DiscussMormonism.com

I had a conversation with my daughter yesterday about politics which arose from discussing the news feeds describing Pence's visit to the Texas detention centers. She recently turned 18 and is going to be able to vote in the next election which turned the conversation into the difference between being an informed voter compared to one who is keeping up on current events. The questions being, is there a difference? If so, what is it? and last of all, what does it take to become an informed voter?

My belief, as I expressed it to her, is an expansion on my favorite definition of pop entertainment that I heard once. That being, pop "whatever" (ex. pop music) is a form of entertainment that does all the work for you so you don't have to bring anything to be able to enjoy it. One doesn't need to be informed on music theory, have any experience playing an instrument, or have otherwise built up a catalog of knowledge that one brings to the exchanges that unlocks the door to appreciate or apprehend the structure and beauty of a given piece. Pop music pushes the buttons for you, triggers all the feels, gets hooked in your brain because of our basic, common human responses to music. We may bring various tastes in regards to styles to that experience but just because a person prefers folk to EDM doesn't make one person less pop than the other if the music does all the work. Mostly people who don't understand that are dicks. These days we call them hipsters. But that's just a current term for people confusing their style preference in pop music with a developed richness of music appreciation. But I digress.

This translates to politics in that most of what passes for news-worthy information is built to do all the lifting for the reader/listener/consumer. Most if not all news stories on Mike Pence at the border are meant to trigger one of two responses: Outrage towards the Trump administration if it was aimed at potential Democrat voters; and outrage towards the liberal media and Congress if aimed at potential Republican voters. The first will focus on what he says that gets it wrong, dismisses the conditions in the detention centers, and will usually quickly shift to some factoid about how many people are being mistreated. The later will focus on what is being done, how the House isn't passing needed funding, and how the media is misrepresenting what is going on overall. All you need to bring is the style preference for the particular pop news and it is very likely you will end up having the desired outrage response.

Because of this, a person could spend all of their time following the news, keeping up on events, and be no more informed than the person who shows up at the polls to do a party-line vote because they always vote R/D/L/whatever.

Now, none of us think we are low-information voters while we all almost certainly think most people are especially those who vote for the party opposed to our political style preference. The odds I'm somehow special when everyone else is biased and wrong are bad odds so the best bet is to assume I am just as prone to this as everyone else.

So what to do?

As with pop entertainment, the idea is to build up what one brings to the experience to the point one is able to make more informed personal decisions based on the knowledge one has accrued as to value of the information one is being given to consume. And, above all else, ask what the point of the article/podcast/broadcast is so one can better see the outlines of their biases and objectives as well. One can recognize some posters here who have built up their information reserve. EA is the prime example on this board. Some people like to argue he is using Google to backfill his knowledge, yet when they do so they are merely demonstrating they don't understand that the kind of underlying knowledge can't be faked like that. Because EA may use a news story to make a point that may be currently hot and in the public consciousness doesn't explain the underlying understanding of the social behaviors involved, the political theory it engages, or a particular reporter or thinker whose primary ideas get references and explained. While I don't always agree with EA, and have not agreed publicly with him, I absolutely respect that he's put in the hours and is drawing from a deep, developed knowledge pool that he continues to refresh.

To the point, then, developing one's knowledge base makes demands of one outside of the immediacy of a particular story or current events. One ought to spend time building one's knowledge base by seeking out sources that get into the fundamentals of political ideas, theories, their proponents and the rational from which they drew their ideas. And one ought to spend time refreshing that pool of knowledge, keeping current not just with events but with the state of the underlying thinking.

That's a lot to ask of someone all at once. But like building up musical appreciation or learning an instrument, it is best approached through steady, disciplined commitment combined with mindfulness of what the goal is. The mindful approach is key, just as one can spend a lifetime never going beyond a pop-appreciation level of music enjoyment (usually as background rather than engaged enjoyment from my observation of the adult "pop" music listener) it takes some attention to be able to learn to discern the skilled from the lazy, easy decisions in composition and production.

So, as a request, I'm curious what books or other materials would posters at MDB suggest that contribute to building that pool? Part of my current reading list for understanding the issues confronting us in 2020 aren't necessarily the best books on which to build so much as expansions on one's existing, expanding pool. Books such as Moneyland or The Retreat of Western Liberalism which I think do more to shed light on the issues giving rise to the unrest that is growing across the western world are beneficial reads, in my opinion. But I don't think they are pool builders so much as refreshers.

