In my last Post, I wrote about the uncertainty that certain foreign policy actions by our Government would lead to "better" long term outcomes. I did not define "better", but that, of course, is a central question. What should the Government of the United States by trying to achieve with its foreign policy? In the long term as well as the short term. My answer below is, admittedly general, but I think makes an importan point or points.
Historically, a great many scholars have write about the intertwining and tension between the ideas of "idealism" and "self interest" in American foreign policy. It started with the founders and continues today. Today, you get the simple version of my own, non expert, opinion, to wit:
1. The principal foreign policy goal of American foreign policy should be to advance the self interests of the United States of America (not exactly the same as the interests the American people, and certainly not the same as the interests of the current Government of the United States of America, but those are pretty meaningless distinctions for the purposes of this Post, and two that can - and have been - argued by lots of people).
The principal goal of any State is to protect itself and its citizens. Read the preamble to the Constitution. It's about protecting the American people and their rights. However, to effectively do so, the State (any State) must both continue to exist and be as strong in relation to the rest of the world as it can be. This strength may be military, moral, economic or whatever, but if the State is to effectively protect the interests of its people in a world environment filled with terrorists, dictators and other economies, it should be as strong as possible. Whether and how it should use that strength is another question. And of course, there are cost/benefit constraints which are very real.
Other States really make no bones about this. America, however, was very consciously founded on the idea that certain political ideas and structures were intrinsically universally good. The original big ideals (and we have tweaked and added to them) were a) liberty/freedom from Government interference and coercion, b)self determination, and c) a democratic form of government. (The latter two relate to the idea that Government should be based on "the consent of the governed"). I plan to discuss these ideas and how they have developed more specifically in a later post, but for the moment assume that we have long wanted to "push" the idea that democracy and self determination are good. "Freedom" is a bit trickier, as it requires some definition of "freedom to what". However, despite number 3 below, I am putting this "desire to spread the word" behind self-interest in importance as a foreign policy goal.
(Where I'm heading, as you may have guessed, is the issue of how we should deal with Governments that support the current international goals of the United States, but range from benign to not-so benign dictatorships. Two good examples are former President Hosni Mubarek of Egypt and the current King of Bahrain.)
2. However, that goal - promoting self interest - should recognize long-term as well as short term self interests. To put it simply, it's not wise to back eventual losers. Unpopular, corrupt and minority-dominated governments are often perceived to be less stable in the long term. All of the Middle Eastern rulers now at risk (unless you put Iran on that list) have been supportive of the U.S. war on terrorists and have been at least reasonably supportive of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Israel. Here we have a dilemma; we want and need support of our short term interests, like the war on terrorists. If we don't get it, it is more likely that the terrorists will succeed in blowing up or otherwise killing more Americans. To be avoided. So we almost have to support less-than-wonderful people. (This is not new; we have long supported all sorts of dubious people, including the Taliban, strictly because they were anti-Communist). But our long term interests suggest this could become a problem in that successful revolutionary forces are quite likely to blame the United States for supporting the old regimes. It's not a problem with an obvious solution, and that's even before we get to point No. 3.
3. It is in the the long term self interest of the United States to actively promote American political ideals and systems to the rest of the world. Advocating these ideals because they are "right" or "moral" is reasonable, but that's not my point here. Self interest is.
First, I believe (and it may be wishful thinking) that democratically elected governments are more peaceful and stable in the long run, and thus, make better friends and partners.
Second, such Governments are more similar to our own, and thus are likely to be more sympathetic to our own ideas and interests, and to work with us in promoting our ideals.
Third, America is still a moral force; large numbers of people and throughout the world really expect us to do the "right thing", whether it benefits us or not. It gives us at least some moral credibility that other nations do not have. Although we've done a lot to damage that over the years, and some people just plain hate us (in part because of the threat of our ideals), it seems to me that the rest of the world (as well as our own people) expect us to act morally-which is reflected by the fact they become so angry when they believe we are not. Having moral credibility is in our self interest. I'm not going to bother to explain that one unless people ask me to.
Fourth, we, the American people, need to believe that we are acting idealistically. Our ideals are a large part of what makes us a Nation. Citizens of other States often base their national identity on a common language or religion or ethnic background or long history or even on who their enemies are. We really don't. Our Nation was consciously founded - artificially created - based on certain political ideas. While we have come to share a common language and culture, we are an acknowledged nation of immigrants who adopted that language and culture after we arrived here. My grandparents emigrated to this country in the early twentieth century, but Washington, Jefferson and Madison are my Founding Fathers. Viscerally, they belong to me as much as they do to someone descended from the revolutionaries. The main thing that holds us together in a sort-of-spiritual sense is certain shared political values. Even if we don't agree (to put it mildly) on what all of those values are, a real (or perceived?) belief in democracy, freedom and self determination is a large part of what makes us Americans.
4. Another long term self interest of the United States is in promoting the belief that we do not abandon our "friends". Back to Mubarek and the King of Bahrain. If we want leaders to support us, it's not a good idea to appear to abandon them or throw them to the wolves when the going gets tough, simply because the next King or Dictator from whom we seek support may well take that into consideration. We've become spoiled since 1989 or so, as perhaps the only game in town. Not necessarily true anymore, given the economic and military rise of China. Another dilemma.
The result is that our Government, of whatever party, has to walk several lines. We have to seek support on certain critical issues - like terrorism - wherever it can be found, but we have to try to avoid backing "bad guys", but we (maybe) have to show some loyalty to those very "bad guys". Not an easy task.
My complaint is not about the Government here, it's about my fellow citizens, who think all of these choices are easy and self-evident. My point is that, even with a primarily self-interest analysis, it's both complicated and hard.
Enough.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Middle East, Afghanistan, and the relationship between Control, Responsibility and Authority
My daughter and I were recently discussing the current situation in the Middle East, and particularly the urging of various parties that the United States do "more" in one or another nation to support one (or the other) side. My daughter opined that our Government should generally try to stand back and let the citizens of those countries work out whatever they were going to. Her reasoning was, as it often is, multi layered, nuanced and convincing. It triggered a series of thoughts - about the relationship between "control", "authority" and "responsibility" in both a general and foreign policy context - that make me even more inclined to agree with her.
Since this train of thought came from one of my children, let's start with children in general. As parents, we have at least legal (and hopefully other) authority over our children. We are also legally responsible for them, and may feel that responsibility emotionally even long after they have become adults. Control over how they act is usually a matter of degree, and normally decreases as a particular child grows older.
I remember being struck as a young parent with just how limited my control was. I was a youngest child, and had little experience with babies, and was actually somewhat taken aback when I realized that there were times that, no matter what I did, my infant daughter was not going to stop crying and go to sleep, at least for a while. I had responsibility for her. I had at least theoretical authority. But my practical control was very limited. Picture my shock when, my kids, at maybe 18 months of age, both gave me clear evidence that they were not merely "babies", but independent people, with their own strong ideas about how they and the rest of the world should act. Anyway, I had lots of responsibility, less authority and even less actual control of my children.
When I started practicing law, the same kind of disparity arose in another form. I was responsible (at least to the partners) for how "my" cases were handled, but my authority to do certain things was limited (and not always made clear), and my control was mythical, given the existence of clients, witnesses, opposing counsel, judges and juries. My professional life involved a combination of trying to keep my responsibility in line with my authority in any given instance (I had to actually say things like: 'If I'm going to be responsible for doing X, I need to have more authority about how it will get done"), and fighting with the other side (and sometimes my own) to try to control outcomes for the benefit of my clients.
As a result of this and other experiences, I concluded that if I were going to be responsible for something, I wanted as much authority and control over it as I could get. And that if someone else insisted on taking authority and/or control, they had better be prepared to accept some responsibility for the outcomes of their decisions. Of course, real life is much messier. Most of the times, all of these things are shared somehow, and control (by anyone) is often an illusion.
We come to foreign policy.
We, as Americans, assume that our Nation can do anything anywhere in the world if it puts its mind to it. (And maybe further- JFK told us we would put men on the moon in 10 years, and we believed him). Unfortunately (??), this idea American control over outcomes is simply not accurate. We can probably blow anyone up (if we can find them), but we can't make foreign politicians not corrupt, religious loons become tolerant, or a free people elect those candidates we would like them to (Hamas, anyone?).
Worse, for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to our military power, our wealth, and our aforementioned confidence, large chunks of the rest of the world also seem to believe that we have more practical control than we really do. Thus, the Palestinians think we can control Israeli policy, some Egyptians seemed to feel that the U.S. was responsible for either propping up Mubarak or for enabling his opponents (or both), lots of people think we should do something to ensure a "good" outcome in Bahrain, or Yemen, and that we should do much more to support anti-Government forces in both Libya and Iran. Everyone (including our own journalists and politicians) thinks we should DO SOMETHING! to ensure the victory of good vs. evil in the world. (As I pointed out in another post, I can usually find at least one set of "bad guys" in these situations; that doesn't mean that their opponents are "good guys").
Sometimes, I listen to native experts from the affected countries calling for American action, and I wonder how many of them will blame us if our intervention leads to bad results. Certainly, there are large factions of "revolutionaries" in those countries who would immediately see any American action as a form of Imperialism, and would use that as a rallying cry to do whatever. I'm drawn back to the "children" analogy. All teenagers want their parents to help and protect them (although they may not admit it), but we know who they are going to at least partly blame if things turn out "badly". OK, this is part of the job description with my children. Middle east political movements are not the "children" of the United States.
Maybe the smartest thing that George H.W. Bush did as President was to generally stay out of the demonstrations and revolutions when the Soviet Bloc disintegrated in 1989. Sure, there was no question about whose side we were on, and our people and press, as well as our diplomats, made that clear. However, we were not shipping guns to anti-Communists in Eastern Europe. Nor were we talking about sanctions or "no-fly"zones. Aha, you say. That was totally different. We could've empowered the old regimes and even started a major war if we had done too much. Exactly my point. It was painfully obvious (at least to most of us; there were many who did call for more active intervention) that we could not reliably control even short-term outcomes. The problem is when one gets to somewhere like Egypt or Bahrain or Libya, we could well have a lot of control over short term outcomes; the problem is with longer term outcomes.
The easiest example of this is Afghanistan. Did we have the ability to overthrow the Taliban, at least in the short term? Yes. Did we have the power to create a modern western democracy there? Right now, that's not looking good. To go back a step further - did we have the ability to help the resistance throw out the Soviets in Afghanistan? Turns out we did. Did that turn out to create a "better" Afghan government? My opinion is not. No translate that "lesson" to Egypt or Libya or Bahrain. Will assisting in the overthrow of those established governments result in a "better" outcome? (I'll get to "better" in a minute, or maybe not until the next post). Maybe and maybe not. Each of these countries is different, and no one really knows what will happen in any of them. "Wait", you say; "we couldn't do worse than Qaddafi". I disagree; He's awful, but I can imagine worse.
I am going to save "better" outcomes for the next Post.
So what should we do? What I think the Administration is doing. Think. Don't act hastily. Realize that each country is different, realize the dangers of appearing to take responsibility in situations you can not practically control. In short, try to not rush in to dramatic and forceful unilateral action.
Enough.
Since this train of thought came from one of my children, let's start with children in general. As parents, we have at least legal (and hopefully other) authority over our children. We are also legally responsible for them, and may feel that responsibility emotionally even long after they have become adults. Control over how they act is usually a matter of degree, and normally decreases as a particular child grows older.
I remember being struck as a young parent with just how limited my control was. I was a youngest child, and had little experience with babies, and was actually somewhat taken aback when I realized that there were times that, no matter what I did, my infant daughter was not going to stop crying and go to sleep, at least for a while. I had responsibility for her. I had at least theoretical authority. But my practical control was very limited. Picture my shock when, my kids, at maybe 18 months of age, both gave me clear evidence that they were not merely "babies", but independent people, with their own strong ideas about how they and the rest of the world should act. Anyway, I had lots of responsibility, less authority and even less actual control of my children.
When I started practicing law, the same kind of disparity arose in another form. I was responsible (at least to the partners) for how "my" cases were handled, but my authority to do certain things was limited (and not always made clear), and my control was mythical, given the existence of clients, witnesses, opposing counsel, judges and juries. My professional life involved a combination of trying to keep my responsibility in line with my authority in any given instance (I had to actually say things like: 'If I'm going to be responsible for doing X, I need to have more authority about how it will get done"), and fighting with the other side (and sometimes my own) to try to control outcomes for the benefit of my clients.
As a result of this and other experiences, I concluded that if I were going to be responsible for something, I wanted as much authority and control over it as I could get. And that if someone else insisted on taking authority and/or control, they had better be prepared to accept some responsibility for the outcomes of their decisions. Of course, real life is much messier. Most of the times, all of these things are shared somehow, and control (by anyone) is often an illusion.
We come to foreign policy.
We, as Americans, assume that our Nation can do anything anywhere in the world if it puts its mind to it. (And maybe further- JFK told us we would put men on the moon in 10 years, and we believed him). Unfortunately (??), this idea American control over outcomes is simply not accurate. We can probably blow anyone up (if we can find them), but we can't make foreign politicians not corrupt, religious loons become tolerant, or a free people elect those candidates we would like them to (Hamas, anyone?).
Worse, for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to our military power, our wealth, and our aforementioned confidence, large chunks of the rest of the world also seem to believe that we have more practical control than we really do. Thus, the Palestinians think we can control Israeli policy, some Egyptians seemed to feel that the U.S. was responsible for either propping up Mubarak or for enabling his opponents (or both), lots of people think we should do something to ensure a "good" outcome in Bahrain, or Yemen, and that we should do much more to support anti-Government forces in both Libya and Iran. Everyone (including our own journalists and politicians) thinks we should DO SOMETHING! to ensure the victory of good vs. evil in the world. (As I pointed out in another post, I can usually find at least one set of "bad guys" in these situations; that doesn't mean that their opponents are "good guys").
Sometimes, I listen to native experts from the affected countries calling for American action, and I wonder how many of them will blame us if our intervention leads to bad results. Certainly, there are large factions of "revolutionaries" in those countries who would immediately see any American action as a form of Imperialism, and would use that as a rallying cry to do whatever. I'm drawn back to the "children" analogy. All teenagers want their parents to help and protect them (although they may not admit it), but we know who they are going to at least partly blame if things turn out "badly". OK, this is part of the job description with my children. Middle east political movements are not the "children" of the United States.
Maybe the smartest thing that George H.W. Bush did as President was to generally stay out of the demonstrations and revolutions when the Soviet Bloc disintegrated in 1989. Sure, there was no question about whose side we were on, and our people and press, as well as our diplomats, made that clear. However, we were not shipping guns to anti-Communists in Eastern Europe. Nor were we talking about sanctions or "no-fly"zones. Aha, you say. That was totally different. We could've empowered the old regimes and even started a major war if we had done too much. Exactly my point. It was painfully obvious (at least to most of us; there were many who did call for more active intervention) that we could not reliably control even short-term outcomes. The problem is when one gets to somewhere like Egypt or Bahrain or Libya, we could well have a lot of control over short term outcomes; the problem is with longer term outcomes.
The easiest example of this is Afghanistan. Did we have the ability to overthrow the Taliban, at least in the short term? Yes. Did we have the power to create a modern western democracy there? Right now, that's not looking good. To go back a step further - did we have the ability to help the resistance throw out the Soviets in Afghanistan? Turns out we did. Did that turn out to create a "better" Afghan government? My opinion is not. No translate that "lesson" to Egypt or Libya or Bahrain. Will assisting in the overthrow of those established governments result in a "better" outcome? (I'll get to "better" in a minute, or maybe not until the next post). Maybe and maybe not. Each of these countries is different, and no one really knows what will happen in any of them. "Wait", you say; "we couldn't do worse than Qaddafi". I disagree; He's awful, but I can imagine worse.
I am going to save "better" outcomes for the next Post.
So what should we do? What I think the Administration is doing. Think. Don't act hastily. Realize that each country is different, realize the dangers of appearing to take responsibility in situations you can not practically control. In short, try to not rush in to dramatic and forceful unilateral action.
