“There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.” Alexis de Tocqueville
Alexis de Tocqueville was a classical liberal in the tradition of the Enlightenment and a student of natural law, although at times he is difficult to categorize in the chaotic French politics of his time; he wrote “Democracy in America”, his most famous work of sociology and political science based on his 1831-1835 travels in the US commissioned by the French government. It is a work that illustrated his keen sense of observation and methodical analytical style based on first principles; in regard to political parties, he understood correctly what they seldom if ever are.
It was Aristotle who first proposed the original concept of first principles, an analytical method of breaking something down until it can’t be dissected any further in order to understand it correctly. This method of analyzing something has been used by many in both the arts and sciences in successful problem solving because the essence of whatever the problem is can be exposed; it’s useful in both invention and discovery by avoiding going off in the wrong direction leading to erroneous conclusions.
We can use this concept of first principles to see through the confusion created by all the chaos around us today, and better understand what is going on, rather than passively accepting the narratives bombarding us. Most of these narratives are little more than extremely partisan rhetoric filled with defamation, and stoking fear of whoever is the target; when examining any of these narratives, first look for the idea behind the message. If it’s why you should not support whoever is the target, then you need to understand what those reasons are.
Once those reasons are identified, you then proceed to find out if there is any substance to those reasons; often we find that the substance is a chain of other narratives in support of a conclusion expressed in the initial narrative by using analogies such as whoever supports “X” is like someone who another narrative says is bad. If that happens, then what you have discovered is that the initial narrative lacked principles itself and is just part of the political echo chamber, i.e., it is not meant to inform, but to deflect away from civil discourse by redirecting the debate to better serve the narrative. Denouncing someone with name calling for having a position contrary to your own without addressing what is wrong with their position is an indication of fear coupled with a lack of intelligence.
Using first principles also provides insights about the sources of such narratives; if the substance of the narrative is not about the issues at hand but a denunciation of someone, the source itself is lacking in principles representing a resolution to those issues and instead creates narratives filled with divisiveness. When we dig deeper into divisive narratives we will discover that the consequence, intended or not, moves people away from civil discourse to the tribalism of them versus us; what we can also discover is that shrill and abusive rhetoric in the narrative lacks a rational foundation or perhaps even conviction for the opinion expressed.
There are also narratives that politicians create about policies that, when you drill down on them, you are left with little substance but many meaningless platitudes; this too you will discover is meant to deflect your attention away from a resolution of issues, if not from the issues themselves. Often such policies represent more of a way to focus blame and increase power than solve problems. Politicians often use such narratives to avoid speaking about issues that may expose either their ignorance about them, or their flawed policies to address them. Consuming such narratives is like eating processed foods that fill you up but provide little nourishment.
The first principles concept also provides what we should do about such narratives, and that is to ignore them; the resulting tribalism of those echo chambers only serves to stoke fear which creates an environment counterproductive to rational thought. While fear is a survival instinct we all have, it is one we need to control for the sake of rational thinking; divisive narratives are used to create the herd instinct, a collective and corrosive fear intended to drive people into divisions based on ignorance, which in turn is often the source of fear itself.
Like all principles, Aristotle’s concept of how to correctly understand things is not subject to moderation because that undermines its very purpose; in applying it to political narratives we can avoid the fear intended in the messaging, some subtle, some obviously playing on the very prejudices in their content. The practice of first principles means you never stop questioning so that regardless of what something may appear to be, you come to know the reality it is.
“The value of a principle is the number of things it will explain.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
Libera Voce 