Thinking politically is not fundamentally different than entertaining productive thoughts in other realms of life. The main difference is that politics is the arena where the methods and results of all aspects flow into consideration with the aim to produce societally beneficial outcomes in the sense of genuine knowledge production. Further, the downside risk of faulty political thinking is much higher than in any other context. Even big businesses can make up for bad decisions and realign their strategies to achieve quick corrective results. Politicians, however, face many more factors and dynamics that need to be considered, as well as significantly less room for errors. Especially in the long-run, small mistakes resulting from faulty political thinking can have massive repercussions that are difficult to correct and, often, result in decades of ineffectiveness and irrecoverable opportunity costs. For politicians, it is very important to be conscious of their ways and modes of thinking. Being aware of one’s own weaknesses in thinking and a deep understanding of how and why our brain responds in certain ways will massively improve policy processes. However, citizens and political scholars are equally obliged to develop a political mind. The reason is simple: Much of the cognitive and emotional pressure exerted on politicians stems from the uninformed individual mind of the general public. In contemporary political systems, other than in devletist political systems, the general public is an economically thinking individualist that follows fundamentally different logics than the politically thinking collectivist. Those logics are often in direct conflict, especially on the time/goal axis. Whereas the economically thinking individualist’s mind is directed towards imminent, relative, personal and material gain, the politically thinking collectivist’s mind is structured to achieve long-lasting, absolute, societal and knowledge gains. To streamline political decision-making processes, enhance political effectiveness, reduce societal downside risk and increase societal innovation rates, enhanced political thinking is paramount. Therefore, we must consciously develop a political mind. This article outlines some fundamental principles of political thinking to improve cognitive flexibility in political discourse and analysis.
Do Not Ask What Is?
Language is the main tool of politics. Its use directly influences societal progress or demise. Although there are many different facets that we can look at in terms of political language, the most fundamental aspect is the differentiation of political thinking at the temporal level. Most of the political discourse is very focused on the present and a small portion of the recallable past. Media discourses focus on what is not functioning so well today and how quite recent political processes have affected the current state of affairs negatively. In personal discussions, the focus is reinforced by constant repetition of the current failures of politics and politicians. This creates an agenda of the day that merely spurs emotional interaction with the affairs of the nation. Accordingly, the What Is discussion exerts pressure on politicians to adopt incremental adjustments to (potentially even significant) issues to satisfy the emotional need of the general public that arose from the focus on today and the latter half of yesterday. On the other hand, the response from politicians is then equally reduced in temporal scope, limiting the discussion to short-term political topics. Moreover, politicians tend to emphasise the positive aspects of the day. Both dynamics at work create an unproductive discussion about the reality of the day, without leaving room to shape future realities. Policymaking then becomes reactive and random as the results derived from this short-term reaction cycle are neither consciously planned nor structured.
Ask What Can Be?
The question of What Can Be is asked much more seldom, even though this is the most powerful methodological tool there is in political thinking. This question is our primary tool to increase our cognitive flexibility. Asking whether a new form of voting can be implemented theoretically does not automatically imply that this is going to be a new policy. It is much more a question that creates political options for politicians and leaves more room for different approaches in individual discussions in our daily lives. Of course, this powerful discursive approach can be applied in any discussion. Whether we talk about a new type of engine, a cure for a deadly disease, how a religious work transmits knowledge or the expansion plan of a company, asking What Can Be opens new possibilities. Often, there are even more ideas arising while thinking about the answer to another What Can Be question, which usually leads to many different options for the discussed issue at hand. The most difficult obstacle here is that the human mind, just like the body, perceives flexibility movements as tiring and challenging. For example: Can it be that the concepts of heaven and hell in the religious teachings of the Abrahamic religions are metaphors for how our lives feel here on earth depending on how we live? This What Can Be question does not imply that this thought is validated, but there is a theoretical possibility that the implied hypothesis is true. Our mind gains the flexibility to look at those religious texts differently and potentially see some beneficial new interpretations of the same texts. However, this cognitive stretching exercise is a direct challenge to the belief of the religious person who views heaven and hell as two physically distinct places. This can also be the case; the What Can Be question just adds another theoretically possible option. With such increased options, we widen our minds for potentially more productive ways of thinking. Politics benefits massively from this question. Personally, we benefit from asking this question in the political context as it dismantles our ego by improving our political views. Much of our identity is reflected in the political views we hold. Political views limit our understanding of the world as they function as a filter of right and wrong. While it is generally good to differentiate between right and wrong, the basis of assessment should never be our personal, limited character by the political technicalities within the framework of genuine knowledge production. In other words, we should not assess politics based on what we believe is fair/good/beneficial or not, based on our personal benefits and emotions. Rather, we must assess politics on the basis of whether it furthers or hampers genuine knowledge production. The What Can Be question forces us to at least acknowledge that there are other potential ways of thinking. We can still decide to stick to our initial thoughts or adopt completely different ones. However, the What Can Be question also forces us to justify our stance. We cannot stick to something out of principle when we know that there are other options. Often, we subconsciously avoid those situations of justification by simply avoiding the What Can Be question, knowing that we then cannot hide behind our comfort zone created by our dogmas. This is what makes the What Can Be question all the more important.
