Dualism Defines Politicians

This column has been republished with permission from Vox Fairfax.

Do not pity the masses. Rather, exercise some sympathy for them as they attempt to sort through their daily lives while politicians – elected and campaigning – issue barrages of promises, criticisms, and non-answers to questions. With just a smattering of reflection, the separate universe cultivated by politicians may be withering away like the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In philosophy, dualism relates to distinguishing between mind and body, or subject and object, to identify the likely or reliable truth of competing propositions. In 1637, Rene Descartes coined his principle of inquiry as “Cogito ergo sum” meaning “I think, therefore, I am.” The French philosopher sought to parse cognition, concluding that doubt concerning the world around us results in reasonably reliable conclusions.

Nationwide, Republicans are spearheading efforts to rid state electoral systems of fraud and theft of elected offices. The evidence to support those efforts is sparse to nonexistent, yet the campaigns and promises and criticisms continue. This phenomenon is no less true in Virginia, where Governor Youngkin adopted “election integrity” as a campaign plank. His popular vote margin to victory was 63,688 – 0.0195% – out of 3.262 million votes cast.

The Cartesian principle argues that election integrity in light of these data leads to a conclusion that the winning results were either less than integral or insufficiently wide in their favor to be credible. In addition, the turnout in 2021 was the highest in the Commonwealth’s history (or maybe not?) as pundits attributed some of that result to expanded voter access, especially early, no-excuse voting. Superficial cogitation ordinarily would lead an observer to conclude that the resurgent Republican party in Virginia was now poised to undertake reforms to increase voter turnout while ensuring that the integrity that apparently was not violated in 2021 is enhanced.

Unfortunately, that sum of thought would be incorrect. Cartesian analysis also applies to the subject-object dichotomy whereby the masses of voters are deemed to be simultaneously both, mere captives of the elected class. Governor Youngkin never clarified the integrity term, leaving that bit of divisiveness to legislative allies.

His major contribution to the integrity mantra has been the replacement of the state’s head of the Department of Elections, an action unsupported by any reference to improving election integrity.

During interviews on the campaign trail, candidate Youngkin advocated distancing the Department of Elections from the governor’s office without offering any details, increased voter photo ID requirements, and audits of voting machines to ensure public trust. As a matter of standard practice, voting machines in Virginia are subjected to audit after elections. The message seems to be intended to muddle voter comprehension about the notion of election integrity as the subject-object masses. Or, it reflects the cognition of the new governor.

Meanwhile, the General Assembly lurches toward the close of its current session with bombardments of bills up and down committees and subcommittees and in the “crossover” channels in the hopes of the survival of some in a fiercely partisan arena. Youngkin legislative allies patroned legislation to reduce early voting from 45 to 15 days and ban absentee ballot drop boxes, measures inexplicably entwined with integrity. Election integrity advocates also sponsored legislation to cancel same-day voter registration, scheduled to commence this November. Curiously, a bill was also introduced to permit voters to “self impose photo ID” at polling stations. At present, a voter without photo ID may sign an affidavit.

In a truly bizarre bit of Orwellian newspeak, House Republicans proposed to slash $2.7 million from the budget of the Department of Elections slated for voter education, a program to dispel misinformation about the integrity of the state’s elections arising from the 2020 election.

It’s possible sponsors believed the project was a deep state conspiracy by Democrats to sustain further criticism of the Big Lie. Educating and informing voters is counterproductive to sustaining political dualism among the masses. On the other hand, at the same time, the loss of the funds would deprive Youngkin’s new agency appointee of calibrating a different message about election integrity. Here the evidence suggests a right hand-left hand dissociation. All of this is migraine puzzlement.

Nonetheless, as subject-object constituents of the Commonwealth polity, the electeds require that thinking leads to self-identification which, in turn, leads to credible criticism of political dynamics. Encouraging disorganized thought processes is characteristic of politicians to suppress cognition by voters and any realization that they are the reason for the existence of a polity.

An example of political self-delusion was recently expressed by Delegate Margaret Ransone, R-Westmoreland, who announced in justifying a vote to kill campaign finance reform that she could not in good conscience support a piece of legislation that was not perfect. Ms. Ransone offered no suggestions on measures to make the legislation perfect.

