative). Government is working optimally when both sides are mutually empowered to cohesively form a country that works in the best manner we can conceive of for the majority of people. We ought not cater to one side, or one aspect of the nation, but to find an optimal pathway forward that is pragmatically beneficial and “expressive” of the ideas of the majority of people. In an optimal world, everyone would be happy, and our glasses aren’t so rosy as to not see the naivety in the actuality of this idea, but nonetheless, optimal solutions are to be found in the balance and negotiation between ideological proclivities, that gets to the core of both generally dividable temperamental and belief structures in terms of people’s political inclinations.

Once we find a transcendent idea that is tempered by stability and “conservatism”, and simultaneous by change and “liberalism”, eventually you will find another corresponding yet contradictory truth that propagates the best of both worlds opposed to that idea. The forward progress of a Hegelian dialectical movement never reaches a maximum expression, but always can improve itself. We transcend both conceptions in a greater – and vaster – conception, articulation, or expression in concrete law form of something which is agreeable to the values of the people from which the law, regulation, or decision ultimately rests on for approval (at least in its democratic instantiation). This is how we advance consciously to find ever more effective and truthful resolutions to problems, and also the way consciousness can improve itself given more information without slipping into the dissonance caused by two contradicting beliefs.

There are obvious ways in which both the left and the right go to extremes, and there are good reasons why they both stretch in these ways. We need both sides, the right to maintain the state when it is in a modality that is pragmatically beneficial to the people and the country as a whole, used to maintain stability when and where the country needs to remain stable, and the left to implement change, innovation, improvement, when and where it is found to be beneficial. We need the order and the chaos, in equal balance to both temper each other, check each other, and work together for the benefit of a nation with individuals containing significant differences.

What we see recently is that both sides aren’t acknowledging the benefit of the other side, what they are doing is alienating themselves, and causing polarization not only between the two groups, but between people in their daily lives that associate with either political party. This disagreeable nature based solely on political leaning, widespread distrust, and the attribution of malice is permeating beyond the governing class into the majority of people’s daily lives. Widespread division is affecting the culture of the nation – diving us based on abstract ideals, most of which is ill informed and rooted in closed mindedness. Individuals are alienating themselves from other individuals on the microscopic level as the macroscopic political groups diverge more and more – which is being sped up and given a platform to do so by our ever increasing social media presence and technological advancement.

Due to personal conditioning to label ourselves on either side of the divide, the temperamental differences that so incline people to opposing viewpoints in the political sphere, and our biological inclination to side with those who share similar values, it is easy for us to intuit others as being the enemy given that they are “dangerous” to our way of life, or how we believe the world “should” be. Politics necessarily has the greatest impact on the most amount of people’s lives, and given these points, and the changes politics has the potential of affecting in our daily lives, these matters necessarily produce emotional and experiential division when another’s beliefs on the matter is in opposition to ours. The added complexity of a perceived moral or conscience driven proclamation of the benefit of our side, only makes the emotional tie to a group identity more powerful. The idea of a herd mentality, or of belonging to a “group” modifies the members that adhere to the identity – no matter what the identity might be. These identification categories have the tendency to divide rather than unite, towards which strong leadership can alleviate. Effective leadership can point to explaining what to one temperament may be hard to see as justifiable in the other sides perspective, and in showing people the benefit of social cohesion despite contrarian viewpoints. Strong leaders can lead people of different backgrounds and inclinations to not despise each other for their differences, but see their intentions as not based on malevolence, or on a desire to destroy another’s way as life, but as being one in the same as ours – to have a better country that is more conducive to our individual/familial/societal benefit – which everyone, despite their political leanings – shares.

As far as individual political issues, we need our greatest minds to act out of a spirit of cooperation, with an intention of goodwill for the countries people, as well as the world’s people, in reference to a time span not only in the present, but across time, not only for the individual, but his family and ever increasing group membership (to the macroscopic world). This is why Aristotle referred to politics as the height of morality and philosophy, as it is a specific domain that has the deepest and most pervasive influence into the lives of the most amount of people. This immense responsibility and complexity is why Plato advocated a philosopher king, what I think we need is a philosophical council which tempers a philosopher head of state, but we’re a far stretch from socially getting on board with such an idea.

