Political Sphere

We typically think of the political "spectrum" as representing the differences between liberals on the "Left" and conservatives on the "Right." 

But this linear view fails to emphasize an important distinction that exists within both the Left and the Right: Blind Belief vs Rational Skepticism. If we add this dimension, the political world is better represented by a sphere divided into four quadrants:

Blind believers refuse to compromise, even when confronted with contrary evidence. Blind believers move forward motivated by the faith in their own beliefs. 

Rational skeptics willingly admit when the 'other side' has valid points and they keep open the possibility that they may be wrong. Rational skeptics move forward by evaluating and selecting the most logical approach or answers. 

To be clear, this is not the same as being a "moderate" versus being "extreme." 

Rather, there is a fundamental difference between a Blind Believer and Rational Skeptic akin to the difference between religious belief and the scientific method. Skepticism is a process for analyzing a belief. Skeptics attempt to use an objective thought process when evaluating public policy. Blind believers borrow a set of ideas from someone else and defend those beliefs with great fervor regardless of the evidence.

To be sure, we all do some things motivated by our unquestioned beliefs, while some of our actions are carefully considered. It is an internal spectrum as much as it distinguishes those within different political groups.

In this election cycle, the Left's blind believers rallied behind Bernie Sanders, an enigmatic and energetic idealist who promised free healthcare, free college and efforts to "save the planet." 

But the Left's rational skeptics supported Hillary Clinton, whose views and actions suggest she better understands that politics is not religion, but the difficult art of reconciling conflicting public interests.

On the Right, you have no trouble finding the blind believers, strongly represented by the entire Republican Party and its multitude of Presidential candidates. 

Donald Trump may not believe (or even understand) traditional conservative political philosophy, but he resides firmly in the "believer" quadrant because he blindly believes in his own abilities and intellect. He does not let rational coherence interfere with his proclamations.

Rational skepticism arrives in conservative political philosophy under the guise of the "Libertarian." My conservative friends who have long declared they are "Republicans" now succumb to my arguments with, "well, I'm not so much a Republican anymore as I am a 'Libertarian." And this may be the long awaited Third Party that finally gains traction.... 

At least it appears that Gary Johnson, the "Libertarian" candidate, fits better in the conservative rational skeptic category than any other current Presidential candidate. He's willing to look at the evidence against the "War on Drugs," for example, and come to the conclusion it is a failure. But he does appear to reside firmly in the magical effects of budget cutting camp.  His website suggests we can go from a $503 billion deficit to a balanced budget basically overnight without reeking economic havoc. He has other questionable ideas too. But he and the Libertarians appear to arrive at their policy views through a rational process. This is rational skeptic conservatism. There is hope.

But there are few rational skeptic politicians. Most reside in the blind believer category, which should not be surprising because blind believers always have a better answer. Many will claim to lead by their "gut" or divulge they seek guidance from a "higher power." Trump, of course, loudly boasts that he's going to do better than Clinton because, well, just "trust me...." 

Blind believers are easy to spot because they frame complex issues in overly-simplistic terms, especially when pointing out perceived threats. 

Trump: "Trump is calling for the total and complete shut down of all Muslims entering the United States." 

Sanders: "The greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation." 

By not dwelling upon potentially contrary facts or nuance, blind believers feed off their own certainty, believing in their absolute righteousness and their opponents' absolute evil. There's no room for middle ground and the onus is on "them," and not ever ourselves. 

The blind believers on both the Left and Right present a huge threat to society and their danger is compounded during times of unrest or uncertainty. It is in these times that, at best, bad public policy is formulated, or, at worst, brutal dictators emerge. History is replete with blind believers who convinced us they could make us all great again, but only if we follow their rules....

But the good news is that skeptics on both the Left and Right share more in common than they know: Rationalism may diverge at moments, but it converges over time. In other words, smart people can disagree on the correct public policy, but given enough time, the correct policies prove themselves and no one analyzing the evidence can disagree. Rational skepticism is a process that eventually reveals truth. 

Inserting the notion of rational skepticism into the political discussion may offer some hope to suppress the appeal of the blind believer's promises.  

We voters should look toward politicians who acknowledge their own limitations and who are willing to compromise, regardless of their political party. This is a sign of wisdom, the essence of rational skepticism. 

We need to fight our own internal blind belief that sometimes wants us to vote for the super confident macho guy. Once upon a time the biggest ape among us was usually the best choice for leader. But we live in a different world today. We need to look out for our own 21st Century self-interests and seek out competent rational skeptics to lead us through these challenging times.