I seldom talk publicly about politics, as I believe that political discourse too often devolves into tribal signaling and intellectual posturing rather than genuine efforts to understand and persuade. However, the events of the past few months, paired with my recent reading of biographies of the founding fathers of the [[United States of America (USA)]], have prompted me to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, as it were). In this essay, I aim to draw parallels between the political struggles and debates of the past and the challenges we face in the present, not to promote any particular partisan agenda, but rather to explore the recurring patterns of human nature that shape our civic life. By reflecting on the ways in which the founders grappled with issues of power, representation, and factionalism, I hope to shed light on the enduring psychological and social forces that continue to influence our politics today. ## The Disconnect Between Abstract Values and Daily Life I don't really believe that history repeats itself; however, there are some patterns that are unavoidable as the problems that people try to solve are the same over and over again. Individually, we might not care very much about the system of government we are subjected to. As long as our needs and desires are fulfilled, hardly any of us would go out of our way for abstract values that have no perceived representations or impact on our daily lives. In other words, most people are primarily concerned with tangible aspects of their lives, such as their economic well-being, personal safety, and social relationships. Abstract political concepts like democracy, freedom, or equality may seem less important if they don't directly affect one's day-to-day experiences. For example, someone struggling to make ends meet may not feel strongly about the philosophical differences between democracy and autocracy if both systems seem equally unable to improve their financial situation. Similarly, a person living in a stable, prosperous society may not feel compelled to fight for greater political representation if they believe their interests are already being served. The key point is that people's political engagement is often driven by their perception of how the system of government directly impacts their lives. When the connection between abstract political values and concrete personal experiences seems weak or nonexistent, individuals may feel less motivated to actively participate in or push for changes to the political system. However, there are two complications in our judgments. ## The Illusion of the Future and Collective Identity The first complication is our unique human condition to see the future as something that will manifest based on our own or others' actions; therefore, we tend to undermine our present dispositions based on the fear, anxiety, and anticipation of a certain future. Secondly, we tend to think collectively of ourselves as being part of larger groups of perceived peers. We know that there are others who do not think as we do, so we tend to project a larger cohort of people that think like us, and together with us share a certain vision of the future. Combining these two fallacies in judgment, we want to impose our thoughts on others, trying to convince them that we, and only we, have the right answer for the challenges ahead. This cognitive bias explains why abstract political concepts that seem distant from our daily lives can suddenly become tangible and emotionally charged when we perceive them as impacting others with whom we sympathize. For instance, someone in a position to hire new employees might prefer candidates of the same race or gender, while simultaneously feeling outraged if they believe others are engaging in similar discriminatory practices, especially if they see it as part of a systemic problem. This double standard is akin to how we often behave while driving. When another driver speeds past us, we may condemn their recklessness, but when we do the same to others, we justify it by blaming their slow driving. In both cases, we interpret the actions of others through the lens of our own biases and group allegiances, while finding ways to rationalize or overlook our own similar behavior. These examples illustrate how our political and moral judgments are often shaped by our selective empathy and self-serving interpretations. We are quick to recognize injustice or irrationality when it affects those we identify with, but slower to acknowledge it in ourselves or our allies. This tendency can lead us to advocate for principles and policies that we believe will benefit our perceived in-group, even if we would oppose those same ideas if they were promoted by a rival faction. ## The Timeless Tug-of-War: Representation and Satisfaction This is mostly noticeable in the government of nations, whereby regardless of the system of government, people are satisfied or dissatisfied based on its representation. In the case of monarchies, people tend to be satisfied by the one or the few powerful individuals that share the same vision of governance. In democratic governments with broad representation, we tend to be contented with having the majority in a body of representatives, like the House or the Senate. The result on our predisposition is the same. That is why we find strong loyalists to monarchy, plutocracy or oligarchy, juxtaposed to advocates of democracy and broad representation in any large sample of society. It is a clear indication that the same opposing forces were present in 1800, when the voting population was far below 5%, as now when suffrage is much higher, globally above 50% and generally around 80% or even higher. The view of a strong government with the interest of the few wealthy, as held by Alexander Hamilton, opposed to a lightweight government and broad representation, as advocated by Thomas Jefferson, may appear drastically different, but given enough time they tend to converge in terms of outcome. ## The Inevitability of Dissent and Realignment This convergence can be seen in the way political figures often find themselves at odds with both their opponents and their allies. John Adams, who championed American neutrality during the French Revolutionary Wars, managed to attract criticism from both his Jeffersonian Republican opponents and leaders of his own Federalist Party, like Hamilton. Similarly, James Madison, the main author of the U.S. Constitution and