Ideological Asymmetry in Moral Approval of Lying in Politics

Researchers publishing in the journal, Personality and Individual Differences (Volume 143, 1 June 2019, Pages 165-169), report finding a difference in acceptance of lying between individuals that score high on a particular personality trait and those who score low. The research investigated the relationship between ideology and moral disapproval of spreading misinformation by politicians.

The researchers found that people having higher scores on Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) were positively related to tolerance of politicians lying by commission, paltering (using truthful facts to create a false impression), and lying by omission (hiding facts or truth). The researchers wrote:

“Also, republicans were more tolerant towards politicians lying by commission and paltering than democrats. Experiment 2 (N = 395) replicated these results, and examined partisan bias. Democrats (but not republicans) showed a partisan bias in tolerance of lying by commission, whereas republicans (but not democrats) showed a partisan bias in tolerance of paltering. In both experiments, RWA and SDO mediated the relationships between political party and approval of spreading misinformation. These results suggest that right-wing individuals are more tolerant to the spreading of misinformation by politicians, although it should be noted that overall levels of approval were relatively low.”

What is interesting is the data showing that levels of tolerance toward misinformation are “relatively low.” If one accepts data showing that the president has made over 10,000 false or misleading statements is true, then most of his supporters disapprove of misinformation and lies but still support the president. If that is true, then many, maybe most, of supporters do not believe the president lies and misleads nearly as often as he doe, and/or they are unaware of unbiased assessments of the evidence as usually or always fact-based.

The other interesting observation is that the data suggests that authoritarian mindsets are somewhat more accepting of misinformation from their own side, but presumably not from political opposition. It may be the case that for hard core partisans, pundits and political players, this personality trait could be more pronounced and acceptance of lies is even greater than the subjects in the experiments described here. That would be an interesting experiment, assuming it is possible to do.

As is usual for most new social science research, these results need to be replicated to at least partly confirm their validity.

The Morality of Capitalism

A discussion here a couple of weeks ago focused on a joint statement signed by over 180 CEOs, Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, of major US companies about what social responsibilities, if any, that companies have toward anything other than making profit for owners. The guiding moral principle, articulated by economist Milton Friedman, had been anything that needlessly reduces profits is immoral. Thus, it would be moral for a company to donate money to a charity if it helped build public goodwill, thereby increasing profit. But, donating and not getting a profit would be immoral.

Friedman published an essay in 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits," argued that the best type of CEO was not one with an enlightened social conscience. CEOs with an enlightened social conscience were considered to be “highly subversive to the capitalist system,” at least in Friedman’s opinion.

An essay in the Economist magazine, What companies are for, comments on the joint statement. The essay argues it probably arose in part as a means to begin a defense against rising public sentiment that corporations should have some responsibility to society, the environment, business suppliers and workers. One source of concern is the rise of younger workers who feel that the businesses they work for should have a broader responsibility.

Also, democratic proposals for a broader corporate social conscience include a plan that would require U.S. corporations to turn over part of their board of directors to members chosen by employees and prohibiting corporations from buying back their own stock unless they offer a certain level of pay and benefits for workers. Another proposal is to require federal chartering of companies and revocation of their licenses if they unreasonably abuse the interests of staff, customers or communities. Such proposals would underpin a system where business determines and pursues social goals and not just narrow self-interest. Presumably, most corporations do not want that kind of regulation.

The Economist opposes efforts to impose a broader social conscience because it would risk “entrenching a class of unaccountable ceos who lack legitimacy,” arguing that would be a threat to long-term prosperity. The essay points out that some companies now endorse social causes popular with staff and customers or deploying capital for reasons other than efficiency, citing Microsoft financing $500 million for housing in Seattle. The Economist argues that such a broader social conscience creates two problems: a lack of accountability for the business elites who make decisions and a “lack of dynamism.” The essay asserts that “ordinary people would not have  a choice” in where resources are deployed. The implication is that special interests, politicians and business elites would corrupt the effort in the name of self-interest. To inject more citizen power into social conscience, the Economist proposes

The other problem, lack of dynamism, would arise from an alleged tendency of collective capitalism to not change. As evidence, the essay cited abuse of customers and poor quality products by AT&T and General Motors in the 1960s as being shielded in part by various claims of social benefit, e.g., jobs for life.

Not persuasive or realistic

The Economist’s libertarian arguments are not persuasive. Business elites already are not accountable. For example, no executive was prosecuted for any financial crime after the 2007-2009 financial crisis. American citizens already have no influence over policy, so that situation cannot get any worse. If it is true that collective capitalism turns out to dampen dynamism, then competitors will impose dynamism or the business will go away. The essay admits that businesses with a social conscience will continue to maximize profits. If laws are passed that impose a social conscience, the playing field will be leveled and no one will be allowed to play self-serving games shielded by false assertions of social conscience.

