I haven't written since college. So, I'm very much of a novice writer. My interests lie between politics and society with science fiction. The more realistic the science fiction the better.

When I was in college years ago I remember reading that political apathy being one of the greatest threats to democracies, especially to modern liberal types. It probably still is. Think of it. How can democracies work if the governed don’t care to even give their consent? What happens to the quality of the democracy when constituents feel too comfortable with their own lives, or when they believe an afterlife is more important than politics, or when they don’t fully realize their own self-interest, or when they just “feel” disenfranchised?

The educated vote at higher ratios than the less educated. But for how decently educated America is, I don’t think our voting turnouts for the last 50 years have matched. I may be wrong. Records show that barely over 50% of our VAP (voting age population) have voted in the last 20 years. Then if education won’t cut it, then what could help?

ANGER. It’s a great motivator. In some ways it’s better than conscious, and rational, and deliberate action. The former can get you off the couch and on your feet in less than a second. The later, whilst can give time for contemplation, might be interrupted by the next commercial or be forgotten by tomorrow’s end. Anger can help you remember because anger leaves brain-waffling impressions in your mind. Dwelling on the anger does make you think, which is not to say it naturally comes with fair-mindedness followed by some sort of enlightenment, and makes you reassess the things you care about. Is this way, anger has it’s political uses.

Is it possible that Trump can help drive voter turnout for Democrats in numbers that can shatter the elections of 2008 and 2012? Whether or not Trump wins 2020, I doubt his supporters will fade way. Remember, Trump is more the symptom than the cause. Demoralized, yes. Less fanaticized, I think it’s only going to get worse.

Mobilizing the people who would vote against you is less than getting your agenda done without them noticing. I have heard that Trump’s tactic relies on creating dumpster fires to distract you from the bigger fire elsewhere. The importance of this is to put out both fires, albeit starting with the more dangerous one first, if you have no choice to prioritize. But if the dumpster fires churns out swarms of apathetic people to leave their houses, then who does it really help?

Can you be Liberal without being on The Left? Can you be on The Left without being Liberal?

on the left

The Left: In America, it’s usually affiliated with The Democratic Party, liberals, and progressives. The Left is distinguished from those on The Right, where both flank, respectively, on what is considered to be The Middle. But if you know your history, The Left, The Right, and The Middle are amorphous and change over time. Example: The Democratic Party used to be the pro-slavery party until the first half of the 20th Century when people like FDR, The Kennedy’s, and African-American and Jewish-American activists, among so many others that that have enriched social equality movements, changed the dynamic where The Democratic Party became more, and not less, the party for racial justice. The Democratic Party lost the Southern white vote where they have dominated for decades largely due to the party’s own support for Civil Rights and in doing so, sidestepped or leapfrogged the Republican Party in attempting to progress racial inequities in America.

The Liberals: In America, are supporters of policies and attitudes that “progress,” among other things, minority rights. Minorities being racial, religious, sexual including sexual orientation and gendered…and so forth. Basically, people who lack power as a distinct group and are typically being oppressed political and socially. As a legal and philosophical extension, liberal ideas on protecting racial, religious, and sexual minorities is couched in neutrality, where majority-minority relationships are sought to be equalized and not flipped for obvious reasons. In other words, my right to marry a person of the same sex does not require the act to negate an opposite sex marriage. The act is to equalize same-sex marriage by elevating it to the status of opposite-sex marriage, but not to flip hierarchies between the two. Liberals, who are sometimes called but not always considered progressives, are contrasted to conservatives, people who promote traditional social institutions.

