Less Educated People are Nicer

A move to thought in shades of gray from dualistic black and white thought may be more correct but decreases person's ability to be as nice as before



When reporters visit Tea Party protests, they often remark on just how warm, pleasant, and down to earth the individual protesters are. That is until the focus is switched to the two minutes of hate at hand (we've had plenty of good coverage concerning the sheer ugliness). Meanwhile, the college schooled urban dwellers seem incapable of showing strong emotional passion in either direction. What's the deal?

We've heard how less educated and religious states tend to be more charitable on per capita basis. This is not an article about that (for more on disentangling the dynamics of domestic humanitarian aid here). Neither is it about higher population densities creating dislike of fellow people or less emotional types perhaps being more likely to get higher education. Lets talk about averages.

Binary thinking is very clear cut and begins to be ingrained in childhood. The more one's inner mental universe is split into good and evil dynamic, the easier it is to go full throttle in one direction and against another. This is due to the simple reason of insufficient choices within the inner mental world when it comes to explanatory and descriptive constructs.

The more educated one becomes the more perceptive choices and shades of gray the mind has to work with. Instead of having intense biblical A and B, the person can now choose E or F as perceptions of reality and corresponding action (be it intellectual or emotional). A and B are not only used less but may now be increasingly seen as undesirable to be used at all (due to their intensity and exaggeration to the point of being incorrect).

This is an obvious observation but this dynamic may cause serious problems for society. If A is absolute good and B is absolute evil (as is often the case in many countries), then reluctance of an educated mind to see something in black and white can create paralysis when it comes to effective political action. In the face of a real tangible enemy, threat, or grave injustice, the highly educated populace may resort to halfhearted measures, compromises, and insufficiently intense emotional communication.

A less educated person on the other hand will be compelled to self righteous thoughts and deeds which can result in rapid positive and humanitarian breakthroughs for society. The negative flipside of this is self explanatory and we see it within certain crypto-fascist factions of the Tea Party movement. Like a childlike Lennie from Mice and Men, a rigidly dualistic person is capable of incredible niceness as well as hideous viciousness. The more educated one becomes the more neutered in demonstrating the outreaches of wholesome humanistic helpfulness.

Now if one's consciousness is expanded through education in societies that are

1) sparsely populated
2) ethnically collectivist and homogeneous (think Scandinavian countries) 
3) augmented by strong welfare supports on top of expanding economic pie

then the atrophying capacity for dualistic thought and action is neutralized.

This is not the case in large pluralistic Western societies today. Education can therefore not only stifle fullhearted activism but create contempt for those who do practice fullhearted activism.

I have written on the need for Tea Party and Progressive movements to join forces against the financial oligarchy. Educated urban dwellers need to get over their distaste and contempt of dualistic rural Tea Party expressions. They need to attempt to redirect factions within TP towards doing things they themselves don't have the heart for. Many in the TP will be loyal allies once the corporately funded blinders are taken off their faces. Black and white thinking can be a useful tool when applied properly.

Progressive Libertarian Coalition

Can cats and dogs get along in an alliance of convenience? Extreme economic national emergency calls for a unifying common platform. Here's a 9 point platform that can unite them.



The bipartisan removal of incumbent dinosaurs in congressional primaries and the sheer energy involved now provides hope for an alliance of convenience between all major nationalist factions in United States. By nationalist, I mean those producerist conservatives and progressives who believe in making America stronger by protectionist build up of domestic industry/infrastructure and by diminishing the power of the financial transnational oligarchy. In other words, to go back to the better days of FDR style attempts to preserve and enhance the physical non-paper shuffling capitalist core of American economy.

Citizens across the political spectrum are in total agreement on the need to completely clean congress of everybody presently in it. The hope is that newcomers in November are not as bought off as current congressmen and that it'll take time for corporations to buy them out (thus giving a few months where the new politicians may act relatively autonomously due to weak connections to the oligarchy). However the extreme economic national emergency calls for a unifying common platform to multiply the power of newcomers and to pressure the congressional senior citizens with easy to understand concepts.

How would a common political platform look like? The platform has to be balanced by things people are for and things people are against to give it depth and traction. Lets begin:

1) Protectionism. This means higher tariffs on imports as a source of national income and a way to reduce unemployment in the blue collar sector. Historically, protectionism not only works splendidly for every major society that engages in it but is also backed by the blue collar muscle of the rural and urban discontents. Majority of the factions within the tea party will be for this through proper use of the China card. The less numerous younger libertarian faction may object on ideological grounds but is unlikely to split over this (side with transnational corps exploiting Chinese labor over the interests of their fellow blue collar T partiers). Libertarians have a lot of severe cultural disagreements with other (formerly GOP) T party factions but still remain. After all, Ron Paul's people pretty much started T Party in the first place.

2) Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banking. The passing of Glass-Steagall will deal a mortal blow to parasites on Wall Street and its effectiveness has been verified ever since G-S was originally passed in 1933. The bipartisan McCain-Cantwell amendment already brought this issue into national discourse. Reintroduction of Glass-Steagall is also the most effective filtering tool for congressional candidates in November since those who support it stand against the speculators. Quest for and achievement of G-S would additionally satisfy the psychological craving for justice among activists across the political spectrum as its implementation destroys the Wall Street oligarchy in its current too big to fail casino manifestation. Since the importance of G-S also makes it a danger to Obama's oligarchic backers, the issue must be approached carefully yet forcefully. Swaths of T party movement who have not been co-opted by corporations should jump on the proposal. This will ultimately allow the infrastructure thrust of the rest of the platform listed bellow

3) Nuclear Energy. The job creating and environmental benefits make fission and fusion energy an obvious political rallying point. Younger progressives may need to drag their older brethren along on this one. They can point out that fission allowed for the socioeconomic optimism in 1960s, is ridiculously clean/safe, and will make advanced green transport infrastructure possible. The more intense nationalists in the T party will love the idea of switching focus from oil to nuclear (after all it still makes some older democrats uneasy), achieving energy independence, and peacefully competing with Russia in the fission reactor industry.

4) Constitutional Convention. The purpose of a ConCon is elaborated upon in depth here. The primary reasons for demanding a historic convention are: a) create unity and excitement among both T party and progressive activists b) create dialogue that leads to settlement of the culture wars through agreement to disagree until the ConCon occurs c) send a powerful message to the political class that even cleaning house is not enough and that the structural blocks on people's will are to be resolved d) rechannel the energy from potential social unrest towards pursuit of a constitutionally legal restructuring of the country's governance

5) Thorough audit and demasking of the Federal Reserve's finances, history, and functioning. This will uncover more dirt than most people can imagine and most likely either end or severely transform the fed's functioning. This will be the ultimate muckraking and like G-S, satisfy the popular sense that some justice is being done. Now that the Goldman Sachs investigation triggered similar investigations into other casino giants, people's appetite to discover who stole hundreds of billions of tax payers dollars is greater than ever. Since the Fed is the parasitic heart behind our imperial socioeconomic system, it will be the hardest nut to crack. The difficulty of the full scale audit (that Ron Paul and many progressive economists desire) demonstrates why the T Party/Progressive alliance of convenience is essential. The impudence of the federal reserve also provides an overarching point of focus for the anti-bankster activists.

6) Proportional Representation on the state level and ultimately on the federal level (either through an amendment or Constitutional Convention). PR is another politically neutral concept of agreement that goes an incredibly long way towards giving people better representation and thus reduces corporate influence. It puts the first nail in the coffin of the hated two party oligarchic duopoly. Replacing all incumbents in Congress does not resolve the fundamental and glaring structural inadequacy when it comes to electing state and national representatives. It will take a bit of education to spread the concept but its elegance and widespread use throughout the world (even Brits are discussing it) should provide an exciting new structural alternative in the process of streamlining the American democracy. Just like direct election of senators, it is a prudent evolutionary step (that can begin to be implemented on a state by state basis through decentralized activism).

7) Congressional term limits. This fits perfectly with the anti-incumbency strides of recent months and proportional representation reform. Instead of allowing society to deteriorate to the point of collapse for congressional dinosaurs to be sent packing, term limits do it automatically. There will always be gusts of fresh air with such limitation. Considering that entrenched and totally out of touch 80 year olds in power were one of the main reasons why Soviet Union began to stagnate, this is a matter of outmost importance. American gerontocracy has to be ended since people that old, secure, and corrupt are dramatically less mentally flexible and capable compared to when they first got into office decades ago. More on the problem of congress being a senior citizens home here.

8) Rebuilding the nation's water infrastructure. The quality of the "drinkable" water in most regions in US is horrendous. The outdated and overstressed water systems are also a source of danger in terms of insufficient supply for the agricultural sector. Besides age and lack of funds, climate change puts new unforeseen stresses on water infrastructure in almost every state. Lets not wait for another Dust Bowl event to compliment the current depression. Although it may seem odd to have it on the list, this is a vital economic issue for rural communities and a public health issue for urban areas outside of the northeast.

9) Isolationism. Another obvious way to stop dumping resources into a hole in the ground. This has to be marketed to T partiers and progressives in different ways. Conservatives are always fine with idea of not helping the "ungrateful world solve its own problems anymore" due to refocus on domestic rebuilding. Libertarians are ideologically predisposed to isolationism while progressives are of course sick of imperial adventures. Isolationism also allows the alliance of convenience to expand to some former reform party paleoconservatives. Obviously the empire and the influence of the most powerful lobby (the military) cannot be ended rapidly (one of the key reasons being the sheer number of high tech blue collar jobs that military corporations provide inside the US). Isolationism serves as a way to refocus conversation towards domestic nation building and reemphasizing the pro-infrastructure focus of the T Party/Progressive alliance.

