Navigating Through Human Nature in Politics

O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. 
- Julius Caesar, A3S2

It never ceases to amaze me how little people care of human nature when speaking out for or against political issues. I think that the current political culture is not conducive to objective and tempered dialogue, so I aim to share my humble opinion on how to better navigate human nature in politics so as to cultivate a political culture that is conducive to objective and tempered dialogue.

Proving Oneself Right vs. Proving Idea Right
There is a distinct difference in conduct between those trying to prove themselves and those trying to prove their idea right out of genuine care for the common good. The former does not care for human nature, and the latter cares for human nature. The former will be abrasive and prideful, the latter will avoid emotion-charged discussions whenever possible. This is so for those who seek to prove their idea right for the common good seeks first and foremost to prove his idea right. It is therefore commonsensical to avoid situations where people can be overcome with passion and have their reason blinded. It is of paramount priority for individuals to abandon their childish desire to prove themselves right.

Prioritizing Condemnation
When people are consumed with passion and have their reason blinded, they tend to pick a political side as opposed to the side of absolute morality. When there are faults on all sides, the outraged people will not condemn the sides they find to be less morally culpable. Instead, they will condemn only the side that seems to be the greater threat and treat the less culpable as allies. Knowing this fact, one must be careful to call out moral wrongs on multiple sides to prevent oneself from being demonized by the passionate public. Save criticisms of those less morally culpable for later when things are hopefully settled. Instead, speak against those most morally culpable first. It may be frustrating that condemning all acts of immorality can at times be seen as unreasonable. But such are the ways of the people overcome by passion.

Intellectual Charity
You are not the master of another's mind. It is a simple statement, is it not? But many seem to forget. It is a daily occurrence for arrogant men and women in news networks to put words and ideas into another's mouths and mind. Always interpret another's statements in light most favorable to the speaker, not yourself. It is the speaker who is the owner of said statements, not you nor anyone else. It goes without saying that the corollary of intellectual charity is withholding oneself from calling those whom you disagree with "racist," "sexist," or "homophobe." Being quick to paint another as evil is an act of intellectual imbecility wrought on by childish desire to prove oneself right.

Rhetorical Strategy
This is a point that gathers three previous points together. All around me I see poor rhetorical strategies by various groups. Speech is the primary mode of communication, and one wrong move can agitate a crowd, even if the statement is wholly true. Sometimes, truths must be withheld for a while to lessen the effects of passion upon the masses. Sometimes, a noble lie ought to be used in order to be on the good side of those blinded by passion. The end goal of dialogue is to convince. If the other side becomes impermeable to reason through passion, it becomes harder to convince. With that in mind, rhetorical strategies should carefully be planned through prudence.

There are countless smaller points I would like to address, but I reserve them from being stated here in concern for length.

[Re]understanding Rights

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected... Thus we have two great types - the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruin. - G. K. Chesterton

The word "right" has devolved into a a politicized word. What was once a moral word of the highest degree has now become a mere rhetorical device of politicians and political meme makers who do not do justice to its mother word iustitia ("right" is "ius" in Latin, shortened iustitia). As it is with any politicized word, it is emotivized. Of course, when a word is emotivized, people start to use the word because it feels right to them, that is to say they use the word as a method of expressing what they feel about an issue as opposed to a reasoned and tempered rationale.

To briefly [re]introduce reasoned and tempered rationale behind the term "right" is the aim of this post.

Many throw around the word "right" to assert a moral and/or moral basis behind their political belief. A right is a moral and legal concept that ought to be necessarily due to a human being, and thus mandated to all human beings. Right to life is one physical example. By nature human beings have life, and thus all are due life and the taking of which is a grave crime. Right to freedom of thought and action are metaphysical examples. We of the free world assume that a human being cannot live to the fullest if one does not choose one's path of life willingly. So we allow freedom of thought and action even when one's thought can lead to one's own ruin. The only exception would be when a mandated right is taken from another such as life. Here, we assume that freedom of thought is an ontologically binding right, and thus one which ought to be protected and duly given to all human beings.

Metaphysical assumptions are further more authoritative than the physical observation. We by necessity assume that a right exists. But no scientist can point to one object and say, "this is a right." Rather, it is intangible. Therefore, the concept of "right" must have a metaphysical basis.

Moreover, we consider rights to be objects that are subject to enforcement, through monetary coercion or otherwise. Let's say hypothetically that a racist mayor of some town orders the voting centers to not admit blacks. The state or the federal government would send in their troops to enforce the equal protection clause. Indeed, 101st Airborne was deployed to Alabama to ensure the enforcement of Little Rock Nine's rights to equal treatment.

However, recently, there has been a dangerous pattern of thought with regard to rights. This dangerous thought patterns occur mostly among Progressives. The critical flaw in their rhetoric is the fact that a right must exclude any form of object that is necessarily contingent upon another's act: service. For Progressives, healthcare would be one example of service.

Healthcare is an object that is partly contingent on another's act by necessity. It is true that we can take care of our own health through taking care of ourselves. However, in cases of debilitating illnesses, we require a specialist's act.

If we go on to say that healthcare is a right, an object that demands enforcement, through monetary or forceful coercion, we would subject certain individuals to servitude, and not a voluntary one. By that I mean the possibility of de facto slavery. Surely, this will not appear so when the times are bright. A government might have enough money to pay to insurance companies and keep the healthcare system going. At that instance, the doctors would not be involuntary servants. But when the times are hard and funds run dry, what will the government do to enforce the right that is healthcare? Either they will ignore it and treat healthcare as a privilege, not as an absolute mandate, or they will enforce it, the only way being forcefully having healthcare providers to work, without the option to quit the profession.

Education is another example. We can teach ourselves many things. But highly specialized fields require us to be taught by a skilled educator. Education thus includes service. When funds are low and emergency occurs, the government will again do either nothing, retreating to treating it as a privilege, or enforce the right of education. Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to consider education as a fundamental right.

Moreover, the understanding that enforceable rights ought to include objects that are dependent on others' service has no physically observable or ontologically reducible principle to derive the conclusion from.

Thus, the understanding of "right" that includes service subjects those providing service to de facto slavery. A more humane understanding of any type of service ought to be understood as privileges. For such vital professions, the government could ask persons of those services to sign a binding contract to work even when times are hard.