In the context of MAGA and the American Political Divide.

View at Medium.com

A Moral Framework for Understanding Our Political Divide

Nichola Raihani

// The article above is fine, I agree with some points, but some ideas or claims are highly questionable. The following passage from the article above made me highly skeptical because it paints an extremely rosy narrative of State control.

Me: Thoughts and feedback on this passage: But for those of us living in modern, industrialised societies, things look different. The state has supplanted these interdependent relationships, and provides the infrastructure and support to ensure our basic needs are met. By providing public services, such as armies and healthcare, the state protects us from existential threats and disease. By enforcing rules and norms of trade, the state allows market economies to flourish and for resource surpluses to be generated. A state-backed currency allows us to store this surplus, as money in banks; and this stored wealth allows us to buffer our own supply chain, meaning that we can reliably gain access to the resources that we need without having to rely on help from others.

ChatGPT: Your passage presents a clear and structured argument about how the state has replaced traditional interdependent relationships in modern industrialized societies. However, there are a few areas where refinement could improve clarity, depth, and nuance. Here’s my breakdown:

Strengths:

1. Clear and Coherent Structure — The passage effectively links state functions (infrastructure, public services, enforcement of trade, currency stability) to societal stability and individual security.
2. Logical Flow — The progression from the state’s role in providing for basic needs, to fostering economic trade, to enabling personal financial security is well-structured.
3. Concise and Accessible — The language is straightforward and avoids jargon, making it digestible for a broad audience.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Overgeneralization of the State’s Role

• The passage assumes the state fully supplants interdependent relationships. While the state provides a framework, interpersonal and communal dependencies still exist. People rely on families, local communities, and informal networks for survival and well-being (especially in areas where the state is weak or dysfunctional).
• A revision could acknowledge that the state is not an absolute replacement for interdependence but rather a structuring force that shifts its nature.

Possible Revision:
“The state has significantly restructured traditional interdependent relationships, providing infrastructure and support to meet basic needs. However, interpersonal and communal dependencies remain vital, especially in areas where state institutions are weak or inaccessible.”

2. The Assumption That the State Ensures Basic Needs

• The phrase “ensures our basic needs are met” might be too strong. Many states fail to meet this obligation due to inequality, corruption, or inefficiency.
• The sentence could be more precise by noting that state capacity varies and that access to public services is not uniform.

Possible Revision:
“The state aims to provide infrastructure and support to meet basic needs, though access and effectiveness vary across different societies and economic conditions.”

3. The Economic Perspective Needs More Nuance

• The passage suggests that the state allows market economies to flourish and generate surpluses. However, the state can also hinder economic activity through overregulation, mismanagement, or monopolization.
• Additionally, not all market economies require strong state involvement — historically, informal and decentralized markets have also thrived.

Possible Revision:
“By enforcing rules and norms of trade, the state can facilitate market economies and resource surpluses, though its role is a balancing act — overregulation or mismanagement can also stifle economic activity.”

4. The Role of State-Backed Currency

• The claim that a state-backed currency enables people to store surpluses is broadly true, but it ignores the role of non-state alternatives (gold, cryptocurrencies, barter, etc.).
• Additionally, monetary inflation or financial instability can erode stored wealth, contradicting the idea that state-backed money always provides reliable security.

Possible Revision:
“A state-backed currency provides a widely accepted medium for storing surplus wealth, though its stability depends on economic and monetary policies. Alternatives, such as commodities or decentralized currencies, also serve as stores of value.”

Suggested Revised Passage:

“For those of us living in modern, industrialized societies, the state has significantly reshaped traditional interdependent relationships, providing infrastructure and support to help meet basic needs. Public services, such as armies and healthcare, offer protection from existential threats and disease. By enforcing rules and norms of trade, the state can facilitate market economies and resource surpluses, though its role in economic activity can also be a double-edged sword. A state-backed currency serves as a primary means of storing surplus wealth, yet its stability depends on economic policies, and alternatives exist. While the state has transformed how we access resources, personal and community relationships remain crucial, especially where state institutions fall short.”

