Design is the Future of Conservatism

Here's a scenario we can all relate to:

You're trying to learn how to use a new computer program. The box seemed cool, and promised all sorts of awesome features that you knew you couldn't live without. You install the thing, boot it up, and all of a sudden it dawns on you:

The program sucks. Nothing works like it is supposed to, it has buttons and levers all over the place, and you have no clue what any of them do. The whole thing is a big overwhelming mess. To make matters worse, you can't just walk away and use something else, you have no choice in the matter, you have to use this terrible program (for your job or something, I don't know, just go with it for the sake of the metaphor).

If you're like me (or any other human being) this provokes rage and frustration. The thing is just supposed to work. You want it to work and get out of the way.

Funnily enough, I have the same feelings about the DMV. But I don't think it's just a coincidence. I think it's a fundamental truth that we've lost touch with.

No, I don't think Windows Vista and the DMV both sucking are fundamental truths - I think the principles of good design are fundamental truths, and I think good design can make government better just like it could have made Windows Vista better.

I won't explain why this is conservative yet. I think you'll see what I'm talking about as I flesh this idea out. Just remember - less is more.

• Unity refers to a sense that everything in the artwork belongs there, and makes a whole piece. In the context of a nation, this means so many different things at once. Examples include: some common political culture and beliefs, common units of currency, common structural elements of programs (you want it to be flexible and the different parts of government to be able to work with each other, if everyone is using different standards then a lot gets lost in translation), and much more.

• Variety refers to the use of dissimilar elements, which creates interest. Think capitalist division of labor. Think democratic separation of powers. Think diversity - multiple perspectives that help us figure out what ultimately works for everyone.

• Balance refers to a sense that dominant focal points are balanced and don't give a feeling of being pulled too much to any part of the artwork. If you've read the Federalist papers, you already understand what this means for government. Wisdom means finding balance.

• Harmony is achieved through the sensitive balance of variety and unity. Harmony is what emerges from the system when it works right. Harmony is interesting because it's not a concrete thing. Think about it in terms of music - you have multiple notes that are different but are similar enough to work together to make something beautiful. The harmony is somewhere in between. Harmony is the real goal of society.

Those are the crucial principles of design - the absolute basics. Here's the wikipedia page that lists those, and many others that you might enjoy pondering over.

Admittedly, liberalism also takes much inspiration from the principles of design. But I believe in fundamentally sticking to the principles, which is a conservative attitude to have. If you want more examples of conservative design principles, consider these concepts, and reflect on how they apply to government: worse is better, feature creep, mission creep, second-system effect, code bloat, over-engineering, KISS principle, accidental complexity, Pareto principle, Occam's razor, etc

Notice how all those things kind of said the same thing? I think they're all getting at something important. It's better to just keep it simple. But we also should remember Thoreau's advice:

It is not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?

Anonymity Is The New Privacy

We don't just live in an information economy - we live in an information society. More and more everyday, I am convinced that the way we gather and act upon data will determine our collective prosperity. The more we know, the sooner we know it, the better the data is - the better decisions we can make.

Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about:




Having all this data at our disposal is very empowering. I think the old adage, "knowledge is power" is absolutely true. However, we also have to remember that "with great power comes great responsibility. Knowledge and power is like any weapon - it can be used for good or for ill. No one wants to live in an Orwellian society, but it appears we are moving in that direction.

For example, consider this recent incident in the UK. The police busted a party because it was tagged as an all-nighter on facebook, and for whatever reason they felt like they should stop it. The funny part is that they intervened via helicopter at 4:00 pm - before the "crime" ever occurred. Sound familiar?

That was just an aside that I found funny, but it does have serious implications. The amount of data stored on each of our personal lives is tremendous, and it will only increase. However, there is a tendency for activists to psychologically separate the positive power of data from the negative power of data. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't have the benefits of power without the risks.

I think this is a broader pattern of our society, possibly of human nature. Skip to 3:22 on this video and you'll see an interesting proof of this point.



But, returning to the point on information and privacy, what are we going to do? We need information in order to create shared prosperity. We can't just regress to the stone age. I think the solution is to think hard about anonymity. With anonymity you share your data but it doesn't identify you as an individual. In contrast, I think privacy means your data isn't shared at all. Of course, there will always be a way to figure out who you are and reveal your anonymity. I think this is where privacy policies come in. We will be thinking more and more about what goes into those legal documents, and I think that segment of the lawyer industry is going to grow a lot over the next decade, when more and more of these issues surface due to advancing technology.

I think the lighthearted reference I made earlier to the movie Minority Report is actually pretty instructive here. We need to think about the moral implications of stopping crimes before they happen, because technology is just going to move further in that direction. I think the best thing we can do is to realize that you can never get something for nothing, and to be cognizant of the risks.

