An interesting debate on the merits and demerits of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama has exploded on this blog. Let us consider the function of a political party and its leader.
Essentially, a political party functions by agglomerating incomplete information which is then filtered through a supposedly coherent ideology and then formulated (quickly and rarely logically) into a normative statement about how the group in question collectively ought to act or not act. David Hume has addressed the problem of the sometimes subtle transition from descriptive to normative (or prescriptive) thought in his Treatise on Human Nature; specifically, he writes:
" [...] the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprized to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."
I had the humble privilege of researching an unnamed politician's biography for the History Dept. of the University of Regina this summer. In so doing, I had the chance to read literally hundreds of articles on Saskatchewan's politics, and I was struck by both the vapidity and short-sightedness of all parties' policy statements and the reactive political environment in which these policies were forged. As to whether they actually conformed to any coherent political philosophy (if there indeed is any to be found), I cannot say, but the formulation of policy was prima facie ad hoc.
How does this relate to the great Obama/Palin debate? Party leaders are usually misguided ideologues, opportunists, or foolhardy devotees to a blind cause: as there is no known system through which utility in human affairs can be objectively measured (or be assured), any attempt at a prescriptive ordering of affairs in accordance with a party's platform by one such foolhardy devotee will not necessarily accrue benefit to his or her constituents.
I am not advocating voting at random, but we ought to be wary of believing that our vote or opinion is doing much good.
"Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for."- source unknown
