Politics

Every cardboard sign makes a difference

A discussion of political theories and how their ideas contribute to what we know about best practices for governing a society and increasing the quality of life.

"Most people assume the fights are going to be the left versus the right, but it always is the reasonable versus the jerks." -Jimmy Wales

This section aims to develop a political philosophy with a clearly defined goal and benchmarks that align with human needs. This allows us to evaluate proposed policy independently of its ideological associations.

Best Practices in Government and Politics

The general principles of evidence-based governance should be modeled on the those countries with the highest Quality of Life indicators.

In the countries with the greatest happiness and well-being, the following principles are nearly universal, with the happiest countries having the strongest systems in place for each.

• Democracy
• Freedom of Speech
• Religious Freedom
• Freedom in general
• Balance of Power
• Progressive Taxation
• Public Education
• Social Safety Net
• Universal Health Care
• Equal Justice for all citizens
• Mixed Economy with the best elements of Socialism and Capitalism

Many countries that are objectively happier than America don't have absolute freedom of speech, and many have state religions. But they still have very broad speech rights and religious freedom compared to unhappy countries. Evidence may demonstrate that reasonable limits on some freedoms net significant long-term happiness gains by preventing various social cancers from metastasizing, like misinformation, grift, and racism. Developing strong new social norms against these things can help when doing so through the legal system is not practical or preferable. As with most issues, a nuanced perspective is needed.

In general these positions are best represented by progressives and social democrats that are center-left in Europe, but are portrayed as far-left in American media despite the broad popularity of these policies when polled independent of party affiliation. [1][2][3][4][5]

This isn't to advocate for single party rule (see balance of power). It is setting a goal for government to improve utilitarian happiness for its citizens, and finding new metersticks by which we measure progress. From there, we do whatever the evidence shows improves the metrics. Progressive and conservative provide a balance between competing priorities and perspectives. It should not be the difference between having a government and not. Updating the way we vote to enable multiparty participation can also help return politics to a conversation about competing priorities between partners, instead of a competition between two teams.

Other Practices in Government and Politics

Not the best, but the rest. Most political ideologies make some good points, but policy decisions driven by ideology are often not evidence-based. The world is complex, with many feedback loops that create balances of power. Solutions that work in one place and time will not continue to work forever. Understanding the history and philosophy behind these political ideologies is important, but more important is that we not allow any single ideology to undermine our critical thinking.

Our goal is to find evidence-based best practices for increasing the happiness and well-being of society. Political ideologies can help us see how others have sought to do this, but there is no utopia, only progress.

• Communism
• Socialism
• Capitalism
• Libertarianism
• Classical Liberalism
• Anarchism
• Revolution
• Liberalism
• Neoliberalism
• Fascism
• Authoritarianism
• Monarchism
• Neo-Feudalism
• Technocracy
• Kleptocracy
• Kakistocracy
• Idiocracy

Idiocracy - Politics of the Future

Broad Trends, Not Current Events

This wiki focuses on broad, long-term political trends and how they interface with modern spiritual beliefs, rather than current events, candidates, and policy debates. It acknowledges the need for balance of power and diverse opinions, without any simplistic "both sides are the same" centrism.

"Culture war" subjects are especially avoided since they have been reinforced through extensive and currently active propaganda to trigger highly partisan in-group and out-group responses. The goal of this wiki is to focus on the goals we share in common, and the underlying ethical values they represent, so we can see all people as part of the universal in-group. When people do this, they will naturally come to conclusions about current issues that embrace the ideals of love, acceptance, and justice.

History of Government

A great video outlining the history and evolution of modern democracy.

The Evolution of World Democracies

The G Word is an entertaining and informative series that provides a much-needed civics lesson in what the government actually does with your tax money. Most people have no idea what much of the government does, the benefits to society, or the lessons from history that we collectively decided not to repeat. This is a big reason behind the loss of trust in institutions. While libertarians will criticize this as pro-government propaganda and leftists will call it shitlib apologetics, reasonable people who aren't extremely online will see it as an earnest attempt to help explain government to a chronically underinformed and misinformed public.

Full series on Netflix.

The G Word with Adam Conover

Modern Spirituality is Political

Most religions and spiritual movements tend to avoid politics because it is seen as part of the secular, profane world rather than the sacred and holy realm of the spirit that they deal with. It is also a practical matter, since religions must persist across many nations, each of whom has its own political movements that come and go. Religion has typically gone with a "support whoever is in charge" approach, which has made it quite popular with leadership regardless of ideology, though it often falls short of its own ethical ideals.

Traditional spirituality is community-focused, because for centuries we lived in small, farming communities that needed to take care of each other. The Charity model works well in these situations. Think about the Amish. If someone in the community needs a barn, everyone gets together one day and helps build it. What would be extremely expensive and time-consuming for one family to handle turns into a fun day out for the whole village. When one person is sick, everyone can pitch in to help their family. This is the kind of charity scripture advocates because it has worked since the dawn of agriculture.

Modern industrial societies no longer have this kind of community. It is a loss, for sure, but it is not possible to go back. What modern societies do have is the institution of the State. Now it is possible for our altruistic values to be expressed democratically through public policy! If we don't want to see our elderly becoming homeless beggars after they become too frail to work, we can have social security to make sure everyone is provided for. If we want to heal the sick, we can advocate for universal health care so that no person ever has to worry about how they will afford treatment.

