Monday, April 22, 2019
Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (L&Z) describe the various ways in which democracies die. For the last 15 years, L&Z have studied democracy deaths as the main focus of their research.
What they find is that these days, democracies often do not die after a military coup. Instead, many modern authoritarians or demagogues gain power by striking deals with existing political parties who are often under stress and losing influence. Hitler and Mussolini took that route. In both cases, the existing order was confident that they could control the demagogues they helped to legitimize.
In this regard, L&Z see political parties and especially their leaders and insiders as gatekeepers who are in a position to prevent legitimizing and/or the rise to power of demagogues. L&Z comment on this legal route to power: “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”
American democracy vs. Trump: L&Z write to express their deep concern that President Trump, a demagogue in their view, could rise to become a full-blown authoritarian. They find that two critical norms that have kept American demagogues in the past from gaining power have largely collapsed. One weakened norm is “mutual toleration” which exists when political parties accept each other as legitimate political opposition. The other norm is “forbearance” wherein politicians exercise restraint in using power and institutional prerogatives. L&Z calls these norms the “soft guardrails of American democracy.”
L&Z argue the erosion of these norms began in the 1980s and by the time Obama was elected in 2008, “many Republicans, in particular, questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned the forbearance strategy for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.” They point out that Trump accelerated the trend, but didn't initially cause it. L&Z see extreme polarization as a root cause of the weakening of the norms that helped defend democracy from demagogues: “And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”
Some may recall that the 2018 presidential greatness survey by experts ranked Trump as the most polarizing president in US history. 2018 was the first year that the question had been asked. It was asked in view of the obvious polarizing effect that Trump had on American politics and society.
The tyrant test: L&Z find that authoritarians tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics in making their run for power. Keying off of earlier research of democratic breakdowns by political scientist Juan Linz, L&Z articulate four behavioral warning signs that help identify an authoritarian. Evidence of any one of the four behaviors in words or actions point to an authoritarian politician.
The four signs are evident “when a politician (1) rejects the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” Trump has shown behaviors that fit all four of the warning signs. For example, he rejected the democratic rules of the game by claiming he would not accept election results if he lost the 2016 election and falsely claimed there was massive voter fraud. Similarly, he denied the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by calling her a criminal and calling for her to be imprisoned. He also publicly tolerated and encouraged violence by his supporters, e.g., “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would 'ya? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise you.”
L&Z argue that the republican party has abdicated essentially all responsibility to try to keep the authoritarian demagogue Trump from gaining power or undermining democracy. We are undergoing the kind of stealth attack on democracy that people have a hard time seeing. L&Z point out that there have always been about 30-40% of Americans who were ready to support a populist demagogue. Trump’s populist demagogic rhetoric and behavior, coupled with the the republican party’s abdication of responsibility to defend democracy, make America’s current political situation look truly frightening.
Warning: L&Z point out that opposition to demagogues must be legal. The demagogue can use anything illegal by the opposition as an excuse to further undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, Antifa and any other pro-violence groups that want to help defend democracy need to cool their jets and get their act together. Stupidity such as violence plays into the tyrant’s hands.
B&B orig: 4/15/19 DP orig 4/22/19; DP reposted 5/27/20
Monday, April 22, 2019
Stealth & Deceit Can Destroy Democracy
Monday, April 22, 2019
Context: As a default position, I reject political conspiracy theories as unfounded, unless the evidence looks solid. But sometimes there really is a political conspiracy. This is about a real conspiracy that is driving a social engineering experiment of massive proportions to completely change American democracy.
Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, describes a vast radical right wing conspiracy theory that is true. MacLean is a historian who wound up with unfettered access to look at the original documents that (i) prove the origin and existence of the radical right conspiracy, and (ii) describe its goal. The goal is to completely remake American democracy with its strong central government into a central weak government that is unable to enforce equal protection and due process for average people.
In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.
In other words, this cabal of capitalists and rich people want to have essentially all power and little or no responsibility toward society or the well-being of average people. This new authoritarian kleptocracy has now overpowered the republican party and with President Trump at the helm, it is gaining momentum. This effort just might lead to the end of the American experiment.
A few quotes from MacLean's book with some comments for context help describe what America is facing right now from the authoritarian radical right.
#1 - No compromise: Funding for the radical movement was initiated by Charles and David Koch. They knew that most Americans would oppose what they wanted to do, which included a refusal to compromise. Refusal to compromise is integral to what it is to be a tyrant or oligarch.