Keep Your Ideology (Mostly) To Yourself & Understand The Other Side

In America we are big fans of free speech - which is a very good thing - but a society of individuals who enjoy broadcasting their views also has downsides. People who seriously understand the problems with free speech can learn to manage and adapt, and will be rewarded for doing so.

Once people start freely saying things, they tend to disagree. When people disagree, it is obviously hard to work together. Look at the Michigan legislature - they are consistently gridlocked. Last year the government shut down because they couldn't agree on a budget. In a democracy, we have to learn to work together better to get things done and to make the right decisions. Personal virtue is the grease to the gears of democracy. After awhile, the friction gets things too hot and the whole thing breaks down. Benjamin Franklin said America will fail if it's people aren't virtuous, and I think he is 100% correct.

So why do we disagree so much? I think this is one of the most interesting questions of all time. Have you ever just stopped to think about how crazy it is that two similar people can see one issue so differently? It is really easy to just label those who disagree with you as crazy, like Ann Coulter and Keith Olberman are fond of. It is really easy to just throw your hands up and be baffled at their stupidity.

It is also lazy, and won't get us anywhere. If you are truly passionate about something and you want to make a difference in the world, here is the best piece of advice I have ever heard: keep your ideology (mostly) to yourself and understand the other side.

Let's be realistic. If some change hasn't happened yet, it is because people haven't made it happen. People need to agree that it should happen and be motivated in order for something to happen. It obviously hasn't happened yet, so you need more people to agree and be motivated. People who aren't motivated yet don't understand why they should care that much. People who don't agree that it should happen don't understand why you think it should happen. So, you need to make people understand why they should agree and why they should be motivated. How do you think you should go about doing that? Do you think you should simply be louder? That isn't so great at authentically motivating people, and it never convinces people of anything.

So many people get caught up in the mindset of "rally the troops" but it is devastatingly ineffective. It is comfortable, and it is easy, but it doesn't work. If you want to actually get anything done, you need to think differently.

First, stop being so loud about your beliefs. It is one thing to think something and another to say it. Obviously you haven't made the change you want to make, so it isn't really hurting you to try something different. Every time you communicate your ideology it becomes a bigger and bigger part of your identity. You define yourself as your cause. You feel bad about changing your mind because then other people (and you) won't know who you are anymore. This is a recipe for a lazy mind. I would rather define myself as who I really am - just me. Not any particular cause, thought, or anything else. Just being me is good enough. I believe in things but they don't define me. If what you believe is really true then it will continue to hold under rational analysis. You can't do rational analysis on something that defines you.

Second, read everything you can about the opposing point of view, and keep an open mind. This is not weakness. This is strength. Like Aristotle said, "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." But you aren't doing it right if you just read everything and come up with answers to it. I think what Aristotle said is actually much more profound than that.

What Aristotle really means has to do with the way people hold thoughts. A thought isn't really a good enough word for it, because ideologies aren't just one single idea. They are multiple ideas woven together to form a coherent narrative and worldview. I think it the phrase "pattern of thought" is a lot more accurate.

So when you read an opposing viewpoint just to think of answers to the other side's argument, you aren't really ever entertaining the thought. To truly entertain the thought is to jump into it and allow yourself to temporarily believe it. You have to jump into the other ideology, the patterns of thought, in order to really see what other people believe. It requires a leap of faith. Try to recognize and immerse yourself in the true patterns of thought of the ideology. Then, go back and read things that you (normally) agree with, from the perspective of the other side.

This is like looking in the mirror, and I find it extremely useful. The better you are at authentically entertaining thoughts (i.e. temporarily accepting them), the wiser and smarter you will be. It takes practice just like anything else, and I am not very good at it, to be honest, but at least I think it is the right thing to do, and I'm working on it.

Ideologies are like circles - each individual thought ends up contributing to the whole worldview, and in order for it to make sense all the pieces have to be in place. One argument proves another, which proves another, which proves the first argument, and it goes around and around and never stops.

I think it is our moral duty to take of the lens of ideology and try to see things as they really are. The best way I have found to take of the lens of ideology is to put on a bunch of different lenses temporarily so you start to notice their effects on your thinking. Look at ideas from different angles, and you'll start to get a more complete picture. You'll also understand how other people thing and be able to emphasize with them, talk to them in their language, and maybe even get them on your side for some change you think should happen.

Where Does Republicanism Go From Here?

I think I may be the only person in the world who switched from Democrat to Republican this spring. I didn't do it because I like the Republican party, I did it because I admire conservative principles. I think these are the right principles to lead us forward to a new era of American productivity and prosperity, but unfortunately there are a lot of Republicans who have confused principle with policy. Different times demand different policies, and we shouldn't consider any change to be a dilution or moderation of classic conservative principles.

