IVN (Independent Voter Network) has
published a Dissident Politics article that describes the unacceptably low impact of unspun fact and unbiased logic in mainstream two-party politics. Irrefutable fact and logic evidence shows that two-party political rhetoric and thinking is overwhelmingly dominated by distorted or denied facts, misinformation and flawed logic.
The
article is here: http://ivn.us/2015/08/05/opinion-facts-logic-awol-two-party-politics/.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Saturday, August 1, 2015
State's rights proposal
IVN (Independent Voter Network) has published a Dissident Politics article that proposes experiments in states' rights as a means to try to reduce partisan animosity and distrust, thereby possibly reducing federal government gridlock. The article is here: http://ivn.us/2015/07/29/end-washington-gridlock-time-experiment-states-rights/.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Governing for the public interest
The usually conservative-biased, reality-challenged Wall Street Journal editorial page occasionally publishes an opinion piece that makes more sense than not. That tends to happen when the author sets rigid conservative ideology aside at least somewhat and looks at reality mostly for what it is and then applies relatively unbiased logic. It can also happen when reality and ideology mostly overlap or align.
Unfortunately, reality usually does not align with either liberal or conservative ideology and thus ideologues typically unconsciously distort reality and logic. To fix the disconnect 'problem', ideologues typically distort reality to better fit the ideology. There is nothing new or unusual about that. It is just human nature or how cognition works, or fails to work, in the human species. Sometimes when ideology does aligns with reality, the result is clarity and sound logic.
An approving reference to the “social impact” of governing is very rare for a conservative. Of course, this is in the context of a state government and an anti-union effort. Conservatives tend to accept state governments more than the federal government. The typical conservative attitude is anti-government even at the state level. The faith (ideology) is that government in general is bad and/or necessarily wasteful compared to what the private sector usually delivers. That faith blinds anti-government ideologues to the reality that government, even at the federal level, is necessary, but not sufficient, for a healthy economy, an increasing standard of living and a secure homeland. What is also necessary is acknowledgment of the role governments at all levels need to play to afford the best service to the public interest.[1]
Politics based on distortion cannot logically be the most economically efficient or the most effective at serving the public interest. If there is a flaw in that logic, what is it?
Footnote:
1. In this context, non-ideological politics means not conservative, not liberal and not centrist. It means pragmatic politics focused on service to the public interest (as defined before) in part by shrewdly but properly balancing special interest power, e.g., public unions in California, against legitimate public interest needs. Logically speaking, what is pragmatic could be a policy or law that would be considered conservative, liberal, centrist or something else, so long as it appears to best serve the public interest. That is the ideology of non-ideological pragmatism.
Unfortunately, reality usually does not align with either liberal or conservative ideology and thus ideologues typically unconsciously distort reality and logic. To fix the disconnect 'problem', ideologues typically distort reality to better fit the ideology. There is nothing new or unusual about that. It is just human nature or how cognition works, or fails to work, in the human species. Sometimes when ideology does aligns with reality, the result is clarity and sound logic.
Clarity - When ideology and reality aligned
A July 2, 2015 opinion by Allysia Finley, a WSJ editorial writer, approvingly described an effort in California to foster the presence and power of moderate democrats in the state legislature. The basis of Ms. Finley's approval is a coalition, Govern for California, that is focused on, among other things, counterbalancing California's overly powerful public employee labor unions. In this case, Ms. Finley sees reality fairly accurately because her rigid anti-union conservative ideology aligns well with reality for this issue in California.
Acknowledging governance has social impact
What is surprising about Ms. Finley's opinion is her concluding remarks: “The California legislature controls nearly $120 billion in state tax revenues, the education of nine million students, and health care for 12 million low-income citizens. It’s hard to find an investment or charity with as much of a social impact.”An approving reference to the “social impact” of governing is very rare for a conservative. Of course, this is in the context of a state government and an anti-union effort. Conservatives tend to accept state governments more than the federal government. The typical conservative attitude is anti-government even at the state level. The faith (ideology) is that government in general is bad and/or necessarily wasteful compared to what the private sector usually delivers. That faith blinds anti-government ideologues to the reality that government, even at the federal level, is necessary, but not sufficient, for a healthy economy, an increasing standard of living and a secure homeland. What is also necessary is acknowledgment of the role governments at all levels need to play to afford the best service to the public interest.[1]
An argument for smarter, right-size government & governance
This is not an argument that government, taxes or regulations need to generally increase at the state or federal levels. Every situation needs to be assessed on its own merits. A key point of Dissident Politics is an argument for non-ideological,[1] rational politics based on a better alignment between reality and perceptions of reality, e.g., via a reduced use of spin in politics. Ideology (and self-interest) is a major factor in the massive disconnects between unspun reality and perceived reality. Ideology often badly distorts both reality and logic.Politics based on distortion cannot logically be the most economically efficient or the most effective at serving the public interest. If there is a flaw in that logic, what is it?