#2 - Kill liberty: The key intellectual founder of this property absolutist movement, James McGill Buchanan (discussed here before), chairman of the economics department at the University of Virginia, saw an urgent need to curtail civil liberties as much as possible. Previously, Virginia had used state law to impose effective voter suppression, allowing the governor and legislature to maintain their high level of power and control over Virginia's residents. Neutering collective action by citizens, e.g., organized labor unions, was a high priority target for the absolutist authoritarians.
#3 - Republican party takeover with ideologically cleansing RINO hunts: The radical movement knew the American people would reject its political goals and that some institution of political power would be needed to exert influence on a national scale. The radical right's quiet, relentless takeover of the republican party explains why the party now refuses to oppose Trump's moves to undermine democracy and the rule of law. The RHINO hunts effectively drove many (most?) real republicans from the party and replaced them with believers in the radical right's absolutist anti-democratic vision, e.g., the Tea Party. The absolutists play hardball and they play for keeps.
The latter explains why a politician like Ronald Reagan would never have been accepted by the new radical republicans. They would have ousted him as a RINO. The propaganda tactics the radical absolutists employ were and still are devastatingly effective. That got tens of millions of rank and file republicans to effectively switch from old republican ideals, including at least some responsiveness to public opinion, to pure anti-democratic absolutism about property and intense hostility to civil rights.
B&B orig: 4/18/19
Context: As a default position, I reject political conspiracy theories as unfounded, unless the evidence looks solid. But sometimes there really is a political conspiracy. This is about a real conspiracy that is driving a social engineering experiment of massive proportions to completely change American democracy.
Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, describes a vast radical right wing conspiracy theory that is true. MacLean is a historian who wound up with unfettered access to look at the original documents that (i) prove the origin and existence of the radical right conspiracy, and (ii) describe its goal. The goal is to completely remake American democracy with its strong central government into a central weak government that is unable to enforce equal protection and due process for average people.
In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.
In other words, this cabal of capitalists and rich people want to have essentially all power and little or no responsibility toward society or the well-being of average people. This new authoritarian kleptocracy has now overpowered the republican party and with President Trump at the helm, it is gaining momentum. This effort just might lead to the end of the American experiment.
A few quotes from MacLean's book with some comments for context help describe what America is facing right now from the authoritarian radical right.
#1 - No compromise: Funding for the radical movement was initiated by Charles and David Koch. They knew that most Americans would oppose what they wanted to do, which included a refusal to compromise. Refusal to compromise is integral to what it is to be a tyrant or oligarch.
Koch never lied to himself about what he was doing. While some others in the movement called themselves conservatives, he know exactly how radical his cause was. Informed early on by one of his grantees that the playbook on revolutionary organization had been written by Vladimir Lenin dutifully recruited a trusted "cadre" of high-level operatives, just as Lenin had done, to build a movement that refused compromise as it devised savvy maneuvers to alter the political math in its favor.
#2 - Kill liberty: The key intellectual founder of this property absolutist movement, James McGill Buchanan (discussed here before), chairman of the economics department at the University of Virginia, saw an urgent need to curtail civil liberties as much as possible. Previously, Virginia had used state law to impose effective voter suppression, allowing the governor and legislature to maintain their high level of power and control over Virginia's residents. Neutering collective action by citizens, e.g., organized labor unions, was a high priority target for the absolutist authoritarians.
Compounding the problems Buchanan faced of elected officials who seemed like allies but, once in power failed to walk the walk, was the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It began drawing into the electorate more poor people who, in Buchanan's eyes, were likely to support proposals for programs that cost yet more money [than desegregation of public schools was already costing]. . . . . Buchanan now argued, the cause must figure out how to put legal -- indeed constitutional -- shackles on public officials, shackles so powerful that no matter how sympathetic these officials might be to the will of majorities, no matter how concerned they were for their own re-elections, they would no longer have the ability to respond to those who used their numbers [citizens acting together] to get government to do their bidding. . . . . Once these shackles were put in place, they had to be binding and permanent. . . . . Their cause they say is liberty. But by that they mean the insulation of private property rights from the reach of government -- and the takeover of what was long public (schools, prisons, western lands, and much more) by corporations, a system that would radically reduce the freedom of the many. In a nutshell, they aim to hollow out democratic resistance. And by its own lights, the cause is nearing success.
#3 - Republican party takeover with ideologically cleansing RINO hunts: The radical movement knew the American people would reject its political goals and that some institution of political power would be needed to exert influence on a national scale. The radical right's quiet, relentless takeover of the republican party explains why the party now refuses to oppose Trump's moves to undermine democracy and the rule of law. The RHINO hunts effectively drove many (most?) real republicans from the party and replaced them with believers in the radical right's absolutist anti-democratic vision, e.g., the Tea Party. The absolutists play hardball and they play for keeps.