We think, therefore, we are. It may take more time, but dualism of the universe promoted by politicians to ensure their permanence in the relationship is eroding. What we are and think is producing reliable conclusions that diminish expediency and hollow rhetoric as coin of the realm. No longer merely a dime a dozen, politicians are morphing into non-fungible tokens (NFTs in crypto language), existing solely in a blockchain in cyberland.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

48 responses to “Dualism Defines Politicians”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The first lesson in the first hour of the first day of campaign school is the phrase “perception is reality.” In politics, that is the mantra. And in 2021 all Republican candidates faced the reality that a massive number of the voters they needed to win were convinced the system was rigged. Based on my own time in the game, I never thought that, but literally millions did (and still do) so the first job was to get them confident enough to vote. Putting a spotlight on the issue, promising to do something about it, all necessary to restore enough confidence.

    Much of politics today is about inventing or exaggerating problems and then promising to fix things that don’t need that much fixing. So, dualism? Or acting?

    And pray tell who am I responding to in this unsigned article? No unsigned piece, please, Jim.

  2. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    My Ph.D. is in philosophy and the philosophical (or so claimed) side of this piece is either muddled or incoherent. Hard to tell which.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      EEEEEEEEEmanual Kant was a real pissant…. Thus ended my fascination with formal philosophy, after quite a few undergraduate courses, struggling through some of it in the original German. As bad as it was, formal theology was worse, because it started off with a false premise. A topic I avoid.

      ‘Tis a process. In the various states the complaints were filed, any evidence sifted, many, many recounts were held (I’m fine with recounts and recommend them when it is tight) and when the smoke cleared, we had a certified winner. The best defense if you are concerned is active and engaged election observers all around, and in Virginia that blossomed in 2021 to everybody’s benefit.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Sorry you do not like philosophy, since it is my field. Every important philosopher has articulated, for the first time, something important. In Kant’s case it was that what we know is bounded by the concepts we have to work with. He called them “categories of thought” or some such.

        But this was in the late 1700’s. Around Jefferson’s time I think. He needs to be read in that context. My only quarrel is that he did not have a theory of concept change. That was Hegel’s job.

        Also mine. My thesis title was “Meaning sameness and concept change in science an philosophy.” The question is how we can change our fundamental beliefs about something without losing sight of it, as it were.

        It was very interesting because my thesis implied that what my doctoral committee taught was false (a Luther moment) which they were not about to accept.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I’ll await Haners response on this.

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            All the books and all the classes and skull sessions, and I couldn’t escape the conclusion that life’s a bitch and then you die. So pour another pint, sing the Monty Python song, and seek charming company.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The high and thrill of conspiracy theory does indeed fail over time.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Hegel is surely grateful. The categorical imperative you espouse is utterly irrelevant to the topic in this thread.

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Agreed but Steve brought up Kant’s philosophy so I commented on that. I have no idea what you mean by “categorical imperative”, such that I espouse one. But as you say it is not relevant.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The first lesson in the first hour of the first day of campaign school is the phrase “perception is reality.” In politics, that is the mantra. And in 2021 all Republican candidates faced the reality that a massive number of the voters they needed to win were convinced the system was rigged. Based on my own time in the game, I never thought that, but literally millions did (and still do) so the first job was to get them confident enough to vote. Putting a spotlight on the issue, promising to do something about it, all necessary to restore enough confidence.

    Much of politics today is about inventing or exaggerating problems and then promising to fix things that don’t need that much fixing. So, dualism? Or acting?

    And pray tell who am I responding to in this unsigned article? No unsigned piece, please, Jim.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      No ownership required… He posted this as a payback for voxfairfax.com reposting one of his articles… The Poverty of Hate in Virginia… all part of the blog site cross-promoting that the advertisers like so much… think of this as the voxfairfax version of the TBE Sunday memes… about as funny too…

    2. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Bearing in mind that false beliefs can be supported by lots of evidence (which is what makes “who-done-it?” novels entertaining) there was lots of interesting evidence that the 2020 election was rigged.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Lost track of the number of courts and judges that rejected such “evidence.” That evidence has not gained any greater traction or credibility since November 2020.

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Yes but lots of people accept it still. We are dealing with what I call Wojick’s second law, which states that “The weight of evidence is relative to the observer.” This is why in complex cases reasonable people can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions.