Being liberal oftentimes gets murky more so than being On The Left. It carries a protean quality like The Left, where it changes over time. But being strictly liberal can also carry more confusion and even stigma. Being liberal in Europe is more akin to being libertarian in America, socially progressive but an acolyte in traditional free-market thinking…or non-thinking depending on your persuasion. Some view many Democrats in the same view no matter the label. But then you can find social progressives who are also economic progressives. Some call them socialists or communists, even though they are not the same thing as they are often considered to be. I find it common when people stand by a good number of liberal and socialist policies and attitudes: gay marriage, increased public and commercial accommodation for people with all sorts of mental and physical disabilities, a sound and reasonable safety net, public schools, and so on. But they would never consider themselves liberal. It’s as if a closet has formed the same way a closet has formed around being socialist, even though policies like social security and laws against polluting drinking water are by definition socialist. Search liberal both in it’s lower and upper case form and who would disagree with it’s fundamental tenants? Not many, except if you are a socialist.

In acting opposition to The Republican Party, to conservatives, and in general to anyone who wants to take society back to the 1930s (not the 1950s like so many say because that era, it seems to me, is where liberal counter-culture was in full-swing), many people may identify as leftist in some fashion or form because of negative experience. But being in opposition doesn’t necessarily mean being actively pro-something either. I can find disgust in a politician actively courting white supremacists but it doesn’t mean I’m deeply aware and supportive of racial justice. Same can be said for a supporter of racial justice who consciously doesn’t support trans* justice.

So, it’s my belief that true liberals hold firm, or try, to the basic tenants of social justice by their own accord. Meaning, they don’t need a political clique or party to feed them the next set of beliefs. If the bandwagon (everyone needs a ride somewhere sometimes) goes somewhere it shouldn’t go, there are people who know better while some never question it. It’s learning when to get off the bandwagon that counts. So, I personally have met quite a few leftists who think nothing wrong with being biased against people solely on religion, race, and gender if they are Christian, “white,” and male. But that’s not liberal is it? If being liberal should give one more substance in judging character beyond association, then thinking liberal goes beyond superficial litmus tests. Bernie Sanders is two out of the three identities mentioned. Being Christian wouldn’t disqualify him from AOC’s support, as it’s apparent that she doesn’t mind him being “white” and male either.

The Left differs from liberals “by virtue” of not being on The Right. It seems it’s more of a categorical clique than an understood set of liberal and progressive commitments. Ask Bernie supporters if Hillary is progressive enough and ask Hillary supporters what it means being progressive and I think you will catch this dynamic rollercoaster. Maybe not. But overall, it’s one thing to form your identity and world view around a general set of beliefs. It’s another thing to think a bit more into the why of what you stand by.

Let me think out loud here.

on thinking

I want to again pick up the hobby to write and the hobby to think and keep on doing this hobby long-term. The primary mistake I made with this blog thus far was the way I presented my thoughts as if I’m a scholar, or at least an aspiring one. I’m not and I don’t think I ever will want to be an academic. It’s taxing if you are not a natural nor if you are aspiring. Therefore, I should stop writing like one, even though I consider being an essayist an honorable title. My thanks to Christopher Hitchens (who is quoted on my header tag) who probably gave me that idiosyncrasy.

Not all scholars are essayists and vice versa, but one better know what they are writing about regardless. So, if I’m not a scholar than how should I write? My continuing WordPress will help me develop not just my writing skills but my writing style, along with my thoughts. I’m still going to write about the political and delve into it’s more liked twin, the social. People like Christopher Hitchens, Hannah Arendt, and George Orwell make me think. I hope to learn about the thoughts of people like Jane Mansbridge and Bayard Rustin and Julian Bond and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Star Trek and Dune are my prominent pop-culture influencers in my forward thinking. But cyberpunk and Japanimation, among others, have heavily colored what the future literally looks like to me. I would really like to pepper queer culture, especially queer sci-fi, into my WordPress imagination. So, let’s see what that looks like.

I think my musings, at least from the start, will be a blur between wonderings and opinions situated in a school of thought. My BA is in Political Science, where I was trained to think in realist thought by mostly feminist female teachers who didn’t give one fuck if you were yourself, in any way, social justicey. So that will always be a part of me. I will attempt to be at times contrarian yet understanding, simple in my train of thought but in ways subtle to audiences I think will understand the subtlety. Is wanting to be cutting-edge considered cheesy nowadays?

