We would prefer not to have choices dependent on the amount of evil contained within the various options. Unfortunately seldom is the case when a decision doesn’t have a darker side, one that may or not be obvious but, nonetheless, is present. The common parlance for its appearance is unintended consequences. Often that turns out to be of more significance than the intended result, particularly when incomplete gathering of facts precedes the choice made.
When there are multiple negatives on all sides of the question the ground beneath our feet begins to feel quite unstable. In the world of politics we frequently find ourselves surrounded by slogans. The lesser of two evils springs to mind this week. Another word comes to the fore: realpolitik. Originally from the German it means making a political or diplomatic decision based on the weighing of given circumstances and factors, rather than on specific ideological principles or ethical and moral standards.
The display to which we have been subject for the last months certainly should bring these concepts into sharp focus. By the time this is published we will be in the midst of another storm of certainty which is no more verifiable than the hutzpah of the Cleveland convention.
Unless living under a rock, we cannot help but be alarmed by the choices we are being offered. The uncertainty that is gripping America is accentuated by the free floating worldwide violence that is occurring virtually every day. The list of catastrophes seems endless and there is no need to catalogue them; the points to be made are quite clear.
First, and certainly foremost, is that if there were simple solutions to any of these disasters, they would already have been implemented. No government on the planet is run by idiots. The motives of many, including our own, certainly can and should be questioned but the leaders are not dumb; they may be devious and self-serving but they are not acting out of stupidity.
Second, when faced with difficult or impossible problems, the insertion of certainty into the decision making process is a common fallacy. The word hubris comes to mind. Merriam-Webster’s simple definition suffices: a great or foolish amount of pride or confidence.
In looking for leadership a certain amount of confidence is mandatory but it must be tempered with realpolitik. If not, the confidence morphs into hutzpah, the quality of saying or doing things that seem shocking to the general public. Done with frequency it leads the speaker to the false belief that everything said is true and if not supported by the facts, it ought to be true.
Third, when fear is the commodity on which the marketplace of ideas rest, then good and sensible people can fall prey to the Demagogue (note the capital “D”) who announces with unblinking sincerity that he alone can solve the problems of the world. There is another “D” word to describe such hubris and hutzpah: Delusional.
Well what are we to do? Never have we been confronted with such a choice between two such unpopular candidates. There is one other ancient axiom to which we might turn.
William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar of the 13th century. As a philosopher he developed a theorem that said among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. His thought today is known as Occam’s razor.
Coupling that to our current conundrum, we are truly on the razor’s edge. To suggest that we are faced only with evil choices is not entirely fair but the unintended consequences might be measured on the sharp edge of Occam’s razor: The fewer assumptions we have to make in choosing seems the wiser course.
Hayden Hollingsworth