The Koch team's most important stealth move, and the one that proved critical to success, was to wrest control over the machinery of the Republican Party, beginning in the late 1990s with sharply escalating determination after 2008. From there, it was just a short step to lay claim to being the true representatives of the party, declaring all others RINOS. But while these radicals of the right operate within the Republican Party and use that party as a delivery vehicle, make no mistake about it: the cadre's loyalty is not to the Grand Old Party or its traditions or standard bearers. Their loyalty is to their revolutionary cause.
Republican Party veterans who believed they would be treated fairly because of their longtime service soon learned that, to their new masters, their history of Republicanism meant nothing. The new men in the wings respect only compliance; if they fail to get it, they respond with swift vengeance. The cadre targets for removal any old-time Republicans deemed a problem, throwing big money into their next primary race to unseat them and replace them with the cause's more "conservative" choices -- or at least teach them to heel.
The latter explains why a politician like Ronald Reagan would never have been accepted by the new radical republicans. They would have ousted him as a RINO. The propaganda tactics the radical absolutists employ were and still are devastatingly effective. That got tens of millions of rank and file republicans to effectively switch from old republican ideals, including at least some responsiveness to public opinion, to pure anti-democratic absolutism about property and intense hostility to civil rights.
B&B orig: 4/18/19
Wealth Distribution: What People Think vs What It Is
Monday, April 22, 2019
The graph shows what Americans thought the distribution of wealth in America was and what they thought would be ideal. The data is based on a 2011 survey, which was published here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf .
The actual United States wealth distribution was plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution, i.e., the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.3% of all wealth. Ideal distributions were what Americans thought they should be, e.g., the top 20% owning about 33%. Clearly, Americans were unaware that the top 20% of Americans own about 84% of the wealth.
The distribution graph below is based on 2016 data.
The graph shows what Americans thought the distribution of wealth in America was and what they thought would be ideal. The data is based on a 2011 survey, which was published here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf .
The actual United States wealth distribution was plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution, i.e., the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.3% of all wealth. Ideal distributions were what Americans thought they should be, e.g., the top 20% owning about 33%. Clearly, Americans were unaware that the top 20% of Americans own about 84% of the wealth.
The distribution graph below is based on 2016 data.
B&B orig: 4/20/19
A Conversation About Politics With a Pragmatist
Monday, April 22, 2019
This paraphrases a recent conversation I had with a long-time white, middle class acquaintance (ACQ) about politics. The conversation touched on Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America (discussion here). The harsh sentiments toward the political left and right coming from a mostly political centrist were unsettling but I suspect maybe fairly common among a lot of middle class centrists and some liberals.
ACQ: Did you hear the NPR story about judges now not answering questions about whether the 1955 Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision was properly decided?
Me: Yup. I can't believe the far right would go so far as to seriously revisit separate but equal or vote to allow public schools to be resegregated.
ACQ: 'Ya know, I don't care if they do. I don't care if public schools get resegregated. Sounds like maybe that's what they want to do, at least if MacLean has it about right.
Me (dumbfounded): What? Where is this coming from?
ACQ: I'm pissed off. I'm tired of hearing that the democrats need to pander to and rely on black women or some other group to save the party at elections. As far an I am concerned, if people don't vote they deserve what they get. If schools get resegregated, that's not my problem. I vote every goddamn time and never once get to vote for anyone I really want in office. And, no one is pandering to me. Instead, it gets worse and worse for me and people in my situation.
My family was screwed by Obamacare -- nothing but sky high premiums and nothing covered -- all deductibles and no coverage. Tons of cost, no health care. Trump's tax cuts make my taxes a lot higher and now I need do all sorts of shit to try to reduce the new load. Who the hell is looking out for people like me? Effing congress just passed a bill that prevents the IRS from making tax filing less complex. Total BS. I get screwed and screwed some more by the left, the right, and special interests that buy crooks in congress and the idiot Trump. All that politics is offering me is a non-negotiable demand to pay more. Screw that. At least rich people and companies got benefits from Trump's tax bullshit. I got a kick in the butt because I live in California and Trump hates California and is punishing the state for not falling for his BS and lies. What kind of idiocy is that?
Me: But, what about voter suppression?
ACQ: I don't care. As long as republicans keep winning elections, they are empowered to pull whatever tyrant crap they can get away with. Life isn't fair. There are always tyrants just waiting for a chance to get power and screw people. Read MacLean's book. There's nothing fair about any of this. I'm coming to think that humans can't handle democracy or freedoms. Maybe we are destined to be slaves to some goon tyrant or heartless, arrogant oligarchs.