So, pool building recommendations, anyone?

ETA: I should note that I like that particular definition of pop entertainment because it doesn't make a value judgement about pop entertainment. I, for one, sometimes have days where what I need is a book that isn't going to demand much from me or a song that is just going to hit the right buttons. And there are poems, books of literature, songs, and movies that for me function as pop simply by being so familiar to me now that I have put into them what I have to give and they now do all the lifting when I engage them. I don't think "pop" in and of itself is a pejorative term or description. The issue is when all one does is consume pop entertainment and information. And, given that what once might not have started as pop can come to function as pop for a given person, that makes demands of even the most discriminating and knowledgeable among us to not be complacent in their "non-pop" status lest they become the thing they mock out of complacency and conceit.

I mentioned this to my daughter which applies to my question so I should add it. I didn’t really start to develop my pool until college because of a political science 101 class that opened my eyes to how little I really knew about politics and how wrong I was about even my own assumed beliefs and positions. It exposed me to the writings of the founding fathers, such as the Federalist Papers, rather than what people said about the founding fathers, and basically gave me a shovel to start digging the pool deeper and better rather than handing me a plastic kiddie pool to call my own. It isn't my intent to imply a person can simply read ones way to having an informed view. It's more in the context of this thread what resources did others find helpful or would recommend for the purpose of moving beyond the headlines and pop news stories to approach 2020 from a better foundational understanding of the issues at play?

That said, I would certainly put Moneyland and The Retreat of Western Liberalism on a recommended reading list if one hasn't already read them.

The Federalist Papers
wiki

Federalist No. 1
Author: Alexander Hamilton, For the Independent Journal.

General Introduction

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. [1] This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.
PUBLIUS.

Footnote 1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.

Key points:
(I)t seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter...(is the) interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes...and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who...hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country...

It will...be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution.

Prologue to Federalist 2.

If this essay has anything to say to us today, it's that the challenges we see are not that new. The founding of our nation swam against similar currents from special interests, influencers who would see the nation divided rather than united, the use of the press to run counter-factual attacks on the aims of the first continental congress, the influence of foreign nations seeking to manipulate the US for their own purposes. There have always been voices who claim we are better off breaking up than remaining as one nation.

Federalist 2 reaffirms that for those today seeking to defend rather than form a new nation, whatever the challenges to democracy each generation faces they are not that different from those that came before. It's the people who meet those challenges that change. And it's up to us to defend it in our time.

The Federalist Papers
wiki

Federalist No. 2
Author: John Jay, For the Independent Journal.

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

To the People of the State of New York:

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and wellbalanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."
PUBLIUS.

Footnote 1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.

Key points:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

(T)he prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united...But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.

It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures.

(F)or what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one?...They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies...seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."

honorentheos wrote:...

That's a lot to ask of someone all at once. But like building up musical appreciation or learning an instrument, it is best approached through steady, disciplined commitment combined with mindfulness of what the goal is. The mindful approach is key, just as one can spend a lifetime never going beyond a pop-appreciation level of music enjoyment (usually as background rather than engaged enjoyment from my observation of the adult "pop" music listener) it takes some attention to be able to learn to discern the skilled from the lazy, easy decisions in composition and production.

So, as a request, I'm curious what books or other materials would posters at MDB suggest that contribute to building that pool?

This is a really difficult question to answer because back in the day a Liberal Arts degree might've been the formal-education-is-the-answer you're hoping she can achieve through what is essentially self-study. Where a Classics or Philosophy professor once might've helped her develop into a critical, or abstract, or logical thinker you're hoping to crowdsource the ideas and books that probably need to be introduced to her young mind in a formal manner.

Letters from a Stoic or Meditations might blow my socks off, but it's impossible to know if your kid's mind would be receptive to Camus or Arendt. What if she's just into coding or wants to be around kids all day as teacher? Point being is you can throw lots of stuff at the wall to see what sticks, but the best thing I've seen work for children and young adults is to have a parent that they can aspire to. If you're the deep pool that can effortlessly pull wisdom from while discussing various topics they'll figure you're the standard, and will raise their bar accordingly.

