The Silent Centrist

Today's political landscape can seem an inescapable pit of polarization. Like many people, I have become exhausted with the hateful or inflammatory rhetoric used by most politicians. It seems as though any good person can't make it in politics and as such, there aren't any left. This can be depressing, as the problems our country faces don't stop just because political parties can't agree on a solution. This leads to a political gridlock where parties think no solution is better than a solution given by the other party.

Now I know that polarization is an issue that can quickly snowball into bigger problems. It can make people more likely to use personal insults and attacks over productive speech. It lessens the ability to see common ground and reach compromises. But polarization doesn't have to be bad. Polarization is, in some ways, a form of diversity. Stark as the contrast might be between two sets of ideas, polarization is just that - two sets of ideas. I strongly believe that a diverse set of ideas is what makes this country strong, and that we need to stop demonizing those who hold political beliefs different from our own.

That is what brings us to what I believe is the true issue that our country faces today. It doesn't take a political scientist to see the problems that polarization has caused. But I believe that the way to end the negative effects of polarization isn't to try and silence other views, but rather elevate the voice of the voiceless. By diversifying the voices we hear, the power the polar opposites hold on our attention diminishes, and with it we can see that there are many more things that unite us than divide us.

That is my dream with the Silent Centrist. I may not have the influence or the pervasiveness of others, but what I do have is my voice. And, even if only for my own sanity, I will raise it against the powers that divide us. I will remain silent no longer, but rather use my voice to unify in whatever small way I can.

We can go farther, together.
Let's go forward, together.

Now that we’ve discussed a bit about the essence of government as well as the most basic structure it can take, the next step is to understand when and where government should get involved. This can be a loaded question. Based on our own political leanings we all tend to hold preconceptions about the role government should play. While I don’t pretend my opinions are the only good opinions on this subject, I do believe most would agree that we all acknowledge the existence of a basic framework – it is only the degrees of importance.

The first metric is liberty. In a free society, freedoms become liberties when established by rule or law. A simple distinction between freedom and liberty is that the former refers to things you can do and the latter refers to things you are allowed to do. Given human nature to be capable of great good and great bad, liberties are the way government can allow the maximum amount of good while restraining the maximum amount of bad.

The second metric follows on the first and involves justice. The rules we establish that restrict liberties are typically created for a “greater good.” Breaking those rules is an offense against the society that established them. Justice refers to the way we react as a people when someone breaks those rules. Justice should balance the severity of the offense with mercy that understands the circumstances in which that offense took place. Most would likely be more merciful to a mother speeding towards the hospital with her injured child than a young adult joy riding. While both committed the same offense, do they really deserve the same punishment?

The third metric involves fairness. It is only when everyone is playing by the same rules that things can be truly considered fair. Beyond playing by the same rules, fairness also considers equity. Just as you would expect referees of any sport to apply the rules equally to both teams, you wouldn’t expect professionals to compete against children. So does the need to have a fair field in life direct the government to maintain reasonable rules of interaction among society.

The fourth metric involves security. Peace is vital to the success of humanity. Maintaining security from actors outside and inside the government will be paramount to its success and longevity. The degree to which that security is maintained can have a direct impact on the previously mentioned metrics. As with all the other metrics, security can be adjusted with its own tradeoffs. A society that invests nothing in security is at risk of attack from the outside and unrest from within. A society that invests heavily in security does so at the cost of its own liberty, justice, and fairness. In doing so, it closes itself off from the outside, and restricts growth from within.

The fifth and final metric that I propose is the balance between individuality and communalism. Which takes precedence, the need of the individual or the needs of the many? All governments work on some level of the understanding that the collective needs have value and that at least some individual needs or freedoms must be put aside. At its most basic level, the need to maintain peace and security involves the individual sacrificing of their own money to fund it.

You can see how easily these metrics can be increased or dialed back depending on the circumstances of the moment as well as the values of the people that compose the government. I would even go as far to say that a healthy government will need to adapt and change as time goes on. Given the way that every human exercises their own power at an individual level, the government must react to this exercise of power and wield its own influence to maintain its own stability. These five metrics are the dials on the dashboard of government. In my final post, I will explore how we, as a nation, should set those dials.

Government can take many forms. Regardless of any “official” government, the nature of humankind is related to the exchange of power we previously discussed. Usually the “how” of government is so obvious that we are oblivious to its presence. However, while it’s presence might be unknown to us, the effect of government is almost always felt. It may be the calm satisfaction of stability or the bitter sting of injustice, the effects of government are usually apparent. These governments can take many forms and will be called by many names. To some these names might be used to invoke feelings, both good and bad, to influence the minds of others. But here I believe we can group all governments into one of three categories: governance by one, by the few, or by the many.

In the previous post I discussed how power, whether emotional, transactional, or will, is how we interact with others around us. That expression of power will directly affect the type of governance we experience. We’ve all most likely experienced each type of governance to some degree. Each form of government also has its benefits and drawbacks. I would argue that each form of governance is useful in different cases – by that I refer to all aspects of our society, not just government in reference to the state or country.

