The Death of The Enlightenment?

I've got to be honest with you, readers: it's hard to write these days.

The most consequential election in American history is on the horizon, less than two weeks away. And it is an election devoid of substance.

Kamala Harris represents a kind of status quo—a largely uninspiring but mostly unalarming set of policies that have brought us relative economic stability but little growth, and the continuation of our foreign policy malaise. If she were to win, very little would change for the worse, but it's also unlikely that things would get better. The biggest reason for this is that the House of Representatives and the Senate are likely to be very narrowly controlled by one party or the other, guaranteeing gridlock. Harris has largely advocated for a series of policies that are a continuation of Obama's and Biden's—two administrations characterized by recovery from a major economic recession, followed by strong, nearly continual growth, but little structural change.

But on the other side, there is Donald Trump. Having extensively studied social, economic, and foreign policy, I can confidently say that there is hardly a single issue where Donald Trump's ideas are sound. Trump's vision is not good for anyone—not even for those who support him most. His policies have been debunked, and most of what he says are lies. Furthermore, the Republicans know it. Most GOP politicians at one point dismissed Trump as radical, incoherent, irrational, lewd, racist, un-American, or even dubbed him "America's Hitler," as J.D. Vance once did. Trump didn't change; the GOP leadership simply coalesced around him as he grew in power.

Furthermore, he is emotionally and mentally unstable. His behavior has always been erratic, but it has only grown more so as he ages, and it will continue to become more erratic as time goes on.

This makes analyzing policy nearly impossible because we are simply not engaged, as a nation, in a rational debate. What good are facts or logic if at least half the country refuses to listen? Furthermore, as time has gone on, there are many on the left who have also become increasingly disinterested in reality, preferring to push ideology unburdened by the opinions and analysis of experts.

This dynamic is incredibly un-American, and it represents a serious backward step for humanity.

Since the Renaissance, humankind has been on a path toward applying logic and an evolving sense of justice to our governments and institutions in an attempt to form "a more perfect union" that enhances "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." At all points along this timeline, there have been well-meaning and well-informed people who have disagreed on which paths to take in this pursuit. Science, and the application of science to our history and society, has aided in that growth. As we learn more about what works and what doesn't, the values we, as a society, have pursued since the Enlightenment have guided us. Gradually, ideology is abandoned for informed reasoning, and the paths become clearer.

It is the job of the media to report and analyze the news from all angles in order to better understand what is working, what is not, and how we can improve. This process should be noisy but collegial, as differing opinions are natural, and truths revealed by science and social science are often inconvenient.

But that's not what is happening—not anymore. The media has largely bifurcated. Some have favored ideology over everything else and have decided to simply echo and amplify—or even compose the script for—disinformation and the political figures who spread it. On the other side, a horrified and increasingly irrelevant group of individuals has called out this disinformation, only to be dismissed by more and more people. There is very little informed debate if one side has rejected the ideals of the Enlightenment, and the other side is forced to unify, despite significant differences, just to create a firewall against an inferno.

It's not just happening in the United States, either. Europe is going through similar struggles. In the Middle East, the Israel-Palestine conflict has turned the kind of cruel, exclusionary, backward thinking into terrorism and genocide. We are further away from solutions to that conflict than ever, and much of the "debate" around the issue, both in the region and across the globe, quickly decays into histrionics and bigotry. On the best of days, this conflict is one of the most complicated and divisive issues humanity has faced since the end of World War II. With the Age of Reason seemingly ending, and a vicious war raging, the likelihood of the conflict being solved by conscientious debate and compromise is approaching zero, with no end to this dynamic in sight.

There is a desire that I've heard many times from some who are as frustrated with things as I am: to adopt the enemy's tactics, to sink to their level, to use propaganda and disinformation to counter what's already out there. Journalists, experts, analysts, and thinkers must avoid this road because all it breeds is apathy—the sense that nothing is true and therefore nothing matters. Instead, the best approach is to break down complicated systems for the average person.

Many of the people who support the Donald Trumps of the world are intuitive thinkers. They see that there are problems, that "the system" has failed; they have questions, and they seek answers. These are all valuable instincts. The problem is that, too often, intuitive thinkers don't think analytically. They are more likely to cling to easy answers or to identify with the anger and fear expressed by demagogues and populists. But this is also because the experts, the social elite, and the political classes have far too often failed to explain what they are doing or why. They have worked in the dark backroom and have made little attempt to explain their methods or motives to the general population. The goal of this blog is to break down those barriers, to try to move analytical thinking back into the public space, and to give intuitive thinkers the credit they deserve. The only way forward is for journalists to truly question the systems that make up our society, to really listen to the critics, and to try to actually answer those questions.

So, yes, it's hard to write these days. That's why it's so important to do so.

Today, I'm launching my "stream of consciousness" section of my blog—small micro-articles that amount to little more than my gut reactions to various happenings of the day.

The goal will be to quickly collect my thoughts without the formality of polished analysis. I will also soon be announcing the launch of a new paid service that will give my supporters a chat room with exclusive access to me as well as to each other. Think of it as a troll-free political discussion forum where questions can be asked, ideas debated, and information shared without the risk of it decaying into the nightmarish hellscape that is discussing politics on social media. The service will help support my work and, hopefully, make all of us smarter, better-informed citizens. So stay tuned.