Ask What Should Be?
To create productive political agendas, we need to envision the goals of policy actions quite clearly. The What Can Be question paves the way to discover different policy options. The What Should Be question answers which one is the best available option that we can think of given the informational basis at the time. Here, it is paramount to be specific about the qualitative results that we want to achieve. Simply wishing the education system to be better is not sufficient since this is too broad to translate into meaningful policy action. More suitable would be that the education system should designed to enable students to find their special trait, develop it and turn it into real-world outcomes as easily as possible. Another example is the economy. Rather than setting the goal that the economy should grow does not help us produce effective policy outcomes, nor does this give us any indication of how that goal is to be achieved and why it is desirable. However, defining the purpose of the economy as being to quantify the state of genuine knowledge production and reward citizens in accordance with this principle does help to understand why we would engage in economic conduct in the first place. Ultimately, the What Should Be question is about the purpose of policy actions. It is not the case that goal setting is completely absent in contemporary policymaking or popular political discourse. However, most political discussions are so short-sighted that they seldom look at the ideal end result of policy courses. This holds true for the layman and the professional. When we answer the question of What Should Be, there should be no more room to add the question and then. The reason for this is that if we have the theoretical possibility of adding another policy action or goal after the initial answer we give to the question What Should Be, it means that our envisioned policy or political idea does not account for even more long-term developments. For example, there is the prominent assumption that economies should constantly grow at a rate of two percent a year, which can be considered a policy goal. We can ask, and then? The answer would be: “People get wealthier”. And then? “They can have a higher standard of living”. And then? “They have more comfort”. And then? By asking these questions, we can assess policy agendas’ purposefulness. Some agendas, like in the example above, lead us to dead ends. Only if policy actions do not leave room for normative vacuums do they qualify for feasible policy goals. In the example above, the answer to the What Should Be question of economic growth should be: “Economic growth should be based on the full quantified operationalisation of each person’s individual special trait”. And then? Society engages in genuine knowledge production, the sole purpose of our being.
Forget About Yourself
Another fundamental aspect of political thinking for laymen and political professionals is to delete every single aspect related to the personal self. There is not a single occasion in which is it necessary or desirable to consider oneself when dealing with politics. Regardless of whether we are dealing with political action, analysis or discourse: Disregard yourself. There is a strong focus on the individual in politics, which is right and productive. However, when talking about the individual, it is to be seen as an abstract general entity and not as the individual’s own character. The reason behind this has been picked up earlier as well. Political thoughts often arise from our personal character and both reflect and shape our identity. This common connection to our identity produces an emotionality because our identity is our personal assessment of the purpose of life, expressed through action. Because this personally determined purpose is not always aligned with the objective purpose of life, understanding the universe through genuine knowledge production, our emotions serve as protective measures of our self-created ideals. When those ideals, including political views, are in danger, emotional responses ensure that the self-proclaimed purpose remains intact. Since political views are operationalised elements of this identity, they are quite important to uphold. This is why political arguments are often so heated. They are not structured to find the best possible way for society to engage in genuine knowledge production but rather are battles to protect the personal identity or even impose it onto others as a way to compensate for other weaknesses in character. Voting decisions are pretty much the same. In contemporary democracies, there are no informed decisions in the interest of the nation but statements about our personal identity. An election win of a party is a statement of righteousness of the own style of living and thinking.
Therefore, all ties to the personal self must be disregarded when talking about politics. Only strong personas have this ability because their character is so much developed that they do not need limited political views that are often supported by a larger camp. Their flexible political mind enables them to think progressively and fluidly to find the best ways for the good of the nation. Political thinking without the ego is a cornerstone in a nation’s progress because political discourse and policymaking are no longer confined to the limitations of the people’s characters of the day but will become more forward-looking. This also connects to the avoidance of the question What Is. Our identities and emotions are matters of the day, and we have to assume that we are often not reflective enough to make conscious assessments of who we want to be, how to develop accordingly and how to shape our environment to get us there. Hence, we can at least protect our political thinking from those incapabilities by avoiding including ourselves in the process of political thinking. Politicians must rather focus on society as a whole in the context of genuine knowledge production. Individuals must focus on how they can continuously engage in genuine knowledge production effectively and efficiently.
What Can We Expect From Such Thinking?
Firstly, we must understand that we are currently tied to structures that conditioned us to expect imminent personal gains from any action taken. This is wrong. Our expectations must always be directed towards the improvement of the long-term mode of genuine knowledge production. Adhering to the above principles will create a base flexibility in our minds to realign our expectations. Next to politics and political discourse, these measures help us in a variety of contexts, as well. By suppressing the immediate need to understand what material or emotional benefit we can derive from the measures above, we gain the benefit of expanding our developmental potential. In this regard, the mind is no different than the muscle: Stretching it hurts and might not be the first priority of our training, but it enables us to do so much more once we are flexible.
