This entry is based on the article found here. (READ IT!)

Do you ever stop and wonder how it is that half of a nation can believe one thing, while the other half believes something totally opposite? Do you ever wonder how our nation became a battleground between two perceived truths?

This is the nature of our decadent, indulgent society. Subconsciously or otherwise, for the American there is no truth except that which feels best, that which sounds most appealing. We are too busy being consumers, too busy posing in our fast cars or our fashionable clothes; we don't have time to think or reason. We will not concern ourselves with our lives or with our freedoms. Truth to the American is like a candy bar at a grocery store; it is impulsive and pleasurable, it is bright and shiny and tempting. We are under no pressure to accept anything that is painful or uncomfortable, so of course we do not.

Democracy is most fundamentally based on the idea that in any given situation, the majority opinion of a population will arrive at the truest and best (or at least the most utilitarian) of a number of options. This, however, assumes an adequate supply of information in the population with which to form opinions, as well as a willingness to reasonably process information and form rational opinions. Are we as modern people capable of using our reason to sift through the over-abundance of information in 21st century life?

We are drowning in information, yet this information is a commoditized information; it must be sold through its appeal. Thus the 'truths' that sell best are those that are the most pleasurable, the most comforting. Most pundits and commentators like to point the finger at their opponents, calling them stupid, idealistic, dishonest, etc. They cannot grasp why that which is so self-evident to them is rejected by another person. This, most probably, is because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually form their opinions logically. They form them based on what they have been taught, and what seems most right to them. The problem is that what seems true is rarely true. Our hedonism will not allow us to accept truth that is not pleasurable or comforting. Thus all political debate becomes meaningless as logic is removed. Emily Katz writes:

Because truth has been relegated to merely an aesthetic preference, rather than an objective standard we can reach through honest inquiry and dialogue, we libertarians are fighting even more of an uphill battle than we may realize. You can’t argue with aesthetics.

We live in a time where everyone is entitled to their own point of view, however unsubstantiated it might be. And in such an era, it is not enough to make sound economic and philosophical arguments if people refuse to be receptive to them. Our problem is more foundational: we must make our culture one that values inquiry and intellect in the first place. Once that’s taken care of, the ideas will speak for themselves.

The question is if we as Americans are willing to sacrifice our "aesthetic preferences" and comfortable ideologies in order to find a higher, objective truth. In a country split 51%-48%, a great number of people must be very wrong, and isn't it a little too easy to just assume it's the other guy? We need to stop looking to "truth" as a source of comfort -- the truth is hard to accept more often than not -- and we need to take the time to use our minds and re-assess our views.

If we don't take time to care for our society, it will most likely continue its path to decadence, while in the meantime the politicians and multinational corporations and all those that recognize the importance and power of reasoned, planned political activism will achieve their goals at our expense. We owe it to ourselves, to those we propose to bind with our laws, and to democracy itself to be as critical of our own beliefs as we are of others', and to work towards a real, objective truth, rather than empty, indulgent aesthetic opinion.