Enough.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Thoughts on the furor in Wisconsin
Well, I'm back. Sorry about the two month gap. There has been a lot I've wanted to write about, but I've been busy.
Most readers are familiar with the drama/dispute that has been taking place for the last week or ten days in Madison, Wisconsin, and I am about to repeat what those readers already know, but my foreign readers (yes, there appear to be some) may need some background.
A new Republican Governor and legislature have been attempting to cut back (using the term loosely) certain benefits of most unionized public employees in Wisconsin. There have been mass protests, and the Democratic Senate members have left the State to prevent the State Senate from convening - due to the lack of a quorum.
I have a lot of problems with the Republicans here, and some with the Democrats (I don't like parliamentary tricks to keep a legislature from just voting stuff up or down). My biggest annoyance, however, is with the way the Republicans are to misrepresenting their reasons for what they are proposing. Blatant intellectual dishonesty and political distortion just really get to me. The Governor keeps talking about the need to save money and plug current State deficits by cutting certain benefits, but the unions and their Democratic supports have said they are OK with that.
So what are the Republicans proposing? Broadly speaking, it is a single bill which, among other things:
1. Forces the public employees to pay a much larger share of the cost of their medical and other benefits right now. (This is what the unions have agreed to), and it would clearly save the State money right now.
2. Severely cuts back the issues on which the unions have a right to collectively bargain, and even caps the amount of raises that can be bargained for. This would not save any money now, but the argument can be made that the State and local governments in Wisconsin have been getting "stomped" by the unions, and that the governments need help from state law in order to keep the unions from walking over them in future collective bargaining. This may be, in some sense, true, and, if so, would save the state and local governments money in the future;
3. Requires frequent votes to recertify unions and allows union members to prevent their dues from being used for political purposes. This saves no money. It is clearly designed to cripple the public sector unions generally, and particularly their ability to donate money to political causes.
My (who-the-Hell-is-he-anyway) thoughts and proposal:
Collective bargaining rights and benefits given thereunder are not God-given. They are a creature of law. The rights of public employees to benefits or to collectively bargain at all are rights given by the laws of the State of Wisconsin. And what the State gives, the State, through its duly elected representatives, can take away. So if the Republicans have the votes to do so, that's life. Although others might disagree, I do not think that passage of the law in question would be the end of the world for anyone. I do think most of it is a bad idea, but not one that justifies indefinitely grinding government to a halt. Remember, the next Governor and legislature can change the law back if they see fit to do so. (Aren't regular elections truly wonderful things!)
So, my suggestion: 1) Republicans -divide the current bill into at least three parts. 2) Democrats - come back. 3) Everyone - Debate the bills for a reasonable time. Amend them if you like. Vote them up or down. Go on with life. But stop bullshitting about alleged purposes.
The first part of the bill described above will then pass. Whether increasing required contributions from state workers is how to solve Wisconsin's public deficit problems is subject to reasonable dispute. I think it should be part of the solution, but I can cheerfully argue either side on that one. More to the point, it's what the Governor and Republican representatives promised to do if elected. And they won. Further, it does help solve a legitimate budget problem, and Wisconsin State employee contributions would become closer to the average of all public employees (and would still be lower than the average contributions of those in the private sector). Will it significantly hurt a number of less-than-rich people? Yep, and I'm not unsympathetic. However, times are bad, and the State does need more money.
The second and third parts of the current bill might or might not also pass. Most of the Republicans in the legislature (and certainly the Governor) would favor passage, but the idea of taking away rights from working Americans, basically just to take away those rights, may not sit well with the voters of Wisconsin. I find the third part of the bill particularly offensive, and nothing more than an attempt to further stack the deck in favor of "corporate" as opposed to "worker" interests, but that's only my own view. Wisconsin citizens voting in 2012 might feel differently, but I'd like the Republicans to put their money where their mouths are. If it's a good idea, stand up and vote for it; don't try to pretend that you're doing it to close a budget gap. Me, I think the Republicans are too chicken - and too dishonest - to do this.
Enough.
Most readers are familiar with the drama/dispute that has been taking place for the last week or ten days in Madison, Wisconsin, and I am about to repeat what those readers already know, but my foreign readers (yes, there appear to be some) may need some background.
A new Republican Governor and legislature have been attempting to cut back (using the term loosely) certain benefits of most unionized public employees in Wisconsin. There have been mass protests, and the Democratic Senate members have left the State to prevent the State Senate from convening - due to the lack of a quorum.
I have a lot of problems with the Republicans here, and some with the Democrats (I don't like parliamentary tricks to keep a legislature from just voting stuff up or down). My biggest annoyance, however, is with the way the Republicans are to misrepresenting their reasons for what they are proposing. Blatant intellectual dishonesty and political distortion just really get to me. The Governor keeps talking about the need to save money and plug current State deficits by cutting certain benefits, but the unions and their Democratic supports have said they are OK with that.
So what are the Republicans proposing? Broadly speaking, it is a single bill which, among other things:
1. Forces the public employees to pay a much larger share of the cost of their medical and other benefits right now. (This is what the unions have agreed to), and it would clearly save the State money right now.
2. Severely cuts back the issues on which the unions have a right to collectively bargain, and even caps the amount of raises that can be bargained for. This would not save any money now, but the argument can be made that the State and local governments in Wisconsin have been getting "stomped" by the unions, and that the governments need help from state law in order to keep the unions from walking over them in future collective bargaining. This may be, in some sense, true, and, if so, would save the state and local governments money in the future;
3. Requires frequent votes to recertify unions and allows union members to prevent their dues from being used for political purposes. This saves no money. It is clearly designed to cripple the public sector unions generally, and particularly their ability to donate money to political causes.
My (who-the-Hell-is-he-anyway) thoughts and proposal:
Collective bargaining rights and benefits given thereunder are not God-given. They are a creature of law. The rights of public employees to benefits or to collectively bargain at all are rights given by the laws of the State of Wisconsin. And what the State gives, the State, through its duly elected representatives, can take away. So if the Republicans have the votes to do so, that's life. Although others might disagree, I do not think that passage of the law in question would be the end of the world for anyone. I do think most of it is a bad idea, but not one that justifies indefinitely grinding government to a halt. Remember, the next Governor and legislature can change the law back if they see fit to do so. (Aren't regular elections truly wonderful things!)
So, my suggestion: 1) Republicans -divide the current bill into at least three parts. 2) Democrats - come back. 3) Everyone - Debate the bills for a reasonable time. Amend them if you like. Vote them up or down. Go on with life. But stop bullshitting about alleged purposes.
The first part of the bill described above will then pass. Whether increasing required contributions from state workers is how to solve Wisconsin's public deficit problems is subject to reasonable dispute. I think it should be part of the solution, but I can cheerfully argue either side on that one. More to the point, it's what the Governor and Republican representatives promised to do if elected. And they won. Further, it does help solve a legitimate budget problem, and Wisconsin State employee contributions would become closer to the average of all public employees (and would still be lower than the average contributions of those in the private sector). Will it significantly hurt a number of less-than-rich people? Yep, and I'm not unsympathetic. However, times are bad, and the State does need more money.
The second and third parts of the current bill might or might not also pass. Most of the Republicans in the legislature (and certainly the Governor) would favor passage, but the idea of taking away rights from working Americans, basically just to take away those rights, may not sit well with the voters of Wisconsin. I find the third part of the bill particularly offensive, and nothing more than an attempt to further stack the deck in favor of "corporate" as opposed to "worker" interests, but that's only my own view. Wisconsin citizens voting in 2012 might feel differently, but I'd like the Republicans to put their money where their mouths are. If it's a good idea, stand up and vote for it; don't try to pretend that you're doing it to close a budget gap. Me, I think the Republicans are too chicken - and too dishonest - to do this.
Enough.
Monday, December 13, 2010
You have a right to your opinion-but it may be worthless (the opinion, that is)
Let me start by paraphrasing others
1. The late Robert A. Heinlein wrote a short story concerning physicists who, upon re-examining certain mathematical calculations, realized that a particular kind of nuclear power plant was far more dangerous than they had assumed. They decided that the plant had to cease operations. But the lead physicist was called into a meeting of the Governing Board of the plant, and was informed that the members of the Board had reached a different conclusion about the implications of the calculations. The lead physicist responded with a statement to the effect of: "Unless they're nuclear physicists, they don't have the right to an opinion".
2. (On a lighter note)Fran Liebowitz, in her book, Metropolitan Life, wrote something like: "As is obvious to any single woman who walks into a room at a party, all men are not created equal".
As many commentators have noted, we appear to be living in a political atmosphere which takes pride in anti-intellectualism, and a general suspicion of those who claim some "expertise" based on education or study. Sarah Palin seems to take pride in her lack of knowledge in many areas. The successful Republican candidate for Senate in Wisconsin took pride in his statement that he would need a map to find Washington, D.C. Pundits on all sides scold President Obama for appearing "intellectual" rather than "populist".
There are reasons for this, and some of them are, at least to me, pretty good, or at least understandable.
First, people with "more" of anything they consider important - education, money, good looks, or religious fervor, tend to look down upon those who have "less" of that item. It's particularly true in the "education" and "religious fervor" areas because those areas seem to be more "status" oriented than money or power oriented. The resulting condescension (which is often obvious) causes an understandable resentment in those of us who have less. We "lessers" also may have some psychological insecurities that increase our resentment.
Second, intellectuals and "experts" in general have a not perfect track record. They have a tendency to speak with a certainty that even their mere theories are correct based on their superior education or knowledge, and yet at least some of what they say is not obvious, is counter intuitive, and is often (eventually) proven incorrect. I believe this to be particularly true in what we call the social sciences. (This is not meant to be critical of anyone, including social scientists. The nature of any kind of predictive science is that new evidence may demonstrate that current theories are not correct.)
Third, experts tend to set forth general theories which may run counter to our own particular experience in specific cases. For instance, experts seem to believe that phonics is the best way to teach children to read. Since I, my siblings and my children learned perfectly easily without using phonics, the experts' theory, although it may be correct, starts off with two emotional strikes against it, at least for me. This is even more true when we "ordinary people" have knowledge the experts do not. For example - I have lived with my kids. I know how my body tends to react. I have been running my business. The experts almost certainly know stuff that I do not about what I should do to "manage" my kids, my body and my business in certain situations, but the reverse is also true.
Fourth, like any other group, intellectuals have their share of idiots and those with their own axes to grind, but they (I'm tempted to say "we") tend to make our failures more public.
Fifth - an understandable but really "bad" reason. Sometimes the experts want us to do stuff, individually or collectively, that we do not want to do. This one is really tempting, really common, and really awful.
Generally, I believe I have a strong populist and egalitarian streak. Nevertheless, I think the anti-intellectual /anti-expert streak manifesting itself in American politics is very, very dangerous. The "experts", individually or collectively, may or may not be right in any particular case, but they are usually experts because they have more training or experience in a given area than most people, and, as a result their opinion is often worth a lot more than "ours".
I'm a lawyer. Have been one since 1978. I know a lot about some areas of the law, and much less about others. In some areas, I could be called an "expert". Everyone (it seems) loves to argue about the law. That's good. It affects us all. And when you are telling me what you think the law should be, your opinion may be worth as much as my own. But, when you are a client or prospective client who asks me about an area of the law in which I am expert and in terms of what the law is at the moment, your opinion is not equal to mine; I simply know a lot more about the subject. Many clients want to argue with me at length about what the law is or is not, because they do not like the answer I just gave them. This is understandable, if sometimes annoying. "Annoying" is OK, but having a client actually do or not do something because he or she thinks that he knows as much as I do is often dangerous to the client.
Some of my frustrating experiences in this regard have been with physicians, academics, and very successful business people - people who are, frankly, often "smarter" than I am. Sometimes much smarter. However, that does not mean that they know more about my field than I do. (This is not to say that they cannot learn what they need to know about the law in their particular situation. Given enough time and focus, most of them can and may actually do so. The law (at least what I do)really is not that intellectually hard. It's complicated, but not all that complex. It can't be; it's created by people and supposed to be generally understandable.)
Politically, the most troubling example of this may be in the area of climate change. Somewhere between 90% and 98% of those who could be considered "qualified" climate scientists believe that global warming is becoming a problem and will become a bigger one. There is less general agreement on the causes of global warming and what should be done about it, but almost all the true "experts" believe that it is a very real problem. These are generally very bright people, and they each have studied climate science for years; they are professional scientists opining about what is a scientific issue. Could they be wrong? Sure. Are they? Almost certainly not.
Despite the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion, a disturbingly large number of politicians have characterized global warming as "bullshit" or a "scam". However, is any politician's opinion contrary to what almost all scientists are saying in this area worth anything ? No. Your basic politician (or lawyer) is about as capable of really evaluating climate change evidence as my dog is. (Not intended as an insult; my dog is very smart, but she is not a climate scientist). This is not necessarily stuff that just anyone can evaluate with a little reading. As most schoolchildren (and adults who remember) will tell you, science, once beyond elementary levels, is hard. And being a scientific "expert" takes a lot of knowledge as well as smarts.
There are other "political" examples of: "it isn't so because I say it isn't. Nyah, nyah", but I won't go into them here.
What bothers me even more than the politicians (I have low expectations) is that a large number of the American people still seem to believe Snake Oil Salesmen, so long as they tell us what we want to hear. Enough.
P.S. Addendum
Since I posted the above thoughts, I have heard from some people who at least partially disagree. They raise (along with some looniness) some good points:
1. Scientists and the politicians who cite them often blur scientific conclusions with political conclusions, and claim that the combination is "scientific". True. So does everyone on all sides interested in making a political point. This may make the "blurred" conclusions suspect, but the strictly scientific ones tend to be based on evidence or data that is generally transparent.
2. Some of the scientists involved in the Climate Change debate fudged the data to support their own political agendas. Yep. But I think there were exactly 2 of them, and the overwhelming majority of scientists, using "unfudged" data, think it's a serious problem
3. Most scientists are liberals. Not sure where the data is on that. (If true, I think that says bad things about Conservatives rather than about scientists, but I have my doubts). It's possible, I guess, but it doesn't make their conclusions invalid or less "scientific".
4. Scientific research which is inclined to come to "liberal" conclusions is more likely to be funded, and, therefore, science is likely to have a liberal bias. This would be troubling, if true, but across the board, I think it's not true. A lot of research is done or sponsored by companies that want to make a profit. Period.
1. The late Robert A. Heinlein wrote a short story concerning physicists who, upon re-examining certain mathematical calculations, realized that a particular kind of nuclear power plant was far more dangerous than they had assumed. They decided that the plant had to cease operations. But the lead physicist was called into a meeting of the Governing Board of the plant, and was informed that the members of the Board had reached a different conclusion about the implications of the calculations. The lead physicist responded with a statement to the effect of: "Unless they're nuclear physicists, they don't have the right to an opinion".
2. (On a lighter note)Fran Liebowitz, in her book, Metropolitan Life, wrote something like: "As is obvious to any single woman who walks into a room at a party, all men are not created equal".
As many commentators have noted, we appear to be living in a political atmosphere which takes pride in anti-intellectualism, and a general suspicion of those who claim some "expertise" based on education or study. Sarah Palin seems to take pride in her lack of knowledge in many areas. The successful Republican candidate for Senate in Wisconsin took pride in his statement that he would need a map to find Washington, D.C. Pundits on all sides scold President Obama for appearing "intellectual" rather than "populist".
There are reasons for this, and some of them are, at least to me, pretty good, or at least understandable.
First, people with "more" of anything they consider important - education, money, good looks, or religious fervor, tend to look down upon those who have "less" of that item. It's particularly true in the "education" and "religious fervor" areas because those areas seem to be more "status" oriented than money or power oriented. The resulting condescension (which is often obvious) causes an understandable resentment in those of us who have less. We "lessers" also may have some psychological insecurities that increase our resentment.
Second, intellectuals and "experts" in general have a not perfect track record. They have a tendency to speak with a certainty that even their mere theories are correct based on their superior education or knowledge, and yet at least some of what they say is not obvious, is counter intuitive, and is often (eventually) proven incorrect. I believe this to be particularly true in what we call the social sciences. (This is not meant to be critical of anyone, including social scientists. The nature of any kind of predictive science is that new evidence may demonstrate that current theories are not correct.)
