Beyond Boolean Politics

The Case for Nuance

Like a poorly mixed batter, American political discourse has become lumpy with oversimplified narratives and binary thinking. I believe we have reached a point where nuanced discussion feels almost impossible, replaced by what programmers would call "boolean logic" - simple if/then statements that reduce complex issues to black and white. So on today’s Spill the tea, let’s explore this.

The Boolean Trap

In programming, boolean logic is straightforward: if condition A is true, then result B follows and if a condition A is false, then result B does not follow. Understanding this simple concept is fundamental in electronics and computer science and it is something I used to teach in my AP Computer Science classes back in the days.

In its most basic binary (yeah you’re right that we’ll talk about this term more today) form something can be either a 1 or a 0 where 1 equals true and 0 equals false. For example a light switch only has two conditions: 1 or 0. So if a light switch is flipped (true or 1) the light turns on and if a light switch is not flipped (false or 0) the light does not turn on. Makes sense right?

You can apply this logic to almost anything. As a matter of fact you're using these things daily. For example, if your battery hits 10% (true) then decrease the screen brightness. Or if your car transmission hits x RPM (true) then it’ll change gears. Or if the door of your microwave is open (true) the plate stops spinning. Most programming languages have some sort of binary boolean logic baked in but for our purposes let’s use some pseudo code:

if (battery_hits_10%) {
    decrease_brightness()
}

Does that make sense?
Let me do one more example, just in case:

if (2000_rpm_is_reached) {
    gear_up()
}

But you’re not here to learn computer programming (you’re welcome regardless) you’re here to hear about how this logic can adversely affect our existence as human beings living together. While that sounds like a massive statement, I truly believe that it is happening (true).

Humanity has an intense sense of wanting absolutes and there’s nothing really wrong with that. We all want to know when our paychecks come in right?

if (the_15th_of_the_month_arrives) {
    get_paycheck()
}

But what humanity is not good at is distinguishing when something could be automated and when something should be put in a different category all together. I’ve given quite some examples of when automation is just fine but let’s look at the other side. When, in religion, can we ever use boolean statements?

I’m going to get some pushback here but I believe we can never use boolean statement in religion (although I make one exception which I’ll come to later). And in case you’re wondering, I’m talking about doctrine and dogma here. While doctrine a dogma can be helpful to understand things, adhering to it in a boolean way, I would argue, is damaging to our faith. But Miche, I hear you say, surely we can all agree that the ten commandment doctrines like murder or cheating should be considered in a boolean way?

No, I don’t believe so. Doctrine and dogma should be viewed as grammar at best. Grammar in a sense that it can help understand things but it cannot guide us.

Let’s look at cheating for example - it’s easy right? A person that cheats disregards their partner, it’s clearly wrong! But is it? Because, what if a women is in an abusive relationship for 20 years and afraid to get out. One day a safe person shows up that allows her to feel loved and seen and she ends up running away with that person. Should we still adhere to boolean thinking here?

Or let’s look at murder - surely that one is easy? Well, if you think about it that one is even more complex and while I am a pacifist, I will not rule out that I too could become violent in the right situation. If anyone comes after my kids and I can prevent their deaths by killing someone else…

I wrote about a similar topic a few months ago and in that article I argued that we are sometimes forced to deal with moral dilemmas and I think that life is full of moral dilemmas.

What I’m trying to say, in a very long winded way, is that there are things in life that can be automated with logic and there are things that can not (although you are free to do whatever you want). Like this headline from The Verge

Let’s put in our pseudocode:

if (person_votes_for_trump) {
    person_supports_school_shootings()
}

Can you see where I’m going with this? Someone had to assign the value to the statement i.e. someone had to decide that if someone votes for trump, than that person supports school shootings. But who is that person? Well, it’s easy here because It’s Nilay Patel, the editor in chief at the Verge, and while he is a very accomplished person and I’ve loved (and will love) a lot of his writing, he is not the arbiter of assigning values. He does not get to decide that your uncle who voted for Trump is in favor of school shootings.

See, what Nilay Patel means is that the consequences of voting for Trump will possibly lead to more school shootings. So the voter is not for school shootings but the vote may lead to it. Kinda like when someone hurts you and they are not a terrible person but their action was terrible. I hope you can see the difference.

Of course this narrative reigns supreme in the polarized politics of today.

Let’s put this one in our pseudo code:

if (person_visits_abortion_clinic) {
    person_embraces_child-killing()
}

Again, does Regis Martin get to decide that visiting an abortion clinic makes you a person that embraces child-killing? At best, this person can argue that supporting abortion could increase abortions but even that is a weak statement, since data shows that restriction on abortion doesn’t reduce abortion.

Ok, these examples may be extreme and you may or may not already agree with me here. The main point I’m trying to make however is that sometimes it’s very hard to see when this logic is going on because it uses complex persuasion tactics. You see this a lot lately when statements are made like this:

If you don't denounce [opposing group] loudly enough, then you must support them.

For example if you don’t call your senator about trans rights you don’t care about trans people. Or if you don’t speak up about Gaza you support murdering children. Or, one of my favorites, if you drive an SUV you deny climate change.

The nasty side of this argumentation is that it automatically puts us in one of two categories. And clearly, there’s only one good category to be in. But I know people who don’t call their senator but support me personally, many of you are reading this newsletter right now. I also know that there are enough people who are mortified by the casualties in Gaza and actively support their causes without speaking up loudly on Instagram. And can we all acknowledge the privilege in the last statement?

These reductive statements ignore the rich complexity of human experience and motivation. They transform political and social discourse into a zero-sum game where compromise becomes impossible and understanding becomes irrelevant. Ultimately, this vitriol just causes division and gets us further away from reaching our goals.

The Cost of Vitriol

For years, progressives have been told that the only acceptable response to political differences is outrage. I think that this approach has created a self-perpetuating cycle of alienation and division. And as a person who often suggests finding common ground I am regularly accused of "bothsiderism" or being "too soft."

The results, however, speak for themselves. Despite years of aggressive rhetoric and social media callouts, I haven't seen the sweeping changes many progressives hoped for. Instead, we've witnessed deepening political polarization, increased resistance to progressive ideas, and the deterioration of productive political discourse.

Like trying to force two incompatible ingredients together, aggressive rhetoric often produces the opposite of its intended effect. I’m thinking about the rhetoric about Israel and Palestine where calling out the actions of Israel have not led to a ceasefire. Instead it has led to some members of the Jewish community voting for Trump because they feared the anti-semitism from the progressive left. Note that there’s no value statement in what I just wrote there, I’m just stating an observation.

So let's acknowledge some uncomfortable truths:

1. There are approximately 73 million Republicans in the United States

2. They aren't going anywhere

3. Deportation isn't an option (nor should it be)

4. We share one country and need to find ways to coexist

The math is simple: unless we find ways to work together, our political system will continue to produce gridlock and division. The question isn't whether we need to find common ground, but how. And while I know that not everyone can be a bridge builder, I sure am sick of hearing that my bridge building is not producing results.

Conclusion

The time has come for bridge-builders to step forward. We need voices that can speak across divides, that can hold complexity, and that can help forge new narratives of understanding and cooperation.

This isn't about abandoning our values or accepting harmful policies. It's about finding more effective ways to create the change we want to see. It's about recognizing that lasting progress comes through connection, not division. In the Gaza example, if yelling “child murdered” doesn’t work, what tactic could work better?

The path forward isn't through boolean politics of if/then statements, but through the messy, complex work of building understanding and finding common ground. And if you ask me, It's time to let the bridge-builders lead the way.