Political Fixation

In order to feel more united with fellow conservatives or liberals, the many pathetic people in either philosophical group (for politics is, like all things, philosophical, and the truth about metaphysics and epistemology determines the truth about politics, not the other way around) will embrace whatever fiction or assumption their fellow party members propose.  Enraging the other party, ignoring the times they are right even by accident, and feeling personally validated or in unity with their political faction are the true goals of conservatives and liberals.  This is especially the case now that they become increasingly overt in their emotionalism thanks to social media and the almost satirical things their ideological companions say in reaction to the stupidity of the other side.  When non-rationalists are hell-bent on believing, saying, or doing whatever it takes to oppose someone else, there are only two possible outcomes: either one or both people will eventually realize how asinine they are, and become at least somewhat more rational, or they will only become more and more slaves to contradictions and assumptions, and thus enemies of truth.

This is how the adherents of the two predominant political worldviews have made it clear they are acting.  They are locked in a desperate struggle to misrepresent, exaggerate, and take hypocritical or unverifiable stances on almost everything as long as it will only make someone from the other party look bad or make them feel elated in the moment.  There is no concern for logical axioms, logical necessity and possibility, and epistemological proof, for these truths would only inconvenience the many people who think that they have a right to believe whatever they want, unaware of the fact that it is literlly impossible for people to have a right to believe or say or do whatever they wish.  If truth does not morally matter, then truth is still true, and some truths are still metaphysically or epistemologically foundational, but no one has a right to anything because there is no obligation, and thus no rights.  If truth does morally matter, then no one has a right to whatever brings them happiness or whatever subjectively appeases them, for they are morally in the wrong when they are anything but perfectly rationalistic.

It would not be anywhere near so utterly uncommon for people to realize these things if more of them were actually trying to discover and live for the truth, in politics and other aspects of life alike.  Instead of even just being milder idiots, conservatives and liberals are so fixated on just outperforming each other in votes or feeling justified in embracing ideas they have not even tried to prove that they have provoked each other into becoming more vehement, more outwardly hypocritical, more emotionalistic, and more arrogant versions of themselves.  One of many ways this is expressed is in how they respond to news publications/sources that, already driven largely by irrationalism, motivate them to more fiercely cling to assumptions and contradictions to fight other people doing the same thing for different philosophical positions.  If they approve of what a news figure says or want it to be true, they will believe and cite it as if any sort of hearsay could possibly be proven by words.  If it could be proven, news would not be hearsay at all, but logical proofs that could be articulated with words! 

Words, feelings, reputations, perceptions, persuasion, and reactionary worldviews are the focus; truth, proof, and the laws of logic that ground both of them are ignored.  There are many ways to tell someone is not a rationalist, but one of them is just giving them the chance to deny rationalistic skepticism of events.  If they say they believe that current or historical events--not philosophical ideas that motivate people in events, but the mere happenstance occurrence or non-occurrence of a given event--happened because of hearsay, which all news of events reduces down to, they believe based on assumptions and betray reason.  Give them the chance to recant of the idiotic belief that hearsay proves that events are happening, and if they do not say they misworded something or realize they had only made assumptions or thought contradictions could be true, they are not rationalists, or at least are not rationalists with regard to the issue at hand.

With politics and beyond, a rationalist often only needs to hand someone the rope to hang themselves and they tend to quickly do it without even realizing what they are doing or clearly thinking about it until they have already put the noose around their own neck.  From the person who denies the necessary truth of logical axioms that transcend all other things to the person who thinks political convenience is what dictates the truth about reason, morality, epistemology, and more, non-rationalists are the great scourge of humanity. Someone can be a non-rationalist without being a conservative or liberal, but it is impossible to be a conservative or liberal without being a non-rationalist.  Their worsening political fixation has only further exposed how captivated they are by mere emotionalistic satisfaction.  Eager to react to the other side, they leap from error to error and hypocrisy to hypocrisy, reflecting many of the same qualities they hate in others as they choose not to reach for rationalism instead.