Footnote:
1. In this context, non-ideological politics means not conservative, not liberal and not centrist. It means pragmatic politics focused on service to the public interest (as defined before) in part by shrewdly but properly balancing special interest power, e.g., public unions in California, against legitimate public interest needs. Logically speaking, what is pragmatic could be a policy or law that would be considered conservative, liberal, centrist or something else, so long as it appears to best serve the public interest. That is the ideology of non-ideological pragmatism.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Is the debate over guns pointless?
The matter of guns, gun violence and the endless gun regulation debate flares up after each mass murder. The body count this time is nine innocents. This debate is now routine. A massacre occurs, both sides reiterate their arguments, the press moves on, emotions cool and nothing changes very much. Meanwhile, about 31,000 Americans die each year from gun violence (11,000 homicides and 21,000 suicides) and another 71,000 are injured. Like it or not, empty debate followed by little or no change has been society's response over the last decade or two.[1]
Given that, it is fair to argue that the current debate over the slaughter in Charleston, SC is mostly pointless. To the extent any societal response occurs, changes are at the state level and new state laws tend to expands guns rights more than restrict. Despite the NRA and gun advocates belief to the contrary, federal law under President Obama has expanded gun rights. Meaningful new regulation, e.g., universal background checks to try to prevent insane people from getting guns, is nowhere on the horizon. That appears to be a consequence of deep public distrust in the federal government coupled with a polarized, corrupt congress.
Since congress is hopelessly gridlocked on this and most other issues, it is unrealistic to expect reasonable new federal legislation that might have some impact, assuming there is anything that can be affected for the better. With hundreds of millions of guns in American society, criminals, haters and most insane people can usually get guns if they want them. Maybe it is too late to do anything in service to the public interest. If that is true, calls for any additional gun regulation are pointless.
Gun advocates, the NRA and gun manufacturers use every mass killing incident as a rationale to reduce gun restrictions so that good guys with guns can shoot bad guys (with guns) who are doing bad things. That logic will probably never be dislodged, especially by the endless arguments the two sides ineffectively throw at each other. On this issue, as most others in politics, the two sides are simply talking past each other with little or no policy impacts.
Under the circumstances, the current debate over gun violence is pointless on three grounds: First, both sides in the gun debate point to the same data and draw opposite conclusions about what policy choices make sense - neither side budges. Second, even if most Americans were to prefer an arguably reasonable new law, e.g., universal background checks, special interest money effectively blocks that. Finally, since rigorous, unbiased research is not available to the American public and policy makers, the debate is based on assumptions about public health impacts that are simply not known.
Footnotes:
1. Dissident Politics (DP) is not arguing here for any additional new gun law or restriction. DP is arguing (1) that the current debate is empty and pointless and (2) for an honest debate that is based on transparent research, unspun facts and unbiased logic to fairly assess the good and bad public health impacts of guns in American society. It is possible that even without the corrupting influence of gun money on the two-party system, most Americans would want to keep the laws more or less the same despite the knowledge that the costs, about 31 thousand deaths and about 71 thousand injuries plus associated medical and law enforcement costs, are acceptable. That could be true even if unbiased research shows the costs are high and the benefits amount to very few or no lives saved, very little or no crime prevented and much personal satisfaction or feelings of security with gun ownership. That is a possible outcome. Americans more or less now accept about 88,000 alcohol-related deaths and about 480,000 cigarette-related deaths each year, so logically, Americans might be willing to accept a high-cost, low-benefit gun situation.
2. Dissident Politics defines political corruption to include serving special interest demands at the expense of the public interest. That definition accords with U.S. laws that were passed over 100 years ago. Corruption of governments by special interest money is a millennia-old phenomenon. Under the current two-party system, special interest money has sufficiently more influence than service to the public interest that the system is fundamentally corrupt, in DP opinion. Research supports the opinion that special interest money in politics has far more influence on policy than what the American people want or the public interest would reasonably require: “Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”
3. Calls to restart federal funding on this issue are likely to fail. That too, reflects the domination of the public interest by special interest money. Given the power of the NRA and gun manufacturers, it is very unlikely that federally funded research can be restarted any time soon. Maybe the best that can be done is to identify public interest funding for rigorous, unbiased research on the true costs (murders, injuries, suicides, etc.) and benefits (personal security, psychological well-being, bad guys shot dead or incapacitated, etc.) of gun ownership and use in American society. Only that kind of analysis will reveal the scope of the public health impacts, good and bad, of gun violence. If the costs are shown to be very high relative to the benefits, which is probably the case, that just might foster an informed, but commensurate, societal response.
