Home / Culture and Society / The Sum of Our Parts

The Sum of Our Parts

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Most everyone has heard the saying, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s been around for quite a while and generally means that, together, pieces produce a result not independently obtainable. It has several applications. First uttered by Aristotle as a philosophical precept, it is also a tenet of Gestalt psychology and an expression of the concept of synergy.  And, it’s a notion most of our politicians wish didn’t exist, especially during election season.

In attempting to influence voters, politicians too often aim their pitches at the primal parts of our mental processes. They excite our fears, our prejudices, our inceptive character traits, anything that represses critical examination of the positions they advocate. But, it is our ability for analytical thought that makes us more than the sum of our emotions and lesser cognitive processes. Every time it is defeated, we lose, too.

Barack Obama consistently appeals to our baser instincts to whip up support for his agenda. One of his favorite techniques is to demean those he opposes and then use ridicule, and often dishonesty, in his public pronouncements. There are almost as many examples of this technique as there are Obama speeches. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he chided U.S. Supreme Court justices, seated before him, for a ruling with which he disagrees. For good measure, he also mischaracterized the Court’s decision. 

Last week, the president used a derisive red herring to impugn the integrity of business for being anti-regulation. He also launched into a dishonest bit of demagoguery about Republicans, the safety of children and corporate jets. Earlier this year, he invited key Republicans to his budget address only to deliver a partisan, and perfidious, attack rather than a serious proposal. A few days ago, he blistered the entire congress for lacking the study discipline of his daughters who are 10 and 13 years old. This from a ‘leader’ who has yet to offer anything substantive of his own.

On the other end of the political spectrum, too many conservatives also rely on emotional calls to action rather than thoughtful discourse. While not the name-calling petulant that is Obama, Michele Bachmann rarely speaks in other than the broadest of conservative strokes. Without a scripted speech, she usually makes little sense of it. Her most recent gaffe is confusing John Wayne, the movie star, with John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer. But, she also identified Concord, New Hampshire as the birthplace of the American Revolution. While Obama has too many states in his Union, she has too few Concords in hers.

When Bachmann has to extemporize, she talks in circles as in last month’s Fox News Sunday discussion of same sex marriage. She should be thankful that the voters in her congressional district have given her the House to call home and simply stay there.

As counterproductive as emotional political debate is, who is really to blame? Certainly, politicians are happy to engage us at that level. Emotional appeals are much easier than offering coherent and detailed proposals, which can be challenged and rejected along with their authors. But, is it also what voters want? Do we prefer our fears and prejudices heightened to figuring out the best solutions to the issues we face? Today, when knowledge is instantly available on the Internet, no political scholarship site ranks among the top five hundred most visited in the U.S.

We also have a tendency to substitute personality for scrutiny, preferring to base our assessments on who is speaking rather than what is spoken. But, fact-finding is the guardian of our election process. In my case, for example, I have a human on my shoulder because I need more than just a spell checker to write my blogs. But, she remains in the background because we want our arguments to rise or fall based on their strengths or weaknesses. And, of course, I’m a lot cuter.

Perhaps, Ross Perot’s pie charts during the 1992 election campaign would be the brunt of jokes in any election year. If that’s the case, the laugh is on us.

See you on the left-side.

Powered by

About Sidney and Riley

  • Glenn Contrarian

    The Republicans and their conservative supporters are SO concerned about how much America’s spending and how great a deficit we have…and then they go on tirades claiming that the president’s “not offering anything substantive” as far as deficit reduction goes.

    But what Republican cognoscenti know – and the rest of the Republicans and conservatives apparently do NOT know – is that the current perception of our government’s fiscal problem is a product of the Republican Big Lie.

    1. The American people have a LOWER tax burden now than they have had in the past fifty years!

    2. The American corporate tax rate – while nominally the second-highest among OECD nations (as Dave Nalle has pointed out several times) – is (after tax breaks and exemptions and deductions are taken into effect) the second-LOWEST effective tax rate among OECD nations.

    3. Our deficit is currently 2% of our GDP. Under Ronald Reagan, it was FIVE percent of our GDP.

    In other words, seeing as how our tax rates are in REALITY (not Republican-world, but REALITY) quite low, what is needed is not MORE tax cuts…but an increase in tax REVENUE by taking away tax cuts for the wealthy (and YES, anyone making 250K or more per year IS wealthy in my book) and returning our corporate tax rates to a more sensible level.

    Remember, Sidney and Riley, from the early 1950’s to 1980 we had MUCH higher tax rates…and we had FAR less fiscal problems. Since Reagan came into office, we’ve had far lower tax rates and far MORE fiscal problems…and the lower and middle classes have had almost ZERO wage growth, while the income of the wealthy has skyrocketed.

    Time to raise taxes, y’all.

  • The Republican administration that brought us the to this point decided to fund wars with deficits instead of taxes. Talk about perfidious.

    Oh, S&R did. They used the word “perfidious” to describe an Obama address that shines as a beacon of their not liking the incumbent president in a manner to which they object.

    After that, however, the trajectory of the intended point about the sum of the parts went off target. It almost recovered with the “who is really to blame” question but veered to Ross Perot and dropped off the radar screen. That’s what happens when personality is substituted for scrutiny.