Me: What about Roe (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex marriage)?
ACQ: Still don't care. If women keep voting for white male evangelical republicans, or don't vote at all, they deserve to lose their abortion rights. Same thing for LGBQTN -- some of those people actually voted for Trump and republicans, others didn't vote at all. Fine. People who don't vote or who vote republican deserve whatever tyrant crap comes at them. They have no cause to complain. I'm worried about me and my family, not everyone else. Not any more.
On gentle probing, it turns out that that outburst reflected years of ACQ's mounting frustration with the two-party system and how ACQ sees the middle class as being disrespected, ignored, exploited and hollowed out.
I've been giving voters and non-voters the benefit of a doubt because of the endless, ferocious stream of dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, etc.) that everyone is now hopelessly submerged in. That said, maybe ACQ sees it best: If you don't vote, don't complain -- no excuses.
It was unsettling to see that at least some people are slowly being worn down by decades of relentless attacks on democracy, the rule of law and the middle class. I take this as a bit of evidence that the radical right's plan to shift America to an anti-democratic authoritarianism is slowly working.
Orig B&B: 4/22/19
This paraphrases a recent conversation I had with a long-time white, middle class acquaintance (ACQ) about politics. The conversation touched on Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America (discussion here). The harsh sentiments toward the political left and right coming from a mostly political centrist were unsettling but I suspect maybe fairly common among a lot of middle class centrists and some liberals.
ACQ: Did you hear the NPR story about judges now not answering questions about whether the 1955 Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision was properly decided?
Me: Yup. I can't believe the far right would go so far as to seriously revisit separate but equal or vote to allow public schools to be resegregated.
ACQ: 'Ya know, I don't care if they do. I don't care if public schools get resegregated. Sounds like maybe that's what they want to do, at least if MacLean has it about right.
Me (dumbfounded): What? Where is this coming from?
ACQ: I'm pissed off. I'm tired of hearing that the democrats need to pander to and rely on black women or some other group to save the party at elections. As far an I am concerned, if people don't vote they deserve what they get. If schools get resegregated, that's not my problem. I vote every goddamn time and never once get to vote for anyone I really want in office. And, no one is pandering to me. Instead, it gets worse and worse for me and people in my situation.
My family was screwed by Obamacare -- nothing but sky high premiums and nothing covered -- all deductibles and no coverage. Tons of cost, no health care. Trump's tax cuts make my taxes a lot higher and now I need do all sorts of shit to try to reduce the new load. Who the hell is looking out for people like me? Effing congress just passed a bill that prevents the IRS from making tax filing less complex. Total BS. I get screwed and screwed some more by the left, the right, and special interests that buy crooks in congress and the idiot Trump. All that politics is offering me is a non-negotiable demand to pay more. Screw that. At least rich people and companies got benefits from Trump's tax bullshit. I got a kick in the butt because I live in California and Trump hates California and is punishing the state for not falling for his BS and lies. What kind of idiocy is that?
Me: But, what about voter suppression?
ACQ: I don't care. As long as republicans keep winning elections, they are empowered to pull whatever tyrant crap they can get away with. Life isn't fair. There are always tyrants just waiting for a chance to get power and screw people. Read MacLean's book. There's nothing fair about any of this. I'm coming to think that humans can't handle democracy or freedoms. Maybe we are destined to be slaves to some goon tyrant or heartless, arrogant oligarchs.
Me: What about Roe (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex marriage)?
ACQ: Still don't care. If women keep voting for white male evangelical republicans, or don't vote at all, they deserve to lose their abortion rights. Same thing for LGBQTN -- some of those people actually voted for Trump and republicans, others didn't vote at all. Fine. People who don't vote or who vote republican deserve whatever tyrant crap comes at them. They have no cause to complain. I'm worried about me and my family, not everyone else. Not any more.
On gentle probing, it turns out that that outburst reflected years of ACQ's mounting frustration with the two-party system and how ACQ sees the middle class as being disrespected, ignored, exploited and hollowed out.
I've been giving voters and non-voters the benefit of a doubt because of the endless, ferocious stream of dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, etc.) that everyone is now hopelessly submerged in. That said, maybe ACQ sees it best: If you don't vote, don't complain -- no excuses.
It was unsettling to see that at least some people are slowly being worn down by decades of relentless attacks on democracy, the rule of law and the middle class. I take this as a bit of evidence that the radical right's plan to shift America to an anti-democratic authoritarianism is slowly working.