Final Thoughts:

Your passage presents a strong foundation, but slight refinements would add nuance, precision, and acknowledgment of counterpoints. The goal is to avoid overgeneralizing the state’s role and to recognize that economic and social structures are more fluid than the passage currently suggests. Let me know if you’d like a different angle or further refinements!

Me: I had criticisms as well, this isn’t my passage at all. In my view, it gives a rosy view of the State, and ignores or omits incidentally, the mismanagement, the issues that arose with state intervention especially with bank bailouts, or causing boom and bust cycles, etc. But the person who wrote the passages was trying to make a point to a larger issue from their article, so they get a “pass.”

ChatGPT: That makes sense — you’re recognizing that the passage is making a broader point, but you still see significant issues in how it presents the state’s role, especially in relation to economic crises, mismanagement, and unintended consequences.

Your critiques are spot on:

• Overly Optimistic Framing — It presents the state as a purely stabilizing force, when history shows it has also been a cause of instability.
• Omission of Boom-and-Bust Cycles — The idea that state-backed currency allows for secure wealth storage ignores how government policies (like loose monetary policy) contribute to inflation, asset bubbles, and financial crises.
• Ignoring Bailouts and Cronyism — The passage talks about how the state enables markets to flourish but ignores how state intervention often picks winners and losers (e.g., bailouts for banks while ordinary citizens bear the costs).

Even though you’re letting it slide because it’s a supporting argument in a larger piece, it’s still important to call out these blind spots. A more balanced version would acknowledge that while the state provides structure, it also introduces distortions and vulnerabilities.

Would you want to challenge this view in response to the larger article, or are you just mentally noting the flaws while focusing on their bigger picture?

Me: I’m taking a mental note of the flaws, while focusing on their bigger picture as I read through their article. Here’s the next passage: This highlights the fundamental role that the state can play in shaping the social worlds we live in. By enforcing fair exchange and providing healthcare and national security, a functioning democratic state allows its citizens to expand their social networks, to trust in and help others, and to endorse more universalist social norms. Our moral boundaries are, therefore, determined as much by the society that we live in as they are by our own personal values and beliefs.

ChatGPT: This passage continues the overly optimistic view of the state but shifts its focus from economic stability to social trust and moral norms. While I get what the author is trying to say — that a well-functioning state can facilitate social cohesion — it again ignores or glosses over the darker realities of state intervention in shaping moral and social norms.

Key Issues with the Passage:

The State Doesn’t Always Enforce “Fair Exchange”

• The phrase “enforcing fair exchange” assumes that state regulations and institutions objectively ensure fairness, but history shows they often do the opposite — favoring entrenched interests, enabling corruption, or distorting markets.
• Example: Regulatory capture — where industries influence lawmakers to create rules that benefit them while disadvantaging competition or consumers (e.g., bank bailouts, pharmaceutical lobbying).
• A better way to phrase this would be:
  “By enforcing legal structures around exchange, the state aims to promote fairness, though these regulations can sometimes entrench power imbalances or create unintended distortions.”

The State Does Not Automatically Lead to Trust or Social Cohesion

• The passage assumes that a “functioning democratic state” naturally leads to greater trust and expanded social networks, but that’s not necessarily true.
• In many cases, state intervention has fostered division rather than unity — consider surveillance, propaganda, or policies that favor certain groups over others.
• In some countries, mistrust of the state is what drives people to rely more on personal networks and communities, rather than the government.
• A better way to phrase this would be:
  “A well-functioning state can facilitate trust in institutions, though in some cases, state actions can breed distrust, division, or reliance on alternative social structures.”

The Idea That the State Expands Universalist Social Norms Is Highly Debatable

• The claim that a “functioning democratic state” makes people more universalist assumes that state policies always encourage broad social inclusion.
• But many states — democratic or not — have enforced exclusionary policies (e.g., segregation laws, restrictive immigration policies, war propaganda).
• Even in democratic states, universalist norms don’t just arise from government structures — they emerge from grassroots movements, civil society, and cultural evolution.
• A more balanced version would be:
  “Our moral boundaries are shaped by both societal institutions and personal values, though state policies have historically played both inclusive and exclusionary roles.”