We ought not attribute “malice” or “populace slavery” by the government or ruling groups of power, nor do I believe we ought to give headspace to any other conspiracy that paints a similar picture, whether they are true or not is out of most of our ability to concretely conclude upon. The ideas propagated by the media and the worlds governing bodies come from a much more naturally explainable place, yet are increasingly complex due to the number of individuals involved (everyone). The issues we face are much more complex than to be attributed to off the cuff conspiracy theories, regardless of the failure of the media to push unbiased accounts of the political news. It all boils down to individuals attempting to spread their individual interpretations, based on their inherent biases and perspectives. When this happens in a manner we perceive as unbeneficial to us or the country or the species in general – it often is due to a lack of expertise or articulation in politicians, or a mistake in deducing the proper manner of navigating the political landscape. That being said, we cannot escape the all too human effects of selfishness, power, and personal benefit that corrupt politicians and simultaneously corrupt the system – and this fact of human nature gives us reason to criticize seemingly irrational decisions by our countries leaders – which is the role of the people to properly discern. This doesn’t mean blanket criticism and complete distrust of anyone in power, nor does it mean that our institutions can’t or don’t self-correct for a majority of these occurrences.

The products of our political parties and media influence can be found in the trickle-down effect leading to our country’s individuals holding false beliefs, contrarian viewpoints, distrust towards one another and much of the time producing viewpoints that are misinformed. We ought to punish those systems and individuals that are exposed of perpetrating misinformation and hold accountable those that don’t give a transparent viewpoint of the workings of the government to the people – insofar as that revelation isn’t damaging to the country. This doesn’t only refer to the governmental institution, but also the educational and religious institutions. This is a matter of degrees, and difficult to discern, but a line of false representation and misinformation still exists nonetheless – and we ought to hold responsible those who don’t properly inform us in a manner that is revealed to not be “well-intentioned”, as in when the opportunity cost of doing so is greater than not.

The effect from on high is only accepted if it is given popular credence by a sufficiently large segment of the population – such effects would never be held in high esteem nor influence others if they weren’t themselves held as valuable to a substantial subset of people. Our politicians are naturally an expression of the spirit of the age, and are affected from the bottom up in their statements, laws enacted, and decisions made, just as much as those decisions made are simultaneously influential on those that they are in reference to, or towards those that pay attention to them.

What is often seen is a criticism of a president or highly stationed politician, or an institution in its totality, as being the cause of the aversive thought, value, decision, or state of society, and we tend to see the people that are in the corresponding political party as “victims” of the mind virus that comes from the top down. The perspective here that is in an opposing vein, yet holds true, is that it isn’t merely the citizen that can enact a sort of “idol” worship in their perspective of the politician, but the politician too enacts an “idol” worship in the necessity of catering to the populace or their constituents in the things they say and do – and we have ourselves to “blame” or hold accountable for that perception and influence the politicians take of/from us that gets expressed in their political activities. In order to get ahead the politician must be agreeable to a large portion of society otherwise their endeavors (albeit selfish intentioned or malevolent, or otherwise) would not be able to succeed. There is a necessary relation between the citizens and their politicians, and in this democratic age, especially in America, despite flaws in the election process, and the corruption that allows manipulative individuals to “get ahead” in their political aspirations, there remains a distinct necessity for the politician to cater to the desires and values of the people – or else their progress will be significantly hindered.

Where we find it easy to blame a politician, a political party, or their constituents for believing in that party’s values and conclusions in important issues – we find it more difficult to accept that those on high are only able to propagate such ideas in their adhering to something which resonates with a substantial portion of the population. The blame, the responsibility, the power, that influences aversive ideas, laws, or public statements of politicians that gets them elected, or decides a law, stems from the values of the people that continue to allow the politician to operate, that vote for him, that publicly and socially defend him and agree with his ideas. But it isn’t necessarily the people agreeing with the politician’s view, as the relationship has been shown to be cybernetic, it is the politicians ability to articulate ideas in a way a that is itself agreeable to these people in their own belief and value systems. There’s a necessary rhetoric to the avocation of any idea, and that rhetoric can and will be morally judged for better or worse. In the end, we’re all to blame for the production of such politicians and the manner they act. We’re all to blame for believing them, or believing in them, we’re all responsible and our own human nature is the culprit for being part of the social system which creates the individual in power. If a politician’s ideas weren’t agreeable to a threshold limit of the population they wouldn’t develop to be the person they are and would be selected against– either by their peers, their constituents, or their enemies, especially in the age of strict polarization.