Third, experts tend to set forth general theories which may run counter to our own particular experience in specific cases. For instance, experts seem to believe that phonics is the best way to teach children to read. Since I, my siblings and my children learned perfectly easily without using phonics, the experts' theory, although it may be correct, starts off with two emotional strikes against it, at least for me. This is even more true when we "ordinary people" have knowledge the experts do not. For example - I have lived with my kids. I know how my body tends to react. I have been running my business. The experts almost certainly know stuff that I do not about what I should do to "manage" my kids, my body and my business in certain situations, but the reverse is also true.
Fourth, like any other group, intellectuals have their share of idiots and those with their own axes to grind, but they (I'm tempted to say "we") tend to make our failures more public.
Fifth - an understandable but really "bad" reason. Sometimes the experts want us to do stuff, individually or collectively, that we do not want to do. This one is really tempting, really common, and really awful.
Generally, I believe I have a strong populist and egalitarian streak. Nevertheless, I think the anti-intellectual /anti-expert streak manifesting itself in American politics is very, very dangerous. The "experts", individually or collectively, may or may not be right in any particular case, but they are usually experts because they have more training or experience in a given area than most people, and, as a result their opinion is often worth a lot more than "ours".
I'm a lawyer. Have been one since 1978. I know a lot about some areas of the law, and much less about others. In some areas, I could be called an "expert". Everyone (it seems) loves to argue about the law. That's good. It affects us all. And when you are telling me what you think the law should be, your opinion may be worth as much as my own. But, when you are a client or prospective client who asks me about an area of the law in which I am expert and in terms of what the law is at the moment, your opinion is not equal to mine; I simply know a lot more about the subject. Many clients want to argue with me at length about what the law is or is not, because they do not like the answer I just gave them. This is understandable, if sometimes annoying. "Annoying" is OK, but having a client actually do or not do something because he or she thinks that he knows as much as I do is often dangerous to the client.
Some of my frustrating experiences in this regard have been with physicians, academics, and very successful business people - people who are, frankly, often "smarter" than I am. Sometimes much smarter. However, that does not mean that they know more about my field than I do. (This is not to say that they cannot learn what they need to know about the law in their particular situation. Given enough time and focus, most of them can and may actually do so. The law (at least what I do)really is not that intellectually hard. It's complicated, but not all that complex. It can't be; it's created by people and supposed to be generally understandable.)
Politically, the most troubling example of this may be in the area of climate change. Somewhere between 90% and 98% of those who could be considered "qualified" climate scientists believe that global warming is becoming a problem and will become a bigger one. There is less general agreement on the causes of global warming and what should be done about it, but almost all the true "experts" believe that it is a very real problem. These are generally very bright people, and they each have studied climate science for years; they are professional scientists opining about what is a scientific issue. Could they be wrong? Sure. Are they? Almost certainly not.
Despite the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion, a disturbingly large number of politicians have characterized global warming as "bullshit" or a "scam". However, is any politician's opinion contrary to what almost all scientists are saying in this area worth anything ? No. Your basic politician (or lawyer) is about as capable of really evaluating climate change evidence as my dog is. (Not intended as an insult; my dog is very smart, but she is not a climate scientist). This is not necessarily stuff that just anyone can evaluate with a little reading. As most schoolchildren (and adults who remember) will tell you, science, once beyond elementary levels, is hard. And being a scientific "expert" takes a lot of knowledge as well as smarts.
There are other "political" examples of: "it isn't so because I say it isn't. Nyah, nyah", but I won't go into them here.
What bothers me even more than the politicians (I have low expectations) is that a large number of the American people still seem to believe Snake Oil Salesmen, so long as they tell us what we want to hear. Enough.
P.S. Addendum
Since I posted the above thoughts, I have heard from some people who at least partially disagree. They raise (along with some looniness) some good points:
1. Scientists and the politicians who cite them often blur scientific conclusions with political conclusions, and claim that the combination is "scientific". True. So does everyone on all sides interested in making a political point. This may make the "blurred" conclusions suspect, but the strictly scientific ones tend to be based on evidence or data that is generally transparent.
2. Some of the scientists involved in the Climate Change debate fudged the data to support their own political agendas. Yep. But I think there were exactly 2 of them, and the overwhelming majority of scientists, using "unfudged" data, think it's a serious problem
3. Most scientists are liberals. Not sure where the data is on that. (If true, I think that says bad things about Conservatives rather than about scientists, but I have my doubts). It's possible, I guess, but it doesn't make their conclusions invalid or less "scientific".
4. Scientific research which is inclined to come to "liberal" conclusions is more likely to be funded, and, therefore, science is likely to have a liberal bias. This would be troubling, if true, but across the board, I think it's not true. A lot of research is done or sponsored by companies that want to make a profit. Period.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
A good article on Obama being "too reasonable"
Here's the best thing I've seen so far on the issue of whether President Obama should be "tough" or "reasonable". It's a critique, but a "friendly" one, and comes at the question from a sociological perspective about how groups function to encourage normative conduct.
No, You Can't
By Shankar Vedantam
http://www.slate.com/id/2277210?wpisrc=sl_ipad
It is worth reading if only for the last line, which I will preview here
"Memo to Obama: Being unreasonable all the time is crazy, but if you're always reasonable, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "Exploit Me." "
No, You Can't
By Shankar Vedantam
http://www.slate.com/id/2277210?wpisrc=sl_ipad
It is worth reading if only for the last line, which I will preview here
"Memo to Obama: Being unreasonable all the time is crazy, but if you're always reasonable, you might as well hang a sign around your neck that says, "Exploit Me." "
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The idea of "small government" as politically-induced bullshit -Someone (else) always has some control -
I will (narcissistically) start with a quote from my last Post, which started a train of thought - "Mr. Beck, however, apparently trusts everyone, except the government (which does not have a profit motive), to act in the public good."
Last week, I was talking to my (and I say this fondly) conservative wingnut partner Micheal about tax cuts and the deficit. Michael admitted that his major concern was not the deficit, but his desire to shrink the government by "starving the beast" by cutting the money available to the government. While he focused on the federal government, he believes that governments in general do not do anything (except the military) as well as the private sector, and that government should not "interfere" with people's lives.
I will concede that governments are not always "cost-efficient". And, as readers of this Blog know, I value the rights of individual adults to act as they please, without government interference.
Let's roughly categorize "Government Spending" as follows:
1. Defense from violent foreign threats
2. Defense from violent domestic threats (includes police, courts, prisons)
3. Infrastructure, which theoretically benefits all of us(in a broad sense-includes roads, bridges, air traffic control, electrical grid, national parks, education, the Post Office)
4. Payments or other distribution or redistribution of wealth to or for individual citizens or entities (again a broad definition which would include things like agricultural subsidies and tax code provisions like the mortgage interest deduction which benefits one group of taxpayers over others)
5. Regulatory (which overlaps with "criminal"), (the IRS, the SEC, the FDA, the FCC, state insurance commissions, banking regulations).
I want to focus on this last, "regulatory" category in this Post, both because it seems to be a frequent target of alleged conservatives, and because looking at it really exposes the fundamental weakness about "small government" I allude to above.
My friend and his "drastically shrink the governments" compatriots are missing a really big point; none of us lives in isolation. Someone else produces and sells my food, my house, my electrical appliances and my clothing. Someone else provides the train service that gets me to work. Someone else tries to make sure that my my own food or garden tools or medicines do not kill me, that I can safely put money in a bank, and that people who sell me investments or whatever don't constantly cheat me.
Of course, I have my own very significant responsibilities in all of these areas. I have to be watchful and careful and not really stupid in how I live my daily life. However, I am simply not in a position to protect myself in an adequate or even efficient manner from all "dangers". I can avoid eating spoiled food, but I can't inspect meat-packing plants. I can avoid sticking my hands under a running lawnmower, but I cannot create electrical or other safety standards for lawnmowers. I can put my money into an allegedly conservative mutual fund instead of going to the track, or even choose individual stocks or bonds, but I must rely on information and advice from other people (unless its my own company and I'm the CEO or CFO) when doing so. None of us can do all of these things; we have neither the time nor the expertise, nor the bargaining position.
If the Government does not regulate these areas, they will be "regulated", but not by the individual citizen. Rather they will be "regulated" by those producing or selling the goods or services and (sometimes) the "market" itself. The producers and sellers are, naturally enough, usually more motivated by profit than anything else. And while the market in an abstract sense may effectively regulate some things in a long term, it's really not an effective device at protecting us. For example, the "market" would allow television and other advertising for cigarettes aimed directly at children. (also called shooting fish in a barrel). A bad food producer or drug manufacturer might gradually get a bad reputation and would be driven out of business (or at least change its name), but a number of people would be poisoned in the interim. If laws did not regulate insurance companies, they would not have to keep any reserves to pay claims. Does anyone want to abolish the FDIC and its guarantees of depositors' accounts?
In many circumstances, the idea of a market adequately governing transactions is ludicrous. For a market to work in those situations, there must be, among other things, some parity of both knowledge and bargaining position. Take a mortgage or a stock offering or an insurance policy. Anyone ever tried to actually negotiate the fine print with the bank or insurance company? Yeah, right. (I would note that if you are sophisticated enough, and are borrowing enough money, you can negotiate some things with a bank - because of the possibility that you can get a better deal elsewhere).
There are situations where the market works wonderfully. If there are two grocery stores in the neighborhood, the one offering cheaper prices or better produce will tend to get more customers on that basis. I can look at the grocery store ads; I cannot go out to South Dakota and Nebraska and inspect the meat packing plants.
It is not the individual consumer who is producing all of his own food, or running his own bank or deciding what medical services will be "covered". It is someone or something else. And that someone or something else usually has a strong profit motive that may incline, him, her or it to do "bad" stuff.
Perhaps the best and most topical example of this demonization of "government intrusion"is the debate about health care. Small government advocates claim the government should not be involved in health care, and warn of "death panels". I have bad news for them; we already have "death panels", and we've had them for a long time. For those of us who have medical insurance as well as those who have government sponsored medical care, someone else (besides us and our own doctors) is already limiting our care by limiting how much we can spend on medical treatments and for what. For those of us with private insurance, it's the insurance companies, whose power to deny claims is limited only by the (gasp!) government. (It's the (evil) government and its laws that requires group insurance to be "portable"; previously, it was very hard for someone with a serious medical condition to take a new job. It's the (evil) government that requires COBRA benefits and the administrative burden it places on employers). For those of us with government sponsored health care, our care already limited by the government itself.
I would point to the recent situation in Arizona, where the Republican controlled state government eliminated transplant coverage for Medicaid recipients. I am not blaming the Republicans; they were trying to cut costs and were apparently given incorrect or incomplete information. Nor am I taking a position as to whether Medicaid should or should not cover transplants or anything else. Similarly, private insurance companies deny coverage on a daily basis. I am not saying these denials are right or wrong. What they are, whether done by the Government or the insurance companies, is necessary. If I (or one of my kids!) is sick, and particularly if it involves spending someone else's money, I'll spend whatever is possible, reasonable or not, cost effective or not, or whatever. A wildly experimental and extremely expensive procedure? You betcha. The best specialist and hospital available, whether they are in my "network" or not? If it's serious enough, sure. As long as it does not actively harm me, I'll bet I can get a doctor or hospital to do it, as long as they get paid.
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons for and against what is called "Obamacare". A fear of ggovernment "involvement" and "death panels", however, is simply politically induced bullshit.
Another topical example is the regulation of the sale and purchase of investments and financial instruments. Despite at least some laws, the investment banking community was able to sell a lot of people (including allegedly very sophisticated investors) utter garbage for a lot of money. Yet the investment banking industry (who took bailout money) and their political lackeys (hey, you know who you are) have been and are screaming about too much government regulation. Instead, they appear to say we should leave protecting the public up to them, an incentive system that rewards risk, and the "market". (That's worked out well for the last couple of years, hasn't it?) More politically induced bullshit, with "we need less government intrusion" as a cover story. I would be more inclined to believe "the dog ate my homework". Enough
Last week, I was talking to my (and I say this fondly) conservative wingnut partner Micheal about tax cuts and the deficit. Michael admitted that his major concern was not the deficit, but his desire to shrink the government by "starving the beast" by cutting the money available to the government. While he focused on the federal government, he believes that governments in general do not do anything (except the military) as well as the private sector, and that government should not "interfere" with people's lives.
I will concede that governments are not always "cost-efficient". And, as readers of this Blog know, I value the rights of individual adults to act as they please, without government interference.
Let's roughly categorize "Government Spending" as follows:
1. Defense from violent foreign threats
2. Defense from violent domestic threats (includes police, courts, prisons)
3. Infrastructure, which theoretically benefits all of us(in a broad sense-includes roads, bridges, air traffic control, electrical grid, national parks, education, the Post Office)
4. Payments or other distribution or redistribution of wealth to or for individual citizens or entities (again a broad definition which would include things like agricultural subsidies and tax code provisions like the mortgage interest deduction which benefits one group of taxpayers over others)
5. Regulatory (which overlaps with "criminal"), (the IRS, the SEC, the FDA, the FCC, state insurance commissions, banking regulations).
I want to focus on this last, "regulatory" category in this Post, both because it seems to be a frequent target of alleged conservatives, and because looking at it really exposes the fundamental weakness about "small government" I allude to above.
My friend and his "drastically shrink the governments" compatriots are missing a really big point; none of us lives in isolation. Someone else produces and sells my food, my house, my electrical appliances and my clothing. Someone else provides the train service that gets me to work. Someone else tries to make sure that my my own food or garden tools or medicines do not kill me, that I can safely put money in a bank, and that people who sell me investments or whatever don't constantly cheat me.
Of course, I have my own very significant responsibilities in all of these areas. I have to be watchful and careful and not really stupid in how I live my daily life. However, I am simply not in a position to protect myself in an adequate or even efficient manner from all "dangers". I can avoid eating spoiled food, but I can't inspect meat-packing plants. I can avoid sticking my hands under a running lawnmower, but I cannot create electrical or other safety standards for lawnmowers. I can put my money into an allegedly conservative mutual fund instead of going to the track, or even choose individual stocks or bonds, but I must rely on information and advice from other people (unless its my own company and I'm the CEO or CFO) when doing so. None of us can do all of these things; we have neither the time nor the expertise, nor the bargaining position.
If the Government does not regulate these areas, they will be "regulated", but not by the individual citizen. Rather they will be "regulated" by those producing or selling the goods or services and (sometimes) the "market" itself. The producers and sellers are, naturally enough, usually more motivated by profit than anything else. And while the market in an abstract sense may effectively regulate some things in a long term, it's really not an effective device at protecting us. For example, the "market" would allow television and other advertising for cigarettes aimed directly at children. (also called shooting fish in a barrel). A bad food producer or drug manufacturer might gradually get a bad reputation and would be driven out of business (or at least change its name), but a number of people would be poisoned in the interim. If laws did not regulate insurance companies, they would not have to keep any reserves to pay claims. Does anyone want to abolish the FDIC and its guarantees of depositors' accounts?
In many circumstances, the idea of a market adequately governing transactions is ludicrous. For a market to work in those situations, there must be, among other things, some parity of both knowledge and bargaining position. Take a mortgage or a stock offering or an insurance policy. Anyone ever tried to actually negotiate the fine print with the bank or insurance company? Yeah, right. (I would note that if you are sophisticated enough, and are borrowing enough money, you can negotiate some things with a bank - because of the possibility that you can get a better deal elsewhere).
There are situations where the market works wonderfully. If there are two grocery stores in the neighborhood, the one offering cheaper prices or better produce will tend to get more customers on that basis. I can look at the grocery store ads; I cannot go out to South Dakota and Nebraska and inspect the meat packing plants.
It is not the individual consumer who is producing all of his own food, or running his own bank or deciding what medical services will be "covered". It is someone or something else. And that someone or something else usually has a strong profit motive that may incline, him, her or it to do "bad" stuff.