Just don't be an asshole contrarian who must be the all-knowing polymath who negs them while offering the correct interpretation of reality that you craft for them. That's just egomania.

- Doc

Honorentheos, you certainly are correct that the only way to get past shallow sound bite news is to dig for more understanding for oneself to bring to the news. The news is not supplying that deeper understanding.

I thought there were a lot of books to consider, I am unsure which way to turn for quickest results. I had two thoughts grab me which might not be simply distractions.

I was amused by your approach to classical music. I wondered if I could get a infraction summons for enjoying without sufficient theoretic background. I do know what notes and scales are. I am aware there are harmonic principals for combining those notes but my theory is thin. My parents listend to classical music sd I grew up so it is part of my music experience. My mother explained to me that you listen to music lines and themes and if you pay attention you hear all the variations, counter themes and new developments. If you pay attention there is richness in the hearing of the flow and beauty. My experience over the years is the best approach to listening is to pay attention. Classic music requires a good deal more attention than Pop music.

Perhaps there is a parallel to political awareness.

Back in about 1968 I was young enough to be begiled with a dream of transcending history so did not learn enough of that backward looking stuff. Later in part from realizing the futility of imagining we transcend history I started to find history fascinating. At least for me history makes politics more interesting and provides pathways to more understanding.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

honorentheos wrote:...

That's a lot to ask of someone all at once. But like building up musical appreciation or learning an instrument, it is best approached through steady, disciplined commitment combined with mindfulness of what the goal is. The mindful approach is key, just as one can spend a lifetime never going beyond a pop-appreciation level of music enjoyment (usually as background rather than engaged enjoyment from my observation of the adult "pop" music listener) it takes some attention to be able to learn to discern the skilled from the lazy, easy decisions in composition and production.

So, as a request, I'm curious what books or other materials would posters at MDB suggest that contribute to building that pool?

This is a really difficult question to answer because back in the day a Liberal Arts degree might've been the formal-education-is-the-answer you're hoping she can achieve through what is essentially self-study. Where a Classics or Philosophy professor once might've helped her develop into a critical, or abstract, or logical thinker you're hoping to crowdsource the ideas and books that probably need to be introduced to her young mind in a formal manner.

Letters from a Stoic or Meditations might blow my socks off, but it's impossible to know if your kid's mind would be receptive to Camus or Arendt. What if she's just into coding or wants to be around kids all day as teacher? Point being is you can throw lots of stuff at the wall to see what sticks, but the best thing I've seen work for children and young adults is to have a parent that they can aspire to. If you're the deep pool that can effortlessly pull wisdom from while discussing various topics they'll figure you're the standard, and will raise their bar accordingly.

Just don't be an asshole contrarian who must be the all-knowing polymath who negs them while offering the correct interpretation of reality that you craft for them. That's just egomania.

- Doc

usually I just ask questions until the answers stop coming easily. Then we talk about the nuances that make it hard to give a pat answer.

This thread was really more of an excuse to see how people here would answer for themselves. It didn't go very far so I'm using it like Little Nipper to copypasta the Federalist Papers with very light commentary.

huckelberry wrote:Back in about 1968 I was young enough to be begiled with a dream of transcending history so did not learn enough of that backward looking stuff. Later in part from realizing the futility of imagining we transcend history I started to find history fascinating. At least for me history makes politics more interesting and provides pathways to more understanding.

I think this is an excellent point.

The Federalist Papers
wiki

Federalist No. 3
Author: John Jay, For the Independent Journal.

The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence

To the People of the State of New York:

IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes.

The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive.

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.

At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.

The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.

The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,--especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.

Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,--whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.

Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.

Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of the people.

As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.

Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.

The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.

But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.

Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power.

In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their DOGE, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?
PUBLIUS. [/i]

Key points:
The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations,...(however) I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquility, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes.

The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.

(U)nder the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,--whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent;...the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States... but those temptations, not reaching the other States...will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. (Note, our current two-party system undermines this argument. ~ h.)

As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence,...one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter....not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably.

The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses.

(I)t is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power.

I think low information voters independently reading the Federalist papers is very unlikely to improve their political knowledge. I think it would mostly result in people finding misread proof-texts for their previously held, half-baked views.