To assert some expectations from avid readers and prolific writers, I never really excelled at writing…at all. It was always a struggle for me in school and out of it. This post, for instance, is more than 20 minutes and counting. So please, feel free to educate me but at the same time go easy. Well, I mean, if I make a mistake that should reflect an appropriate response, then do so. But let’s not get overdramatic when it’s warrantless.

And as always, imagination and creativity seem bankrupt without some sort of lofty standard and a little bit of love.


I’m restarting my blog. Hopefully my future posts will be better grammaticallly, stylistically, and have less mistakes than previous posts.

Note to self:

Don’t be too hard on yourself. As long as you are willing to learn from your mistakes, that is enough.

At the same time, push yourself to excellence.

I say this as Romney gives his closing speech. I’m disappointed in the debate and in myself for not suspecting it to be a rehash of campaign ads and speeches. Granted, I have not been alive long enough to have experienced a plethora of presidential debates, but I have been alive long enough to recognize what I have already heard several times over, with little detail, barely any citation, and no originality (unless you count making a campaign ad spew out more fake cheese than Velveeta).

Jim Lehrer is a disappointment. A moderator must never let anyone speak above him and not back down on a decision when it is time to move on. Otherwise, what are you there for?!? Yes, there has been some substance on every topic but in my opinion most topics the candidates debated have been framed with script. I happen to believe the moderator must shake up the debaters and get at what they actually believe and would actually do by eliciting ad hoc moments. The race for the presidency is when candidates should discuss their ideas in detail before the election, and the moderator shouldn’t let them exaggerate with hypotheticals of November 5th or January 20th.

If you have a completely divergent opinion from mine, I guess I would have to start by saying: yes I have been paying attention. But I have debated point by point on farm bills in the past and I do not want to waste my time on something equally exciting. I will admit this, Romney brought his A game and Obama his C. I refer to their styles and not their substance.

Is it the structure of the debate? Can so many complicated issues be compressed in an hour and a half? Maybe the debate should have had been in two parts so more information could be vetted from the two candidates. Ultimately, I should not look at this debate on how it made an impression on me but on the general public. As this moment, the general consensus seems to side with Romney winning the debate (looking at CNN).

Looking at recent history, winning a debate does not at all guarantee election; just ask Kerry. But you really know who the winners and losers are when more and more of the public starts adopting the views of one candidate over the other. I say winners and losers, not winner and loser, as more and more people are impacted by the choices, or lack thereof, we all make. The substance both candidates could have delved deeper in the debate is the nature of government itself. Both candidates often touched on it, but both have not said anything more illuminating than what I have heard in the past several years. Neither candidate would ever discuss the following:

  • The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs is actually a typical trait of societies transitioning from a modern economy (industry-based) to a post-modern economy (service-based). These are the reasons. Here are some ways to develop a 21st Century industrial based economy in addition to the service-based.

Both political party’s rhetoric may have side comments, mostly some kind of small stop-gap measure, but never ever have I heard a politician acknowledging the transitional nature of a modern to post-modern economy. And forgive me if I do not go in detail myself on why economies change from industry to service. I’m sure a little bit of good research can give you a quick overview of it (I might just do it myself when I have the time). Yet, I hear simple explanations all the time in academic circles most notably architecture, economics, history, and sociology with many comments dating back since the 1950’s. The issue of outsourcing jobs can’t be solved unless public policy addresses and reflects on the mechanisms in which it exists.

It’s easy to say your objective, weighing evidence with dispassionate analysis and facts. You believe your  judgement is sound and your positions are ethical, you’re not like the others.

But should you find yourself wrong without feeling livid, it came about with much consideration and deliberation that you could have been wrong at all. You feel you should stand tall or not at all.

Being right is about getting it right and how could you fuck up? It’s you! Right? How could you believe any lie or misconception, be subject to any deception? Without you knowing…


“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years.



“As we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we’re gonna have to do is somehow  resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking how, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live, and my suggestion I guess would be that the trick, and this is one of the few areas where I think there have to be technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to  just political issues, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.


