Editing Social Enlightenment Thought (section)

=== Pragmatism > "Centrism" ===
*Clearly, while both of America's parties are deserving of criticism wherever applicable (if being intellectually honest), both sides are not equal, there are such things as greater evils.
*With this in mind, one then shouldn't need to choose between dogmatism and false equivalence. Two things can be criticized at once, and yet we can still take a stand against whatever is worse between them, these are all not mutually exclusive.
*In this current climate, I would argue that this is how we must operate moving onwards. Eject the greater evil, unite under the alternative (as long as necessary, even if begrudgingly), and most importantly, continue to fight for a more representative system until we no longer feel held hostage by parties we don't trust.
*This is important even if we think we ideologically align with one party over another to a 100% degree.
**We all, deep down, understand the fallibility of our biases, that reality must be more nuanced than one of two worldviews.
**Parties change, infight, fracture, misstep, become corrupted, and/or fail, inherently, which is both natural and still enough justification to refuse blind fealty. Therefore I suggest to act not as a contrarian or even a "centrist", merely an independent thinker, building ideology from the bottom-up, not top-down.
**By severing allegiance to parties and formulating views more pragmatically, we may even end up in more or less the same worldview as before, but we would at least be challenging the ''process'', and I would argue that this is of utmost importance, necessary for any society concerned at all with understanding itself.