The article is here: http://ivn.us/2015/08/21/opinion-america-needs-move-past-flawed-two-party-ideology/.
Criticisms of and responses to objective politics ideology (values or morals) are described below. This post is long, over 10,000 words, so scanning for criticisms of interest and the responses may make sense. The point of this post is to convey the strongest criticisms and defenses of objective politics, i.e., politics that is mostly objective-rational, to begin to replace America's current subjective-irrational/intuitive politics. For people who do not believe that two-party politics is mostly subjective-intuitive, i.e., based mostly on intuition, false facts, emotion, flawed logic and spin, this might not make much sense.
1. Fidelity to unpsun facts, i.e., rejection of spin in favor of honest truth whenever unspun facts or truth can be found among all the lies and deceit;
2. Reliance on unbiased logic to the extent one can do that in spite of unconscious but powerful but normal human biases, e.g., motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc., that tend to distort both facts and logic unless a conscious effort is made to reduce that normal human source of subjectivity and error; and
3. Assessing and picking policy choices that best serve an objectively defined public interest, e.g., as described here, based on unspun fact and unbiased logic.
The point of rejecting subjective politics for objective is to (i) better ground politics in reality and logic so that policies are less wasteful and (ii) shift the balance of power from special interests to the broader public interest, which would reduce political corruption. Political corruption is defined as (1) illegal bribery or malfeasance in office and government operations, and (2) legal "institutional corruption" and use of legal or illegal spin* (discussed here) to improperly advance partisan agendas, deceive the public and/or as a basis to assess or justify policy choices. Obviously, Dissident Politics' definition of corruption is broad. It includes essentially all of subjective politics, including nearly all partisan rhetoric and the alleged "facts" and rationales that underlie most policy choices.
* Political spin defined: Spin is speech that consciously or not, is based on or includes one or more of (i) lies, (ii) deceit, (iii) misinformation, (iv) withholding, distorting or denying inconvenient facts or arguments, (v) unwarranted character or motive assassination, and, (vi) conscious or not, the use of fact or logic that is distorted by ideology, self-interest and or another innate cognitive bias.
Response: There is some truth in that criticism, but it isn’t the whole story. Critics on the left and right might see political values and policy choices based on unspun fact and unbiased logic in service to the public interest as necessarily far removed from what standard liberal and conservative values would arrive at. However, that isn’t true. While perceptions of reality (facts) between the left, right and objectivists would often would differ, it is not true that a policy choice arrived at objectively has to differ much from a liberal or conservative policy choice.
Criticism 2: Objective politics ignores and cannot affect the power of special interests with money to unduly exert influence politics in their own interests. Any ideology is beside the point.
Criticism 8: Regardless of political or religious ideology, politics is a brass knuckles street fight with no rules, no ethics and no regard for impacts on anything other than electing or destroying a candidate, politician or a hated ideology, entity or group. The only limits are laws, which are usually ambiguous, easily circumvented, not routinely enforced and/or almost impossible to enforce due to the near-impossibility of proving illegality in court. White collar crimes are a perfect example - they are almost impossible to successfully prosecute in court. That is why insider trading is a fun, popular and probably profitable criminal activity. The risk of getting caught is low and the risk of being convicted is also low, i.e., the probability of guilt proven in court is: low (e.g., 0.01) x low (e.g., 0.01) = (i) very low (0.0001) or, (ii) because law enforcement agencies are budget-constrained, nil (~ 0.0). Ethics-related political laws are no different.
On top of that intractable mess, politicians or their partisans or surrogates routinely spread lies or misinformation to destroy opponents and deceive the public. Partisans deceive themselves (or just don't care) and ethics is so irrelevant that ethical considerations, e.g., conflicts of interest, are completely ignored. "There's no shame anymore. . . . We've blown past the ethical standards; we now play on the edge of the legal standards. . . . It's all about winning, it's not about governing anymore." Objective politics will have no impact on moral bankruptcy or policy choices. Objectivism, subjectivism, Christianity, atheism and everything else is irrelevant.
Response: It is true that ethics in subjective politics is mostly an obsolete, irrelevant concept. However, that is true for subjective politics, not objective politics. Politics based on the three core values as proposed here* is an entirely different beast. Based on modern knowledge of human behavior and cognitive biology, there are good reasons to believe that ethics in an objective framework will have real relevance and impact on both ethics and policy.