Perhaps the best and most topical example of this demonization of "government intrusion"is the debate about health care. Small government advocates claim the government should not be involved in health care, and warn of "death panels". I have bad news for them; we already have "death panels", and we've had them for a long time. For those of us who have medical insurance as well as those who have government sponsored medical care, someone else (besides us and our own doctors) is already limiting our care by limiting how much we can spend on medical treatments and for what. For those of us with private insurance, it's the insurance companies, whose power to deny claims is limited only by the (gasp!) government. (It's the (evil) government and its laws that requires group insurance to be "portable"; previously, it was very hard for someone with a serious medical condition to take a new job. It's the (evil) government that requires COBRA benefits and the administrative burden it places on employers). For those of us with government sponsored health care, our care already limited by the government itself.
I would point to the recent situation in Arizona, where the Republican controlled state government eliminated transplant coverage for Medicaid recipients. I am not blaming the Republicans; they were trying to cut costs and were apparently given incorrect or incomplete information. Nor am I taking a position as to whether Medicaid should or should not cover transplants or anything else. Similarly, private insurance companies deny coverage on a daily basis. I am not saying these denials are right or wrong. What they are, whether done by the Government or the insurance companies, is necessary. If I (or one of my kids!) is sick, and particularly if it involves spending someone else's money, I'll spend whatever is possible, reasonable or not, cost effective or not, or whatever. A wildly experimental and extremely expensive procedure? You betcha. The best specialist and hospital available, whether they are in my "network" or not? If it's serious enough, sure. As long as it does not actively harm me, I'll bet I can get a doctor or hospital to do it, as long as they get paid.
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons for and against what is called "Obamacare". A fear of ggovernment "involvement" and "death panels", however, is simply politically induced bullshit.
Another topical example is the regulation of the sale and purchase of investments and financial instruments. Despite at least some laws, the investment banking community was able to sell a lot of people (including allegedly very sophisticated investors) utter garbage for a lot of money. Yet the investment banking industry (who took bailout money) and their political lackeys (hey, you know who you are) have been and are screaming about too much government regulation. Instead, they appear to say we should leave protecting the public up to them, an incentive system that rewards risk, and the "market". (That's worked out well for the last couple of years, hasn't it?) More politically induced bullshit, with "we need less government intrusion" as a cover story. I would be more inclined to believe "the dog ate my homework". Enough
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Glenn Beck comes out in favor of Salmonella!
Well not exactly, but . .
Yesterday, the Senate (with bipartisan support) passed a bill providing for, among other things, increased frequency of inspection of food production by the FDA.
My own opinion is that increased food inspections are inherently good, although one can reasonably argue about: 1)to what extent regulations should be applied to small local food producers; 2)what actual standards should be; and 3)how much food inspection and regulation we want to pay for (a basic cost/benefit analysis). In short, I think that the theory of having the Government make some effort to make sure that our food does not make us sick or kill us is a good.
Glenn Beck apparently strongly disagrees, attacking (yesterday on TV) the passage of the Senate bill in question, the creation of the FDA by the "progressive" (said with scorn) Teddy Roosevelt, and arguing that if the Government could "control our food", it could totally control our lives. (Huh?)
Apparently, Mr. Beck believes that we can and should totally rely on the food producers (who certainly don't want to poison anyone, but whose primary motive is -and nothing wrong with this - to make as much money as possible) to make sure that our food is safe. I think that history shows us that when you leave "the public good" up to those with a profit motive that may not always coincide with that public good, sometimes people will (yep, I'm an optimist) try to act to protect the public good at the expense of some of their profits, and sometimes they will not. Mr. Beck, however, apparently trusts everyone, except the government (which does not have a profit motive), to act in the public good.
Earth calling Glenn; Earth calling Glenn . . .
Think about that highlighted sentence above - I will get back to it in a future Post. Enough
Yesterday, the Senate (with bipartisan support) passed a bill providing for, among other things, increased frequency of inspection of food production by the FDA.
My own opinion is that increased food inspections are inherently good, although one can reasonably argue about: 1)to what extent regulations should be applied to small local food producers; 2)what actual standards should be; and 3)how much food inspection and regulation we want to pay for (a basic cost/benefit analysis). In short, I think that the theory of having the Government make some effort to make sure that our food does not make us sick or kill us is a good.
Glenn Beck apparently strongly disagrees, attacking (yesterday on TV) the passage of the Senate bill in question, the creation of the FDA by the "progressive" (said with scorn) Teddy Roosevelt, and arguing that if the Government could "control our food", it could totally control our lives. (Huh?)
Apparently, Mr. Beck believes that we can and should totally rely on the food producers (who certainly don't want to poison anyone, but whose primary motive is -and nothing wrong with this - to make as much money as possible) to make sure that our food is safe. I think that history shows us that when you leave "the public good" up to those with a profit motive that may not always coincide with that public good, sometimes people will (yep, I'm an optimist) try to act to protect the public good at the expense of some of their profits, and sometimes they will not. Mr. Beck, however, apparently trusts everyone, except the government (which does not have a profit motive), to act in the public good.
Earth calling Glenn; Earth calling Glenn . . .
Think about that highlighted sentence above - I will get back to it in a future Post. Enough
Comments by the outgoing Dem. Gov. of Ohio
Another reference to an "outside" work, as follows:
I do not necessarily agree with what Gov Strickland says about the desirability of Obama focusing on his "base", but, as I have written previously, I do agree that he needs to take a more "populist" and agressive tone.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
A "Christian Nation" ??
I've been meaning to write about this for a while, and its not an issue getting much space in the news right now, but I've had to sort out my thoughts, even more than usual.
Every so often, usually in some dispute concerning a Board of Education's attempts to change what is acceptable in its approved textbooks, some public official or media figure contends that the United States is and has always been "a Christian Nation". More "liberal" types object to this characterization, and both sides then attempt to justify their positions by cherry-picking particular quotes from the founders of our Country.
This particular subject is one of my own hot buttons - attempts to label this country as a "Christian Nation" really disturb me, and get my "oppositional" juices flowing [clears the sinuses, among other things.] However, upon reflection, my strong reaction itself began to puzzle me.
After all, when I grew up, I knew I was growing up in a Christian country. While many of my teachers and fellow students were, like me, Jewish, we said (usually but not always Old Testament) prayers in school and celebrated and studied Christian holidays. The entire society outside of school was filled with Christian images and culture. It was just not a big deal. I knew I was Jewish, and I knew that was OK with most of my fellow citizens. I knew they - and my country - were generally "Christian" (at least in some vague sense), but that the Constitution guaranteed me both freedom of religion and the lack of a government-established Church. I also knew that the founders of the country were certainly Christian (at least in background), and that almost all of my country's leaders had been and still were Christian. I had no problems with those facts. My parents, as far as I know, had no problem with them; nor did anyone else I knew. As I said before, it was just not a big deal, at least not then.
So what has changed? Why do I now react so negatively to those want the US to be a "Christian Nation"? Certainly, whatever the founders were or were not has not changed. The country may be more diverse and less generally religious, but most of us are either Christians or from Christian backgrounds. Our society is still loaded with Christian images, traditions and ideals.
I think my primary problem arises out of a strong distrust of the proponents of a "Christian Nation", and of their motives. Just what is meant by a "Christian Nation"? What its proponents seem to have in mind is not really the "live and let live" religious existence I grew up with. Rather, certain people seem to believe it is important to "officially" acknowledge the "importance" of Christianity in our country. For me, at least, the slope between "publicly acknowledged or official importance" on the one hand and "primacy" or even "supremacy" on the other is a slippery one.
Those who seek a more "official" position for Christianity - or endorsement of some of its ideas - seem to be very upset about four things: 1)the lack of formal acknowledgment of religion in our public schools and other public life; 2)how science is taught in those schools, 3)how history is taught, and how "tolerance" is taught.
My "problem" on religion in public schools and public life really comes from the fact that I did not care as a child. Emotionally, I wonder why and become suspicious that the other side does care. After all, I think the secularists are basically right on this one; public schools and governments should not "promote" religion ("values" are a different matter). Although I think the pendulum has maybe swung a bit far (singing Christmas Carols never bothered me much), people are free to practice their religions in their homes, Churches and other gatherings. Why this concern about the public schools, unless what you are seeking is a form of indoctrination? Or is it linked to some symbolic formal acknowledgment of the society as Christian? Are the "Christians" so insecure that they need prayer in school, or Christmas Carols in school, or Christmas displays on Government property to affirm, well, something? Apparently so. But what are they seeking to affirm? That question makes me nervous. Those Christians who seem to be leading the fight in at least the first three areas described above seem to be very concerned that we formally or officially somehow affirm or proclaim that we are a "Christian Nation. " I don't like that, at all, because that gives "Christian Nation" an entirely different meaning than the "most of us are, in fact, Christian" feeling I was comfortable with when growing up.
The Christians concerned with the issue seem to focus a lot on the founders and American history, and the fact that the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not used in the Constitution as justification for some kind of "official" endorsement of Christianity. Well, it's not that simple. The founders were a group of people. Each of them had different ideas. They may well have each changed their own minds on these issues over time. Everyone can "cherry pick" quotes or phrases on this issue to supposedly "prove" what they want. However, some of the facts seem to be: 1)all of the founders were at least nominal Christians, although some of them had strongly Deist tendencies. 2)As a group, they did not want any established State religion. 3)They almost certainly expected the US to remain "Christian" as a culture 4)Some of them, particularly Jefferson, very strongly believed in the total separation of Church and State; others did not. 5)References to God or Providence were a part of regular official life, and religious symbols were displayed all over public life. 6)In at least one very early and formal action (look up the Treaty of Tripoli), the Government openly declared that the US was not a Christian Nation (whatever that meant - I think it meant in an "official" or "formal" sense, as it obviously was not in a "most of us are Christians" sense). 7) They would never have imagined separation of Church and State as being used to ban prayer in public schools.
The proponents of "more" religion seem to have confused "atheism" with "secularism", or at least become confused about what "secularism" is and is not. To me, "secularism" is not a rejection or denial of religion. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that there are some areas of our communal lives that should be kept free of "formal" religious involvement. I believe the basic concept that religion should be kept out of certain areas is something that all but the most extreme "Christians" would accept. (At least I hope so). For example, I think most of us would agree that the law should be applied to our citizens in a fair an equal manner, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Also, as the Constitution itself mandates, there should be no religious test for political office. Why should this "religious-free" zone not apply to our public schools as well?
Perhaps the problem of those I view as the other side is similar to my own. After all, my own negative reaction is based on the fact that I feel that "they" are "pushing" for change - for a more official adoption of Christianity. Yet their push may have been initiated by the push of my fellow secularists for our own changes. Prayer has been banned in schools. There are no more creches on Public land. "Multiculturalism" was not a word used in my history books. Maybe "we" started the fight. Maybe some of my opponents are worried about their own "slippery slope" - one which leads to the increasing marginalization of (their) religion as a force in American life.
How science is taught is an easy one for me. Science should be taught in accordance with what are the generally accepted principles and beliefs of those who are scientists. (The limits of "science" as a system of knowledge and belief are discuss ad nauseum in one of my earlier Posts). Science is not about religion, and religious theories about the history or nature of the natural world should not be discussed in any detail in science class. If an ethics class or a religion class, fine. Science is a very important subject for our children to learn, and that is what should be taught in science class.
How history is taught is slightly less easy, although the recent attempts by the Texas School Board to rewrite it (and minimize Thomas Jefferson for political-religious reasons) are highly offensive, as well as the promotion of really dubious history. The truth is that what we teach our children about history is always going to be at least somewhat "political" in nature, and is legitimately within the purview of the political process and of the voters. I really don't think that there has been too much stress by "elitist liberal educators" on things like multiculturalism or Islam, and I would be surprised if there were any real "anti-Christian" textbooks in this country, but the importance or meaning of various people or ideas in history does include, as a matter of necessity, the effect of religions and religious ideas.
The teaching of "tolerance" is even trickier. On the one hand, children should never be bullied or ostracized because they (or their families) are "different". Yet what about a difference that involves the perceived choice of the student to engage in immoral conduct? Why should a teen who practices homosexual behavior be "protected" or "tolerated" where a girl who sleeps with all the boys is not? Or a teen who shoplifts or uses hard drugs or is a bully him or herself? All of these teens may be perceived as acting "immorally" by a substantial number of their classmates. Do those classmates not have the right to disapprove of what they believe to be highly immoral conduct? Does this conflict with the idea of teaching tolerance of different lifestyles , at least in some cases? Sure it does. I think this is an area in which there are no broad, easy answers. I have my own [and since this is my Blog, you get to hear them] No one should be condemned because of choices made by their parents. No one should be condemned because of matters (like race or ethnic background) they cannot control. We should be very leery of condemning children for having beliefs which they have acquired from their parents. Some actions - bullying or harrassment - are never to be condoned, while others, disapproval or even ostracism may have to be allowed.
By the way - note to enemy - characterizing this as an attempt to promote "Judeo-Christian" ideas does not work. I believe the phrase did not come into common usage until World War II. There has been way too much Christian anti-semitism (including in the US) for us to be real comfortable about that one. We (or at least I) aren't buying it.
Still, the bottom line is that this push for acknowledgment of America's Christian roots or nature is one of my hot buttons, and that if people push to identify our Nation as "officially" Christian, I will push back. As hard as I can. Enough.
Every so often, usually in some dispute concerning a Board of Education's attempts to change what is acceptable in its approved textbooks, some public official or media figure contends that the United States is and has always been "a Christian Nation". More "liberal" types object to this characterization, and both sides then attempt to justify their positions by cherry-picking particular quotes from the founders of our Country.
This particular subject is one of my own hot buttons - attempts to label this country as a "Christian Nation" really disturb me, and get my "oppositional" juices flowing [clears the sinuses, among other things.] However, upon reflection, my strong reaction itself began to puzzle me.
After all, when I grew up, I knew I was growing up in a Christian country. While many of my teachers and fellow students were, like me, Jewish, we said (usually but not always Old Testament) prayers in school and celebrated and studied Christian holidays. The entire society outside of school was filled with Christian images and culture. It was just not a big deal. I knew I was Jewish, and I knew that was OK with most of my fellow citizens. I knew they - and my country - were generally "Christian" (at least in some vague sense), but that the Constitution guaranteed me both freedom of religion and the lack of a government-established Church. I also knew that the founders of the country were certainly Christian (at least in background), and that almost all of my country's leaders had been and still were Christian. I had no problems with those facts. My parents, as far as I know, had no problem with them; nor did anyone else I knew. As I said before, it was just not a big deal, at least not then.
So what has changed? Why do I now react so negatively to those want the US to be a "Christian Nation"? Certainly, whatever the founders were or were not has not changed. The country may be more diverse and less generally religious, but most of us are either Christians or from Christian backgrounds. Our society is still loaded with Christian images, traditions and ideals.
I think my primary problem arises out of a strong distrust of the proponents of a "Christian Nation", and of their motives. Just what is meant by a "Christian Nation"? What its proponents seem to have in mind is not really the "live and let live" religious existence I grew up with. Rather, certain people seem to believe it is important to "officially" acknowledge the "importance" of Christianity in our country. For me, at least, the slope between "publicly acknowledged or official importance" on the one hand and "primacy" or even "supremacy" on the other is a slippery one.
Those who seek a more "official" position for Christianity - or endorsement of some of its ideas - seem to be very upset about four things: 1)the lack of formal acknowledgment of religion in our public schools and other public life; 2)how science is taught in those schools, 3)how history is taught, and how "tolerance" is taught.
My "problem" on religion in public schools and public life really comes from the fact that I did not care as a child. Emotionally, I wonder why and become suspicious that the other side does care. After all, I think the secularists are basically right on this one; public schools and governments should not "promote" religion ("values" are a different matter). Although I think the pendulum has maybe swung a bit far (singing Christmas Carols never bothered me much), people are free to practice their religions in their homes, Churches and other gatherings. Why this concern about the public schools, unless what you are seeking is a form of indoctrination? Or is it linked to some symbolic formal acknowledgment of the society as Christian? Are the "Christians" so insecure that they need prayer in school, or Christmas Carols in school, or Christmas displays on Government property to affirm, well, something? Apparently so. But what are they seeking to affirm? That question makes me nervous. Those Christians who seem to be leading the fight in at least the first three areas described above seem to be very concerned that we formally or officially somehow affirm or proclaim that we are a "Christian Nation. " I don't like that, at all, because that gives "Christian Nation" an entirely different meaning than the "most of us are, in fact, Christian" feeling I was comfortable with when growing up.