Politicians must cater to their party’s beliefs or be selected against, whether that entails explicit honesty, specific ideas, a certain temperament, or rhetoric that is convincing. The responsibility still lies in our acceptance and propagation of the desirability that attracts us to one side of a political disagreement, an ideology, a politician, or a political party. This accounts for manipulation and corruption, false promises and expectation. Regardless of these phenomena the official or his party has to at least appear to be propagating what the masses believe to judge as “good”, as what they perceive as “bad” won’t be supported, and the politician or political party, or ruling legislative process wouldn’t reach actualization (and if it did, and was sufficiently disagreeable, there would be substantial kickback and even revolution).

It is only from this perspective that we are able to enact meaningful change at the root of the “problems” or “aversive” content apparent to us in politics. It isn’t merely poor leadership and selfish inclinations of politicians that constitute the root of the problems, it is the adherence to certain values in a large part of the country that grows the politicians from their bed of values – and if we want to change the upper most manifestation stemming from this belief garden, we must necessarily focus on the socially and culturally accepted values from which they stem. The problems and the solutions, the values and the judgments, all are to be attributed to ourselves, we the people, and thus it is the societal spirit of the age, the zeitgeist, where we ought to direct our praise and blame, our attempts to cause political change – not merely the superficial layer that is expressed in the party’s leadership. We must point the finger towards ourselves, the effect we have on people in our lives, and in general, our own influence upon the political and social spectrum – as the manner we individuals conduct ourselves dictates the bedrock from which the political milieu is comprised of.

Many people simply attribute to the “other side” or people that hold different beliefs, malice or ill-will in their expression of what they believe to be “good” or “right” as it threatens our system of beliefs. It is wise to apply Hanlon’s razor in these circumstances – rather than inferring harmful motives or judgment – and chalk it up to ignorance. Ignorance is something we all should seek to rid ourselves of in our comparison of our beliefs and their aligning to reality, in aligning what we think would be beneficial to what truly would be, especially on issues of such vital importance, and it often is the culprit for many decisions we infer are due to a lust for power, “evil”, or inconsiderate actions. Correcting for it within ourselves entails recognition of the unknown, such as a contrary viewpoints justification, and actively seeking more information on why it is appealing, why a large number of people believe it to be an optimal solution, and seeking to view not only the best evidence and arguments against our position, but the most supporting evidence for a contrarian position. Often times others merely don’t see our point of view, and we are just as apt to not see theirs in situations which are marked by anger or frustration by sheer natural disagreeableness. On a basic level, politics is such a huge system being affected by all the people in a nation, and simultaneously serving all the people in a nation – we therefore must take it upon ourselves to attempt to be trustworthy, respectable, and diligent in defining and actualizing values that we deem to be of crucial importance – as the bottom up factors not merely matter but are the most readily available areas we have the ability to affect meaningfully change.

One problem that exists in politics is the number of people qualified for leadership, and the societies recognition of personal responsibility of the problems we are so quick to criticize. This appears to be an issue in both the quantity of people that have the potential for competent leadership, and those that actually do take on the personal responsibility of enacting change in themselves before criticizing the system. We have systems in place that are supposed to filter out exceptional leaders across all governing fields in order to select the most competent in different areas, so those people can work together to cause a top down system that is most beneficial to the people. This bottom up advancement, top down control, should work, theoretically, yet it is not optimal in its promotion of the bottom up individuals, producing less than optimal command in the top down implementation. Frankly, this system can be improved, popularity and ego surely play a role, but nothing should overshadow competency in this filtration – something that is lacking in our search for diversity, our value of emotional rhetoric, popularity, or agreeableness to our group’s judgment.

Fortunately, regardless of the flaws, the average citizen in any developed western country lives a relatively good life, or at least its government has created a space in which the possibility to do so is open (to greater or lesser degrees of course, depending on the person’s situation and even more so on their perspective). I generally think despite the worlds political troubles, despite the average citizen’s polarization, ignorance, and aversion to contributing real beneficial change to themselves that extends to our government, that our system is doing okay. I really think things are going, that is, relatively good, compared to any point in human history, and just the fact that people are realizing the flaws of the system points to the fact that were on the right track as a group to greater improvement.