A Case For Sound Reason

A CASE FOR SOUND REASON


Two hundred thirty three years ago Thomas Paine’s Common Sense stirred the majority of New World colonists to fervently support the risky quest for independence. Later, however, his reliance on Reason to dispel the tenacious hold that organized religion had on men’s minds proved detrimental to his popularity, bringing him disrespect, financial difficulties and almost an early death. The lessons derived from the legacy left by Paine say volumes about man’s psyche; most emphatically that when establishing political, economic or social values, man is driven by emotion and preconceived dogma rather than guided by common sense or reason. As the economy falls precipitously toward dreaded depths, as more lives are spent fighting disastrous wars and as obscene wealth and corruption act to obliterate the once vibrant and indispensable middle class, driving more and more folks toward or into poverty, we continue to cling doggedly to our long-held beliefs and values, unwilling or unable to open our minds to new or different ideas. Common sense and reason seem to be nonviable options to the multitudes naively ensconced with a sheep-like mentality, a mentality that is leading us toward our own destruction.

The long-held notion that man needs heroes may or may not be true. If true, then it is time to reevaluate what constitutes a hero. For starters can we agree that mere celebrity status does not equate to heroic status? Then, without diminishing our respect and appreciation for the jobs they do, can we somehow get past the ridiculous notion that everyone in uniform is a hero? Accepting those two provisos would put us in a position to establish more realistic heroic standards. Armed with truer heroic standards, our sheep mentality would at least be leading us toward more favorable aspirations.

We are rapidly approaching the point at which sound reasoning will be a necessity if civilization is to prevail. Rather than paying lip service to the lessons of history, we must apply what those lessons are trying to teach, and those lessons go beyond merely those of Thomas Paine. Heading the list, of course, is our insane rationalization for war. Hindsight clearly reveals the disaster of our involvement in Viet Nam. And what reasonable mind can justify the Iraq fiasco? There may be legitimate justifications for declaring war but before we puff up our chests and head out to kick some ass, we damn well better consider not only the consequences of our actions but also our objectives; and equally important, determine ( again with sound reasoning ) if those consequences and objectives justify the insanity. One can make that determination legitimately only if he will be making that supreme sacrifice himself, or sending his children off to make the sacrifice, in support of the war. It is not acceptable to favor war if you’ll be relying on others to do the fighting and the sacrificing for you. It is deceptively easy to send others, those we’re comforted by labeling “volunteers”, off to fight and die while we remain at home where all is normal.



ALL IS NORMAL

A dog barks
The rabbit, stark still, stares as I pass
Chipmunks scurry, preparing for winter’s hibernation
Birds chirp, queuing restlessly at neighborhood feeders
All is normal.

Traffic rumbles, congests, honks, in constant motion
I hear a jet pass overhead, commercial not fighter
There is no gunfire, no mortar explosions
I see no rubble, no bombed-out cars
All is normal.

I pass quiet homes with neatly trimmed lawns
There’s a church, a school, a few busy shops
A roar from the ballpark announces a score
While the smells of coffee and pastry, urge me on
All is normal.

I read the headlines:
War rages on, death tolls mount
There’s more corruption, more scandal
But that’s not here… Here
All is normal.

Dare we apply reason and common sense to other issues threatening our well being? If so, we must be willing to understand and acknowledge what is and let go of our preconceived notions of what ought to be. Ayn Rand’s Relative Objectivism presents, on the surface, a temptingly convincing case for a laissez-faire approach to socio-economic policies. Similarly, Ronald Reagan’s concept of trickle-down economics carries a degree of theoretical credibility. But there are two factors that impact the efficacy of theoretical applications, and all too often these factors are ignored or not even recognized when considering policy changes. The first has to do with the established, already mature, environment into which change is being considered. That is, you must be cognizant of the fact that you are not starting from ground zero; political, social and economic conditions already exist that will act upon any changes or new applications implemented. The second factor, simply stated though full of complex consequences, is human nature. We tend to support that which we believe will benefit or at least not be detrimental to ourselves, rarely giving adequate consideration to what may actually be best in the long run. Is this not evident to some degree by the harm we inflict upon the environment in the name of economic progress? It follows then that for any problem-solving proposals dealing with social, economic or political issues one must consider the world (civilization and environment) as it exists today and then factor in the human character as it has portrayed itself throughout human history.

