Progressive Thinking is Complex Thinking
I am fascinated by civics and politics, so I give a lot of thought to my political identity. I tend to vote democrat and think liberal, but I identify primarily as progressive. To some these terms may equivocal (they are all “left wing”) but to me the nuances and differences of them are important to me because they reflect my individualism as a thinker. Similarly, because my political identity is further left it’s difficult for me to understand the nuance and differences of “right wing” politics. Because of this I frequently make false generalizations about people “on the right” because of my lack of understanding. I hate when that happens to me but I cannot judge since I am guilty of the same. The binary categorization of the entire spectrum of human political thought into the two narrow silos of “left wing” and “right wing” keeps us from understanding each other.
Complex thinking is good for everyone on the political spectrum who values their individualism. But the main reason I feel it is paramount to move beyond binary thinking is that I believe that being a complex thinker is part and parcel with being a progressive thinker. Progressive ideology requires us to move beyond binary thinking and consider complex thought. American culture is a very layered and complex phenomenon. Nuance and complexity are essential to participating in the civic conversation of what it means to be American and what is best for the future of our country, not just as a nation but as a community.
Progressive ideology requires a mode of thinking that moves beyond binary thinking and pushes us into complex thinking. As I mentioned in my prior essay, my idea of “complex thinking” merely entails using as few as four categories. I would say as few as three but compartmentalizing into four categories is easier than using three (like how cutting a pizza into eight pieces is much easier than cutting it into five).
Think of how a four-corner grid model can expand and enable progressive ideology beyond what would be possible with a binary model. The most directly semantic illustration is gender. Gender had been traditionally assumed to be binary, but as we progressed as a society, we have incorporated a view of gender that is not only more inclusive but more accurate. This recognition goes beyond a conceptual recognition or attitude and becomes part of our policy and practices as progressive thinkers. To this end progressives tend to support public policy such as the right to self-identify while serving in the military.
Criminal justice reform is another example of progressive policy. It’s important for our justice system to be reformative rather than just punitive. [I wonder if it should be explicitly reformative and not punitive at all, but those two are related so I’ll save those nuances for another time.] If the extent of our justice system is “bad guys belong in jail and good guys belong outside” it becomes difficult to allow for a sliding scale on how to deal with different types and levels of offenses. Binary thinking is how we end up with a criminal justice system that imposes the same minimum sentences for the distribution of 5 grams of crack cocaine as it does for 500 grams of powder cocaine. It’s also binary thinking that results in irrationally light sentences for people like Blake Turner or Ethan Couch. These examples are anecdotal, but I believe they illustrate deeper systemic problems in our justice system. Progressive platforms seek to make changes to these policies and complex thinking makes that possible.
This ties in to a third area that is even less partisan. Sometimes two different standards of judgment can seem fair or reasonable in and of themselves but conflict with each other when enacted in practice. One pollical conversation I had with a Republican comes to mind. I was explaining why I advocate for more social programs for the poor, and the working poor especially. He said that if people don’t like their job they can go out and find a new one, or go back to school and learn a new trade. Within two minutes he also said that American citizens couldn’t find decent jobs because of all the immigrants. Not ten minutes after that he said that he was opposed to subsidies or even tax breaks to help people go to school.
Each of those ideas may sound okay on their own but they can’t work together as part of the same overall political philosophy. He rationalized cutting welfare because he felt it is too easy for citizens to get jobs, rationalized cracking down on undocumented immigrants because he felt it is too difficult for citizens to get jobs, and then opposed subsidizing the educational structure that would help to address both of those issues. This is an anecdotal example and the degree to which his views are demonstrative of Republican policy may be debatable, but it’s a good example of how binary thinking creates direct conflicts within the same platform.
The idea that a good idea works because it is “good” prevents you from thinking further into how this “good” idea will work together with other “good” ideas. This is problematic for conservatives and liberals alike. Each idea may seem logically valid in and of itself but any one of them can still compromise the larger platform if it does not contribute to the structure. In order to account for how different ideas and strategies affect each other in the context of a larger system it’s important to move beyond binary thinking.
Binary thinking only lets you look at one issue at a time. Racism, homophobia and sexism are all serious issues that are complex enough in their own right. Racism is already tough to deal with in a binary thinking mode because once you split everyone into “racists” and “non-racists” there’s no scale to deal with anything or anyone that is partially racist (which is most of us) and there’s no way of dealing with interpersonal racism and systemic racism as related but separate issues.
Even if you could find a way to fit a concept like racism in a binary modality you would still be restricted from considering how it relates with other forms of discrimination like sexism and homophobia. If you want to understand great thinkers like W.E.B. Dubois, bell hooks and James Baldwin you need to employ complex thinking. I think that most progressive thinkers and leaders would agree that complex concepts like intersectionality are crucial to any progressive approach to platform and policy.
Intersectionality is just one example. If you silo all your political issues, you’re not paying heed to how interrelated the facets of society and civics can be. Military policy is closely tied to global policy which predominately deals with trade which impacts the domestic economy which drives employment, which relates to both labor and commerce, which dictates the private corporate sector as well as tax policy which funds infrastructure, education, law enforcement and regulatory commissions which also impact the domestic economy. Some people feel that “intersectionality” is a sensitive term because it deals with “identity politics,” but in a more general sense it can be applied to the whole spectrum of politics. If you want to get your thesaurus and call it something else that’s perfectly fine. But semantics aside we must find ways to conceptualize this and organize our thoughts if we want to create solid frameworks. Simple thinking and binary thinking specifically are not going to cut it.
A grid mentality of politics is not just bipartisan, it’s pan-partisan. Using a grid rather than a single line to visualize our political segments allows us to find different areas of common ground with different factions. This enables and empowers progressive lawmakers to represent greater aspects and reaches of their own constituency, and it illuminates more areas of common ground so that different factions with different principles can work together on common endeavors. Progressive values of individualism and personal expression can appeal to the libertarians that may be tiring of the Republican parties more regressive tendencies and policies. Progressive values of community and personal responsibility may draw the attention of some faith-based conservatives who have lost interest in the more fundamental and prescriptive aspects of conservatism. Finding combinations of allies on different fronts can provide the strategic push necessary to implementing a larger vision.
Making things more complicated than they have to be is not a viable strategy either. Some say that the simple things in life are best left simple and I agree completely. But I also believe that as residents of the Unites States of America we are a vast and complicated society of complex and independent thinkers. We all deserve to give ourselves that credit. We are capable of being so much more than we are, of building so much more than we have, when we recognize the depth of our humanity, not just as individuals, but as a community, as a culture, and as a nation.