That is it for now. There are many more unifying points of contact but these 9 are the most important and self reinforcing. Glass-Steagall, Constitutional Convention, Term Limits, Protectionism, Nuclear Power, Proportional Representation, Federal Reserve Audit, Isolationism, and Water Infrastructure Development. If one allows the sheer transformative nature of these unifying goals to sink in, then differences such as over gay marriage seem petty and insignificant. I was tempted to add high speed rail and transport infrastructure to the list but am content with nuclear energy and water development for now. That is because nuclear energy has to come first in order to power real jumps in train technology (like transcontinental MagLev trains) and discussion over trains in a predominantly car centric society can lead to major disagreements instead of unity. Meanwhile, water development is as important to country and city alike and non-controversial. However, high speed train development can be integrated into the platform depending on the state by state basis. There are definitely many conservatives who fully support and understand the issue of building up next generation logistics with all the job creation that it'll bring.

The end result is something that looks like a Main Street Party (emphasis on real economy, job creation, anti-wall street, etc) without culture war nonsense to distract from the mission of reforming this socioeconomic system in a major way.

American Dissidents and Censorship

Public marginalization of popular reformers during 2004 and 2008 elections demonstrates how discussions about political reform are effectively suppressed even after years of widespread Internet access.

Maybe it is time to stop focusing so much on political reformers in Iran and honor the ones right here in America. Nothing shows the triumph of American oligarchy when it comes to exploitation of an archaic political structure better than the lack of media exposure to Ralph Nader's platform in 2008 election. Mr. Nader got the third biggest amount of votes in 2000 and 2004 presidential elections and was a nationally recognized celebrity with outstanding record of public service when it came to saving American lives. This shocking reality (that an individual with such consistent public voter support was effectively publicly suppressed and character assassinated by petty millionaires making up democratic party core) demonstrates three things:

1) Over a decade after the internet allowed mass decentralized sharing of information, oligarchs are still able to use major media power centers (augmented with internet proxies) to divert spotlight from undesirables. Internet access is not an equalizer but just creates an additional venue for oligarchs to pour money into since respected online media sources are as open to advertising as television channels. The hire of online promotional experts and perception builders to court the youth vote becomes more key than ever. Success of decentralized promotions for Ron Paul can now be emulated by corporate giants and sponsors on a much larger scale. Obama has shown remarkable skill at buying online public perception and as well as being one of the few candidates to run a 50 state strategy along with Paul and Romney. Corporate proxies can easily set up hundreds of websites marketed to politically minded youth as easily as they are able to sell worn out looking clothing.

2) The inertia of the entrenched media-political complex and (the interests of its sponsors) does not permit serious discussion of structural constitutional changes needed to allow American democratic capitalism to survive into the 21st century. Proponents of modifying the outdated aristocratic American constitution through proposals such as National Initiative (supported by Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader) will be suppressed and ridiculed just like constitutional purists such as Ron Paul. Structural political reformists in United States are at an even greater institutionalized disadvantage when getting public exposure than reformists in Iran or Russia.

Only constitutional amendments to streamline legislative decision making would allow the American society to immediately put needed measures, like single payer health care, on the fast track. Without political reform, measures to deal with the economic emergency are bound to at best arrive in vastly diluted status quo supporting form and at worst add to the burden of the depression the country is experiencing. Complete denial of airtime to a popular reformist like Ralph Nader in 2004 and 2008 along with oligarchal efforts to deny Mr Nader ballot access in 2004, shows that power elites are more comfortable in fighting over influence within the failed system. Public perception has been molded sufficiently now that political reform carries even a bigger stigma than economic reform.

3) Pragmatic truth telling is even more alien to the American public than feel good impractical ideological idealism. As such, a reformist pragmatist will be fully ignored while an idealist, who has more traction with the public, will undergo a mixture of ignoring and ridicule. The runaway success of a conduit for ideology such as Ron Paul demonstrates this. A genuine idealist came dangerously close to getting third place in Iowa Republican caucuses and being forced into a media spotlight. An idealist however can be strategically neutralized with proper placement of voter decoys like Fred Thompson. Thompson's behavior during the primaries does not point to incompetence but to an easy public relations stunt for his friend McCain to split constitutionalist republicans. A pragmatist like Ralph Nader cannot be as easily countered with a prepackaged decoy candidate.

Going by google trends, Ralph Nader was searched for twice as often in the 2004 cycle than Ron Paul was in 2008 cycle. That was when internet activism was just picking up. Nader got more money per voter than Kerry or Bush and the behind the scenes public campaign against him was very blatant if anybody cared to look. The sponsors of democratic and republican political machines will be even less likely to allow reformist opposition now that the republican power is pushed into indefinite marginalized status. Ralph Nader is the most truthful realist American nationalist and has been suppressed even more than Kasparov. He was one of the few directly addressing the severe national problems of ethnic disparities, energy, prohibition, environmental costs, oligarchic heavy handed exploitation of the weak American government, and the burdens of military overspending. He has done so for years without the cloud of silly idealism and with his mind grounded in tangible realities of American power learned from experience.

Just like Paul and Gravel, Nader is over 70 years old. The old guard of reformers perhaps are still under the impression that American dream can be salvaged rather than replaced. In the waning days of United States, perhaps it's time to honor those who expanded so much energy to fight the nail in the coffin that was the "Reagan Revolution".