0710 - SuperSimple

In crowds and yes, in politics (which is crowd manipulation), there is a universal and dangerous tendency to oversimplification. The simple slogan – "Stay the course", for example – replaces the complexities of the real world. Politicians who dare to think and weigh alternatives are condemned as wishy-washy. The dumb prefer a three word slogan, and all over the world the dumb often prevail. Surely it is easier on the brains of those who prefer not to think, to just say three words than to think about difficult, complex, and uncertain results. We maintain a large and expensive Staff here at The Objective Observatory to think and examine alternatives. This appeals to most Readers, but we have a few who cannot stand any questioning of their favored leaders and their slogans, and they often send us indignant e-mails accusing us of being an instrument of the Devil or worse, the Democratic party. We deny either being in league with the devil because we question stupidity, or of being a tool of large or small-d democracy. Indeed, judging from the state of the world today, we do not believe that small-d democracy is workable in most countries. This seems to be true in spades in countries with four-letter names ending with "Q".

Readers, you in the U.S. are being exposed to so-called Presidential "debates" where ten candidates or so are expected to answer complex questions in 30 seconds. That is, clearly, bosh. The crowds applaud the short slogan answer, even when it means nothing (what is "the course" that should be stayed?). The crowds like even more the short absolute answer, delivered in a shout. Yet the founding fathers of the U.S. realized that a working democracy needs checks and balances, executive powers controlled by courts and Congress, and these in turn being controlled. The Mob simply cannot be allowed to trample hither and yon in pursuit of a meaningless simplicity. That way is the way of the religious bigots, who not only call for Death to the Unbelievers, but Death to those who believe, but differ on some points of doctrine – look at Iraq and Northern Ireland. And learn.

This last week, an excellent football player, Michael Vick, was found to be financing a vicious dog-fighting ring. Here was something well suited for the TV sound bite. Like dogs? Then condemn those who fight them and kill the weak. While certainly agreeing that this behavior is immoral and vicious, our Staff Moralist goes deeper. The dogs in question are pit bulls, a breed that often attacks children, or innocents in their apartment halls (remember?) or other prey. The dogs are not evil, but the question is, why is this breed permitted? We realize that we will get e-mails saying that a pit bull can be a fine companion if well treated and trained. But they often are not, and when they are not, they kill. So, we suggest that other breeds be chosen as pets, and indeed that pit bulls be no longer bred. Yes, you have the right to choose your pets, but you do not have the right to keep an animal that may rip open your neighbor's grandchild. It isn't simple.

And so it is in more complex matters. Clearly, in war one wants Victory. But just what was "Victory" in Vietnam? We seem to be happily trading with Vietnam today. What is "Victory" in Iraq? Shia militia rule (the likely result there)? Chopping up an artificial country into self-ruling bits? Seeing which bunch of religious crazies will succeed in blowing up more of another bunch of women and children shopping in a market? Supporting corrupt rulers A or B or C who steal funds for water and electricity, not to mention stealing weapons from the benevolent but incompetent Americans? These are difficult, almost impossible questions. Don't answer in slogans. Think!

We support politicians who think, in the U.S., Anguilla, and the world. Do you? Sure?

Next time: MoralTruth [OO #711]