Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Pressing Issue of Distinction Overload

Opinion

The Pressing Issue of Distinction Overload

Multicolored megaphones.

Getty Images, MicroStockHub

We live in a time of distinction overload, namely a proliferation of distinctions that are employed in all aspects of contemporary political, economic, and social life. Distinction Overload—let's name it—is overwhelming citizens who pay attention to workplace dynamics, politics, and family life. Distinction Overload is a relative of information overload, associated with the Information Age itself, which is a descendant of the information explosion that occurred during the Renaissance after Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press.

You can’t really talk or write, let alone think, without making distinctions, and the process of human development itself is very much about learning useful distinctions—me and you, left and right, good and evil, night and day, yes and no, mother and father, humans, fish and animals, and so on. Some distinctions reflect opposition; others divide reality or ethics into three or four or more categories.


Regarding distinguishing ourselves from others, the French philosopher René Descartes' famous cogito, ergo sum, “I think therefore I am,” is known as proof that we exist. The fact that I am something that exists separately from other people (as thinking things) or indeed material objects is a related matter.

Our information technology (IT) connected world presents us with a Niagara Falls of distinctions. Yet, unlike the firehose effect, one can feel "too much information" from the internet and social media as well as cable television and streaming. Distinction Overload causes the subject to be jolted back and forth with opposition distinctions and overwhelmed with the need to see nuances between different aspects of things.

In our culture, new distinctions have made their way into our lives but not everyone has the same understanding of what these distinctions mean or whether we should be using them. For example, some people make a distinction between males, females, and people who do not identify as male or female. This is frequently regarded as a gender identity issue. There is also the distinction in the area of sexual preference between those who are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Then there is the distinction between those who identify as male, those who identify as female, and those who have been identified as male or female but they themselves have come to determine that they have been misidentified. This group is the transgender class.

The American legal system, a massive institution, is distinctions on steroids. Just watch MSNBC or Fox News if you disagree.

The proliferation of distinctions, it is critical to understand, is not all bad. On the contrary, distinctions appear when innovation creates new ways to build products and provide services. We have been able to build medical devices and tools, for example, by learning from physicists about nanometers and subatomic particles. The MRI machine could not have been created out of classical mechanics; it needed quantum mechanics and an entirely new language with new distinctions to help scientists discover how to build machines that could take pictures of the human body that X-ray machines could not.

A strong democracy requires clear thinking and clear thinking requires good distinctions as well as good arguments, good public policies, good social movements, and good speeches. Clear thinking itself is frequently animated by clear distinctions or arguments against distinctions that stand in the way of justice and peace.

Many leading philosophers built their theories of knowledge and theories of justice based on distinctions that illuminated fields of inquiry. The German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, a key figure of the Enlightenment, built his theory of knowledge on two distinctions, namely the distinction between analytic judgments (which are true or false in terms of their meaning) and synthetic judgments (statements that are true or false in terms of their connection to the world) and the distinction between a priori (prior to experience) and a posteriori (after experience) judgments. The American pragmatist Philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine built his theories of language and knowledge by collapsing the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments.

Kant, like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, built theories of just societies that were animated by distinctions between natural rights and rights determined by governments, autonomy and community, and justice and injustice. Robert Nozick and John Rawls continued the battle between libertarian and progressive theories of justice in the twentieth century.

Distinction Overload, like Information Overload, exists. Citizens and leaders alike who seek to advance democratic norms must sift their way through the abundance of distinctions to arrive at the clear thinking a strong democracy needs. Good distinctions, in many ways, are the fabric of good democracies.

Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Read More

Mad About Politics? Blame Congress

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders celebrate after the vote on President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 3, 2025.

Yuri Gripas/Abaca Press/TNS

Mad About Politics? Blame Congress

The judiciary isn’t supposed to be the primary check on the executive, the legislative branch is.

Whatever you think about American politics and government, whether you are on the right, the left or somewhere in the middle, you should be mad at Congress. I don’t just mean the Republican-controlled Congress — though, by all means, be mad at them — I mean the institution as a whole.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

James Madison foresaw factions tearing apart democracy. Today’s Congress, driven by partisanship and money, proves his warning true.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Our Amazing, Shrinking Congress

James Madison tried to warn us. He foresaw a grave danger to our fragile republic. No, it wasn’t an overreaching, dictatorial President. It was the people’s representatives themselves who might shred the untested constitutional fabric of the nascent United States.

Members of Congress could destroy it by neglecting the good of the country in favor of narrow, self-serving ends. Unity would collapse into endless internecine strife. Madison sounded this alarm in Federalist No. 10: he foresaw the inevitable emergence of “factions”—political parties “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rebuilding Democracy After Comey’s Indictment
James Comey, former FBI Director, speaks at the Barnes & Noble Upper West Side on May 19, 2025 in New York City.
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Rebuilding Democracy After Comey’s Indictment

Introduction – Stress Tests and Hidden Strength

The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in September 2025 was a stark reminder of how fragile our institutions have become under Trump 2.0. An inexperienced prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, chosen more for loyalty than expertise, pushed through felony charges at the president’s urging. The move broke with the Justice Department’s tradition of independence and highlighted the risks that arise when political power bends justice toward retribution.

This is not just a story about one man. It is a warning that America’s democracy is like a bridge under heavy strain. Crises expose cracks but can also reveal hidden strength. For ordinary citizens, this means a justice system more susceptible to political pressure, a government less accountable, and daily life shaped by leaders willing to bend the rules for personal gain.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less