Essentially contested concepts involve widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., fairness, patriotic, the public interest, etc.), but not on the best realization thereof. They are concepts the proper use and definition of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses or definitions on the part of their users, and these disputes cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone.
Service to the public interest can be described like this: It 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.
One of the four core moral values that underpin the anti-bias political ideology advocated here is service to the public interest. Because this moral value is an essentially contested concept, people will probably disagree forever about exactly what service to the public interest means. The concept as envisioned for anti-bias politics is based on a transparent, honest competition of ideas that looks to objective fact and logic, to the extent those things can be brought to bear, to balance competing interests in the quest for the best policy options.
For the most part, conservatives and republicans have pointed to the value of honest competition in leading to social and economic improvements. The anti-bias ideology simply applies that belief to inform and shape policy debates. If asked, it is likely that most conservatives, republicans and populists (~75-85% ?) would say their own politics is based mostly on a fair and transparent, fact- and logic-based competition in the marketplace of ideas.
That conception of how politics works with conservatives, republicans and populists arguably is wrong for the most part. The real conservative-populist competition of ideas: Lies, deceit & unwarranted emotion: CNN recently reported that Twitter had taken down thousands of accounts that discouraged voting in midterms. Most of the accounts were set up by republicans posing as Democrats. One deleted Tweet falsely claimed that ICE agents would be patrolling voting places. That was a lie intended to create fear to drive down voting by legal immigrants who are qualified to vote.
Reuters reported that over 10,000 Twitter accounts posting messages that discouraged people from voting had been taken down.
The Washington Post reported that Facebook and Twitter are working to eliminate sources that try to deter voting in the election next Tuesday. WaPo writes:
“With the 2018 midterms days away, both social media platforms are waging a quiet war against fast-spreading falsehoods about how, when and where to vote — including posts containing inaccuracies about how to mail in ballots or doctored photos that show long lines at polling stations. To do so, they are taking aggressive steps to scan, vet and remove content that they see as a direct threat to democracy.
Attempts to depress turnout are hardly new: For decades, government officials have battled back anonymous snail-mail fliers and robo-calls that misled voters on the locations of their polling places or the date of the election. But voter suppression increasingly has become more of a digital scourge — from robo-texts en masse to viral photos and videos in the age of Facebook and Twitter.”
President Trump’s constant use of lies and deceit to foster fear are documented. In recent weeks Trump has has particularly focused on stirring unwarranted fear in Americans, for example, by claiming with no evidence that an immigrant caravan approaching the US-Mexico border is loaded with hostile criminals and terrorists.
Last Friday, a federal judge ruled that an attempt by the Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, was an illegal attempt to suppress voting by minorities. WaPo wrote: “U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross ruled Friday that the procedures were likely to result in the violation of voting rights for a large group of people and needed to be halted immediately. She said Kemp’s restrictions raised ‘grave concerns for the Court about the differential treatment inflicted on a group of individuals who are predominantly minorities.’” In this case, a conservative republican used an illegal tactic to suppress voting.
Other republican voter suppression tactics in Kansas and North Dakota survived legal challenges and significant numbers of legitimate voters in those states may not vote in view of increased voting barriers. More generally, conservative states have been raising barriers to voting by minorities and democrats. One analysis discussed the conservative anti-voting trend: “In 2018, voters in at least eight states will face more stringent voting laws than they did in the last federal election. These restrictions are a continuation of a trend, beginning in 2011, of states passing laws making it harder to vote. Overall, voters in 23 states will face tougher restrictions than they did in 2010.”
Another source comments: “Across the country, Republican governors, secretaries of state, and state lawmakers — some of whom are on the ballot this fall — have been tightening the restrictions on voting in dozens of states citing concerns about voter fraud. The result is that voters in North Dakota, Ohio, Missouri, Kansas, and New Hampshire, among other states, are facing restrictive voter ID laws and purges of voter names from the rolls. These restrictions often benefit Republicans, studies have found, because minorities, young voters, and others who might struggle to meet their requirements often vote Democratic.”
Another prominent conservative and populist lie in this election is the argument that republicans will best maintain health care protection for people with pre-existing conditions. Republican politicians across the country have repeatedly tried to eliminate protection for pre-existing conditions. Many conservative states and some politicians running for office are actively pursuing a legal challenge to eliminate the protection. The lie is undeniable, but republican politicians deny it anyway.
One example of lying about his position on pre-existing conditions comes from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R). Walker said in October “I want to reinforce it to everyone — we will always cover people like my wife with preexisting medical conditions. Don’t believe the lies. Don’t believe the lies!”
In that case, Walker was lying about his lying.[1]
Conservative tactics of (i) deceit and lies, especially deceit and lies that elicit unwarranted fear, and (ii) efforts to suppress voting by political opposition, do not amount to anything close to a fair and honest competition of ideas. These tactics amounts to anti-democratic methods to suppress political opposition and to instill unwarranted fear among potential voters. Obviously, most republicans, conservatives and populists strongly deny that they are heavily relying on lies, baseless fear mongering or unwarranted voter suppression tactics in this election.
And, since service to the public interest is a contested concept, the ones most honest can defend these tactics by arguing that lies and voter suppression best serve the public interest by leading to power for republicans, conservatives and populists. Basically, that is a ‘means justify the ends’ kind of rationale.
Footnote:
1. In the last few days, Walker has claimed that he truly wants to cover people with preexisting medical conditions. One source reported: “Republican Gov. Scott Walker, locked in a tight re-election bid, said Thursday for the first time that he wants to enact the ‘exact same language’ that’s in federal law at the state level guaranteeing insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. However, the proposal would not protect as many people as the federal law does and it’s unclear whether there’s enough support in the Republican-controlled Legislature to pass it. . . . . A Marquette University Law School poll on Wednesday showed the race to be a dead heat, with health care as a top issue.”
For context, Wisconsin is one of 20 republican states that is suing to eliminate coverage under Obamacare for pre-existing conditions.
B&B orig: 1/4/18
No comments:
Post a Comment