co-author of the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and John Jay, ended up switching his position on the issue of a national bank. Even Jefferson, a strong supporter of the French Revolution, at times doubted his own position as he witnessed the chaos and violence unleashed by unchecked mobs. I see similarities in the policies pursued by the current Democrats vs. the Republicans in the USA, and their positions periodically swap camps. For instance, the Hamiltonian Bank of the United States that was seen by the (Democratic-)Republicans opposing the Federalists as a means to support the wealthy elites in power, could be seen in the words of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in January 2025 when in a podcast with comedian Jon Stewart she characterized a large part of the Democratic party elites as insider traders. On the other hand, the small military apparatus engineered by Thomas Jefferson during his two terms, counting at some point less than 3,000 troops, could be paralleled to Donald Trump's stated policy goals. In December 2018, Trump's first Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, resigned in protest over the president's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, stating, "While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies." Trump's second term, beginning in 2025, is characterized by a significant shift in military policy, with a focus on reducing foreign intervention and redefining America's global role, suddenly fostering a new sentiment of peace after the last few years of conflict in various regions of the world. Despite the two centuries separating them, Jefferson and Trump, representing opposing political parties, grapple with the same fundamental question of the scope and purpose of American military power. These examples illustrate how our present judgments on political issues are shaped by the distorting lens of our current perspective. We cannot predict with certainty what the future holds or how our views may evolve in response to changing circumstances. This unpredictability is evident in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, when Donald Trump scored a decisive victory against Kamala Harris after four years of what is perceived by many as a disastrous Joe Biden administration. While supporting Trump was seen as taboo in 2016, with his supporters facing ridicule, in this imagined future, his support is openly championed across all segments of the population, including those once considered antithetical to his policies, such as racial minorities. ## The Paradox of Progress: Enrichment and Access The problem of enriching the rich can be seen as a stimulus to finance and the economy overall from one side, like with hindsight James Madison, who initially opposed the First Bank of the United States, came to charter the Second Bank of the United States having seen the benefit that it brought to the broad population despite the obvious corruption that enriched a few friends of Hamilton. Similarly, today big pharma and big tech, mingling in politics, enrich a few but bring access to services to the masses. ## The Hypocrisy of Partisanship: Selective Outrage and Forgiveness We tend to see the actions of our opponents as monstrosities aimed at undermining the credibility of institutions, while forgiving the leaders we support when they engage in similar practices. A clear example is the contrast between the reactions to the pardons issued by President Joe Biden to his son Hunter Biden in 2023 for tax crimes and a gun offense, and the pardons issued by President Donald Trump to supporters involved in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Those who refused to accept the peaceful transfer of power in the aftermath of the 2020 election saw the winning side as complicit in electoral irregularities. Support for pardoning these individuals would typically be considered a Democratic position, yet we are seeing the opposite reaction. On the other hand, pardoning the president's son for corruption charges would usually be seen as an elitist Republican act, but in this case, it was a Democratic leader who took such a step, angering Republicans. ## The Unpredictability of Union and Independence Likewise, the Treaty of Union in 1707 that created Great Britain saw the Scottish Parliament commit euthanasia and renounce self-sovereignty. On the one hand, it embittered those who wanted to preserve independence at all costs, but at the same time, it opened a period of growth and prosperity for all Scots and propelled their philosophers to new heights on the international scene. One might argue that had [[Scotland]] rejected the Treaty, it could have retained independence, but it is impossible to determine whether such independence would have still produced the unexpected prosperity that the Union brought. A contrasting example is the [[United Kingdom (UK)]]'s decision to leave the [[European Union (EU)]], known as Brexit, in 2020. In this case, the UK chose to prioritize national sovereignty over the benefits of EU membership, leading to economic disruption and uncertainty in the short term. If these consequences were to transform into prosperity in the coming years, critics of Brexit might be compelled to reconsider their stance. Conversely, if the UK's economic woes persist or worsen, supporters of Brexit may be forced to reevaluate the wisdom of their decision. These examples illustrate the inherent difficulty in predicting the long-term outcomes of complex political and economic decisions. What may seem like a clear-cut choice between independence and union, or between sovereignty and integration, can lead to unexpected and even contradictory results as circumstances change and new factors come into play. ## Conclusion: The Folly of Certainty in an Uncertain World As I stated in the preface, we tend to see a bleak future if our opposing view gains power, so we strongly oppose it with our like-minded cohort. The problem of an expensive standing army, which was seen as a threat to the people by Jefferson, became an obsolete position just three years after his departure from office when James Madison declared war on Great Britain in 1812 and had to face the bitter truth of their military struggle when the U.S. militia attempted to take over Canada. As Trump took office and pledged to reduce military presence, all of a sudden the world seemed to go in a more peaceful and counterintuitive direction.