* Objective politics' three core values: (1) Fidelity to unspun fact or reality, (2) conscious reliance on logic as unbiased as humanly possible, and (3) a focus on the public interest over narrower interests such as political party, political ideology, politician self-interest and special interest demands backed by campaign contributions.
First, because two of the three the highest values or morals of objective politics are finding unspun fact and applying unbiased logic to those unspun facts, it will be harder in that intellectual framework to twist reality and common sense into seeing unethical behavior as ethical. With subjective politics, what is considered ethical is almost purely subjective, i.e., it usually differs greatly in the eye of the protagonist, target or beholder. All three of those points of views can see a given action the same or very differently, e.g., a subjective ideologue politician appointing bureaucrats with conflicts of interest to a government agency to serve the dictates or values of the subjective ideology with its subjective version of "facts" and "logic".
Second, because the third of three the highest values or morals of objective politics is service to an objectively defined public interest, the power of special interest demands and money to dictate political actions would (i) necessarily be constrained or (ii) the political actor would not hold service to the public interest in high regard, i.e., that political actor would be a traitor to one of the actor's professed three core values. That actor would thus not be walking the objective politics walk. That person would only be talking the talk.
An example helps to explain the situation. Under routine subjective two-party politics, politicians and bureaucrats often appoint bureaucrats and/or contractors with conflicts of interest or other issues that preclude suitability for the job. Political appointees are sometimes consciously chosen to undermine a political agency's core function due to ideological (values) disagreement with the agency's function. That passes for ethical, or at least acceptable, behavior under subjective politics, but not under objective politics.
For example, under the Bush-Cheney administrations, conservatives and republicans had staffed the now defunct federal Minerals Management Service with former coal and oil executives and employees. The MMS's mission was to administer and oversee licenses for coal and oil on federal land, in part to collect "royalties on behalf of the American Public" and partly to oversee safety. Given its conservative, pro-oil and pro-coal ethical framework, what did the MMS deliver to the American people? It delivered what one would logically expect. The MMS allowed private companies to take federal oil with little or no meaningful regulatory oversight, e.g., for safety. The conflicts of interest were overwhelming and MMS's ethical and regulatory laxity preceded and probably caused the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That oil spill and the extinction of the MMS in its wake is solid evidence that MMS's ethical and regulatory laxity was largely due to conflicts of interest that were acceptable to conservatives and their ideology and definition of what is ethical and what isn't. If those ethics were not ideologically acceptable to conservatives, then the unethical situation at MMS would never have degenerated to the breaking point it finally arrived at.
If the three key morals or values of objective politics as defined here, i.e., facts, logic and the public interest, are taken seriously, that sick MMS sort of ethical and incompetence situation could never have happened from within an objective politics intellectual framework. No matter how strenuously any ideologue or partisan denies it, the MMS story reflects the astonishing moral bankruptcy of the two-party system and its participants.
Criticism 9: Resort to an objective political ideology will not make disagreements go away. Nothing much will change. Arguing for a preferred policy choice and the underlying perceptions of reality (facts) and the common sense (logic) that ideology fosters are all matters of constitutionally protected free speech and human biology. Trying to suppress any of that free speech is both legally unconstitutional and biologically irrational.
This point cannot be overstated: Subjective ideological political disputes are not much different than subjective ideological religious disputes. To the extent that any dispute involves sacred or infallible beliefs or political (or religious) principles, morals or values, those things cannot be rationally debated. Matters of faith are just that - matters of faith. Debates of religious belief, e.g., creationism, vs. science, e.g., evolution, are not rational because the religious side is based on faith with fact and logic twisted to conform to that infallible belief. The same as rigid subjective beliefs in socialism vs. laissez-faire capitalism (separation of economy and state), which may be an even more irrational framework than science vs. religion disputes. In those kinds of political fights, because both sides argue over beliefs that are almost completely subjective. Those disputes are essentially unresolvable. Fact and logic usually have little or no impact because both are usually bitterly disputed. When an ideologue changes their mind in those fights, it is a very rare miracle.