Orig B&B: 4/22/19
Saturday, April 6, 2019
The Science of Morality & Human Well-Being
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Nihilism: 1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; 2. belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated
In the last few months, some commentary here and elsewhere have raised the idea that many concepts related to politics, concepts relating to concepts such as good and evil, fact and non-fact, logic and illogic, and truth and lie are essentially meaningless. Meaninglessness arises from subjectivity that can be inherent in things one might think of as mostly objective. For example, some people believe it is a fact that there is a strong consensus among expert climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. About 27% of Americans reject that as false and no amount of discussion and citing fact sources will change most (~ 98% ?) of those minds.
Does that mean there is no way to discern facts or truth from lies or misinformation? When it comes to morality, is nihilism basically correct and contemplating morality from any point of view is too subjective to be meaningful in any way?
In another example, the rule of law concept is seen by some analysts as an essentially contested concept, which is something subjective and not definable such that a large majority of people will agree on what the rule of law is and when it applies. If the rule of law cannot be defined, how can what is moral and what isn't be defined?
Pragmatic rationalism: The anti-bias ideology advocated here, “pragmatic rationalism”, is built on four core moral values, (1) respect for objective facts and truth, to the extent they can be ascertained, (2) application of less biased logic (conscious reasoning) to the facts and truths, (3) service to the public interest, which is conceived as a transparent competition of ideas constrained by facts and logic, and (4) reasonable compromise in view of political, social and other relevant factors. If nihilism is correct, the anti-bias ideology is nonsense.
Science and morality: In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues there can be enough objectivity in matters of morals and human behavior and well-being that there is a great deal of objectivity in morality. In essence, Harris is arguing that science can find things that foster human well-being by tending to make people, e.g., happy, unhappy, and socially integrated or not. On morals, religion, secularism and the role of science in discovering morality, Harris writes:
"On the first account, to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical.
I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain -- but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.
Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that we may not be able to resolve specific moral dilemmas does not suggest that all competing responses to them are equally valid. In my experience, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.
The the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. . . . . I hope to show that when we are talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.
There are facts to be understood about how thoughts and intentions arise in the human brain; there are further facts to be known about how these behaviors influence the world and the experience of other conscious beings. We will see that facts of this sort will exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil”. They will increasingly fall within the purview of science and run far deeper than a person’s religious affiliation. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.
Having received tens of thousands of emails and letters from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides [Christian conservatives and secular liberals] believe that reason is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life.
The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life."
It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.
Harris is right, nihilism is wrong: If Harris is correct that intellectual moral terrain actually exists and is subject to scientific scrutiny, then pragmatic rationalism would seem to be a political counterpart of Harris’ vision of what can lead to human well-being for the long run. Maybe because of personal bias and/or the amazingly good fit between what Harris argues and the core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on, Harris is right. Science can shed light on an at least somewhat objective vision of right and wrong, good and evil. Nihilism is wrong and destructive of both self and civilization.
B&B orig: 3/25/19
Nihilism: 1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; 2. belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated
In the last few months, some commentary here and elsewhere have raised the idea that many concepts related to politics, concepts relating to concepts such as good and evil, fact and non-fact, logic and illogic, and truth and lie are essentially meaningless. Meaninglessness arises from subjectivity that can be inherent in things one might think of as mostly objective. For example, some people believe it is a fact that there is a strong consensus among expert climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. About 27% of Americans reject that as false and no amount of discussion and citing fact sources will change most (~ 98% ?) of those minds.
Does that mean there is no way to discern facts or truth from lies or misinformation? When it comes to morality, is nihilism basically correct and contemplating morality from any point of view is too subjective to be meaningful in any way?
In another example, the rule of law concept is seen by some analysts as an essentially contested concept, which is something subjective and not definable such that a large majority of people will agree on what the rule of law is and when it applies. If the rule of law cannot be defined, how can what is moral and what isn't be defined?
Pragmatic rationalism: The anti-bias ideology advocated here, “pragmatic rationalism”, is built on four core moral values, (1) respect for objective facts and truth, to the extent they can be ascertained, (2) application of less biased logic (conscious reasoning) to the facts and truths, (3) service to the public interest, which is conceived as a transparent competition of ideas constrained by facts and logic, and (4) reasonable compromise in view of political, social and other relevant factors. If nihilism is correct, the anti-bias ideology is nonsense.
Science and morality: In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues there can be enough objectivity in matters of morals and human behavior and well-being that there is a great deal of objectivity in morality. In essence, Harris is arguing that science can find things that foster human well-being by tending to make people, e.g., happy, unhappy, and socially integrated or not. On morals, religion, secularism and the role of science in discovering morality, Harris writes:
"On the first account, to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.
