While in college I noticed a peculiar transition among my peers. It seemed that many were eager to trade the dogma of their parents for the dogma of professors in pursuit of enlightenment. Old ideas were quickly replaced without confrontation, and everyone knew the new concepts were better because they replaced what was old. If old conclusions were superior, they would not have been subverted.
I am diluting the situation but my broader observations are discussed within this book. Rather than being primarily a political assessment, this is intended to be a collection of social commentary.
At the time of writing the contents I considered myself to be a right leaning moderate. The copyeditor considered herself to be a moderate that leaned to the left. I was living in North Carolina, she was living in New York City. This is to provide context for saying that she challenged me at times, and I am thankful for her input.
< From The Preface >
A politician’s job security is based upon popularity. The democratic process of voting has become a means to an end: turning one’s personal preference into an obeyed law.
I am not concerned with swaying you toward one political party over another; I am simply pointing out the obvious. These are simple observations people prefer to avoid, deeming them offensive to deny the truth.
For example, this is how arguments about virtue unravel. Jill tells Jack not to do something. Jack then asks Jill if she has ever done what she says he must not do. If her answer is yes, the conversation turns into how Jill is nothing more than a hypocrite, and therefore not worth listening to. If her answer is no, it is used to demonstrate that she is ignorant, and therefore not worth listening to. Society then applauds Jack’s reasoning, and declares him a paragon of logic.