If I told you that I’m an avid sports fan, what does that
really say about me? It wouldn't tell you how much I love my family and friends;
it wouldn't give you any clue as to what my religious or political beliefs are,
nor would it reveal my character. It’s just an aspect of my personality. The
amount of information you can draw from that statement would reflect more on
the interpersonal relationships you have with people who have an affinity for
sports. If I told you I was an artist, you might assume I’m creative and a free
spirit, but what else could you draw from that statement? Why do we attach superficial
labels to ourselves that neglect to define who we are?
Cognitive linguistics deals with the way we conceptualize
words. Everyday we interact with people based on a set of frames that we use to
understand each other. It’s more convenient than trying to understand every
nuance of human life. The trap is making sure you are dealing with someone who
views the world in a similar enough way as you do to understand all of the
identifiers we use as a way of distinguishing ourselves and ideas in the world. Our breakdown occurs when language is distorted.
Political and religious affiliations are one the biggest
group identifiers we link ourselves to. Some have decided that the totality of
their being can be summed up with generic labels like conservative, liberal, or
libertarian. Our political machine has given us so few choices that in order to
identify with larger groups we are forced to declare a nom de guerre based on
which side of the political ledger we fall into.
Most of my friends
avoid politics. Those who choose to engage are passionate about their positions
and can articulate them. However, we know this isn't true for all of our fellow
citizens.
One of the biggest problems facing our body politic is the lack
of critical thinking. Instead of clearly stating the positions they hold, most
politicians use an Orwellian double speak to mask their true intentions. It
would be entirely too easy to just say they are liars. The fact is most
politicians excel in many areas of social interactions. The politicians are
just a symptom of the problem. The rising costs of elections have caused decent
politicians to make decisions contrary to their beliefs. Our lack of critical
thinking as a nation has made it easier to deceive us. A smarter electorate
would add a level of integrity back to our politics.
Why choose to link yourself with ideas constructed by
someone else? When you think about what it means to be a liberal, conservative,
or libertarian: none of us fit into the neatly crafted boxes these terms provide. I know libertarians who supported the governments role in integrating
the school systems in the 60’s, but oppose the enforcement of the same laws
when it comes to private business. I know pro-choice conservatives, and liberals
who want to cut spending to social programs.
The problems facing our country are to complex to believe
that any of the choices above have a monopoly
on fixing them. Liberals believe we can have an active Federal Reserve and
prime the pump back to prosperity. Our conservative friends believe we can just cut
taxes and everything will go back to normal. While libertarians believe that
complete and unfettered markets will pick the winners and losers in society.
I've read the greats: Friedman, Hayek, Marx, Mills, Keynes,
Sowell, Paine, and Von Mises, if you think any of these men put together a perfect guide for an economic system you're holding on to a flawed
economic dogma that can be taken apart with deep dialog. Some of these men were more right than others, but they each had flaws in their work. The Laffer curve was a
sick joke on all of us: Reaganomics hurt those who needed the most help, cheap
money policies do create bubbles that eventually burst, and abolishing the
Federal Reserve would completely untangle the global economy.
Those are just a few examples of the economic theories held
by our political parties. Some of their social and geopolitical ideas held will
eventually make their way to these pages, but for the sake of this article
pointing out the shortcomings of these prevailing policy positions is enough to prove the point I’m trying to convey: if our politics can’t correctly
identify and solve the problems of our politics, why do we think they can
correctly identify and solve the problems inside of us? Who you are is much
more complex than the letter beside the candidate you vote for, and if not I
will be praying for you.