While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical.
I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain -- but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.
Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that we may not be able to resolve specific moral dilemmas does not suggest that all competing responses to them are equally valid. In my experience, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.
The the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. . . . . I hope to show that when we are talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.
There are facts to be understood about how thoughts and intentions arise in the human brain; there are further facts to be known about how these behaviors influence the world and the experience of other conscious beings. We will see that facts of this sort will exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil”. They will increasingly fall within the purview of science and run far deeper than a person’s religious affiliation. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.
Having received tens of thousands of emails and letters from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides [Christian conservatives and secular liberals] believe that reason is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life.
The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life."
It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.
Harris is right, nihilism is wrong: If Harris is correct that intellectual moral terrain actually exists and is subject to scientific scrutiny, then pragmatic rationalism would seem to be a political counterpart of Harris’ vision of what can lead to human well-being for the long run. Maybe because of personal bias and/or the amazingly good fit between what Harris argues and the core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on, Harris is right. Science can shed light on an at least somewhat objective vision of right and wrong, good and evil. Nihilism is wrong and destructive of both self and civilization.
B&B orig: 3/25/19
What We've Learned From the Mueller Report So Far
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You wouldn't know that, however, from the breathless editorializing of Mueller's findings by a media industry which not only hasn't seen those findings, but which depends for its present understanding on the supposed summary offered by Trump's Attorney General, who is himself a conflicted and compromised figure in relation to the Special Counsel. Here's how AG Barr described Mueller's findings regarding Russian collusion:
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
If we take this description at face value, Barr is stating that Mueller was unable to establish conspiracy or coordination between Trump and Russia during the election. While Barr describes the evidentiary standard for obstruction of justice as being beyond a reasonable doubt, no such standard is enumerated here, leaving the question of what constitutes establishment open. It is worth remembering here that the collusion investigation began as a counter-intelligence operation, which does not have a prosecutorial aim, nor are questions of espionage and state security settled on through standards applicable to criminal law.
Nevertheless, major media outlets have been nearly unanimous in their conclusion that as it pertains to collusion, the Mueller investigation found no evidence at all:
MSNBC - Mueller Report: No evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia
CNN - Trump claims vindication after Mueller finds no evidence of collusion
BBC - Mueller Report: No Evidence of Collusion
Today - Mueller finds no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia
NY Times - Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy
US News - Mueller Finds No Evidence Trump Team Colluded With Russia
NPR - Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
Elsewhere, the New York Times described the Report as concluding that Trump did not conspire with Putin, and that Mueller's investigation failed to find any links between Putin and Trump. Farhad Manjoo states unequivocally that there was no collusion, the Washington Post concludes Trump was exonerated by Mueller, Jeffrey Toobin describes the report as a total vindication of Trump on collusion, CNN claims Trump was cleared of collusion charges, and Matt Taibbi compares "Russiagate" with the WMD fiasco in Iraq.
All of this - every last bit, from the most respected and successful mainstream media sources - is dead wrong. There simply is no way to conclude from the decision of Special Counsel not to indict Trump or his family, or from Barr's description of Mueller's findings, that Trump has been cleared, exonerated, and most universally but also most questionably, that no evidence was discovered by the investigation of Trump's collusion with Russia. Not only is this a non-sequitur in that it does not follow from the findings of the Report as we currently understand them, but it outright contradicts the facts as we have long known them.
Coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia was public, explicit, and highly corroborated. We all watched Trump call on Russia to help his campaign, and it subsequently came to light that Russia redoubled its efforts to hack the DNC immediately following Trump's televised plea. This was a clear violation of Federal election law, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a fact which has gone almost entirely unremarked by these same media outlets. Trump's campaign manager is known to have shopped his access to Trump in an effort to "get whole" in his relationship to a Russian oligarch known to be close to Putin and the FSB, explicitly tying Manafort's financial circumstances to the campaign and the campaign to Russian money. Wilbur Ross was formerly the president of a bank in Cyprus suspected of laundering Russian oligarch money into the EU, defeating sanctions against Putin's inner circle. Deutsche Bank is long thought to have similar ties to Russian money, and as Don Jr. publicly admitted the importance of Russian money to the Trump family fortune, and as this Russian involvement occurred during a time in which only Deutsche Bank would lend to Trump, there is definite evidence to suggest a long term and deep relationship between Russian oligarchs and Trump. Donald's efforts at building a Trump Tower in Moscow and his lies regarding it establish motive for such collusion above and beyond mere political gain, as well as awareness of guilt, and thus of intent.