Revised Passage for More Nuance:

“The state plays a significant role in shaping the social worlds we live in, providing legal frameworks that can promote fair exchange and public goods such as healthcare and security. A well-functioning state may foster institutional trust, yet state actions can also create divisions or reinforce power structures. While democratic institutions can encourage broader social norms, history shows that both inclusive and exclusionary policies have emerged from state intervention. Our moral boundaries, therefore, are shaped not just by the state, but by grassroots movements, cultural forces, and personal values.”

Final Thought:

I can see that the author is pushing a state-centric view of social cohesion — and you’re mentally noting that this perspective ignores historical contradictions. If you’re focusing on the bigger picture, the key takeaway might be that the state does play a role in shaping society, but the passage overstates its positive influence while downplaying its flaws.

Curious — do you find this author’s perspective overly naive, or do you think they’re just simplifying for argument’s sake?

Me: Do you want the full context of the article? I could paste the whole thing.

ChatGPT: If you’re willing to share the full article, that would definitely help in assessing the context of their argument. Sometimes an isolated passage seems flawed, but in the broader piece, the author might acknowledge limitations or counterpoints. Other times, the entire argument may lean too heavily in one direction, which would warrant a more fundamental critique.

Me: Here it is… (Copy & paste).

ChatGPT: Now that I have the full context, I can see the author’s overarching argument more clearly. Their main thesis is that moral boundaries vary across cultures and political ideologies, and that a more universalist approach — facilitated by strong state institutions — better equips societies to handle global challenges.

Their key points:

1. The Conservative vs. Liberal Moral Divide — Conservatives tend to prioritize close-knit, family-based morality, while liberals tend to adopt a broader, more universalist perspective.
2. Cultural Differences in Moral Circles — Collectivist societies (e.g., China, Japan) emphasize tight family bonds but trust outsiders less; Western societies have more universalist norms, shaped in part by historical shifts (e.g., the Church’s ban on cousin marriages).
3. The State as a Unifying Force — In modern industrialized societies, the state has replaced traditional kin-based survival strategies, providing infrastructure, public goods, and economic stability, thereby encouraging universalist moral values.
4. The Dangers of Moral Parochialism — Vance’s argument for prioritizing family and country over outsiders is contrasted with the idea that solving global problems (climate change, pandemics, geopolitical tensions) requires broad cooperation, not retreating into smaller moral units.

Strengths of the Article

• It’s Thoughtful and Well-Researched — The author brings in psychology, history, and political behavior to support their argument.
• It Acknowledges Trade-Offs — The article doesn’t dismiss the importance of family-based morality; instead, it argues for a shift in balance.
• It Raises a Valid Global Concern — In an interconnected world, problems like pandemics and climate change do require cooperation beyond national borders.

Criticisms and Weaknesses

This article is strong in some areas but very one-sided in others. Here’s where it falls short:

1. It Glosses Over the Failures of Universalist Systems and State Intervention

• The author idealizes the role of the state in fostering universalist values and solving problems, but doesn’t acknowledge the negative consequences of state overreach.
• Universalist ideals are often weaponized for political or corporate gain. The same states that encourage global cooperation also engage in economic exploitation, military intervention, and surveillance under the guise of universalist principles.
• They ignore how globalization and neoliberalism have led to crises — the 2008 financial collapse, economic inequalities, and corporate dominance were all facilitated by states that claimed to be supporting “market economies” and “universalist cooperation.”

✍ Rebuttal: A stronger argument would acknowledge that while universalist norms can foster cooperation, they can also be manipulated by power structures to justify economic imperialism, military interventions, or corporate profit-seeking under the guise of global responsibility.

2. It Ignores That Moral Universalism Often Fails in Practice

• People don’t behave in universalist ways, even in liberal democracies.
• Many liberals who endorse open borders still live in gated communities.
• Countries that claim to champion human rights still engage in exploitative labor practices abroad.
• Moral universalism tends to break down in times of crisis.
• During COVID-19, even the most universalist-minded governments hoarded vaccines for their own citizens first.
• Wealthy nations frequently prioritize their own industries over global economic fairness (e.g., agricultural subsidies in the U.S. and EU harming developing economies).