The Christians concerned with the issue seem to focus a lot on the founders and American history, and the fact that the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not used in the Constitution as justification for some kind of "official" endorsement of Christianity. Well, it's not that simple. The founders were a group of people. Each of them had different ideas. They may well have each changed their own minds on these issues over time. Everyone can "cherry pick" quotes or phrases on this issue to supposedly "prove" what they want. However, some of the facts seem to be: 1)all of the founders were at least nominal Christians, although some of them had strongly Deist tendencies. 2)As a group, they did not want any established State religion. 3)They almost certainly expected the US to remain "Christian" as a culture 4)Some of them, particularly Jefferson, very strongly believed in the total separation of Church and State; others did not. 5)References to God or Providence were a part of regular official life, and religious symbols were displayed all over public life. 6)In at least one very early and formal action (look up the Treaty of Tripoli), the Government openly declared that the US was not a Christian Nation (whatever that meant - I think it meant in an "official" or "formal" sense, as it obviously was not in a "most of us are Christians" sense). 7) They would never have imagined separation of Church and State as being used to ban prayer in public schools.
The proponents of "more" religion seem to have confused "atheism" with "secularism", or at least become confused about what "secularism" is and is not. To me, "secularism" is not a rejection or denial of religion. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that there are some areas of our communal lives that should be kept free of "formal" religious involvement. I believe the basic concept that religion should be kept out of certain areas is something that all but the most extreme "Christians" would accept. (At least I hope so). For example, I think most of us would agree that the law should be applied to our citizens in a fair an equal manner, whatever their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Also, as the Constitution itself mandates, there should be no religious test for political office. Why should this "religious-free" zone not apply to our public schools as well?
Perhaps the problem of those I view as the other side is similar to my own. After all, my own negative reaction is based on the fact that I feel that "they" are "pushing" for change - for a more official adoption of Christianity. Yet their push may have been initiated by the push of my fellow secularists for our own changes. Prayer has been banned in schools. There are no more creches on Public land. "Multiculturalism" was not a word used in my history books. Maybe "we" started the fight. Maybe some of my opponents are worried about their own "slippery slope" - one which leads to the increasing marginalization of (their) religion as a force in American life.
How science is taught is an easy one for me. Science should be taught in accordance with what are the generally accepted principles and beliefs of those who are scientists. (The limits of "science" as a system of knowledge and belief are discuss ad nauseum in one of my earlier Posts). Science is not about religion, and religious theories about the history or nature of the natural world should not be discussed in any detail in science class. If an ethics class or a religion class, fine. Science is a very important subject for our children to learn, and that is what should be taught in science class.
How history is taught is slightly less easy, although the recent attempts by the Texas School Board to rewrite it (and minimize Thomas Jefferson for political-religious reasons) are highly offensive, as well as the promotion of really dubious history. The truth is that what we teach our children about history is always going to be at least somewhat "political" in nature, and is legitimately within the purview of the political process and of the voters. I really don't think that there has been too much stress by "elitist liberal educators" on things like multiculturalism or Islam, and I would be surprised if there were any real "anti-Christian" textbooks in this country, but the importance or meaning of various people or ideas in history does include, as a matter of necessity, the effect of religions and religious ideas.
The teaching of "tolerance" is even trickier. On the one hand, children should never be bullied or ostracized because they (or their families) are "different". Yet what about a difference that involves the perceived choice of the student to engage in immoral conduct? Why should a teen who practices homosexual behavior be "protected" or "tolerated" where a girl who sleeps with all the boys is not? Or a teen who shoplifts or uses hard drugs or is a bully him or herself? All of these teens may be perceived as acting "immorally" by a substantial number of their classmates. Do those classmates not have the right to disapprove of what they believe to be highly immoral conduct? Does this conflict with the idea of teaching tolerance of different lifestyles , at least in some cases? Sure it does. I think this is an area in which there are no broad, easy answers. I have my own [and since this is my Blog, you get to hear them] No one should be condemned because of choices made by their parents. No one should be condemned because of matters (like race or ethnic background) they cannot control. We should be very leery of condemning children for having beliefs which they have acquired from their parents. Some actions - bullying or harrassment - are never to be condoned, while others, disapproval or even ostracism may have to be allowed.
By the way - note to enemy - characterizing this as an attempt to promote "Judeo-Christian" ideas does not work. I believe the phrase did not come into common usage until World War II. There has been way too much Christian anti-semitism (including in the US) for us to be real comfortable about that one. We (or at least I) aren't buying it.
Still, the bottom line is that this push for acknowledgment of America's Christian roots or nature is one of my hot buttons, and that if people push to identify our Nation as "officially" Christian, I will push back. As hard as I can. Enough.
Partisanship v. Ideology - an essay by Ross Douthat
For once, a shorter Post.
There is an excellent "op ed" essay in yesterday's NY Times by Ross Douthat, concerning the difference between acting in an ideological (basically principled) fashion as opposed to a partisan (always attack the other party) fashion. Here is a link to the essay. http://nyti.ms/dEKTXi
As readers of this Blog will know, I have my problems with an overly ideological approach to political problems. However, Mr. Douthat identifies the really intellectually dishonest and destructive problem as hyper-partisanship rather than hyper-ideology.
What depresses me is that while he really nails the "problem", I don't see an obvious solution. Our governments, both state and federal, are heavily tied into the partisan process. Politicians usually rise through the partisan ranks, they are dependent on partisan support and funding to win elections, and they need cooperation from at least the members of their own party to accomplish legislative objectives. A "sort of" exception to this may be some of the "Tea Party" backed candidates who are publicly indicating that they plan to resist partisan pressures and practices in order to remain ideologically pure. I don't like a focus on ideological purity, but it is far preferable to intellectually dishonest partisanship. I just fear that partisanship is so entrenched in our system, and has become so crazed in recent years, that it may take something drastic and improbable like a third party (a party to combat partisanship??), to effect any meaningful change. Enough
There is an excellent "op ed" essay in yesterday's NY Times by Ross Douthat, concerning the difference between acting in an ideological (basically principled) fashion as opposed to a partisan (always attack the other party) fashion. Here is a link to the essay. http://nyti.ms/dEKTXi
As readers of this Blog will know, I have my problems with an overly ideological approach to political problems. However, Mr. Douthat identifies the really intellectually dishonest and destructive problem as hyper-partisanship rather than hyper-ideology.
What depresses me is that while he really nails the "problem", I don't see an obvious solution. Our governments, both state and federal, are heavily tied into the partisan process. Politicians usually rise through the partisan ranks, they are dependent on partisan support and funding to win elections, and they need cooperation from at least the members of their own party to accomplish legislative objectives. A "sort of" exception to this may be some of the "Tea Party" backed candidates who are publicly indicating that they plan to resist partisan pressures and practices in order to remain ideologically pure. I don't like a focus on ideological purity, but it is far preferable to intellectually dishonest partisanship. I just fear that partisanship is so entrenched in our system, and has become so crazed in recent years, that it may take something drastic and improbable like a third party (a party to combat partisanship??), to effect any meaningful change. Enough
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
My problems with religious fundamentalism
Warning - likely to be a long - and complicated - and personal - Post.
Caveats/definitions.
1. By "religious fundamentalism", I mean a belief system based on a set of writings by or inspired by a Supreme Being, and which generally accepts those writings to express the literal truth about events that have occurred, and/or will occur, and about how we should behave.
2. My only knowledge of "religious fundamentalism" is of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic variety. I do not know anything about anything like Buddhist Fundamentalism, or, indeed, whether it exists at all.
Problem No. 1 - a fundamental difference about what knowledge is "valid", and about how God's will is revealed (if at all) to people
The New Testament was written almost 2000 years ago; the Old Testament is (obviously) older. Even the Quran is more than 1000 years old. Fundamentalists of all religions appear to believe that what is written in their respective Holy Books is true, even if it appears to be contradicted by information that comes to our collective attention after those books were written.
Sorry, I just do not think that that is how knowledge works. Assuming there is a God, I believe that He or She (or It) created Man (and Woman) (or their evolutionary ancestors) with either brains or the possibility of developing brains. These brains (part of God's plan) allow us, both collectively and individually, to observe, think and learn. Thus, we are designed to be able to absorb, evaluate and act on new knowledge. This knowledge may be "scientific", that is about the world around us, or it may be about how we should act, or about anything else. New knowledge has helped us do all sorts of things, both good and bad, including build railroads, successfully treat (or even wipe out) certain diseases, and live longer. It has also let us develop the concept (or understand the previous existence of) a Universal God, who wants people to act in certain ways. It has also led us to social ideas like charity, and (more recently) the "wrongfulness" of slavery.
I suspect that at least some Fundamentalists would counter my belief with the story of Adam and Eve, who lived in the paradise of Eden until tempted into the sin of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and that my entire approach wrongfully elevates (indeed, venerates) knowledge. The assumption of the Fundamentalists is that God knew everything when He or She wrote or inspired whatever Holy Book is in question, and that we, the children of God, should just make sure we both believe in and do what we were told. Certainly, this is a central theme in the Binding of Isaac story, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, not because it is in any way a good idea, but because God tells him to do it. Abraham proves willing to do so, and God rewards and praises him for his faith. Whoever wrote the Old Testament was certainly a Fundamentalist in some sense. If God says do it, just shut up and do it, even if it seems lunatic or even immoral. [In one of Woody Allen's collections of Short Stories, Without Feathers, there is a story called "The Scrolls". One of the "bits" in the story involves the discovery a "version" of the Binding of Isaac, which describes a God who stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac while saying the equivalent of "Abraham, are you nuts? Didn't you know I was kidding?" I like that God better than the One in the original.]
While I have a lot of problems with the "Just Do What I Say" approach, a big one is the whole question of timing. After all, if God spoke to me tomorrow (from a Burning Bush or whatever), and I believed it was God, I would almost certainly do it. (Killing my son as a sacrifice, nope. If God decides to strike me with lighting as a result, ok. My own religious and moral beliefs do not begin and end with the "word of God", even if it is the word of God. Does this mean I am willing to substitute my judgment for God's? Yep. I may be weird, not to mention arrogant, but how many of you would actually sacrifice your child in that scenario?)
God comes to Man and says "write down the rules". Man does so. However, Man's concepts, knowledge, even language, did not then allow Man to write down things which, even among Fundamentalists, are now taken as true (i.e., the Earth is round; Heaven and Angels do not live in the sky immediately above the Earth.) Surely God must have known this. God must have also known that while Man not have been ready to abandon slavery when the books were written, Man would eventually figure it out. In short, God knew that change would occur. So, would not an Intelligent God allow for the equivalent of Constitutional Amendments - of some method of changing (not just explaining, changing) the lessons or directions of the Holy Book?
An aside - the Roman Catholics may have done a better job of allowing for new knowledge than other sorts of Fundamentalists. They have created a real live person who, if He needs to, can claim to be speaking in the name of God, and can, at least in theory, change the Rules (although I do not think the Catholic Church would put it quite that way).
Still, the problem is that once you write something down and declare it to be the Word of God, it is, like the Ten Commandments, carved in stone, which is not the only way how knowledge is (or at least should be) acquired by human beings. The classic way to really change a Religion is to simply start a new Religion, or at least a new branch or Sect, Christianity being the most obvious example. Some of these new groups will grow and prosper; some won't. [Question: The Mormons - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints - are they "Christians"? I think so, but I know some Christians who disagree. Heck, I know Christians who claim that Roman Catholics are not really "Christians". I do not intend to criticize anyone by this observation/question. Certainly, I, and I think almost all of those I consider Jewish, believe that "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish. I will come back to this "define the group" question in Point 3, below]
Still, my basic point is that Fundamentalism does not allow for changing of beliefs based on new evidence. That just not how "knowledge" really works.
Problem No. 2 - "cherry-picking"
Several things these Holy Books have in common; they are not short; they are often vague or obscure; some parts of them can be read as being contradictory to others. All of these things allow for their adherents (including but not limited to Fundamentalists) to pick and choose the parts that they want to emphasize (often called "cherry-picking"). Easiest example - the New Testament says a lot about, love, charity, feeding the poor, and loving the sinner but not the sin. However, many Fundamentalist preachers seem to focus a lot on the Old Testament [the wonderful comedian Lewis Black does a great routine on this. "That's Our Book; it wasn't good enough for them"], and emphasize the "smiting" (by us) of those who don't agree with us. My own branch of Judaism (Reform) quite openly chrry picks, and dismisses a number of traditional practices (which clearly appear to be required by the Torah) as mere customs- note, it's called "Reform" rather than "Reformed" because we acknowledge the need to keep increasing our understanding of just what God wants us to do). But even those Orthodox Jews I know cannot really explain to my satisfaction why some Mitzvot just are not followed any more.
The most blatant thing is that all of these Holy Books extol the virtues of Peace while suggesting that its readers kill at least some of their enemies because they are unbelievers or from a different tribe.
Which leads to Problem No. 3 - If it's the ultimate authority, a Religious text can be used to justify almost anything-and it will be
In a previous Post, I used the following quote from the late Senator Barry Goldwater:
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
History and current events are rife with examples of justifying war, atrocity, genocide, torture, and almost anything bad in the name of religion. You can come up with your own. However, I would take issue with those who believe that any particular religion is "warlike" (Some may be more so than others and "younger" religions may be more aggressive, generally). Rather, I think (and I think Goldwater's quote suggests) the problem is more related to Fundamentalism, whatever its variety. If people believe that God really suggests that we worship or otherwise act in a certain way, and that God's word should be our prime directive, there's not much room for debate or compromise. After all, if God says "do it", we're supposed to just do it.
Please note that I do not exempt my fellow Jews from this tendency. We may tend to be less obnoxious (for lack of a better word) because of the "Chosen People" thing. The Torah and Talmud do not say that everyone should be Jewish or observe Jewish laws. Quite the contrary - the Torah and the Talmud are directed at Jews, and they tell us how we, not everyone else, are supposed to behave. Nevertheless, like all other Fundamentalists, when they have the power to do so, Jewish Fundamentalists have been known to attempt to force other Jews to behave "appropriately", even to the extent of asking Christian authorities to intervene to squash our own "heretics".
Here is where I get back to my "Mormon" question from point one. Fundamentalists, at least historically, have been particularly vicious to those of their own religion whom they believe have strayed from the true path. In short, heretics are often treated worse than non-believers. This may be largely due to both proximity and to the perception that one needs to struggle for the "soul" of one's religion. In any event, it reinforces one of my points - that Fundamentalists tend to be intolerant - and sometimes intolerance makes people dangerous.
Conclusion
I believe Religion, including "organized" Religion as well as a more general "spirituality", is, at least today, more of a force for Good than Evil, although I have my doubts sometimes. Moreover, Religion and/or God are not necessarily inconsistent with what I believe to be how the world actually works. Although I have friends whom I respect and admire who would consider themselves Fundamentalists, I cannot say the same for Fundamentalism, on either count. Enough.
Caveats/definitions.
1. By "religious fundamentalism", I mean a belief system based on a set of writings by or inspired by a Supreme Being, and which generally accepts those writings to express the literal truth about events that have occurred, and/or will occur, and about how we should behave.
2. My only knowledge of "religious fundamentalism" is of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic variety. I do not know anything about anything like Buddhist Fundamentalism, or, indeed, whether it exists at all.
Problem No. 1 - a fundamental difference about what knowledge is "valid", and about how God's will is revealed (if at all) to people
The New Testament was written almost 2000 years ago; the Old Testament is (obviously) older. Even the Quran is more than 1000 years old. Fundamentalists of all religions appear to believe that what is written in their respective Holy Books is true, even if it appears to be contradicted by information that comes to our collective attention after those books were written.
