> On Nov 28, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > That strikes me as a sensible application of Peirce's self-proclaimed > "sentimental conservatism" (CP 1.661). If "philosophical science" should be > allowed to "influence religion and morality ... only with secular slowness > and the most conservative caution" (CP 1.620), then it seems like the same is > true of proposed political solutions to perceived societal problems. Perhaps > with a similar thought in mind, the Founders quite intentionally designed an > arrangement in which it is very difficult to enact sweeping changes at the > national level in the absence of broad consensus. When public opinion is > polarized like it is right now, gridlock in Washington is a feature of the > system, not a bug--despite the complaints that it routinely engenders from > both sides of the aisle.
I agree, although as I mentioned to Gary, I think there are big problems with this as well. (I think the intelligence reforms after 911 are a great example of a type of reform our system is poorly suited to make) Our system is definitely designed to force consensus building. One might well argue that the contemporary problem in American politics isn’t the system but the strategy of preaching to ones own group rather than trying to persuade people outside of ones group. That is identity politics battles are the exact opposite of the Peircean strategy which is inquiry which in turn presupposes persuasion. If so, the the polarization in our politics actually reflects the breakdown of the Peircean scheme.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