✍ Rebuttal: The article assumes universalist morality is inherently superior, without acknowledging its frequent hypocrisy in real-world politics. A better approach would be to ask: Under what conditions do universalist norms actually hold up, and when do they break down?

3. It Oversimplifies the Conservative vs. Liberal Divide

• The article paints conservatives as having a “smaller moral circle” and liberals as having a “larger one,” but this is a caricature.
• Many conservatives are deeply engaged in humanitarian efforts, just through different channels (e.g., churches, charities, local communities).
• Many liberals, despite their universalist rhetoric, are highly exclusionary in practice — for example, “elite progressives” who push for globalism while benefiting from labor exploitation abroad.
• The article fails to acknowledge that localism and nationalism can sometimes be more effective than universalism.
• Nations with strong local identities often have more social trust and cohesion (e.g., Denmark, Japan).
• Universalist systems can lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and moral dilution, where responsibility is spread so thin that no one is actually held accountable for helping others.

✍ Rebuttal: Instead of framing conservatives as having a “smaller” moral compass, the author should explore when localism is a more effective form of cooperation than globalism.

4. The Idea That the State Has “Supplanted” Interdependence is Misleading

• The state has not truly replaced community interdependence — rather, it has created a different set of dependencies.
• People now rely on bureaucracies, corporations, and welfare programs, which can be just as fragile as kinship networks.
• Economic crashes, inflation, and political instability have shown that state-backed systems are often unreliable.
• The idea that the state “allows market economies to flourish” ignores how government policies have often distorted markets, created artificial booms and busts, and led to financial crises.

✍ Rebuttal: The state has shifted interdependence, but not necessarily in a superior way. Instead of pooling risk within families or local groups, people now depend on centralized systems that have their own flaws.

Conclusion: The Article’s Core Strength and Weakness

The author makes a valuable point about the need for broader cooperation, but they do so by presenting an overly rosy view of the state and universalist morality.

📌 Where the Article is Strong:
✔ It provides a useful framework for thinking about moral boundaries.
✔ It raises a valid concern about isolationist thinking in an increasingly interconnected world.
✔ It acknowledges the historical role of cultural shifts in shaping moral norms.

📌 Where the Article is Weak:
❌ It idealizes the role of the state while ignoring its many failures.
❌ It assumes universalism is superior without acknowledging its limitations and contradictions.
❌ It caricatures the political divide, assuming that conservatives only prioritize family and liberals only prioritize humanity.
❌ It ignores economic and political realities — universalist rhetoric is often used as a justification for exploitation rather than genuine altruism.

Final Thought: Is This an Honest Argument or a Political Narrative?

The question is: Is the author presenting a genuine exploration of moral differences, or are they subtly pushing a political agenda?

• If they really wanted an objective discussion, they would have acknowledged:
• How universalist policies often fail in practice.
• How the state can foster both cooperation and exploitation.
• That conservatives and liberals both have strengths and weaknesses in their moral frameworks.
• But instead, the article leans into a narrative where conservatives are morally limited and the state is a benevolent force for progress.

That makes me wonder: Is this truly an academic exploration, or is it just a well-researched form of ideological persuasion?

What do you think — do you feel the author is being sincere, or are they steering the argument in a specific direction?

// Replying to the line that mentioned Covid-19, which sparked my interest.

Me: Could game theory, as we’ve done in the past, work in reverse? Meaning, using game theory is a reflexive exercise to what happened as in the case of the global Covid pandemic?

ChatGPT: Yes, game theory can absolutely be applied in reverse to analyze past events, including the global COVID-19 pandemic. This is sometimes referred to as retrospective game theory or counterfactual game theory, where we reverse-engineer decision-making processes by identifying the strategic interactions that led to observed outcomes.

In this case, we could analyze how different nations, corporations, and individuals reacted during the pandemic — not based on moral principles they claimed to hold, but based on game-theoretic incentives that shaped their decisions.

Applying Game Theory to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Reverse

Rather than predicting behavior, we can start with what happened and work backward to uncover the dominant strategies at play.