Rebuilding community is necessary, but charity should not be the way that we maintain a minimum standard of living for all members of society. Only government programs can ensure that every person has these resources available when they need them, no matter what community they belong to, or even if they are completely alone as so many are. It will never be possible for government to solve every problem, and religions and community organizations should be there to fill in the gaps. But the systemic issues that impact everyone need to be matters of public policy.

Many religious organizations seem to be fighting to keep their outsized role in providing charity for the destitute because it is a driver for new membership. This is craven. You help people in need because they need help, not because it gives you leverage. Opposing public policy that could help millions of people in need in order to maintain this leverage is an absolute defiance of any known moral code.

Liberal vs. Conservative or Progressive vs. Libertarian?

The left/right political dynamic of the United States is often used as a reference point. However, they are more correctly framed in terms of Progressive and Libertarian political philosophies rather than the Democratic and Republican parties. This is because the actual political thinkers and developers of new policy are coming from these sub-groups, who are not always strictly affiliated with either party. It also somewhat ignores right-wing Christian Nationalism and Fascism, which are scary and must be opposed, but offer few debatable policy positions. In a discussion of best practices, we must consider actual policy rather than the exercise of raw power.

Depolarization and Decalcification

The primary political perspective being advocated by metaculture is that polarization, and its more intransigent form calcification, must be opposed. Functional government requires a balance of power between opposing viewpoints who still see each other as part of a common in-group working towards a shared goal.

"If we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line to our own, we become more polarized, more set in our own ways. It will only reinforce and deepen the political divides in our country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from." -Barack Obama

Social media platforms have deployed outrage-based algorithms that have had the side-effect of promoting particularly polarized political perspectives. Often these views are far outside the realm of anything practical or desirable, but the memes spread because our outrage causes to say "look at what the crazy people on the other side of the aisle are saying!" when real people weren't actually saying it until you shared it. And now that it's been shared, real people start to believe it! Then bad actors and trolls that only wish to sew chaos and confusion start using it for propaganda, amplifying its reach dramatically. This cycle must be broken, which means we must start curating the sources of information that we train our brain's neural networks with, and establishing new social norms that help us identify and reject outrage-porn and misinformation before it gets spread.

The evidence shows that happier societies are the ones that have implemented progressive reforms like universal health care, worker's rights, and strong social safety nets. History has also shown that ostensibly progressive reformers who eliminate their opposition through revolution and are able to rule unchecked will quickly veer into authoritarianism. We must strive for self-improvement in government using only democratic means, with a good faith conservative opposition that keeps liberal excesses in check.

The current state of stagnation and lack of progress is due primary to the fact that the political conversation has lost sight of any common goal that all citizens are striving for regardless of party. By focusing on that goal (improving the overall happiness of a nation's citizens) we can return to seeing each other as cooperating partners in achieving this goal instead of adversaries pursuing different goals.

The use of language is very important for anyone attempting to bridge political divides. Avoid triggering words that have been used extensively in propaganda, like socialism, communism, fascism, etc. since these only cause visceral emotional reactions rather than indicating any shared concept of policy. Focus on individual issues rather than party advocacy. Avoid using language that indicates a strong affiliation with their perceived out-group. Study the psychology of persuasion and put it into practice to promote a perspective that precludes polarization.

If you truly believe the universal truth that "we are all one," then this means our political out-groups too. No person is an enemy. It's time to put this belief into practice.

Depolarization is Not Centrism

The issue of political polarization depends on heightened in-group identification that is completely independent of most specific policy positions. [6][7]

Many ideologues see the depolarization movement as one of "enlightened centrism" where progressive policy goals are sacrificed for the status quo, and regressive positions based on misinformation are given equal weight to evidence. This has nothing to do with depolarization.

The goal of depolarization is to eliminate political tribalism so that things like universal health care that have broad bipartisan public support can see this reflected in their representation. Depolarization will finally allow social progress to resume by allowing people to work together on shared goals, instead of competing like opposing teams on a field.

As long as the game of party politics is played competitively instead of cooperatively, stagnation, deadlock, and status quo will be the only achievable result.

Different Coaches, Not Different Teams

The metaphor of politics as team sports dominates the information environment created by the media. In this metaphor, the political parties represent opposing teams competing to see who wins each battle over policy and ideology. This is not an apt metaphor for how politics is supposed to work.

A better analogy would be that political parties represent multiple coaches on the same team. Is this an efficient way to run a team when time is of the essence? No. But, if your sport requires careful deliberation and long-term strategy, having multiple perspectives weighing in on decisions is essential.

Shifting the team sports analogy from competing teams to cooperating members of the same team could have a dramatic effect on how the game is played.

Proposed Solutions to Polarization

Some videos presenting non-partisan proposals for how to correct political incentives and restore the balance of power in US politics.

Why US Politics is Broken and How to Fix It

How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future

Our Politicians Are Too F*#%ing Old

A big part of the problem with polarization is the fact that so many of us are ignorant about how our government works, our history, and the events that led to the laws and regulations we have now. Sharon McMahon, known as "America's Government Teacher", has many great books and other resources to help get people up to speed. View her books Check out her website

Sharon McMahon (law and government teacher) - Armchair Expert

Political Music

Many great songs express political views. Here's one of them.

Jay Z - Politics as Usual