Kudos to William Saletan and his September 14th Slate article Peace Be Upon You! He makes all the points percolating in my head since word spread of Muslim protests caused by some loser who wants to insult Muslims via bad production values. Saletan does bring up a point I have never considered. Bigots, like the type who made the anti-Muslim video which portray Muslims as savages, would love nothing more than the people he/she is insulting to prove him/her right and in the worst possible ways. Bait taken.

However, the resulting violent protests does highlight issues of modernity in parts of the Muslim world. I use the word modernity, because one of its character traits is secularity, where legitimacy comes from reason and not religion. Free speech brings, among others, differences in opinion including insults and blasphemy. But I find many comments made by some Muslims partitioning free speech from blasphemy. I do find this not-to-be-crossed line completely erroneous. For example, suppose I said Mohammed’s first wife Khadija not only worked but owned her own successful business. A Muslim shop owner in Turkey may not mind this fact (and may even find inspiration); suppose a misogynist Muslim from the Taliban considers it an insult, thinking I’m promoting notions of women working? Would this be blasphemy? According to whom!? Blasphemy also includes acts considered irreverent to the sacred. I don’t need an example to further elucidate how empty free speech will become in the face of blasphemy laws. I would be open to make blasphemy illegal but I have yet to see any controlling reason to do so.

It seems much of the Muslim world is going through what much of the West did go through hundreds of years ago, reconciling the sacred with the secular. It is not to say the West is not having some trouble today, but it seems the trouble differs in degree. Western history abounds with examples not unlike what we see today in Benghazi or Cairo, with religious revenge killings against “non-believers” in broad daylight. The West also went through many reforms re-positioning the relationship between religion and the temporal. For example, in the late 18th Century, the ex-colonists called Americans formed the United States Constitution, whereby the 1st Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These principles are Enlightenment principles, derived from philosophers Locke and Voltaire and also Milton and Mill, and affected both the legal and social spheres of the West. Many Western countries had already or eventually adopted these principles laid out in the 1st Amendment. In the 1960’s, the Second Vatican Council attempted to address relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the modern world. The council served as a catalyst of modernization and in it seems to have had rescinded many edicts and positions in the face of modernity (the Church had to legitimize itself to “keep up with the times”). In 2011, the Italian case Lautsi v. Italy came before the European Court of Human Rights. It ruled that crucifixes displayed in the classroom of a state school does not violate the European Convention of Human Rights. These three examples among many show how the West has continued to re-position religion’s place in society. In the West, it seems religion has a high degree of freedom but is no longer allowed to govern society itself. It seems this is in sharp contrast to religion’s place in society in many Muslim countries, especially in the Arab and North African worlds.  However, note that the cacophony of American media attention tends to report on bad news and not good news. For example, the Turkish constitutional court case Refah Partisi v. Turkey is a win for secularism as it held “that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” It goes on to say the party (Refah Partisi a.k.a. Welfare Party) and its agenda  of reintroducing religious law violates the ECHR (European Charter on Human Rights), “particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”

Who is worse than the video producer Sam Bacile, or whatever his real name is, are the people responsible for the deaths of the consulate personnel is Libya (and any other deaths in the future as a result of these protests). Let it be clear, the worst of all in this mess are the MURDERERS.

So a wacko produces a video offensive to Muslims. A minority, no doubt, of Muslims decides to (whether be it planned or not!) incite fear and hatred, promote death and destruction, in the “name” of Allah, Peace be Upon Him (these religious extremists proclaim for God for themselves but not for us?). Meanwhile, much of the America’s politicians and pundits narrate the event as a mistake to help free Libya, the Arab Spring is a wash, and American foreign policy is a complete failure under this administration. Muslim extremists would love nothing more than to see Americans claw at each other than to see our unwavering support for democratic transitions among territories they would love to control. Bait taken.


“Deliberation can help transform interests and reveal previously unrealized areas of agreement. If can sharpen participants understandings of their conflicts.”