Sorry, I just do not think that that is how knowledge works. Assuming there is a God, I believe that He or She (or It) created Man (and Woman) (or their evolutionary ancestors) with either brains or the possibility of developing brains. These brains (part of God's plan) allow us, both collectively and individually, to observe, think and learn. Thus, we are designed to be able to absorb, evaluate and act on new knowledge. This knowledge may be "scientific", that is about the world around us, or it may be about how we should act, or about anything else. New knowledge has helped us do all sorts of things, both good and bad, including build railroads, successfully treat (or even wipe out) certain diseases, and live longer. It has also let us develop the concept (or understand the previous existence of) a Universal God, who wants people to act in certain ways. It has also led us to social ideas like charity, and (more recently) the "wrongfulness" of slavery.
I suspect that at least some Fundamentalists would counter my belief with the story of Adam and Eve, who lived in the paradise of Eden until tempted into the sin of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and that my entire approach wrongfully elevates (indeed, venerates) knowledge. The assumption of the Fundamentalists is that God knew everything when He or She wrote or inspired whatever Holy Book is in question, and that we, the children of God, should just make sure we both believe in and do what we were told. Certainly, this is a central theme in the Binding of Isaac story, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, not because it is in any way a good idea, but because God tells him to do it. Abraham proves willing to do so, and God rewards and praises him for his faith. Whoever wrote the Old Testament was certainly a Fundamentalist in some sense. If God says do it, just shut up and do it, even if it seems lunatic or even immoral. [In one of Woody Allen's collections of Short Stories, Without Feathers, there is a story called "The Scrolls". One of the "bits" in the story involves the discovery a "version" of the Binding of Isaac, which describes a God who stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac while saying the equivalent of "Abraham, are you nuts? Didn't you know I was kidding?" I like that God better than the One in the original.]
While I have a lot of problems with the "Just Do What I Say" approach, a big one is the whole question of timing. After all, if God spoke to me tomorrow (from a Burning Bush or whatever), and I believed it was God, I would almost certainly do it. (Killing my son as a sacrifice, nope. If God decides to strike me with lighting as a result, ok. My own religious and moral beliefs do not begin and end with the "word of God", even if it is the word of God. Does this mean I am willing to substitute my judgment for God's? Yep. I may be weird, not to mention arrogant, but how many of you would actually sacrifice your child in that scenario?)
God comes to Man and says "write down the rules". Man does so. However, Man's concepts, knowledge, even language, did not then allow Man to write down things which, even among Fundamentalists, are now taken as true (i.e., the Earth is round; Heaven and Angels do not live in the sky immediately above the Earth.) Surely God must have known this. God must have also known that while Man not have been ready to abandon slavery when the books were written, Man would eventually figure it out. In short, God knew that change would occur. So, would not an Intelligent God allow for the equivalent of Constitutional Amendments - of some method of changing (not just explaining, changing) the lessons or directions of the Holy Book?
An aside - the Roman Catholics may have done a better job of allowing for new knowledge than other sorts of Fundamentalists. They have created a real live person who, if He needs to, can claim to be speaking in the name of God, and can, at least in theory, change the Rules (although I do not think the Catholic Church would put it quite that way).
Still, the problem is that once you write something down and declare it to be the Word of God, it is, like the Ten Commandments, carved in stone, which is not the only way how knowledge is (or at least should be) acquired by human beings. The classic way to really change a Religion is to simply start a new Religion, or at least a new branch or Sect, Christianity being the most obvious example. Some of these new groups will grow and prosper; some won't. [Question: The Mormons - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints - are they "Christians"? I think so, but I know some Christians who disagree. Heck, I know Christians who claim that Roman Catholics are not really "Christians". I do not intend to criticize anyone by this observation/question. Certainly, I, and I think almost all of those I consider Jewish, believe that "Jews for Jesus" are not Jewish. I will come back to this "define the group" question in Point 3, below]
Still, my basic point is that Fundamentalism does not allow for changing of beliefs based on new evidence. That just not how "knowledge" really works.
Problem No. 2 - "cherry-picking"
Several things these Holy Books have in common; they are not short; they are often vague or obscure; some parts of them can be read as being contradictory to others. All of these things allow for their adherents (including but not limited to Fundamentalists) to pick and choose the parts that they want to emphasize (often called "cherry-picking"). Easiest example - the New Testament says a lot about, love, charity, feeding the poor, and loving the sinner but not the sin. However, many Fundamentalist preachers seem to focus a lot on the Old Testament [the wonderful comedian Lewis Black does a great routine on this. "That's Our Book; it wasn't good enough for them"], and emphasize the "smiting" (by us) of those who don't agree with us. My own branch of Judaism (Reform) quite openly chrry picks, and dismisses a number of traditional practices (which clearly appear to be required by the Torah) as mere customs- note, it's called "Reform" rather than "Reformed" because we acknowledge the need to keep increasing our understanding of just what God wants us to do). But even those Orthodox Jews I know cannot really explain to my satisfaction why some Mitzvot just are not followed any more.
The most blatant thing is that all of these Holy Books extol the virtues of Peace while suggesting that its readers kill at least some of their enemies because they are unbelievers or from a different tribe.
Which leads to Problem No. 3 - If it's the ultimate authority, a Religious text can be used to justify almost anything-and it will be
In a previous Post, I used the following quote from the late Senator Barry Goldwater:
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
History and current events are rife with examples of justifying war, atrocity, genocide, torture, and almost anything bad in the name of religion. You can come up with your own. However, I would take issue with those who believe that any particular religion is "warlike" (Some may be more so than others and "younger" religions may be more aggressive, generally). Rather, I think (and I think Goldwater's quote suggests) the problem is more related to Fundamentalism, whatever its variety. If people believe that God really suggests that we worship or otherwise act in a certain way, and that God's word should be our prime directive, there's not much room for debate or compromise. After all, if God says "do it", we're supposed to just do it.
Please note that I do not exempt my fellow Jews from this tendency. We may tend to be less obnoxious (for lack of a better word) because of the "Chosen People" thing. The Torah and Talmud do not say that everyone should be Jewish or observe Jewish laws. Quite the contrary - the Torah and the Talmud are directed at Jews, and they tell us how we, not everyone else, are supposed to behave. Nevertheless, like all other Fundamentalists, when they have the power to do so, Jewish Fundamentalists have been known to attempt to force other Jews to behave "appropriately", even to the extent of asking Christian authorities to intervene to squash our own "heretics".
Here is where I get back to my "Mormon" question from point one. Fundamentalists, at least historically, have been particularly vicious to those of their own religion whom they believe have strayed from the true path. In short, heretics are often treated worse than non-believers. This may be largely due to both proximity and to the perception that one needs to struggle for the "soul" of one's religion. In any event, it reinforces one of my points - that Fundamentalists tend to be intolerant - and sometimes intolerance makes people dangerous.
Conclusion
I believe Religion, including "organized" Religion as well as a more general "spirituality", is, at least today, more of a force for Good than Evil, although I have my doubts sometimes. Moreover, Religion and/or God are not necessarily inconsistent with what I believe to be how the world actually works. Although I have friends whom I respect and admire who would consider themselves Fundamentalists, I cannot say the same for Fundamentalism, on either count. Enough.
I blame my iPad (and, of course, my son)
A shorter-than-usual Post.
A Reader commented that my Posts appear to be becoming more annoyed. Maybe. But I blame it all (and this Blog as a whole) on my iPad and my Son.
My kind wife bought me an iPad as an Anniversary gift. I am not a technically oriented person, but I soon started taking it everywhere. I have found myself reading a lot more besides my usual mysteries and sci fi, particularly newspapers, strictly on line news sources, and magazines. I have also been exposed for the first time to YouTube. A lot of the stuff I read is political. Naturally, I have become more of a political junkie.
Also, my 22 year old son has hooked me on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, on Comedy Central, which (for those of you who do not know) are primarily political satire (and which I recommend highly).
As a result, I find myself having more political opinions, thinking more about political issues, and getting more annoyed at what I perceive to be the numerous liars and/or idiots in politics and the media. I would remain blissfully ignorant about a lot of the lies and the idiots, if they were not brought to my attention, by those who agree with them as well as disagree with them.
Although I view jump-starting my brain in different areas to be a good thing, we can get sucked into thinking too much about politics. It's kind of like being hooked on musical or movie celebrities. I find myself caring about what X says about Y thinks (or guesses or makes up) about Z (who is an idiot to start with). I understand this often occurs to people who live in the Washington D.C. area (the "Beltway"), but I haven't lived there since I was 14. Most of us, including me, lead our "real" lives without thinking much about politics, which I really think is another good thing. Sure, it certainly impacts our lives - or at least its results do - but the new, constantly available media from all sources can overdo it. All those communications majors with a byline or a Blog, all competing and hoping to find a story or angle that "goes viral" and makes them rich, famous, wise and/or important - if everyone's talking about it (for example, Bristol Palin on "Dancing with the Stars"-which people are expressing political opinions about), it must be important. There is only so much "real" news, and it tends to be under-reported when compared to more entertaining stuff.
Anyway, here I am starting to get into rant mode again. While I certainly do not promise to be "Fair and Balanced", I will at least try to be more thoughtful and less shrill.
Happy Thanksgiving.
A Reader commented that my Posts appear to be becoming more annoyed. Maybe. But I blame it all (and this Blog as a whole) on my iPad and my Son.
My kind wife bought me an iPad as an Anniversary gift. I am not a technically oriented person, but I soon started taking it everywhere. I have found myself reading a lot more besides my usual mysteries and sci fi, particularly newspapers, strictly on line news sources, and magazines. I have also been exposed for the first time to YouTube. A lot of the stuff I read is political. Naturally, I have become more of a political junkie.
Also, my 22 year old son has hooked me on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, on Comedy Central, which (for those of you who do not know) are primarily political satire (and which I recommend highly).
As a result, I find myself having more political opinions, thinking more about political issues, and getting more annoyed at what I perceive to be the numerous liars and/or idiots in politics and the media. I would remain blissfully ignorant about a lot of the lies and the idiots, if they were not brought to my attention, by those who agree with them as well as disagree with them.
Although I view jump-starting my brain in different areas to be a good thing, we can get sucked into thinking too much about politics. It's kind of like being hooked on musical or movie celebrities. I find myself caring about what X says about Y thinks (or guesses or makes up) about Z (who is an idiot to start with). I understand this often occurs to people who live in the Washington D.C. area (the "Beltway"), but I haven't lived there since I was 14. Most of us, including me, lead our "real" lives without thinking much about politics, which I really think is another good thing. Sure, it certainly impacts our lives - or at least its results do - but the new, constantly available media from all sources can overdo it. All those communications majors with a byline or a Blog, all competing and hoping to find a story or angle that "goes viral" and makes them rich, famous, wise and/or important - if everyone's talking about it (for example, Bristol Palin on "Dancing with the Stars"-which people are expressing political opinions about), it must be important. There is only so much "real" news, and it tends to be under-reported when compared to more entertaining stuff.
Anyway, here I am starting to get into rant mode again. While I certainly do not promise to be "Fair and Balanced", I will at least try to be more thoughtful and less shrill.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Jon Stewart (and I) may be wrong
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show is the best known public figure to make a major point of encouraging civility, reason and respect, and of discouraging exaggeration and demonization, in political discourse.Those of you who have read much of my Blog might guess that I am a big fan of Mr. Stewart. Indeed, I went to Washington to attend his Rally with Stephen Colbert - with my children - a few weeks ago.
Nevertheless, I am starting to suspect that he - and I - may be basically wrong. Not about the abstract desirability of such conduct, but because we are way too optimistic about what will work, politically. We are simply overly idealistic about what people pay attention to.
Some "hard" facts (in no particular order):
1. When bad things happen, most people want some person or people to blame - it has to be someone's fault, be it the politicians, the bankers or the Chinese, rather than just the ebbs and flows of capitalism or the fickle finger of fate or an accident.
2. People have a shorter attention span than they used to - the 10 second sound bite is more powerful than the 10 minute speech. It is also more likely to be shown on TV.
3. People like to be entertained - they would rather see and hear blood, sex, nastiness [how else would you explain Jersey Shore?] even when watching politics, than learn something new or think
4. Many people associate "reasoned debate" with liberal elite intellectuals, whom they despise.
5. People would really rather hear someone say something that they already agree with.
6. People assume that if a figure they like on TV says something, it must automatically be true
7. People will believe almost anything "bad" about someone they don't like, whether anyone identifiable actually makes the claim or not [Fox News has never claimed that Obama is a Muslim]
8. People want easy answers and solutions - that's what they like to be told about
9. People "buy into" slogans or statements without really examining them. "Means" somehow become "ends" in themselves. For example, take "big government is bad." Maybe; maybe not; maybe sometimes. But I would suggest that something like "smaller government", while it may be desirable, is a means, not an end. [to me, an "end" would be more freedom and liberty, both to act (individually) and to prosper economically (both individually and as a group) - but that "smaller government" is not always necessarily the way to reach that end]
10. People would rather hear and believe something bad about someone than something good. Think about which kind of gossip spreads faster.
11. Many people are easily manipulated
12. People hate being "talked down to" or not treated with respect maybe more than they hate anything else
13. People tend to trust those they can identify with, be it a matter of race, age, religion, politics or whatever, and to distrust those who are different.
14. People like conflict rather than reasonable discussion (it is more entertaining)
15. People love pep rallies
16. People will tend to self justify - that is, they will find a reason for their own interests or beliefs to dovetail with some "common" or "moral" good.
17. A fair number of adult American citizens actually are pretty stupid [please note that I did not say which ones]. There are always going to be a fair proportion of people on all ends (trust me, there are more than just two) of the political spectrum who will believe all sorts of strange stuff.
18. A big point - perhaps the biggest - just because you want to play "fair" does not mean that the other side has any interest in doing so. Here, I am going to use some examples.
a. My Dad used to express a concern about whether it was a "good idea to raise sheep in a wolves' world"
b. The Israelis have long complained (with reason) that it was very difficult to make peace with the Palestinians because the Palestinians (or many of them) had no interest whatsoever in actually making peace
c. John Boehner's proclaimed main goal for the next two years is to see that Barack Obama does not get re-elected. If you were Obama, would you trust this guy as a negotiating partner? Would you try to reason with him?
d. Politicians and the media frequently make claims that are demonstrably false. When this is pointed out, they either waffle ("we just repeated what someone else said") or they repeat the lie or even make up new ones. They don't get called on it often enough; and their supporters do not seem to care.
e. Some people have their own agendas that have nothing to do with the truth or common good
f. Some people are openly working on the basis of different "evidence" systems. A powerful Republican Congressman (Rep. Shimkus of Illinois) said last year that he absolutely did not believe in Global Warming because God had promised Noah that there would be no more worldwide floods. [I am not making this up! A United States Congressman! ]. Whether he's right or wrong, there is no reason for he and I to attempt to discuss Global Warming. It does not matter to him what kind of scientific evidence I may have; he's not operating on the basis of science as being authoritative. That's an extreme example of different "evidence" systems, but there are many.
19. A lie, repeated over and over, tends to get believed.
20. People tend to both believe and respect anger and righteous indignation.
21. Many of us want our leaders to be strong and powerful. "Reasonable" comes in way behind "tough", and may be perceived as weakness, either in principle or in power.
22. We want certainty, not shades of grey.
23. We want to be told that "if we only do x, things will be ok."
Would Jon Stewart disagree with my so-called "facts"? I think not. But if I am right about those "facts", is it helpful/useful/productive for those of us who believe we are reasonable liberals to try to engage the other side in discussion, while they tell lies and call us names? Is our good example likely to change their behavior? Or get us closer to our political goals (one of which is to have more reasoned debate)? Not unless large segments of the American people catch on and start demanding more reason and less Jersey Shore. I'd like to believe that that will happen, and I suspect that that is what Jon Stewart is trying to do by focusing public attention in a humorous manner on the more outlandish stuff said by the attack media on both sides. A couple of months ago, I would've agreed strongly that it was certainly worth a shot. Now, I kind of doubt it. It's not because of any election results; I just do not see enough people paying attention.