          And those who accept the fix hypothesis have counter arguments to the court artgument. As I recall a number of courts refused to hear evidence. Also I think the new evidence claims came long after November. As a student of complex issues I found it fascinating. My view is we do not know.

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            On reflection I recall two primary counter arguments to the court argument. A lot of Trump fans distrust government so argued that of course the courts were not going to act since they favored the status quo. A possibly stronger argument is that no court would overturn a Presidential election. It was too much to ask.

            Note that in any major political or policy issue every argument typically has several counter arguments, which in turn each have several, and so it goes. That complex issues have this tree structure is Wojick’s first law (discovered in 1973) see
            http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Aha!! Courts favor the status quo and therefore do not entertain contrary argument? The argument is not the thing wherein you will catch the conscience of the king. The results of November 2020 were not fictional nor hypothetical nor capable of being parsed or analyzed in a tree diagram.

          3. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Generally speaking courts avoid landmark decisions. As I recall it was reported that Chief Justice Roberts was heard ranting about riots if they found for Trump. In any case these are the court related arguments that were most common. It is normal for people to disagree with Court findings.

            All issues have a basic tree structure, which I discovered in 1973 and named the issue tree. The diagram is the picture of the logic relations among the statements that make up the issue. The structure is there whether we draw it or not, as with a river system.
            See http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html — the part about mapping the structure of ideas.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Good to formulate your own rules or laws to rationalize a belief. November 2020 ain’t so long ago; so itemize some of the new evidence to support your current inability to arrive at a conclusion or assist the rest of us to know something.

            Some courts and judges rejected court filings (not evidence) that failed to state a justiciable issue or were simply hypothetical. I think your recollection is is faulty.

          5. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            So those courts did not hear evidence, as I said.

            As for post-November evidence I tracked this issue on Jo Nova’s blog which was very active on it. I could go back and look at the flow of new evidence but I am not that interested at this point. I am pretty sure it ran through the audits.

            The logic of complex issues has been my basic research field for over 50 years. I claim that law as a real (and important) law of logic. In fact it explains why there are political parties, among other things. There is a bit of this in Baysean theory because the prior probabilities used to create weight of evidence are subjective probabilities. But that theory is for simple hypotheses, not complex policy issues. I have pioneered the logic of complex issues to some degree.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            As I said, some courts rejected filings, not evidence. Generally, courts require facts in dispute not argument or wishes. That is the rule of jurisprudence. Philosophically, all matters may be debated with or without evidence.

            Mere logic is insufficient to sustain adjudication in the absence of facts. Indeed, law requires logic as a process of drawing conclusions, sometimes inferences, form facts in evidence. Still waiting for new facts since November 2020. Alternative facts are not acceptable.

          7. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Sorry but I did not memorize all the arguments, there being hundreds, much less when each emerged. There might be some books on this if you are actually interested. As I said, there were arguments for fraud that emerged from the state audits and I am pretty sure some of them were after November.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            TY for acknowledging that there were “arguments” for fraud but no evidence, only arguments, you can recall. Having tracked the issues carefully over months, any books you report upon would be welcome. As noted, arguments without evidence are only arguments, speculation.

          9. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Sorry but “arguments” is a technical term in logic. The arguments were all based on evidence. A lot of the evidence was funny changes in numbers as I recall, plus other stuff.

            I could do an issue analysis and lay out all the arguments and evidence but it would take a bit of funding, there being several hundred distinct arguments and evidence.

            None of this means it is true, mind you. Issue analysis is not about truth, just understanding the arguments and evidence. Issue analysis is like the trial that precedes the verdict, where the object is to get all sides well heard.

            My discovery of the structure of complex issues makes issue analysis a science. The issue tree is very precise.

          10. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Evidence is a reality term in law and life. Present the evidence to support the logical argument. No number of tree analyses of issues will substitute. “Funny changes in numbers” as a mere recollection is also not evidence. A universe of possibilities is neither evidence nor proof.

          11. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Presenting the evidence would be a big job I am not about to do, unless someone wants to pay me in which case I would be happy to do it. Sorry. The most I can do is tell you where to look, which I have already done.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well, you have to have “evidence”. It can’t be some accusation with little or no foundation or what-about-ism.

