We have a massive problem with our political system.
It is built around doing whatever the person at the top wants. If you can climb high enough, you get to dictate the future of the planet. People say the main problem is evil people at the top who abuse kids. We must elect someone new, clean the swamp, and release the Epstein files. No? The guy at the top changes his mind? Never mind. When Republicans are in charge, they go after Democrats. When Democrats take over, they do the same in return. This is not justice or accountability. It is revenge. It is not democracy. It is tribal warfare disguised as governance.
When Trump tried to stop the transfer of power, gathered a mob, and told them the election was stolen, people called that a problem. Yet the response was not to fix the system that allowed it, but to fire individuals. That misses the point. Firing people does not fix a structure that rewards loyalty over evidence.
Our political system is built around teams. Each team has its platform, its leaders, and its enemies. One team wins and advances its agenda, then the other takes power and reverses it. Each side fights to control decisions that should belong to a process, not a personality.
What we need is a political party that replaces the idea of a platform with the idea of a process. The process must be based on cognitive analysis, open debate, and evidence. It should carry forward what the Founding Fathers started when they built systems like separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial review. Their goal was to make decisions through reasoned procedure, not through emotion or authority.
The question we face now is simple. What process can we design that promotes good reasoning and sound decisions?
We can sidestep the old argument about whether power should rest with elites or the masses. The answer is that it should rest with reason itself. You do not need a PhD to make a valid argument. Having a degree helps only if it teaches you how to think and support your claims. What matters is not who you are but whether your reasoning holds up under scrutiny. Like Wikipedia, this approach allows everyone to contribute knowledge, but it prevents elitism by rewarding ideas that can be defended rather than names that carry authority.
Our media no longer pursues objectivity. It tells people what they want to hear instead of what they need to understand. The same problem affects social media and higher education. Connections, popularity, and algorithms determine who gets heard. The result is a system where attention is the measure of credibility, not evidence.
This is a hierarchy built around influence. The person who signs the paycheck makes the decisions. Those below follow orders. If the president decides to tear down the East Wing of the White House to install a ballroom, who will stop him? People obey because their jobs depend on it. No one pauses to debate or weigh the pros and cons. That is how authority replaces reason.
This kind of hierarchy erases the progress we made during the Enlightenment. The thinkers of that era insisted that the strength of a belief should be proportional to the strength of the evidence behind it. We have drifted away from that idea. What we need now is a political movement dedicated to bringing it back.
Imagine a public forum designed to organize every argument for and against a proposal. Each argument would be connected to its supporting and opposing arguments. Similar ideas would be grouped together so that we can identify when two people are saying essentially the same thing in different words. This prevents repetition and helps us evaluate arguments more precisely. The best arguments would rise to the top based on their logical strength and evidence, while weak or irrelevant ones would fall. This would allow us to focus on both quality and comprehensiveness.
To make this system work, we need to define objective criteria for evaluating reasoning. Each belief or argument would have measurable scores that reflect its logical quality, verification, and relevance. However, these scores would not be assigned by authority or popularity. Each score would be built from its own set of sub-arguments that argue for or against that score. In other words, every measurement of reasoning would itself be the product of reasoning.
- A logical validity score would be determined by sub-arguments debating whether the reasoning follows from its premises. Some sub-arguments might point out logical fallacies, while others defend the structure as valid.
- A level of verification score would be based on sub-arguments about how well the claim has been tested, replicated, or observed. Competing sub-arguments could challenge the reliability of the evidence or defend its strength.
- A linkage score would measure how strongly an argument or piece of evidence supports its conclusion. Its sub-arguments would test whether the truth of the evidence would actually strengthen the conclusion and to what degree.
- An importance score would be supported or opposed by sub-arguments about how central that belief is within the reasoning network and how much it influences related conclusions.
- An impact score would be shaped by sub-arguments about the real-world consequences if the belief were true.
Each of these layers of argument would feed into the overall strength of the belief being evaluated.
Together, these criteria would create a transparent, self-correcting ecosystem of reasoning. Strengthening one belief would strengthen every conclusion built on it. For example, evidence confirming that human activity causes global warming would also strengthen the argument for policies such as a carbon tax. The same framework could apply to any issue.
The purpose is not to promote one side of a debate but to organize reasoning itself. Anyone could contribute, as long as their arguments were supported by logic and evidence. The process would not require elites or connections. It would depend on clear thinking and transparency.
We have all worked under leaders who made poor decisions simply because no one could challenge them. Many rose to power through charm or connections rather than merit. They made choices that hurt their organizations, and there was no structured way to demonstrate why they were wrong. Our government operates in the same way. There is no transparent system that lets people publicly show the reasoning behind or against an action.
That is what we need to build. A process that allows people to present, test, and evaluate arguments. A system that values reason over rank. A political structure that bases decisions on transparent analysis rather than hierarchy.
The next step in political evolution is not about left or right. It is about reason itself.
Together, these criteria would create a transparent, self-correcting ecosystem of reasoning. Strengthening one belief would strengthen every conclusion built on it. For example, evidence confirming that human activity causes global warming would also strengthen the argument for policies such as a carbon tax. The same framework could apply to any issue.
The purpose is not to promote one side of a debate but to organize reasoning itself. Anyone could contribute, as long as their arguments were supported by logic and evidence. The process would not require elites or connections. It would depend on clear thinking and transparency.
We have all worked under leaders who made poor decisions simply because no one could challenge them. Many rose to power through charm or connections rather than merit. They made choices that hurt their organizations, and there was no structured way to demonstrate why they were wrong. Our government operates in the same way. There is no transparent system that lets people publicly show the reasoning behind or against an action.
That is what we need to build. A process that allows people to present, test, and evaluate arguments. A system that values reason over rank. A political structure that bases decisions on transparent analysis rather than hierarchy.
The next step in political evolution is not about left or right. It is about reason itself.