I am not suggesting that Jon Stewart do anything differently. He fulfills a critical function by puncturing pretentious idiots, and he does it extraordinarily well (as does Stephen Colbert). Moreover, I may be too pessimistic; their observations may have a significant effect, particularly in the long term consciousness of the American people. Rather, I am suggesting that Barack Obama may be trying much too hard to be reasonable and civil.
Now, make no mistake, I am not advocating that any politician lie, particularly about the "enemy" (although one can make a "Sauce for the Goose; sauce for the Gander" argument). But I think that there is certainly more than enough truth out there for us liberals (particularly President Obama) to be really nasty and impolite about. I may eventually write a Post with specific suggestions, but I have some general ones for him (yes I know this is presumptuous; he and his advisers are all much smarter than I am).
1. Be your own spokesman. We are used to Presidents staying "Presidential", and letting others speak for the administration. Start doing it yourself. You are the one with the "Bully Pulpit"; use it.
2. Keep your points short and direct. Avoid sounding like a policy wonk or even overly reasonable.
3. Draw lines in the sand. (ie., say you will Veto any bill extending the tax cuts for the higher income brackets. Period. End of discussion)
4. Be prepared to throw your own party under the bus. The public perceives Reid and Pelosi as running the show. Stop this. Call for the Democrats (as well as the Republicans) to ban earmarks, and agree on some deficit cutting plan which relies in part on entitlement cuts. Adopt the "deficit" issue - expose the difference between "anti-deficit" and "anti-tax".
5. Personally call out Republican leaders and wall street banking types (and maybe even certain media) as "liars" or "greedy pigs" (or slightly less inflammatory things). A lot of these people either voted for TARP or took TARP money, and are now publically attacking governmental bailouts or regulations. Don't be afraid to burn your bridges with these guys; they are the enemy (you can still negotiate with the enemy, but you will never make at least some of these people into anything else)
6. Do something that will be seen as "strong" (besides Afghanistan) against Moslem extremists. Killer drones are a good start - don't be apologetic - say something like "call for attacks on American citizens and be prepared to die"
6. Don't be afraid to lose votes in Congress. Demand that proposals be put to a vote, even if you think you will lose. (this will make you no friends in Congress in either party). If they are not put to a vote, ask why.
7. Don't be afraid of being accused of "class warfare". Just tell people that if that's what you are doing, the Republicans have already fired the first shot.
8. Attack the procedural prerequisites of senators; set a date in the future (so no one knows who will benefit) to limit or even end filibusters and holds. (Yes I know these are Senate Rules governed by the Senate, but publically suggest it change those Rules)
Please note I do not suggest you either move towards or away from the "middle" of American politics. (although I suspect you should do some of both.) My main point is that you need to start appearing (not just being) "Presidential". You are not the head legislator; you are the President. Enough.
Nevertheless, I am starting to suspect that he - and I - may be basically wrong. Not about the abstract desirability of such conduct, but because we are way too optimistic about what will work, politically. We are simply overly idealistic about what people pay attention to.
Some "hard" facts (in no particular order):
1. When bad things happen, most people want some person or people to blame - it has to be someone's fault, be it the politicians, the bankers or the Chinese, rather than just the ebbs and flows of capitalism or the fickle finger of fate or an accident.
2. People have a shorter attention span than they used to - the 10 second sound bite is more powerful than the 10 minute speech. It is also more likely to be shown on TV.
3. People like to be entertained - they would rather see and hear blood, sex, nastiness [how else would you explain Jersey Shore?] even when watching politics, than learn something new or think
4. Many people associate "reasoned debate" with liberal elite intellectuals, whom they despise.
5. People would really rather hear someone say something that they already agree with.
6. People assume that if a figure they like on TV says something, it must automatically be true
7. People will believe almost anything "bad" about someone they don't like, whether anyone identifiable actually makes the claim or not [Fox News has never claimed that Obama is a Muslim]
8. People want easy answers and solutions - that's what they like to be told about
9. People "buy into" slogans or statements without really examining them. "Means" somehow become "ends" in themselves. For example, take "big government is bad." Maybe; maybe not; maybe sometimes. But I would suggest that something like "smaller government", while it may be desirable, is a means, not an end. [to me, an "end" would be more freedom and liberty, both to act (individually) and to prosper economically (both individually and as a group) - but that "smaller government" is not always necessarily the way to reach that end]
10. People would rather hear and believe something bad about someone than something good. Think about which kind of gossip spreads faster.
11. Many people are easily manipulated
12. People hate being "talked down to" or not treated with respect maybe more than they hate anything else
13. People tend to trust those they can identify with, be it a matter of race, age, religion, politics or whatever, and to distrust those who are different.
14. People like conflict rather than reasonable discussion (it is more entertaining)
15. People love pep rallies
16. People will tend to self justify - that is, they will find a reason for their own interests or beliefs to dovetail with some "common" or "moral" good.
17. A fair number of adult American citizens actually are pretty stupid [please note that I did not say which ones]. There are always going to be a fair proportion of people on all ends (trust me, there are more than just two) of the political spectrum who will believe all sorts of strange stuff.
18. A big point - perhaps the biggest - just because you want to play "fair" does not mean that the other side has any interest in doing so. Here, I am going to use some examples.
a. My Dad used to express a concern about whether it was a "good idea to raise sheep in a wolves' world"
b. The Israelis have long complained (with reason) that it was very difficult to make peace with the Palestinians because the Palestinians (or many of them) had no interest whatsoever in actually making peace
c. John Boehner's proclaimed main goal for the next two years is to see that Barack Obama does not get re-elected. If you were Obama, would you trust this guy as a negotiating partner? Would you try to reason with him?
d. Politicians and the media frequently make claims that are demonstrably false. When this is pointed out, they either waffle ("we just repeated what someone else said") or they repeat the lie or even make up new ones. They don't get called on it often enough; and their supporters do not seem to care.
e. Some people have their own agendas that have nothing to do with the truth or common good
f. Some people are openly working on the basis of different "evidence" systems. A powerful Republican Congressman (Rep. Shimkus of Illinois) said last year that he absolutely did not believe in Global Warming because God had promised Noah that there would be no more worldwide floods. [I am not making this up! A United States Congressman! ]. Whether he's right or wrong, there is no reason for he and I to attempt to discuss Global Warming. It does not matter to him what kind of scientific evidence I may have; he's not operating on the basis of science as being authoritative. That's an extreme example of different "evidence" systems, but there are many.
19. A lie, repeated over and over, tends to get believed.
20. People tend to both believe and respect anger and righteous indignation.
21. Many of us want our leaders to be strong and powerful. "Reasonable" comes in way behind "tough", and may be perceived as weakness, either in principle or in power.
22. We want certainty, not shades of grey.
23. We want to be told that "if we only do x, things will be ok."
Would Jon Stewart disagree with my so-called "facts"? I think not. But if I am right about those "facts", is it helpful/useful/productive for those of us who believe we are reasonable liberals to try to engage the other side in discussion, while they tell lies and call us names? Is our good example likely to change their behavior? Or get us closer to our political goals (one of which is to have more reasoned debate)? Not unless large segments of the American people catch on and start demanding more reason and less Jersey Shore. I'd like to believe that that will happen, and I suspect that that is what Jon Stewart is trying to do by focusing public attention in a humorous manner on the more outlandish stuff said by the attack media on both sides. A couple of months ago, I would've agreed strongly that it was certainly worth a shot. Now, I kind of doubt it. It's not because of any election results; I just do not see enough people paying attention.
I am not suggesting that Jon Stewart do anything differently. He fulfills a critical function by puncturing pretentious idiots, and he does it extraordinarily well (as does Stephen Colbert). Moreover, I may be too pessimistic; their observations may have a significant effect, particularly in the long term consciousness of the American people. Rather, I am suggesting that Barack Obama may be trying much too hard to be reasonable and civil.
Now, make no mistake, I am not advocating that any politician lie, particularly about the "enemy" (although one can make a "Sauce for the Goose; sauce for the Gander" argument). But I think that there is certainly more than enough truth out there for us liberals (particularly President Obama) to be really nasty and impolite about. I may eventually write a Post with specific suggestions, but I have some general ones for him (yes I know this is presumptuous; he and his advisers are all much smarter than I am).
1. Be your own spokesman. We are used to Presidents staying "Presidential", and letting others speak for the administration. Start doing it yourself. You are the one with the "Bully Pulpit"; use it.
2. Keep your points short and direct. Avoid sounding like a policy wonk or even overly reasonable.
3. Draw lines in the sand. (ie., say you will Veto any bill extending the tax cuts for the higher income brackets. Period. End of discussion)
4. Be prepared to throw your own party under the bus. The public perceives Reid and Pelosi as running the show. Stop this. Call for the Democrats (as well as the Republicans) to ban earmarks, and agree on some deficit cutting plan which relies in part on entitlement cuts. Adopt the "deficit" issue - expose the difference between "anti-deficit" and "anti-tax".
5. Personally call out Republican leaders and wall street banking types (and maybe even certain media) as "liars" or "greedy pigs" (or slightly less inflammatory things). A lot of these people either voted for TARP or took TARP money, and are now publically attacking governmental bailouts or regulations. Don't be afraid to burn your bridges with these guys; they are the enemy (you can still negotiate with the enemy, but you will never make at least some of these people into anything else)
6. Do something that will be seen as "strong" (besides Afghanistan) against Moslem extremists. Killer drones are a good start - don't be apologetic - say something like "call for attacks on American citizens and be prepared to die"
6. Don't be afraid to lose votes in Congress. Demand that proposals be put to a vote, even if you think you will lose. (this will make you no friends in Congress in either party). If they are not put to a vote, ask why.
7. Don't be afraid of being accused of "class warfare". Just tell people that if that's what you are doing, the Republicans have already fired the first shot.
8. Attack the procedural prerequisites of senators; set a date in the future (so no one knows who will benefit) to limit or even end filibusters and holds. (Yes I know these are Senate Rules governed by the Senate, but publically suggest it change those Rules)
Please note I do not suggest you either move towards or away from the "middle" of American politics. (although I suspect you should do some of both.) My main point is that you need to start appearing (not just being) "Presidential". You are not the head legislator; you are the President. Enough.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
False Gods II -"Science" (?)
To the reader: This a primarily "political" blog. I don't get to the political point of the following until the end of the Post.
Again, let me start off by being defensive. I am a great believer in science. Indeed, as I will discuss more later, I believe science (and especially the scientific method) to be the absolutely best method we humans have for determining "truth". However, "science" is not a God. What it appears to tell us is not necessarily always the truth, or, even more so, the whole truth.
Some personal disclosure is probably appropriate here. I consider myself Jewish, by background and by religion. However, most days I could also be accurately described as an Agnostic. I'm generally not sure whether there is or is not a God. I have neither scientific evidence or strong faith, one way or the other. I do believe in something - in the existence of "good" and "evil" and not just "right" and "wrong", but as to its form or nature? Ask someone else. Politically, I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State. I am a real live member of the ACLU.
My first problem with science as a False God is with those who believe that science is the only method for discerning truth. One obvious example of such a person would be a"militant' Atheist, who maintains that because there is no "scientific" evidence of a God, He or She does not exist. I would agree that, at least at this point, there is no scientific proof of the existence of a God. However, I would argue that the non-existence of God does not necessarily follow unless one requires not only "proof", but "scientific" proof.
To create such a requirement is to say that the only valid means of acquiring knowledge is somehow "scientific" (in a very broad sense). There is no logical reason that such a statement should be true. Throughout history, including today, large numbers of people believe that things are true because of "natural law" or things written in their respective Holy Books or simply because they exist in their hearts or minds. Who are we liberal secular elitists to say that they are wrong? [Please note that where there is strong scientific evidence to the contrary, I believe we can and should say that they are wrong; but what I am talking about here is an absence of scientific proof. And, more importantly, so what if they are wrong?].
Moreover, the scientists themselves, or at least the mathematicians, seem to have reached a different conclusion as to whether everything is subject to scientific proof.
Years ago, a famous mathematician named Gödel proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems. He mathematically proved that in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system. In about 1975, my wife, who is, among other things, a mathematician, when listening to a discussion of Godel's theory, scratched her head, and said something to the effect of: "If we can prove that there are things that are not susceptible to proof, does this not allow for and perhaps even suggest the existence of an "unprovable" God? [My wife is scarily smart, but don't tell her I said so.]
My Brother (like me, very pro-science) took a different approach. He said that the purpose of science was to explain the "natural" world, and that God, by definition, was "Supernatural", and therefore outside the parameters of science.
The second problem with science as a God is that scientific knowledge, by its very nature is uncertain-that is, it does not contain immutable truths. The great strength of science is that it largely a methodology of acquiring additional knowledge, and carries with it the presumption that additional knowledge can or will be obtained. Do the laws of Newtonian physics work? Do they reflect reality? Well, yes, but not necessarily (as demonstrated by Einstein's theories of relativity) at very high speeds. Did Einstein himself get it completely right? I have heard people talk about String Theory and how it may refute some of Einstein's ideas. [the reason I favor Einstein rather than religious fundamentalists is that I think he would have no problem with his ideas being supplanted-more on that in a later planned Post on religious fundamentalism]. Be that as it may, scientific knowledge, by its nature, is always incomplete and subject to correction. It is also subject to uncertainty in areas where it is used to explain things which cannot be closely observed and tested. Is Evolution a "theory"? Sure, none of us has a time machine. Is it a theory supported by all of the available scientific evidence? Yep. Could new evidence come in that casts doubt on it? Why not? Should it still be taught as the best science we know at this time? Certainly. However, I, at least emotionally, expect more definitive knowledge if something comes directly from God.
My third problem with science as a God is the immense amount of garbage being passed off as "scientific" (because it involves data or quantities), and therefore true. Another good quote from my wife (then girlfriend) is that the phrase "Social Science" is an oxymoron. The most common silliness is the frequent confusion of correlation with causation, and often sloppy use of statistics in general. My problem here is not with "science"; it's with stuff pretending to be science or even "scientific", and it's all over the place.
Now, the "political" part. My initial Post was about the need to really listen to people who seemed crazy. Part of the idea is that if we can do so, we may both understand them and cause them to really listen to us. I someone approaches me with a starting strong belief that the story of creation in Genesis is literally true, I would certainly disagree with that view. I think it is contrary to historical and scientific evidence, and I do not see any evidence that God is telling the story. However, that does not make the viewpoint or the "truth" automatically invalid. Nor should it be an object of disdain or mockery. I don't believe it; someone else might. Do I believe that religion and/or spiritualism is a valid means of searching for truth? Yes, I do. You may not. The question is where do we go in the very likely event we will continue to disagree.
If we want religious fundamentalists (or religious people at all) to be tolerant of our right to believe differently from them, we must be prepared to be tolerant of their right to believe differently from us. If we are ever to convince them, it will not be by bludgeoning them or treating them with scorn and disdain. This does not mean we need be tolerant of those who would do us harm or force their own views on us. I will respect your right to hold different views (if not the views themselves), but I will not put up with your attempts to impose your views on me or my children or my Government. A lot of people seem to think it's important that we agree on "truth"; it's not. (Maybe each of us will find out something after we die. Or not.) What is important is that at least most of us agree on what we, collectively, should do next. Enough.
Again, let me start off by being defensive. I am a great believer in science. Indeed, as I will discuss more later, I believe science (and especially the scientific method) to be the absolutely best method we humans have for determining "truth". However, "science" is not a God. What it appears to tell us is not necessarily always the truth, or, even more so, the whole truth.
Some personal disclosure is probably appropriate here. I consider myself Jewish, by background and by religion. However, most days I could also be accurately described as an Agnostic. I'm generally not sure whether there is or is not a God. I have neither scientific evidence or strong faith, one way or the other. I do believe in something - in the existence of "good" and "evil" and not just "right" and "wrong", but as to its form or nature? Ask someone else. Politically, I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State. I am a real live member of the ACLU.