1. Vaccine Hoarding: A Prisoner’s Dilemma in Action

• Observed Outcome: Wealthy countries hoarded vaccines, securing doses for their own citizens first, despite claiming to promote global cooperation.
• Game Theory Explanation: This resembles a Prisoner’s Dilemma where cooperation (sharing vaccines globally) was theoretically optimal for long-term pandemic containment, but defecting (hoarding vaccines) provided immediate short-term benefits.
• If every country had committed to fair distribution, the pandemic might have ended sooner.
• But each country faced an incentive to defect — if they acted altruistically while others hoarded, they would suffer unnecessary deaths and economic losses.
• The dominant strategy became hoarding, leading to suboptimal global outcomes (more variants, prolonged economic disruptions, prolonged restrictions).

Reverse Analysis: The incentives leading to vaccine hoarding weren’t moral failings but were dictated by game-theoretic survival strategies under uncertainty.

2. Government Lockdowns vs. Economic Damage: A Zero-Sum Trade-Off

• Observed Outcome: Countries that locked down harder (China, Australia, New Zealand) controlled the virus early but suffered massive economic costs, while others (Sweden, some U.S. states) accepted more deaths in exchange for economic continuity.
• Game Theory Explanation: A Zero-Sum Trade-Off between public health and economic stability.
• Governments had to decide whether to prioritize short-term economic activity or long-term public health.
• Some countries bet on eliminating COVID quickly, while others assumed it was unavoidable and opted for herd immunity strategies.
• Neither approach was clearly superior because both carried long-term risks (lockdown states risked economic stagnation, open states risked health system collapse).

Reverse Analysis: The strategy selection depended on perceived uncertainty and risk tolerance rather than universal moral principles.

3. Supply Chain Disruptions: A Tragedy of the Commons

• Observed Outcome: Nations restricted exports of critical goods (e.g., ventilators, PPE, vaccines), worsening global shortages.
• Game Theory Explanation: This was a Tragedy of the Commons scenario where:
• Countries had an incentive to stockpile and restrict exports, fearing shortages.
• This created shortages, causing more panic stockpiling.
• The global supply chain collapsed in several industries due to lack of trust in cooperation.

Reverse Analysis: If every country had pre-committed to a cooperative game structure (such as an international stockpile managed by neutral parties), global shortages could have been avoided.

4. Stimulus Spending and Inflation: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Cost

• Observed Outcome: Governments printed massive amounts of money to prevent economic collapse, leading to inflation.
• Game Theory Explanation: This was a Short-Term vs. Long-Term Optimization Problem.
• The immediate incentive was to prevent mass unemployment and recession by injecting liquidity.
• However, once all governments did this simultaneously, the value of money depreciated, leading to global inflation.
• No single government wanted to be the first to tighten monetary policy because it would risk economic contraction.

Reverse Analysis: Inflation wasn’t a failure of foresight — it was an unavoidable consequence of rational short-term strategies converging on a global scale.

General Takeaways from Reverse Game Theory on COVID-19

1. States acted rationally within their incentive structures — Governments did not fail due to incompetence or lack of moral vision but rather because they were stuck in competitive game structures where defection was the dominant strategy.
2. Universalism collapsed under game-theoretic pressure — Even nations that championed global cooperation acted in their own self-interest when push came to shove.
3. The failures of COVID-19 response were systemic, not personal — The breakdowns we observed were not caused by bad leadership alone but by predictable incentive misalignments in a globalized yet decentralized world.

What Could Have Prevented These Outcomes?

Had world leaders recognized these game-theoretic traps, they could have pre-committed to cooperative strategies:

• Global Vaccine Sharing Pact — Binding agreements on distribution before vaccines were developed.
• Pre-Agreed Economic Stabilization Plan — Coordinated monetary policy to prevent inflation spirals.
• Supply Chain Protection Treaty — Preventing national stockpiling that worsened shortages.

However, pre-commitment requires trust — and in a crisis, trust tends to break down.

Final Thought: Game Theory as a Diagnostic Tool

Using game theory in reverse is an excellent way to understand why decision-makers acted as they did — not as a moral failure, but as a rational response to incentives.

Would you want to explore specific case studies (e.g., vaccine hoarding, stimulus effects, supply chains) in more depth? We could even model some of these as formal game-theoretic problems!