Consciousness of guilt can be demonstrated in Trump's and Kushner's secret communications with Russian intelligence assets, both before and after having become president, as well as his secret talks with Putin. That these meetings were often followed by major policy reversals by Trump on Russia related issues, particularly economic sanctions, US military alliances in Europe and Asia, US policies toward individual Russian companies associated with Manafort, and of course the major overriding issue of American adoption of Russian infants, the Trumpian quid for the Russian quo is materially, objectively evidenced.
To have any semblance of coherence, to say nothing of objectivity, the Mueller Report must detail each of these aspects of the Russiagate narrative and demonstrate why they do not amount to evidence that the House of Representatives might consider sufficient to indict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not clear from Barr's so-called summary of Mueller's findings that the Report does this, or that it in any way exonerates Trump from secret and unlawful coordination with Russia. What is clear, however, is that by failing to pursue indictments against Kushner or Don Jr., or to personally interview Trump, that Mueller declined to pursue the case to its logical ends. This is despite Mueller's reputation for thoroughness and detail. This just five weeks after Barr became AG, and a mere two weeks before Mueller delivered his initial findings to Barr in which he outlined the inability to establish collusion.
Thus even if we accept Barr's "summary" we must also conclude that Mueller feels he is unable to pursue an indictment of Trump for violation of FEC law, despite the violation having been made on television, before a national audience, in which he explicitly solicited help for his campaign from foreign nationals. We must conclude that Trump's aberrant personal behavior and policy decisions regarding Russia, from which Putin stands to benefit greatly, cannot be considered a reward for Russia's hacking of the DNC following Trump's request for this illegally obtained information, and that this arrangement cannot be considered coordination. We must conclude that the extensive financial ties between Trump and Russia, which might well have been all that stood between Trump and financial ruin, do not constitute motive. More than all that, according to media outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Guardian, we are too believe that none of this offers any evidence of collusion, of a secret agreement to promote each others interests, between Trump and Putin. If we do not, if we cling to the idea that our lying eyes do in fact perceive evidence, then we are as hopelessly compromised by ideology as the press was during the run up to the war in Iraq, believing as it did that Hussein did harbor WMD to some extent. And this is supposed to signify not just ideological devotion, but blindness to the facts. We are expected, in other words, not to believe what we see, but what the state and its media enablers tell us we should see. Which is nothing, nothing at all. Nada. Zilch.
Only problem is, there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq , Hussein was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441, and legal authority for the response was delineated to the US and its Coalition allies there. Yet today everyone just knows there were no WMD, the war was illegal, that Hussein only wanted to look tough, just as Trump lies about Russian coincidence (collusion, coordination, conspiracy) because it is his nature, rather than in an effort to defraud and subvert American democracy in order to enrich and empower himself. That's just not like him at all, and only the ideologically blind would cling to such a tenuous belief.
If you feel you've suddenly awoken in a Truffaut science fiction film, you're not alone.
B&B orig: 3/25/19, TJ post
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You wouldn't know that, however, from the breathless editorializing of Mueller's findings by a media industry which not only hasn't seen those findings, but which depends for its present understanding on the supposed summary offered by Trump's Attorney General, who is himself a conflicted and compromised figure in relation to the Special Counsel. Here's how AG Barr described Mueller's findings regarding Russian collusion:
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
If we take this description at face value, Barr is stating that Mueller was unable to establish conspiracy or coordination between Trump and Russia during the election. While Barr describes the evidentiary standard for obstruction of justice as being beyond a reasonable doubt, no such standard is enumerated here, leaving the question of what constitutes establishment open. It is worth remembering here that the collusion investigation began as a counter-intelligence operation, which does not have a prosecutorial aim, nor are questions of espionage and state security settled on through standards applicable to criminal law.
Nevertheless, major media outlets have been nearly unanimous in their conclusion that as it pertains to collusion, the Mueller investigation found no evidence at all:
MSNBC - Mueller Report: No evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia
CNN - Trump claims vindication after Mueller finds no evidence of collusion
BBC - Mueller Report: No Evidence of Collusion
Today - Mueller finds no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia
NY Times - Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy
US News - Mueller Finds No Evidence Trump Team Colluded With Russia
NPR - Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion
Elsewhere, the New York Times described the Report as concluding that Trump did not conspire with Putin, and that Mueller's investigation failed to find any links between Putin and Trump. Farhad Manjoo states unequivocally that there was no collusion, the Washington Post concludes Trump was exonerated by Mueller, Jeffrey Toobin describes the report as a total vindication of Trump on collusion, CNN claims Trump was cleared of collusion charges, and Matt Taibbi compares "Russiagate" with the WMD fiasco in Iraq.