The most important thinker of the conservative movement was the Irish statesman Edmund Burke. He wasn't a political philosopher as we think of them today, and he published no grand treatises or magnum opuses. Instead, Burke articulated his vision of politics mostly through speeches in the British Parliament. This was particularly fitting, because one of his greatest contributions to political philosophy was that we should be wary of grand theories - reality is complicated and humans aren't capable of experiencing enough to be able to ever have the final word.

This critique was articulated on the occasion of the French Revolution, a time in which men rejected any reformist compromises and challenged everything that came before. The French Revolutionaries were certainly right to question the rule of an absolute monarch, but everyone can agree that they took it too far with the reign of terror. This bloody purification was exactly the type of excess that Burke warned against.

Conservatives are at their best when they remember that no action is better than a bad action. But this doesn't give us a license to reject every proposal that comes along, we also have to understand that no action is perfect and circumstances sometimes necessitate a swift response. I believe it is the duty of the true conservative to reflect on the unintended consequences of policies and proposals, and to be watchful for zealous moralizing.

However, the modern conservative movement, embodied by the Republican party, has lost touch with this at times. We need a reality check, the kind of reality check that Burke would have slapped us with.

We need to recognize that a large percentage of America thinks abortion should be legal. We are unable to force any big policy changes down the throat of the public. Even if we had that kind of strength, it would be counter-productive. Isn't the point of pro-life politics to reduce the number of abortions that happen in the world? Why not work within the current system, alongside pro-choice-rs, to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies? Why not make adoption more available? I may be crazy, but I even think it would be good to have honest discussions about why each side feels the way they do about the issue. The point isn't to drag them over to your side, it's to promote mutual understanding and heal old wounds. I bet the number of abortions in America would be cut in half if that kind of co-operation happened. This is just an example of one specific issue, but there are many more areas for common ground and I'm sure I'll go into some of those in the future on this blog.

We need to embark on the journey of rediscovering the wisdom of the Founders, and of great political philosophers like Burke, Plato, and Aristotle. We need to open our minds and realize that the true and profound meaning freedom is not something we are automatically blessed with by virtue of living in America. Freedom is an ideal to aspire to. We all have our imperfections, and they hold us back from being the people we want to be. But the good news is that those imperfections can be minimized through hard work and determination. Only insofar as we are wise and exercise self control are we truly free. Freedom doesn't mean "do what I wanna do, with no stinkin' government in the way." But this should already be obvious because conservatives support strong enforcement of the rule of law. We need to be unafraid of acting like it, and we need to stop pandering to the narcissism and laziness of some in our party.

We need to realize that giant corporations are just as detrimental to individual liberty and free markets as big government is. Power corrupts, and nobody with a personal interest really wants a level playing field. Everybody wants an edge. The founding fathers meant to solve this problem in government by pitting ambition against ambition, and dividing up the powers in our ingenious constitutional design. But they couldn't foresee the mammoth corporations that have been enabled to exist by communications and transportation technology. I want to see economic policies that are focused on enabling entrepreneurship and small business. I want to see stagnant markets un-clogged with stronger anti-trust enforcement. We should not regard every government regulation as a bad one. What is a law other than a regulation? Do we not need laws to have order in society?

The real issue is, the law has to be applied equally and blindly. The law can't have political favorites, and big donors. This is why Republicans should push for strong campaign finance reforms, so that another slick Barack Obama cannot break another promise. The political campaign is not a free market, it is a job application process, and the government can and should regulate it more strictly. This is crucial to lessen the moneyed interests and create a more level playing field, to maximize everyone's freedom.

We also need to renew our vision of small government. A small government is only good if it is still strong enough to protect the individual liberties of each citizen. America is at its best if we have a society of individuals creating prosperous, healthy communities by working together. Markets are essentially communities of people, trading goods and services. I think a lot of the left's skepticism of markets is actually a skepticism of overly large, exploitative corporations that have the resources to buy political favors. But conservatives know that free markets are the engine of real progress. We should enable markets to develop solutions to America's problems by getting out of their way and breaking up their clogged arteries, and getting big government and old corporate favorites out of the way, freeing room for innovative individuals to go to work and be rewarded for their efforts. The future of business is small.

On social issues, we need to make sure we're picking the right goals (results, not politics) in order to make real progress and heal old wounds.

We need to change the Republican culture to be more reflective and less ideologically driven - Burke would be turning over in his grave if he watched an episode of Hannity.

We need to be pro markets, not pro business.

We need to gain back America's trust after the Bush/Cheney/Rove years damaged it badly.