Given that, it is fair to argue that the current debate over the slaughter in Charleston, SC is mostly pointless. To the extent any societal response occurs, changes are at the state level and new state laws tend to expands guns rights more than restrict. Despite the NRA and gun advocates belief to the contrary, federal law under President Obama has expanded gun rights. Meaningful new regulation, e.g., universal background checks to try to prevent insane people from getting guns, is nowhere on the horizon. That appears to be a consequence of deep public distrust in the federal government coupled with a polarized, corrupt congress.
Since congress is hopelessly gridlocked on this and most other issues, it is unrealistic to expect reasonable new federal legislation that might have some impact, assuming there is anything that can be affected for the better. With hundreds of millions of guns in American society, criminals, haters and most insane people can usually get guns if they want them. Maybe it is too late to do anything in service to the public interest. If that is true, calls for any additional gun regulation are pointless.
Gun advocates, the NRA and gun manufacturers use every mass killing incident as a rationale to reduce gun restrictions so that good guys with guns can shoot bad guys (with guns) who are doing bad things. That logic will probably never be dislodged, especially by the endless arguments the two sides ineffectively throw at each other. On this issue, as most others in politics, the two sides are simply talking past each other with little or no policy impacts.
Where's the data?
There is a discouraging aspect of this issue. Federal funds for research on the public health impact of gun violence cannot be obtained in practice. Researchers fear career damage from venturing into the political morass. Research is at a standstill and has been halted since 1996 due mostly to conservative opposition. The American public cannot truly know or assess the overall impact of guns on public health. This situation reflects the
profoundly corrupt nature of politics[2] under the two-party system. Special interests including the NRA and gun manufacturers have effectively blocked
federal funding for gun violence research since 1996, presumably because they fear the data may show guns and gun use to carry costs that are far higher than the benefits. Some of limited data that is available suggests that at least in domestic settings guns are a harmful influence: "Rather than confer protection, guns kept in
the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a
family member or intimate acquaintance."[3]Under the circumstances, the current debate over gun violence is pointless on three grounds: First, both sides in the gun debate point to the same data and draw opposite conclusions about what policy choices make sense - neither side budges. Second, even if most Americans were to prefer an arguably reasonable new law, e.g., universal background checks, special interest money effectively blocks that. Finally, since rigorous, unbiased research is not available to the American public and policy makers, the debate is based on assumptions about public health impacts that are simply not known.
Footnotes:
1. Dissident Politics (DP) is not arguing here for any additional new gun law or restriction. DP is arguing (1) that the current debate is empty and pointless and (2) for an honest debate that is based on transparent research, unspun facts and unbiased logic to fairly assess the good and bad public health impacts of guns in American society. It is possible that even without the corrupting influence of gun money on the two-party system, most Americans would want to keep the laws more or less the same despite the knowledge that the costs, about 31 thousand deaths and about 71 thousand injuries plus associated medical and law enforcement costs, are acceptable. That could be true even if unbiased research shows the costs are high and the benefits amount to very few or no lives saved, very little or no crime prevented and much personal satisfaction or feelings of security with gun ownership. That is a possible outcome. Americans more or less now accept about 88,000 alcohol-related deaths and about 480,000 cigarette-related deaths each year, so logically, Americans might be willing to accept a high-cost, low-benefit gun situation.
2. Dissident Politics defines political corruption to include serving special interest demands at the expense of the public interest. That definition accords with U.S. laws that were passed over 100 years ago. Corruption of governments by special interest money is a millennia-old phenomenon. Under the current two-party system, special interest money has sufficiently more influence than service to the public interest that the system is fundamentally corrupt, in DP opinion. Research supports the opinion that special interest money in politics has far more influence on policy than what the American people want or the public interest would reasonably require: “Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.”
3. Calls to restart federal funding on this issue are likely to fail. That too, reflects the domination of the public interest by special interest money. Given the power of the NRA and gun manufacturers, it is very unlikely that federally funded research can be restarted any time soon. Maybe the best that can be done is to identify public interest funding for rigorous, unbiased research on the true costs (murders, injuries, suicides, etc.) and benefits (personal security, psychological well-being, bad guys shot dead or incapacitated, etc.) of gun ownership and use in American society. Only that kind of analysis will reveal the scope of the public health impacts, good and bad, of gun violence. If the costs are shown to be very high relative to the benefits, which is probably the case, that just might foster an informed, but commensurate, societal response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)