Pragmatic politics: Can it ever make a difference?

Logic context: There are some things that humans can never know. Some claims or knowledge that cannot be proved or disproved, may nonetheless be true or false. And, there's risk in proposing things. To have a chance of being shown to be true, a proposal or idea will usually run a risk of being proven wrong. Ideology and morals in politics is a case in point. Some assertions or claims of truth that flow from an ideological or moral point of view may be true or false but not formally provable one way or the other.

Despite uncertainty, there can be practical ways forward that can shed light on complex matters such as how political ideology or principles, personal morals and human biology influence political beliefs and preferences. One observer commented: “Moral and political philosophy will be different once reason is allowed to regain its ancient sway. Instead of seeking---vainly as it has appeared---for some fundamental principle from which all else follows deductively, we can live with our actual, somewhat piecemeal, approach to moral reasoning and moral reform. . . . . we do not need an exhaustive critique of pure reason, but can be content to hope that we shall continue to recognize good reasons when they are offered us. So, too, in politics, we can be much more relaxed once we are no longer compelled, on a priori grounds, to despair of reason. If reason is nothing, we should be pessimistic about the outcome of political debate, and compelled to view the political process as a crude conflict of particular interests, with the weaker always being trampled on by the strong, and with propaganda being the only way of bringing others to share one's views. . . . . But once reason is acknowledged to have some sway over men's minds, the case is greatly altered. We can do business with reasonable men, knowing that should we concede the force of their arguments they will not automatically construe our concession as a sign of weakness, but will be the readier in their turn to grant the cogency of good arguments adduced by us.”

To further complicate things, researchers have observed that empirical research may never afford a way to draw a line between rational skepticism and irrational bias (pdf). That assessment feels about right because research can’t tell when persuasion by relevant new information should occur.

Biology context: Almost everyone who is active about politics believes they are rational and base their beliefs and common sense on facts. That’s often or usually not true. However, simply pointing that out can be fraught. One commentator observed: “The first thing people often do is get defensive. Suddenly, you’re questioning something that’s assumed ‘fact.’ . . . . The point is simply that politics is often about beliefs and emotion. We may want it to be about facts and logic, but facts and logic are more likely convenient tools to justify beliefs.”

Brain scan of people reacting to bad information about their preferred candidate; brain regions: ACC – anterior cingulate cortex, vmPFC – ventromedial prefrontal cortex, pCING – posterior cingulate cortex, etc.

Regarding logic or reason, there’s evidence that partisans unconsciously react to political candidates based at least in part on an unconscious bias called motivated reasoning. In the 2004 Bush-Kerry contest, brain scans showed that Republicans judged John Kerry harshly but not George W. Bush. Similarly, Democrats judged Bush harshly but not Kerry. Scans showed brain areas associated with reasoning had little activity when the partisans made their judgments.

Brain scan of people reacting to bad information about the opposition candidate

That’s just how human cognitive and social biology normally operate when it comes to politics. Normal mental operation about politics easily distorts reality and common sense or how we think about what we perceive. That usual state of affairs can be called a pro-bias mind set. Although the pro-bias process was often a messy and bloody affair, it did get humans to where they are today from where we were in our evolutionary beginning.

A fundamental question: Which is more compelling, the logic-based argument that says “we can live with our actual, somewhat piecemeal, approach to moral reasoning and moral reform”? Or, is a biology-based argument that our pro-bias nature is too strong for moral reform to ever have a chance to make a meaningful difference in politics in terms of (i) more effective and/or less costly policy choices, (ii) less conflict and human misery, and/or (iii) enhanced social cohesion or harmony?

B&B orig: 11/18/16