—Jane Mansbridge

Some are alarmed at the cynicism and viciousness in today’s political climate in America; understandable, but lest not forgot the alternative to talk, violence. Taking the stand in court, an hour behind the podium fighting for policies, or moments discussing feelings about political candidates are not meant to be attractive. But so in working. It’s simply necessary. Avoiding politics, common as it is among large swaths of people in every demographic, should have the same concern as the unemployment rate; they both are a sign of health of a country. The number of political participants is just as important to a democracy as workers to the workforce, the more the better.

Let me clarify. Political participants can be anyone, be it a politician or pedestrian. As soon as you open your mouth or write to influence another person on an issue, you become is some sense a political participant. Constant arguing is inherent in democracy and participation helps define is quality. It seems what topics are at the forefront of the political agenda is the reflection of the people participating in a political arena. Political arenas are areas where politics is discussed and is both formal (political conventions, media interviews, academic policy debates, etc) and informal (blogs, discussions between family and friends, protests, etc). They are a place where influence can inhabit and exist on television and on print as well as in the living room or park bench. To varying degrees both are important, because the constituents of any society needs to figure out who gets what, when, where, and why; or in other words, politics.

Democracy is not to be taken for granted and its inherent problems should be seen as an issue of quality and control, not dysfunction. It is a well-known fact in political science people who participate in primary elections tend to be people who are from opposite sides of the political bell curve. It becomes obvious listening to and reading the rhetoric of presidential candidates in primaries, rhetoric that is extreme for many moderates. As the presidential nominations end and the mono-e-mono race for the oval office begins (aka general election), you tend to see a bit of backtracking to appeal to the broader public (Mitt Romney is a good contemporary example). But what if more moderates in America participated in primary elections? I believe that itself will profoundly change the American political system. I would argue there would be less influence of both Christian extremists on the Right and environmental extremists on the Left, among other undue influences. What people should be sick of is not politics itself, but the low quality of it.

Therefore, the reasonable course of action is for the citizenry to participate in quality and control and to not shy away from any political arena. The more participate, the more of the agenda-making process shifts from extremists views to moderate views. Instead of a few religious zealots believing there should be no Jeffersonian wall between church and state (Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter 1802), moderate religious devotees can focus what, among other things, has been important imperatives in most religious belief systems like helping the poor, the sick, the orphans, etc. Instead of a few environmental zealots believe preserving some obscure species of rodent takes precedence over any and all business opportunities, moderate eco-activists may actually be inclined to accommodate both goals.

But to get back to the quote above. If more people take part in politics, than more moderates will influence politicians and policy. My main argument is this: the cynicism and viciousness in today’s political climate in America are not from moderate voices. It is the moderate who tends to deliberate while the extremist is entrenched in their respective belief system as they are concerned with only what they think is right (you know who is an extremist when they view their truths are eternal). To agree is not a trait of extremists.

This bell curve pretty much generalizes the public, with the extreme Left and extreme Right on their respective ends while most Americans (probably most people in every country) make the middle.

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.”

—George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

For some time now it has been my personal philosophy seeing personal relationships and political relationships with equal regard. I draw correlations between the two and it seems they share the same ethical questions, albeit with differences in degree and responsibilities. Many if not most ethical standards between the two just might be the same. I am skeptical seeing the two kinds of relationships mentioned as inherently distinct from each other.

