Pragmatic ideology: The rational politics power shifting goal

I have described some of the core logic that underpins a pragmatic 'anti-bias' political ideology based on cognitive and social science knowledge. The point is an attempt to foster cognitive and social beliefs that would tend to reduce biases and distortions in (i) perceptions of reality and facts, and (ii) the subjective, personal conscious reason we apply to the reality and facts we think we see.

The basic anti-bias concept envisions replacing the morals or principles of standard 'pro-bias' ideologies**, e.g., liberalism, conservatism, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, populism, etc, with core morals or principles that foster a more open, less biased mind set. Evidence that such a mind set can exist and can foster more rational, less biased thinking has also been described, e.g., Philip Tetlock's finding of superforecasters and their relatively open (~anti-bias) mind sets.

** Pro-bias ideologies are a major source of unconscious confirmation bias and the more powerful powerful unconscious fact and reason distorting bias called motivated reasoning.

None of that sheds light on any purpose for anti-bias political ideology or mind set. The science only provides a rational for the possibility (not certainty) of reducing subjectivity in politics by reducing distortions in perceptions of reality and in application of common sense. So, the question remains: What's the purpose?

A balance of power shift to the public interest:The purpose of an anti-bias ideology is to shift, to some meaningful extent, the balance of power from where it is now in America's representative democracy to the public interest (a public interest conception is described below). Specifically, social science research clearly shows that:

1. Power in the sense of dictating policy choices does not reside with voters or the will of the people -- average people or public sentiment have no statistically detectable impact on setting policy, while organized special interests (including both political parties) exert essentially all policy setting power; and
2. The most powerful tool the existing two-party status quo has at it's disposal is a constitutionally-protected free speech right to influence and distort average people's perceptions of reality and their conscious reason by fostering normal pro-bias cognitive and social identity traits by lying, deceiving, misinforming, irrational emotionalizing and etc.

In other words, the two-party system plays on normal human biology by deceiving people with misinformation, deceit, lies, emotional appeals and other spin tactics that are constitutionally protected free speech. The two-party system relentlessly and crucially relies heavily on (i) distorted perceptions of reality and facts, and (ii) distorted or flawed conscious reason that is applied to its distorted perceptions of reality and facts. The hypothesis is that we are being heavily manipulated by shrewd appeal to human cognitive and social biology.

If one accepts that it is basically true that we are being played and the resulting deceit keeps the balance of power tipped in favor of special interests and both major parties at the expense of the public interest, then what can one do about it?

Logic would seem to argue that if deceit and the distorted reality and conscious reason that flows from it keeps power in the hands of the elites, then adopting an anti-bias mind set to partially reduce reality and conscious reason distortions would better empower average people. In politics, unbiased information and unbiased reason is power. Thus, instead of liberals and conservatives endlessly fighting over unresolvable ideological differences, the pragmatic anti-bias mind set would be focused on less distorted reality and less personally biased conscious reason in an effort to serve the public interest, not in an effort to vindicate and defend liberal or conservative political morals or principles.

In other words, people would be less distracted and less deceived by endless, unstoppable status quo deceit. In an anti-bias scenario, the focus would be more on finding the shape of reality for any given issue and then devising a roughly same-shaped policy choice to deal with the issue. As it is now, liberals see issues as liberal-shaped pegs (distorted reality) and they try to pound those pegs into liberal-shaped holes. Conservatives do the same. The problem with those pro-bias mind sets is that reality doesn't care about liberal- or conservative-shaped pegs. Reality just is what it is and it has its own reality- or human-shape.

Is it credible to argue that the two parties shrewdly use liberal and conservative ideology to distract and to build and maintain false reality and flawed reason to keep the public polarized and distrustful, while leaving elites free to exert power? Or, is it the case that only the liberal or conservative side does this, while the other side is mostly honest and rational?

Serving the public interest -- one conception: One vision of service to the public interest: Service to the public interest means governance based on identifying a rational, optimum balance between serving public, individual and commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (3) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (4) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (5) protecting national security and the environment, (6) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, and (7) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) honest, reality-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed and (ii) genuine respect for the U.S. constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution and the law.

B&B orig: 11/18/16