The Intersection of Politics, History, Philosophy and Ping Pong

We keep going back and forth over the same table - just like a ping pong ball.

If the current environment in America feels a little like a watching a table tennis (often called “ping pong” here in the States) match in Taiwan, you aren’t crazy.

That would be because that is exactly what it is like.

Singles matches are be won by winning the best of seven games, each game is first to eleven and must be won by two points.

If you watch these matches, the skills deployed at the top levels are incredible. These players are so good, they make that ping pong ball defy the laws of physics. And when they are evenly matched, which most of them are at the highest levels of the sport, the matches are games of runs – where one player gets on a streak and wins several points in a row and maybe their opponent does the same, most games are won or lost by very small margins.

That is because the singular focus is on winning the current point. Strategy is involved, of course, the players are all known to each other and know well each’s strengths and weaknesses - but there are so many variables within the play of each point the players focus is on each contact with the ball and maximizing their chances to win that specific point turning it into a tactical battel. Players apply that same focus to the next point and so on and so on until the game is won. It is a series of tactical actions, hopefully culminating in enough of a consistent run to win the game.

Invariably, winning comes down to the skills of the individual players, their mental and physical fitness, and every now and again, a little luck.

And therein lies our problem. We play politics like these players play table tennis – one point at a time. When we do that, we depend on the skills of the players, not an overall winning strategy to deliver the victory.

And often, the skills of our players are not the best.

It is hard to argue that transactional politics are not tactical, and are not the main force in today’s politics. The basis for almost every piece of legislation these days is “doing something” for some group - and there is always an implied exchange, it could be complex as in the purchase of loyalty, support for some other political effort or it could be something as simple as a vote, “I’ll do “X” for you if you vote for me.”

Transactional politics almost always exhibit short-term gains for some and long-term pain for others.

Let us understand the difference in tactics vs. strategy, tactics are generally plans and actions for the short term, strategy is long term. Battle plans tend to be tactical, because beyond “I win, you lose”, a succinct definition of strategy is difficult because, like the table tennis analogy, there are too many variables to consider. A common idiom in the military world is that battle plans seldom survive first contact with the enemy – largely because he gets a say in the conflict. If you think about it, that perspective fits the ideology vs. philosophy conflict – ideology tends to be near term, philosophy more long term.

But unlike table tennis, success in political matters is long term, and therefore strategic. That is because points won, tactical victories, are not always victories. Democrats are masters in winning by losing because the structural changes left behind create a scenario over the long term where it does not matter who is in charge, the inertia of the residuals from past battles determine what can and cannot be done.

A prime example of residual structural change would be when the American government is “shut down”, only something like thirteen percent is actually shut down – eighty-seven percent is still “open” because, over time, that spending and those functions have been made “mandatory”.

That structural change did not come about as a singular win, that is a product of years of incremental steps that culminated in essentially never being able to use the closure of government against itself.

This winning even when you lose is not something Republicans understand because that is a strategic move, not a tactical move…and the GOP only seems to be interested in winning based on tactical actions.

Something I heard recently struck me as very significant. Glenn Beck interviewed historian Niall Ferguson and Ferguson made the point that the purpose of history is to understand the reasons events happened and use that knowledge to either recreate or avoid those situations as we determine necessary. He noted that history is not taught today, what is taught is something akin to cultural criticism of historical events by applying our anachronistic standard to things that occurred in the past, but without a proper understanding of history, people cannot discern the significance or insignificance of events.

If people can’t see the long-term impact of history, they are condemned to fight nothing but tactical battles, repeating error after error and each generation will continue to fight the same battles as generations before them. It also allows things like Critical Race Theory to be treated as fact, rather than a poorly supported theory.

This is where I see the tie between history and philosophy. In my view, philosophy is strategic and the only weapon effective enough to defeat the march of progressivism, an ideotheology (ideology and theology merged into one) based on no discernable philosophy other than seeking, acquiring and retaining power.

We must do a better job of communicating an organized, fact and natural law based philosophy. Just as history informs us about the how and what, philosophy informs us about the why. Philosophy also transcends time and events. It is something that can be understood as a commonality, even when things are seemingly spinning out of control (classical reference).

Philosophy, combined with an understanding of history, allow us to extrapolate into the future to predict possible outcomes of actions we take today.