All of this - every last bit, from the most respected and successful mainstream media sources - is dead wrong. There simply is no way to conclude from the decision of Special Counsel not to indict Trump or his family, or from Barr's description of Mueller's findings, that Trump has been cleared, exonerated, and most universally but also most questionably, that no evidence was discovered by the investigation of Trump's collusion with Russia. Not only is this a non-sequitur in that it does not follow from the findings of the Report as we currently understand them, but it outright contradicts the facts as we have long known them.
Coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia was public, explicit, and highly corroborated. We all watched Trump call on Russia to help his campaign, and it subsequently came to light that Russia redoubled its efforts to hack the DNC immediately following Trump's televised plea. This was a clear violation of Federal election law, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison, a fact which has gone almost entirely unremarked by these same media outlets. Trump's campaign manager is known to have shopped his access to Trump in an effort to "get whole" in his relationship to a Russian oligarch known to be close to Putin and the FSB, explicitly tying Manafort's financial circumstances to the campaign and the campaign to Russian money. Wilbur Ross was formerly the president of a bank in Cyprus suspected of laundering Russian oligarch money into the EU, defeating sanctions against Putin's inner circle. Deutsche Bank is long thought to have similar ties to Russian money, and as Don Jr. publicly admitted the importance of Russian money to the Trump family fortune, and as this Russian involvement occurred during a time in which only Deutsche Bank would lend to Trump, there is definite evidence to suggest a long term and deep relationship between Russian oligarchs and Trump. Donald's efforts at building a Trump Tower in Moscow and his lies regarding it establish motive for such collusion above and beyond mere political gain, as well as awareness of guilt, and thus of intent.
Consciousness of guilt can be demonstrated in Trump's and Kushner's secret communications with Russian intelligence assets, both before and after having become president, as well as his secret talks with Putin. That these meetings were often followed by major policy reversals by Trump on Russia related issues, particularly economic sanctions, US military alliances in Europe and Asia, US policies toward individual Russian companies associated with Manafort, and of course the major overriding issue of American adoption of Russian infants, the Trumpian quid for the Russian quo is materially, objectively evidenced.
To have any semblance of coherence, to say nothing of objectivity, the Mueller Report must detail each of these aspects of the Russiagate narrative and demonstrate why they do not amount to evidence that the House of Representatives might consider sufficient to indict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not clear from Barr's so-called summary of Mueller's findings that the Report does this, or that it in any way exonerates Trump from secret and unlawful coordination with Russia. What is clear, however, is that by failing to pursue indictments against Kushner or Don Jr., or to personally interview Trump, that Mueller declined to pursue the case to its logical ends. This is despite Mueller's reputation for thoroughness and detail. This just five weeks after Barr became AG, and a mere two weeks before Mueller delivered his initial findings to Barr in which he outlined the inability to establish collusion.
Thus even if we accept Barr's "summary" we must also conclude that Mueller feels he is unable to pursue an indictment of Trump for violation of FEC law, despite the violation having been made on television, before a national audience, in which he explicitly solicited help for his campaign from foreign nationals. We must conclude that Trump's aberrant personal behavior and policy decisions regarding Russia, from which Putin stands to benefit greatly, cannot be considered a reward for Russia's hacking of the DNC following Trump's request for this illegally obtained information, and that this arrangement cannot be considered coordination. We must conclude that the extensive financial ties between Trump and Russia, which might well have been all that stood between Trump and financial ruin, do not constitute motive. More than all that, according to media outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Guardian, we are too believe that none of this offers any evidence of collusion, of a secret agreement to promote each others interests, between Trump and Putin. If we do not, if we cling to the idea that our lying eyes do in fact perceive evidence, then we are as hopelessly compromised by ideology as the press was during the run up to the war in Iraq, believing as it did that Hussein did harbor WMD to some extent. And this is supposed to signify not just ideological devotion, but blindness to the facts. We are expected, in other words, not to believe what we see, but what the state and its media enablers tell us we should see. Which is nothing, nothing at all. Nada. Zilch.
Only problem is, there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq , Hussein was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441, and legal authority for the response was delineated to the US and its Coalition allies there. Yet today everyone just knows there were no WMD, the war was illegal, that Hussein only wanted to look tough, just as Trump lies about Russian coincidence (collusion, coordination, conspiracy) because it is his nature, rather than in an effort to defraud and subvert American democracy in order to enrich and empower himself. That's just not like him at all, and only the ideologically blind would cling to such a tenuous belief.
If you feel you've suddenly awoken in a Truffaut science fiction film, you're not alone.
B&B orig: 3/25/19, TJ post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)