My first problem with science as a False God is with those who believe that science is the only method for discerning truth. One obvious example of such a person would be a"militant' Atheist, who maintains that because there is no "scientific" evidence of a God, He or She does not exist. I would agree that, at least at this point, there is no scientific proof of the existence of a God. However, I would argue that the non-existence of God does not necessarily follow unless one requires not only "proof", but "scientific" proof.
To create such a requirement is to say that the only valid means of acquiring knowledge is somehow "scientific" (in a very broad sense). There is no logical reason that such a statement should be true. Throughout history, including today, large numbers of people believe that things are true because of "natural law" or things written in their respective Holy Books or simply because they exist in their hearts or minds. Who are we liberal secular elitists to say that they are wrong? [Please note that where there is strong scientific evidence to the contrary, I believe we can and should say that they are wrong; but what I am talking about here is an absence of scientific proof. And, more importantly, so what if they are wrong?].
Moreover, the scientists themselves, or at least the mathematicians, seem to have reached a different conclusion as to whether everything is subject to scientific proof.
Years ago, a famous mathematician named Gödel proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems. He mathematically proved that in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system. In about 1975, my wife, who is, among other things, a mathematician, when listening to a discussion of Godel's theory, scratched her head, and said something to the effect of: "If we can prove that there are things that are not susceptible to proof, does this not allow for and perhaps even suggest the existence of an "unprovable" God? [My wife is scarily smart, but don't tell her I said so.]
My Brother (like me, very pro-science) took a different approach. He said that the purpose of science was to explain the "natural" world, and that God, by definition, was "Supernatural", and therefore outside the parameters of science.
The second problem with science as a God is that scientific knowledge, by its very nature is uncertain-that is, it does not contain immutable truths. The great strength of science is that it largely a methodology of acquiring additional knowledge, and carries with it the presumption that additional knowledge can or will be obtained. Do the laws of Newtonian physics work? Do they reflect reality? Well, yes, but not necessarily (as demonstrated by Einstein's theories of relativity) at very high speeds. Did Einstein himself get it completely right? I have heard people talk about String Theory and how it may refute some of Einstein's ideas. [the reason I favor Einstein rather than religious fundamentalists is that I think he would have no problem with his ideas being supplanted-more on that in a later planned Post on religious fundamentalism]. Be that as it may, scientific knowledge, by its nature, is always incomplete and subject to correction. It is also subject to uncertainty in areas where it is used to explain things which cannot be closely observed and tested. Is Evolution a "theory"? Sure, none of us has a time machine. Is it a theory supported by all of the available scientific evidence? Yep. Could new evidence come in that casts doubt on it? Why not? Should it still be taught as the best science we know at this time? Certainly. However, I, at least emotionally, expect more definitive knowledge if something comes directly from God.
My third problem with science as a God is the immense amount of garbage being passed off as "scientific" (because it involves data or quantities), and therefore true. Another good quote from my wife (then girlfriend) is that the phrase "Social Science" is an oxymoron. The most common silliness is the frequent confusion of correlation with causation, and often sloppy use of statistics in general. My problem here is not with "science"; it's with stuff pretending to be science or even "scientific", and it's all over the place.
Now, the "political" part. My initial Post was about the need to really listen to people who seemed crazy. Part of the idea is that if we can do so, we may both understand them and cause them to really listen to us. I someone approaches me with a starting strong belief that the story of creation in Genesis is literally true, I would certainly disagree with that view. I think it is contrary to historical and scientific evidence, and I do not see any evidence that God is telling the story. However, that does not make the viewpoint or the "truth" automatically invalid. Nor should it be an object of disdain or mockery. I don't believe it; someone else might. Do I believe that religion and/or spiritualism is a valid means of searching for truth? Yes, I do. You may not. The question is where do we go in the very likely event we will continue to disagree.
If we want religious fundamentalists (or religious people at all) to be tolerant of our right to believe differently from them, we must be prepared to be tolerant of their right to believe differently from us. If we are ever to convince them, it will not be by bludgeoning them or treating them with scorn and disdain. This does not mean we need be tolerant of those who would do us harm or force their own views on us. I will respect your right to hold different views (if not the views themselves), but I will not put up with your attempts to impose your views on me or my children or my Government. A lot of people seem to think it's important that we agree on "truth"; it's not. (Maybe each of us will find out something after we die. Or not.) What is important is that at least most of us agree on what we, collectively, should do next. Enough.
Conservatives/liberals-ideology vs. changing evidence
This week's post is basically a link to a 2005 article in The New Republic by Jonathan Chait. which I found much more illuminating and interesting than anything I am going to write today. The article also ties into my previous Post about "ideologies" and to one I am planning to write about religious fundamentalism.
While I do not necessarily agree with everything Mr. Chait writes, I think his basic point is both correct and very important. The link is: http://www.tnr.com/article/fact-finders
While I do not necessarily agree with everything Mr. Chait writes, I think his basic point is both correct and very important. The link is: http://www.tnr.com/article/fact-finders
Monday, November 8, 2010
False Gods I - "the Market(s)"
Recently, I have heard a number of conservative political and business figures allude to the importance/desirability of not doing anything to interfere with the free and unfettered operation of our Nation's market or markets in goods and services. Although I am a big fan of the "market", if these people mean that the best market is the one with little or no regulation, I must conclude that they are either evil or demented. They seem to be implying that the "market" is some form of Supernatural Force for good, and that we will all do better if we only follow its dictates, and that attempts to restrict the operations of markets is bad, and that it must [like the Hypno-toad] be worshipped.
The "market" is not a God, but it (or they) can be viewed as a force of nature.
Markets are not creations of the Divine will; God does not determine how they will act in any given situation. Nor are the actions of the market necessarily "good" or "just" or "inevitable" or "according to some Divine plan", terms which might normally be used to describe God determining that some particular thing should occur. Rather, markets, at least as we know them, are creations of men. I do believe that in a general sense, they are also an inevitable byproduct of Human societies (although I'll leave that one to the Anthropologists).
The basic rules of any market are supply, demand, risk and reward. I agree that we ignore those rules at our peril, and that erection of systems of social/economic engineering that do ignore those factors is both silly and dangerous.
To continue with my "force of nature" analogy - My first thought was of a river that provided necessary water to farms and towns along its path. Without the river, we are, well, screwed. But if we do nothing to control or regulate the river, we may have both frequent floods and droughts. So we have learned over the years about the desirability of building dams, levees and reservoirs. We have also learned that it is better for anyone downstream if the people upstream do not dump a lot of raw sewage and bad chemicals directly into the river. Do dams, levees and reservoirs cost money? Sure? Do they "limit" the operation of the river? Sure. Is the upriver business or town more expensive to run because it now needs a water treatment plant? Yep, at least in the short term. Are there likely to be unintended and unforeseen bad effects? Yep. Yet we, I hope, would all agree that some regulation of some rivers is a good and even necessary thing to prevent natural or man made disasters, and to increase the long term productivity and prosperity of those who live along the river. Markets, if left unchecked, have a strong historical pattern of booms and busts (or floods and droughts). It is generally thought that such booms and busts are to at least some degree an inevitable byproduct of a capitalist system, but that it is our collective best interest to try to avoid the worst excesses of these patterns, and to do so through governmental action.
I think another very useful analogy is to compare the market to earthquakes or other "natural" disasters. Because it is subject to earthquakes, California has specific and "stronger" building requirements (and even education/knowledge requirements for structural engineers) than other, more geologically placid states. Does this increase the cost of, among other things, building a tall building in California? Sure. I like this example because the real push right now seems to be by those who want to keep the Government from legally acting to limit excessive risk because limiting risk also will reduce possible profits (again, in the short term, which is all these people seem to be able to focus upon) If we eliminate laws against Securities Fraud, or even refuse to fund the S.E.C.,will some companies be able to make more money by engaging in "dubious" practices? Sure, at least until the public stops buying securities because it's too risky. If we (as we did until the late 90's) require banks to be either 'commercial" or "investment" (but not both), will we reduce the opportunities of those banks to make even more money? Sure. (That's why the Banks lobbied so hard for so long to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that worked really well for a long time). If we eliminate food plant inspection, will some food producers lower their costs of doing business as a result? Yep. Of course, if something goes wrong, people lose their savings, the financial system almost collapses, and a lot of people may get sick and even die. Limiting risks (the downside) will almost always somehow restrict or limit possible profits (the upside), at least in the short term.
No, we cannot make everything perfectly safe. Nor should we try. Cost/benefit analyses are one appropriate way to decide what and how something should be regulated. Is stuff sometimes over regulated? Sure. However, what I am hearing and reading now seems to be a general attack on the idea of regulation because it "interferes" with the operations of the market. But the market is not "sacred"; indeed, if left unchecked, it invites participants to lie cheat and steal (as well as to act honestly) for their own benefit.
Moreover, an unfettered market will have adverse economic consequences besides booms, busts and risks to the general public. Generally, with no restrictions on size or market share, the bigger and more powerful players will get richer and more powerful, leading to concentrations of wealth and/or power that actually decrease competition and stifle the idea of a "fair" or "open" market.
There are also social policy issues involved. Child labor laws, minimum wage laws, the ability to collectively bargain - all are designed to keep those less rich and powerful from being oppressed [and I use the word deliberately] by those who are richer and more powerful. The market does operate, in part, according to a particular "Golden Rule" shared with me by one of my clients- "He who has the Gold, makes the rules". Again, I am not a Socialist or Communist. I think a society where one can become obscenely rich and/or powerful is , essentially, a good thing. I would go further - trying to "force-feed" the economic actions of people in order to accomplish social policy is inherently dangerous; I think parts of the original impetus for the current housing crises were the well meant acts of certain politicians to make home ownership more available to poorer people by "encouraging" banks to make economically dubious loans. (Of course, once the banks and bankers saw the profits to be made, they resembled a stampede of pigs; I think the bigger problem was a failure of adequate regulation). Like mighty rivers, earthquakes and hurricanes, the market, at least as the world is now structured, will eventually make anti-market governments pay the price, at the very least in having to pay higher interest rates in order to sell their sovereign bonds. That is not to say we should not sometimes try to politically alter incentives to encourage economic behavior that we believe to be in the greater social good. Indeed, that is the whole point of most of our tax policy (even the parts that the conservatives really like). It's just that we should know better than to try to make the river run backwards.
However, we have collectively had the wisdom in the United States, throughout our history, to regulate economic behavior for both economic and social/political reasons. Although certainly motivated by basic American social and political ideals, I would argue that these regulations have benefited our wealthy classes, in particular. Among other things, the "poor" have been and are treated "well" enough (or believe they are) to keep them from an armed insurrection. (No, I am not kidding here; Communism became a powerful International movement for a reason).
In short, saying that a program will make things more expensive for business or could "hurt" some market is not a reason to automatically not do it. To maintain otherwise is to advocate creating a Golden Calf and labelling it "short term market forces". Enough.
The "market" is not a God, but it (or they) can be viewed as a force of nature.
Markets are not creations of the Divine will; God does not determine how they will act in any given situation. Nor are the actions of the market necessarily "good" or "just" or "inevitable" or "according to some Divine plan", terms which might normally be used to describe God determining that some particular thing should occur. Rather, markets, at least as we know them, are creations of men. I do believe that in a general sense, they are also an inevitable byproduct of Human societies (although I'll leave that one to the Anthropologists).
The basic rules of any market are supply, demand, risk and reward. I agree that we ignore those rules at our peril, and that erection of systems of social/economic engineering that do ignore those factors is both silly and dangerous.
To continue with my "force of nature" analogy - My first thought was of a river that provided necessary water to farms and towns along its path. Without the river, we are, well, screwed. But if we do nothing to control or regulate the river, we may have both frequent floods and droughts. So we have learned over the years about the desirability of building dams, levees and reservoirs. We have also learned that it is better for anyone downstream if the people upstream do not dump a lot of raw sewage and bad chemicals directly into the river. Do dams, levees and reservoirs cost money? Sure? Do they "limit" the operation of the river? Sure. Is the upriver business or town more expensive to run because it now needs a water treatment plant? Yep, at least in the short term. Are there likely to be unintended and unforeseen bad effects? Yep. Yet we, I hope, would all agree that some regulation of some rivers is a good and even necessary thing to prevent natural or man made disasters, and to increase the long term productivity and prosperity of those who live along the river. Markets, if left unchecked, have a strong historical pattern of booms and busts (or floods and droughts). It is generally thought that such booms and busts are to at least some degree an inevitable byproduct of a capitalist system, but that it is our collective best interest to try to avoid the worst excesses of these patterns, and to do so through governmental action.
I think another very useful analogy is to compare the market to earthquakes or other "natural" disasters. Because it is subject to earthquakes, California has specific and "stronger" building requirements (and even education/knowledge requirements for structural engineers) than other, more geologically placid states. Does this increase the cost of, among other things, building a tall building in California? Sure. I like this example because the real push right now seems to be by those who want to keep the Government from legally acting to limit excessive risk because limiting risk also will reduce possible profits (again, in the short term, which is all these people seem to be able to focus upon) If we eliminate laws against Securities Fraud, or even refuse to fund the S.E.C.,will some companies be able to make more money by engaging in "dubious" practices? Sure, at least until the public stops buying securities because it's too risky. If we (as we did until the late 90's) require banks to be either 'commercial" or "investment" (but not both), will we reduce the opportunities of those banks to make even more money? Sure. (That's why the Banks lobbied so hard for so long to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that worked really well for a long time). If we eliminate food plant inspection, will some food producers lower their costs of doing business as a result? Yep. Of course, if something goes wrong, people lose their savings, the financial system almost collapses, and a lot of people may get sick and even die. Limiting risks (the downside) will almost always somehow restrict or limit possible profits (the upside), at least in the short term.
No, we cannot make everything perfectly safe. Nor should we try. Cost/benefit analyses are one appropriate way to decide what and how something should be regulated. Is stuff sometimes over regulated? Sure. However, what I am hearing and reading now seems to be a general attack on the idea of regulation because it "interferes" with the operations of the market. But the market is not "sacred"; indeed, if left unchecked, it invites participants to lie cheat and steal (as well as to act honestly) for their own benefit.
Moreover, an unfettered market will have adverse economic consequences besides booms, busts and risks to the general public. Generally, with no restrictions on size or market share, the bigger and more powerful players will get richer and more powerful, leading to concentrations of wealth and/or power that actually decrease competition and stifle the idea of a "fair" or "open" market.
There are also social policy issues involved. Child labor laws, minimum wage laws, the ability to collectively bargain - all are designed to keep those less rich and powerful from being oppressed [and I use the word deliberately] by those who are richer and more powerful. The market does operate, in part, according to a particular "Golden Rule" shared with me by one of my clients- "He who has the Gold, makes the rules". Again, I am not a Socialist or Communist. I think a society where one can become obscenely rich and/or powerful is , essentially, a good thing. I would go further - trying to "force-feed" the economic actions of people in order to accomplish social policy is inherently dangerous; I think parts of the original impetus for the current housing crises were the well meant acts of certain politicians to make home ownership more available to poorer people by "encouraging" banks to make economically dubious loans. (Of course, once the banks and bankers saw the profits to be made, they resembled a stampede of pigs; I think the bigger problem was a failure of adequate regulation). Like mighty rivers, earthquakes and hurricanes, the market, at least as the world is now structured, will eventually make anti-market governments pay the price, at the very least in having to pay higher interest rates in order to sell their sovereign bonds. That is not to say we should not sometimes try to politically alter incentives to encourage economic behavior that we believe to be in the greater social good. Indeed, that is the whole point of most of our tax policy (even the parts that the conservatives really like). It's just that we should know better than to try to make the river run backwards.
However, we have collectively had the wisdom in the United States, throughout our history, to regulate economic behavior for both economic and social/political reasons. Although certainly motivated by basic American social and political ideals, I would argue that these regulations have benefited our wealthy classes, in particular. Among other things, the "poor" have been and are treated "well" enough (or believe they are) to keep them from an armed insurrection. (No, I am not kidding here; Communism became a powerful International movement for a reason).
In short, saying that a program will make things more expensive for business or could "hurt" some market is not a reason to automatically not do it. To maintain otherwise is to advocate creating a Golden Calf and labelling it "short term market forces". Enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)