Finally, the essay argues that corporate accountability will be enhanced by broadening ownership so that more Americans own stocks by tinkering with the tax code. The essay admits that stock market power is heavily skewed toward rich people, so changing the tax code to expand the numbers of small investors will make no difference. In essence, the Economist raises concerns over the rise of problems that already exist and proposes solutions that will make little, if any, significant difference.

For the most part, most corporations will continue to have as little social conscience as they can for as long as they can. The major owners, not small shareholders, have power and they will fight to keep social conscience from damaging their investment. The only way to grow social conscience is to impose it by law. Corporations are already building their defenses to fight off social conscience. The the Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation is an early step in the defense against social conscience. The next steps? Most likely, the most obvious ones: bring on the campaign contributions and call out the lobbyists.

To impeach or not to impeach... that is the question.

A friend and I were discussing Trump's possible impeachment, on another blog.  While s/he thinks Trump should be impeached for ethical reasons, I imagined how that might play out:

As a progressive democrat, I also think Trump deserves impeachment for what I see as his unstable actions.  So I wonder, do we democrats do the ethical thing and formally address his seemingly bad behavior with impeachment proceedings?  Or do we do the practical thing and let him keep destroying himself and his credibility, daily, to our political benefit? It really seems to come down to those two options.

Let’s say the Democratic House formally impeaches, but the Republican Senate doesn't convict. That likely riles up his base, getting the “feels sorry for ‘poor persecuted’ Trump” crowd and the “we’ll show ‘em” crowd even more indignant and pissed off, as Trump emboldens and encourages them, via his tweets and rallies. His supporters come out in force for the 2020 election, and Trump not only gets four more years, but maybe a complete republican congress again, to back his policies. Then, for Trump and McConnell, the sky's the limit... and then some! No holds barred! The statute of limitations has expired on Trump's previous actions, and he can no longer be held legally responsible (by a powerless democratic minority) for his so-called "wrongdoings." Plus, a new precedent has been set as to how a POTUS can act and what s/he can get away with. Yes, a lot of tentacles, as always. Many alternate scenarios can play out, granted.

Barring something coming out of the (semi) blue (e.g., he has a heart attack and dies [btw, look for a "fake one" for next year's October's surprise], or he up and quits, or he’s proven to be involved in a scandal of inescapable and monumental proportions, or he manages to get republicans to finally turn against him, openly and in force, etc.); barring such events, we have 14 official months (16 if we count lame duck period) of him to still put up with.  "God help us" in those two intervening months!

Our country is already a political mess, IMO.  We're losing worldwide support from all our allies who no longer trust us, plus all the other problems festering out there. I’m thinking, just wait it out and hope not to stir his hornet’s nest of followers into reacting in his favor, and hope a democratic administration takes over (i.e., gets their chance to mess things up too ;).

But it’s really difficult (at least for me) to guess which way to go: To do the (ethically) right thing, or to do the practical (selfish) thing? IDK.

What is your opinion?  Should Trump be impeached?  Please present your argument(s).  And thanks for recommending.

The 9/11 Attacks: A Brief Origin and Cost Summary

Origin

Some of the origin story is bitterly contested. Bin Laden explained why he attacked the US in an open letter. Several main reasons are given. They are US support for Israel (an assertion that Israel and many or most of its supporters bitterly reject), aggression against Muslims and Palestinians (also contested), support of aggression against Muslims in Somalia, Russia and elsewhere, sanctions against Iraq, and bad morals, e.g., fornication, debauchery and lies. Bin Laden also mentions other reasons, e.g., America spreads diseases and created AIDS as a “Satanic American Invention.”

The US military presence in Saudi Arabia may also be part of the motivation behind the attacks.

Cost

The 9/11 attacks arguably led to two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is unlikely that the US would have attacked Iraq if the 9/11 attacks had not provided some justification for it. The rationale for Iraq included an illusory threat from weapons of mass destruction and a false belief that Iraq harbored and supported terrorists that were somehow related to 9/11. Costs of wars since 9/11 and in the future are estimated to amount to about $6 trillion, with the bulk of that going to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which were significantly or mostly funded with added federal debt.

A close personal acquaintance is a senior federal bank regulator. He pointed out that the 9/11 attacks caused a major shift in the focus of his agency's effort from ordinary financial crimes to tracking terrorist funding. Much federal attention in multiple agencies turned from business as usual to anti-terrorism. One consequence of the attention shift in bank regulation was decreased pressure on ordinary crime. That, plus ideology-driven anti-regulation politics, were factors in the financial and housing crises of 2007-2009. Costs of those disasters are hard to pin down, but some individuals paid a high price, e.g., job loss causing loss of home. Economic cost estimates of the financial crisis run as high as $22 trillion (original GAO report). Not all of that loss can be attributed to 9/11, but some of it arguably can. My acquaintance believes that some of the loss should be attributed to 9/11.

There are other costs, including social disruption over the wars and exacerbation of the 2001 recession. Economic losses and costs from impaired ability of wounded veterans to work and for health care will be incurred over their lifetimes. America will be paying for the consequences of the 9/11 attacks for decades.