Governance by one is when one person holds all, or the most influential part, of the power. Most would quickly think of dictatorships, authoritarians, or monarchies as examples. In American philosophy, those forms of government are often considered at best unfair, and at worst, terribly oppressive to its subjects. But before you judge too harshly, let’s discuss a positive example to understand its benefits: the teacher/student relationship. In the classroom, the teacher holds all the power which is used to mold the minds of the students in a way they gain knowledge and more power for themselves. Should each student be given the same power, the classroom would likely devolve, and little learning would get done for the vast majority of the students. By concentrating all the power in the teacher, the students, who relinquish their power, actually gain more. By concentrating power in one, the governance will be clear, consistent, and quick. However, errors will greatly affect the entire group, which can quickly lead to distrust or unrest. While very good leaders can have a large, positive effect, very bad leaders will have a large, negative effect.

Governance by the few is when a relatively small number of people hold all, or the most influential part, of the power. Most businesses are run on this model. Typically, a small group of people, whether it be the CEO, board of directors, or even majority shareholders, will influence company policy. Employees, customers, and other businesses can try to exert their own influence over that group, but in the end, it is the small group of people that make those decisions that affect the whole. By having multiple people’s input, you can reduce the probability that one person’s mistake will be compounded to negatively affect the whole. The governance will take longer, but errors of one are less likely which provides more stability. However, if those who hold power have different interests than those who don’t hold power, the governance will often feel corrupt and lead to discontent.

Governance by the many is when a very large number, or perhaps the entire population, holds the power. Most people will associate this with democracy. In practice, there are often very few examples of true democracy where all hold equal power to make decisions. One example that fits fairly well is cooperatives. Owned and run by the employees, together the vote on decisions to be made and then enforce those decisions together. The strength of governance by the many is seen in the stability of the acceptance of the rules. When everyone has a say, it is more likely that together everyone will respect the decision made. However, this process will take much more time and can be logistically challenging. Informing about decisions, debating, and then making decisions can be a lengthy process, and is often subject to the formation of factions (reverting back to governance by the few) in order to concentrate power to achieve common goals.

So that begs the question, which one is best? The answer is that it will always be a trade-off. Since it will depend on the situation and the needs of the group as a whole, the best form of governance will be different for different situations. In general, things I believe we should consider when establishing a government is the source of its power, the best way to avoid the misuse of that power, and finally the role we want the government to play.

As we understand the nature of government, we first need to define what government is. Traditionally, when we think of government, we think of municipalities, states, or countries and the people (and by extension the institutions) that run them. A broader definition of government is useful because of the nature of humanity. I believe we should consider government to be the use of one’s power over another, including the relinquishing of one’s power to be governed by another. If we view government as the formal ability to exert will, the concept expands greatly. While formal institutions aren't needed for every interaction, "government" exists even in our most basic exchanges.

Let’s look at the smallest level, a one-on-one human interaction. Some obvious examples would be a sales transaction. Here the seller might try to influence the buyer into a transaction. This might be done to varying degrees of success or effort. Essentially, this serves as a government by contract – together the exchange of services or goods improves the lives of both parties. Contrast this with a bully/victim relationship. The bully uses physical or emotional threats to force the victim to act in a certain way. This is government by force, inciting fear to gain power.

On a larger scale, even work relationships are essentially a small form of government. Depending on the size, these relationships solidify into institutions. The CEO and board of directors control the direction of the company. Managers then enforce that on the employees. HR adjudicates disputes, and payroll distributes rewards. This is seemingly a more structured “governor” to “governed” relationship than the previously mentioned situations. It is transactional and serves both parties to some extent.

I’d like to look at one final, non-traditional example of government – the family unit. Typically seen as positive (at least they are meant to be positive), the parental-child relationship is intriguing. Children are born into this world completely powerless, and totally dependent on adults for nurture and care. As they grow, so do their abilities and knowledge – or perhaps put a different way, so does their power and influence. This growth is often accompanied by more responsibility, such as chores, homework, or privileges such as staying out later. Underlying all of these interactions is trust. Trust from the parents that their children are capable of acting responsibly. Trust from the children that their parents are guiding them correctly.

There are many other examples of this broad definition of government, but one thing they all have in common is power and how it is used. For the purposes of this blog, I will clump them into 3 main sources: emotional, transactional, and will. These are typically all interrelated, but I’ll break down the basic idea. Emotional power stems from feelings, such as fear, loyalty, love, etc. The mother governs through love; the bully governs through fear. Transactional power stems from logic and exchange. I give you labor; you give me a wage. I give you money; you give me a product. This is the government of the marketplace.

Finally, we have the Power of Will. I view this as the bedrock of all government because it is rooted in personal agency—the sovereign ability to choose one’s own beliefs, values, and ideas.

Unlike Emotional or Transactional power, which are often external forces pressed upon us, Will is internal. It is a power that cannot be forcibly taken; it can only be voluntarily surrendered. We see this 'surrender' when we agree to follow traffic laws for safety (surrendering to the state) or when we compromise in a marriage (surrendering to the family). It is the power of restraint, the ability to resist coercion, and ultimately, the currency we use to 'buy' into a civilized society.

When we can understand that all human interactions boil down to some use of these powers, whether individually or some combination, we will be able to better answer the next questions of government: how does it work and what role should it play in our lives?