    3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Do you think that the record turnout in the 2021 gubernatorial election, especially in rural areas, signifies that these Republican voters have gotten over their perception that the system is rigged? After all, they won.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Did people claim that at the state level? I only followed the presidential debate. Perhaps the record 2020 turnout just kept going.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          same folks voting at the same precincts on the same day – for POTUS AND State candidates.

          IOW – the same voters voted for GOP state candidates and against the GOP candidate for POTUS.

          How could that be “rigged”?

          Thousands of individual ballots would have to be changed by someone – not just one precinct but many precincts across the entire state, then many states done that same way.

          This is apparently what some believe.

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Yes, lots of people in fact. But not lots of states as the margin was small. You are not aware of this debate I take it. It was very interesting.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well I’m aware of some facts. Clue me in on the specifics of the debate if you will – in plain language.

    4. Jim Loving Avatar
      Jim Loving

      Authored/appeared in Vox Fairfax, following the link to its About page, it says: “Jim McCarthy and Michael Fruitman are the VoxFairfax editors/curators; while Jim lives in Fairfax County (Herndon), Michael recently moved to Loudoun County (Ashburn).”

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Knowing what we know now about Trumps involvement in the elections including after the election, we still have some folks arguing the ‘big lie”?

    amazing.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The “big lie” was the same size in 2000 and 2016. False then too. Even had an earlier Capitol invasion (but that was very much smaller.)

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The election followed by direct attempts from the sitting POTUS and his administration to multiple states election officials to change the vote.

        no comparison.

        It’s one thing to go to court – it’s quite another to directly contact election officials and alter the vote.

        surely you see this. it just seems to me to not entirely honest to equate the two – at least to me.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          It never does. (But yes, Trump’s deranged behavior post election is a unique element.)

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            and I would say the deranged behavior was way before post election. No?

            Defenders claimed he has a flaw in the way he communicated. But subsequent events pretty much proved it was not a communication flaw… he meant what he said.

            It’s not like we did not have indications of his predilections like summarily dismissing those that disagreed with their firing being on Twitter?

            The guy is mentally ill in the sense that he is very smart and calculating but very much out of touch with realities and too many willing to follow him to overthrow the US govt. Notice the numbers, who, even after seeing this behavior, STILL support him!

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The “big lie” was the same size in 2000 and 2016. False then too. Even had an earlier Capitol invasion (but that was very much smaller.)

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The “big lie” was the same size in 2000 and 2016. False then too. Even had an earlier Capitol invasion (but that was very much smaller.)

  5. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Sorry, I did not know that you folks had no idea what the 2020 Presidential election issue was about. Had I known that I would not have mentioned it.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      We all were unaware you knew what the election was about, discussing and commenting upon it out in the open as though it was common knowledge. No harm, no foul.

  6. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    I looked at Nova’s blog and cannot find a way to just go to Nov 2020 and track the election discussion. But I did stumble across three posts on the Arizona audit that give the flavor of the entire discussion. Funny numbers. They are from July-Sept 2021, so well after Nov 2020, as I said.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/07/arizona-audit-finds-thousands-of-dodgy-votes-senator-says-decertify-the-election/

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/09/arizona-audit-shows-its-easy-to-cheat-in-a-us-election-and-the-democrats-are-happy-with-that/

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/09/decertify-the-arizona-election-a-million-files-deleted-280000-ballot-images-corrupted/

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      The time frame you cite is less than a year, hardly “well after” the election. As repeated and repeated, none of the discrepancies alleged were proven, only alleged. End of discussion. You are free to continue speculating.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Sept strikes me as well after November. But I am not speculating, merely observing. The goal of issue analysis is to accurately describe the positions.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          All you have offered is speculation, tree analyses, and conjecture about an infinite set of possibilities. No evidence, just imagination. So much of what you offer was based upon your weak recollection meaning that you could not describe with any accuracy the issues. Puhleeze!! Read your own commentary and inquire of Mr. Kant whether they amount to a categorical imperative with which you seem unfamiliar. I’m done.

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            There is a complex set of pieces of evidence, but you have to read it yourself. The issue tree has thousands of nodes, so no I cannot here describe it. It would be a sizeable project. Your persistent lack of understanding is interesting all by itself.

          2. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            Happily a new paper analyzes some of the evidence: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/30/a-peer-reviewed-statistical-analysis-of-the-2020-election/

            Either the election was a massive mess or it was rigged. I think we do not know but a lot of people take the rigged view.

Leave a Reply