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

U.S. Capitol.

As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns

The way that Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns. Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.

Arbitration could offer us a way out of this mess. In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate. This process would allow the Senate to make appropriations decisions by a majority vote while still protecting the minority’s interests.

Keep ReadingShow less
People sitting behind a giant American flag.

Over five decades, policy and corporate power hollowed out labor, captured democracy, and widened inequality—leaving America’s middle class in decline.

Matt Mills McKnight/Getty Images

Our America: A Tragedy in Five Acts

America likes to tell itself stories about freedom, democracy, and shared prosperity. But beneath those stories, a quiet tragedy has unfolded over the last fifty years — enacted not with swords or bombs, but with legislation, court rulings, and corporate strategy. It is a tragedy of labor hollowed out, the middle class squeezed, and democracy captured, and it can be read through five acts, each shaped by a destructive force that charts the shredding of our shared social contract.

In the first act, productivity and pay part ways.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest ​Demonstrators holding up signs.

Demonstrators listen to speeches with other protesters during the "No Kings" protest on Oct. 18, 2025, in Portland, Oregon.

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images/TNS

In Every Banana Republic You Need Enablers

In any so-called banana republic you need enablers. President Donald Trump has Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito leading the charge. Johnson is pulling Congress along with the justices who are the most ferocious defenders of Trump on the Supreme Court. It just takes a handful of enablers to allow a king to assume his crown – or to have a banana republic. And these guys are exceptionally good at what they do.

And as jaywalking is only a crime if enforced, Trump is allowed to continue on doing whatever he wants without guardrails or fear of getting a ticket – just like most Americans feel about jaywalking: It’s against the law, but who really cares?

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

Trump 2028—A Test of Constitutional Resolve

When Steve Bannon says Donald Trump should serve a third term, he’s not joking. He’s not even being coy. He’s laying ideological groundwork for a constitutional stress test that could redefine the limits of executive power in the United States.

Bannon was asked how Trump could legally serve a third term. “There’s many different alternatives,” Bannon told The Economist. "Trump is going to be president in '28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that. At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is."

Keep ReadingShow less