"Questioning The Rule of 'The Rules'"

Once in a while, I have to do one of these.  Otherwise, my brain berates me for “slumming”, coldly assessing my substandard performance.

 (READ WITH WITHERING SARCASM)  “‘What happened to comedy?’  ‘Deep thought.’”

Hey, you’re my brain.  Think deeper.

That’s the first problem, right there:

How do you “think deep” with an assigned “mid-level brain”?

It’s a bit of a curse, actually.  Smart enough to envision to the question.  No chance in heck of imagining the answer.

Oh well.  You do what you do with the tools that you’ve got.  Though the conclusion itself is in doubt.  A “mid-level brain” thought that thing up.

Okay.  And whataya you gonna do?

They saw it coming in The Federalist Papers.  (A series of pamphlets from the late 1780’s, defending the new U.S. constitution, under blistering attack by people who hated it.) 

Federalist Paper Number 10 – considered the standout Federalist Paper – backed up their work saying, in updated English,

“We have constructed a coolly cool system of government.  You don’t think so?  Look how we nailed ‘blatant self-interest’?”

You can see that’s a problem.  You go to Congress, touting the needs of your constituents so they will like you and subsequently vote you back in.  (“Self-interest” already, and I’m still at the setup.)  The big question was:

“How do you beat the majority?”  Because the “factional – Read: ‘self-interested’ – majority” – being the numerical majority – inevitably trounces various “factional minorities”?)

Federalist 10 admits that since

“… causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects…”,

they offer an accommodating system – in their “small ‘r’” republican Constitution – of “self-interest”-grounded alliances, allowing splintered minorities to outvote the powerful majority. 

Which worked in practice like this:

Seafaring states supporting “seafaring concerns”, join together, to outnumber the “landlubbers.”  

“Hooray for the seafaring states!”

“Farmers from everywhere” ally to defeat the “non-farmers from everywhere.”

“Hooray for the farmers from everywhere!”

United Southerners band to push through a law, “No talking about slavery or we’ll beat you mercilessly with a cane.”

Okay, that wasn’t so good.  But, theoretically, the imperfect answer of “shifting alliances” was a workable idea.  Till the formation of parties, and then all bets were off. 

Still, Federalist 10 clearly identified the problem.  And not just for “back then.”  Today, “self-interest” is on tsunamiing steroids.  More “Me.”  Swampingly less “Us.”

The question is,  

How do you have a workable society when everyone’s relentlessly “going for themselves”? 

A current political example:  The Republican Party.

(Note:  If I am prejudiced here, point out where I’m wrong.)

The Republican Party says:

“Whoa!  We are an aging constituency, primarily white, on the wrong side on many meaningful issues of the day, such as reasonable gun laws and affordable health care.”  

Though their political future looks bleak, Republicans still want to win. 

What do they do?

They do Gerrymandering.

They do “voter fraud.”

They do the Electoral College support.

They do “Making people afraid.” 

That doesn’t sound great.  But they want to win, so they do what’s not great.

The thing is, at least theoretically,

Why would they reasonably do otherwise?

Think about it.  From the self-interested perspective,

If not doing what they do means they lose,

Why would they not do what they do?

And it’s not just in politics.

If testifying truthfully in court means you’re convicted, why testify truthfully in court? 

If saying “I ate the cookie” gets you in trouble, why say, “I ate the cookie”?

The traditional answer to these acts of blatant “self-interest” is this:

“There are conventional rules of normative behavior.”

To which “self-interest’s” predictable response is:

“If ‘conventional rules of normative behavior’ keep you from getting what you want, why not ignore ‘conventional rules of normative behavior’ and get what you want?”

Challenging the ‘rules of normative behavior’ themselves.

I mean, I know it’s not right.

But can you say it’s not natural?

“Federalist 10 Guy” knew that it was.  Hoping “people of honor” would dutifully behave.

With the “rules of normative behavior” now up in the air…

I’ll say “Yikes!’, and just leave it at that.