Today we will begin our lesson with a discussion on The Dangers of Dogmatism. Class is now in session and will be for eternity. There will be a test at the end.

Ken Martin was the safer pick for the DNC chair, he helped turn around Minnesota politically and financially, and won seats – and kept them, often by very narrow margins. Ben Wikler was the progressive minded disruption pick that helped flip Wisconsin and was a driving force in turning Wisconsin blue including that historically expensive fight that Elon Musk lost over the Wisconsin Supreme Court pick. You can decide which of these is more noteworthy.

David Hogg must have realized that under the fresh new leadership of the DNC they were still too caught up in rules and formalities to effectively fight and so he chose to walk his own path. He didn’t run just to quit and run a PAC. He ran and realized without Ben Wikler signing off on his idea to primary safe seats with his PAC to build a progressive base, he would not have a clear path to his vision… reforming the DNC to reflect progressive politics to win like they won in Wisconsin.

He asked permission from Ken Martin to use his PAC for its intended purpose – which was subsequently denied – realized Ken Martin would never sign off on primarying safe DNC candidates and wrote the DNC off in favor of his PAC. When the DNC got caught up in a procedural error, he decided to exit stage left and put his energy elsewhere – primarying the old guard. To be fair to Ken, he made the argument that the DNC should abstain from interfering with primaries altogether. Who you agree with depends on how you feel about disruption in the DNC in favor of progressives; if you feel that party unity, procedures, and small progress over the status quo is the way forward, then Ken Martin. If you feel that shaking things up, being disruptive, and primarying the old guard out for new blood progressive Democrats is ideal and worth the risk, then David Hogg.

David Hogg found himself with a $20 million PAC he built himself and was told he had to choose not to spend it on primarying progressives against safe establishment Democrats or else the DNC won’t let him have a seat at their table. That’s why when you hear Democrats talk about the matter they sound whiny and say things like “we think losing Hogg is missing an opportunity to engage with younger voters.” Because it is, and they are… and the tone has shifted because he has a $20 million dollar progressive werebear named ‘Leaders We Deserve’.

The old guard you mention – the two committee members – aren’t solely responsible for the issues with primaries. While you’re correct that Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, stuck to her superdelegate guns in favor of Hillary over Obama and by the same token Hillary over Sanders, she voted for David Hogg and Ben Witker… the progressive disruption candidates. She may be idealistic in trying to get a woman elected to be President, but she’s entitled to that ideal. She’s no Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I don’t share your enthusiasm for the DNC and many of them are just starting to realize how much their predecessors have messed up – the immediate exit of David Hogg despite being handed a position in the DNC he already won shouldn’t be met by your confusion about his original intent. Instead, it should be a sign of how bad things actually are. Who knows, Ken Martin may turn it around and he shares many of the same ideas as Ben Witker, but mostly by copying his homework and playing it safe yawn. Doubtful the DNC has that much gas left in the tank to turn anything around. They can’t even run an internal election without fucking it up. The fuck up not being the procedural error. But losing David Hogg.

Losing in this manner is a signature DNC move. You almost hate to see it for the thousandth time. Even Twilight was less predictable.

Ah, my friend… I wish I were so romantic as I’ve misled you to believe. Admittedly I’m only prone to fits of it. You are, of course, correct about the need to find a neutral ground that is less prone to bias and more fit for consumption. Lately, I’ve been struck by the need to feel my humanity and express it, wildly. I’m just making the mistake of believing that an honest presentation is enough to convince others that it’s a worthwhile endeavor, meanwhile being reckless in the attempt. A ‘rage against the dying of the light’, if you will allow.

I’m generally more as you self describe. I feel it would almost be too daring to say ‘a classical stoic’, not this new age stigma ridden thin veneer over cynicism with an edgy ‘I don’t give a shit’ attitude. So, apologies if you feel slightly offended at the suggestion we are alike in that way. As for depressing and boring; I don’t think that at all. Having that mental space --detached and analytic-- offers great benefits in introspection, self realization, critical thought, and enables me to safely empathize when it makes sense to do so.

I would like to think that I value your discussion on these topics more than you yet realize. I had an excellent philosophy teacher.

That’s the thing, though. I don’t need to get lost in the nuance and come out of the other side as a ‘realist’ or a cynic. The cold calculation of incalculation… the idea that because we are not perfect judges, we should not judge at all, is sinister enough that it even has a meme: Letting perfect be the enemy of good.

When I do selfless acts - and I believe I have, if my act is seen as an act to my own benefit or with ulterior motive: I feel harmed and wish to withdraw. Why would I reason to live with the burden of seeing the world as so purely black and white that the only good that can come from it is beyond my recognition; because I too must be black and white or risk being an imperfect judge?

I’m not going to tell someone that their willingness to donate a kidney is anything less than altruistic just because there’s ‘emotional baggage’ or they don’t self ascribe properly… I’m simply willing to accept it as a good thing.

Just because the future is unknowable doesn’t relieve me of the burden or responsibility of making active choices that I feel make a positive difference, even if I can’t foresee the outcomes. Should the man that saved Hitler’s life from a crowd of angry people feel responsible for everything that Hitler did after the fact? Can I now cynically use that thought to help no one at all, so that I don’t run the risk of saving the next Hitler? Yet do these same cynics that claim humans only work in self interest not go on to complain that so many are passive bystanders to horrific events? It’s self defeating. I’d rather not be a bystander, because I feel a sense of duty to not be an enabler.

Finally, I don’t have a need to sanitize my discussions from all emotions. I don’t think that’s productive so long as the emotions are genuine and an honest reflection of my state of being.

A sincere thank you for your response. I hope my response is received as well as I intend.

You mean… mothers breastfeeding feeding their children? You mean men who find big rocks and throw them into water from heights to make a big splash? Do you mean people who donate their organs to other people? Do you mean the many artists, scientists, teachers, and basically everyone else that gets their ass out of bed every day to then put a smile on their face for other people, despite feeling existential despair inside because the last shred of reason for being has been invested in someone or something else, so they keep moving? Robin Williams?

I think we have very different ideas of what self-interest is. Namely, I think that you have confused the idea that one must suffer, or at least feel nothing, or it’s not altruistic enough. That one should not enjoy acts of love, kindness, caring, giving, art, exploration… or they’re secretly solipsistic. This isn’t the condemnation of the world you think it is. This feels like a projection of an internal insecurity onto the greater portion of humanity.

I think most people have been guilty of thinking this at some point. Rather than feel threatened by my words or that I’m being critical of you and only you, I would ask that you do what I did when I once thought this very thought… think on if you’re really willing to live the rest of your lived experience with this thought at the forefront. Not everyone gets this one right, but it could have consequences on your ability to actually ‘enjoy’ another human being without needing something from them to do so.