A new book idea

I'm still working on my book. I've actually thought about it more than I've worked on it, but I suppose that counts since the work is found in the thinking.

The first book: The Limits of Power

3 sections:

1) Empirical discussion of power and the use of force and aggression and its consequences
- a thoughtful exploration of those arguments and alternate causalities for data around governance and its empirical consequences with best arguments for power and force for domestic and international issues and an empirical discussion of its consequences in each case
- drug control, gun control and death penalty featured among domestic issues
- terrorism, genocide, and poverty and wealth equity featured among international issues
2) Philosophical discussion of morality, free will, law, and politics
3) Theoretical discussion of least possible necessary aggression

Second book: A History of Liberal Democracy

Something to that effect. I want to write a progressive history -- with a clear distinction between real progress, meaning empirical improvement on important indicators, and progressive politics, a ideological orientation that may or may not and does and does not promote real progress -- of liberal democracy and liberal democratic principles and the ways that they support human progress.

I've just decided that I don't think I can do the first more empirical, philosophical and theoretical book as a progressive history. But I think a historical exploration of the same issues would be powerful.

I have to say that something that is interesting in my own personal and professional development is that I am much more genuinely committed to empirical exploration of these issues independent of my own biases and philosophical commitments than I think I've been at all up to this point. I've explored so many different ways to approach various policy issues that I can conceive of policy data in lots of different ways in terms of constructive policy. And I think data and strong theory about data is more important than any ideology or ideological or philosophical lens on an issue. The philosophy and theory and ideas matter.

But what I love about theory and the reason that this needs to feature up front in my writing, I think, is that theory is built around empirical science rather than either trying to substitute data for theory or committing oneself to an ideology or philosophy or worldview and then trying to fit facts into that thinking.

I'm not interested in theory to reinforce my biases. I'm interested in theory to develop stronger explanations of data, not to develop a worldview to manipulate facts to fit my thinking. The latter just doesn't make any sense, really, because it's not an honest exploration of facts. And it is this kind of self-righteousness that I am so frustrated and disappointed with in contemporary political discussions. And it is the certainly the kind of self-righteousness that leads to all of the worst tragedies in humanity's history, I believe: genocide, imperialism, terrorism, brutality; religious, ethnic, racial, sexual, economic and other forms of repression. It is this kind of self-righteousness that enlightened thought was meant to escape. And I am more committed to that notion than I am to any particular idea, philosophy or theory.

I've got grading to do. And Carson, I wrote this big long "5 things people don't know about me" before Thanksgiving and lost it all, somehow. So I'm working on it again, as I get the chance.

Love,
Ben