Being honest is a choice to show or hide information. Sometimes that choice might be decided with impulsiveness or with deep consideration, but it is still a choice. It seems making that choice to be honest with others always involves a choice to be honest to oneself. It seems everyone, myself included, is constantly making decisions, especially ethical decisions, in a process of reflection of what we ourselves believe which will govern our decision-making. Just the other day I was confronted by a customer service experience at work involving a choice to tell the customer a flat out lie to ensure a sale or being honest with her which could have ended it. I choose the later on the grounds that I can still persuade her to buy the product. Notice I did not say “it was the right thing to do.” That egotistical decision, although was a bad motivation, had a good consequence (the customer based her decision on an honest interaction). What makes it all even more complicated is that the choice I made can actually be parsed whether it was truly ethical or not. Take notice of utilitarian philosophy (a form of normative ethics), which emphasizes consequences, and Kant’s categorical imperative (a form of deontology), which emphasizes principles over consequences. Under utilitarianism, I made the right decision, although my decision was grounded with egoism. However, under the categorical imperative I did not make the right decision. For the reason I made the choice to be honest was not for honesty sake but by my confidence in persuading her to buy what I offer; this is not something I wish to be a universal law. In other words, my decision that day is based on my confidence of persuasion and if I did not have that confidence I might had had told her a lie. The correct act, under the categorical imperative, would had been to tell her the truth because lies are harmful. Period.

Ethics can become much more complicated and the realm of politics is all about decision-making . Undoubtedly there are many unethical politicians but also keep in mind people may have ethical differences. Some will emphasize consequences and some on principles. Most probably morph from one ethical system to another depending on the topic, the circumstance, etc. But many unethical politicians, like many other people, probably tell themselves lies and believe themselves true; believing that what they do is necessary in some “rationalized” fashion. Perhaps these are why Orwell included schizophrenia in the quote above.

So it does seem clear language and sincerity can go hand-in-hand. Making an ethical decision to be candid comes from the willingness to present one’s real aims in a naked fashion, undisguised and transparent. As I listen to politics I look for that nakedness, that willingness to show details, however discomforting, and listen to not only its intellectual merits but its emotional merits as well. I believe putting your emotions on your sleeve is a great way of being sincere which unreservedly shows what is and who should be considered. I remember listening to Catholic officials years ago defending the Church’s stance against condom use and their argument tended to focus on bodily purity and religious freedom. In their arguments I rarely heard concern for those harmed by AIDS/HIV, unintended pregnancies in impoverished families, and victims of rape and incest. The officials showed concern for their own values (in their God’s values they would say) over the needs of the victims, as if they where the ones harmed, and in the cases of rape and incest, as if they where the one’s violated. So, after being thoroughly disgusted, I would change the dial because people who do not consider others will lose consideration from me.

Rational Choice Theory–posits that individuals always act rationally and instrumentally, weighing potential costs and benefits as they aim to maximize their own utility (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

I don’t have to point out the flaws of this theory while experience with other people (especially drunk ones) and quick research can quickly dismiss it. What I would like to point out is this theory, more like hypothesis, is the dominant platform of both economic and political sciences.

To counter, Bryan Caplan coined the term “rational irrationality” to help explain the inconsistencies of Rational Choice Theory by branching rationality into two types:

  • Epistemic rationality – developing a belief system by honest efforts to avoid fallacious reasoning and being open to new evidence to form truths.
  • Instrumental rationality – using the most effective means to attain one’s actual goals grounded on one’s actual beliefs.
A situation where it is instrumentally rational to be epistemically rational is called rational irrationality.
           ^This situation is also known as bullshitting.

Situations that are more likely to elicit this behavior:

  1. The appeal of a belief over another.
  2. The cost of holding a fallacious or irrational belief is low. <—- This highlights the importance of integrity.

I graduated with a B.A. in Political Sciences and oftentimes I wonder if my studies was founded on other ideas from other disciplines besides economics where we get the likes of Rational Choice Theory and rational irrationality. Examples:

Evolutionary ethics: which tries to explain the biological foundations of ethics.

Sociobiology:  scientific study of the biological aspects of social behavior in animals and humans.

Social Dominance Theory: a theory of intergroup relations that focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.

These are just a few ideas that can shed light on human behavior and certainly more interesting than a theory that looks very wrong on its face. It is not to say any of the three I find interesting is an adequate replacement of what Rational Choice Theory tries to cover; I am simply saying that it should be replaced. Maybe Bryan Caplan’s rational irrationality can be a temporary measure but I have the feeling a theory premised on human psychology and biology can bring us closer to a more better economic and political discipline.