If these two factors were more seriously considered during policy-making processes, different and more beneficial proposals may often result. The concept, for example, of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy may have some merit. However, in the real world today, with the astronomical chasm between rich and poor, tax reductions in the United States have not produced the positive results anticipated. Why? Because those living from paycheck to paycheck, along with those in even more dire economic straits, do not gain enough additional buying power through tax cuts to significantly impact the economy; nor do tax cuts provide enough for them to overcome their economic plight. These are, in fact, the folks who would provide the economic stimulus if only they had discretionary income to spend. As for the very wealthy, they already have the wherewithal to make significant purchases and invest in job-creating enterprises without the added stimulus of a tax cut. A tax cut to them is all too often nothing more than another means of increasing their already obscene wealth. We pay lip service in support of a strong and vibrant middle class, yet policies that would actually benefit and solidify that middle class are put down as socialistic. It follows then, quite logically as we’ve all been taught, that any proposal labeled socialistic should be doomed as un-American regardless of its merits. This attitude dominates even amongst staunch Americans who rely on, and defend their justifiable right to receive, their Social Security checks regardless of their actual contribution to the program. And then we have human nature to consider. Cognizance of the human factor quite possibly would have prevented the financial disaster we’re faced with today. It would have enabled, maybe even required, us to acknowledge man’s inherent greed, a greed which precipitated this dishonesty and corruption. And let us not overlook the arrogance and hubris that seems to emanate from the power of wealth.

What will it take in this complex, interconnected global community to get people to recognize the limits and possible flaws in their preconceived and personally unchallenged convictions? Whatever that is, there are no indications that it will happen in the foreseeable future. Our beliefs, be they political, social or religious are too seldom subjected to the scrutiny of reason or fact-finding. “True Facts” such as: The earth is flat. The universe is 6000 years old. Raising taxes on the wealthy adversely impacts economic stimulation. Transfer payments or welfare are economically detrimental, stripping the poor of the drive to succeed on their own. The “you fill in the blank” war was necessary to preserve our freedom and democratic way of life. The white race is the superior race. The democratic republic of the United States, though not perfect, is the best form of government ever devised. Healthcare in the U.S. is the best in the world. The list is endless and, at one time or another, too many people believed or still believe these “true facts”.

Religious fervor, driven by an irrational fear of death and life thereafter, leaves no room in man’s mind for reason. To believe that a Supreme Being created man and gave him the ability to reason, then demands that man suspend his reasoning ability in order to believe in Him, seems ludicrous. In religious terms it borders on blasphemy. Despite the
efforts of Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to name just a few, not to mention the satirical humor from the likes of Mark Twain, George Carlin and Bill Maher, the powers of superstition and religious indoctrination, acting on that overpowering fear of death, keep too many of us clinging to a faith that defies reason and will sooner or later lead us ironically to our own demise. But then, isn’t that the ultimate objective of those who buy into Revelations and the belief in Armageddon and the fanciful delusion of the Rapture?

But all is not hopeless, for today we are blessed with a mushrooming glut of information – not always reliable or accurate information, but nonetheless plenty of it. Be it via radio, television, printed publications or the internet, one can always find “facts” that substantiate his own point of view. All of this should point out the necessity of questioning that which we read and hear, of challenging our beliefs and opinions and finally of relying on reason when making decisions that will impact our future well-being. But that may be asking too much. It is by far easier, exceedingly more natural and certainly more comforting to cling to that which we “know”. And so I write, not with the expectation of publishing, which would add to that mind-boggling glut of information, nor do I write to influence others. I write for posterity; to be on record so that one day when there is no one left to make any difference, when we’ve inflicted all the damage our planet can sustain, I will be able to say, “I told you so!”