Lies in Politics

Sunrise

A lead editorial in The Economist "The Art of the Lie", has this to say about the lie in politics: "Consider how far Donald Trump is estranged from fact. He inhabits a fantastical realm where Barack Obama's birth certificate was faked, the president founded Islamic State (IS), the Clintons are killers and the father of a rival was with Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy. . . . Mr. Trump is a leading exponent of "post-truth" politics -- a reliance on assertions that feel true but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. . . . The lies of men like Trump . . . . are not intended to convince the elites, whom their target voters neither trust nor like, but to reinforce prejudices."

The Economist, aware of Clinton's lies, refers to Trump as "The Lord of the Lies."

That assessment jives with the cognitive and social science that says that such estrangement from reality isn't just cognitively possible, but it's likely how humans have practiced politics since modern humans or maybe even pre-modern human species invented politics tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The Economist's editorial urges that, despite past political hubris and a lack of humility by politicians generally, "pro-truthers stand and be counted." Those folks seem to be a bit concerned. That's reasonable. Obviously, every person makes their own choices for their own personal reasons. I'm standing and demand to be counted as a pro-truther. Despite Clinton's documented lies, they are much less threatening to American democracy than Trump's lies. Of course, that's just my personal opinion, which is informed more by cognitive and social science than political rhetoric or ideology.

B&B orig: 9/12/16

The Tax Gap: Congress Doesn’t Care

In a 2015 comment on increasing risks to tax law enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Government Accounting Office observed that "since 2010, IRS’s budget has been reduced by about 10 percent, and IRS enforcement performance and staffing levels have declined." IRS analysis of tax data showed that tax evasion (illegal non-payment of taxes owed -- the "net tax gap") amounted to $290 for tax year 2001 and and $385 billion for 2006, an increase of $19 billion/year.

At that rate of increase, the net tax gap would be about $575 billion for 2016, although recent informal IRS estimates put tax evasion at closer to $400 billion.

Congress has been warned for years that the IRS needs a higher budget to provide customer service, e.g., answer phone calls, and reduce the annual level of tax cheating. Congresses controlled by both parties have ignored the warnings, and in recent years, it has reduced IRS's budget. The IRS budget cut for 2016 is estimated to be over $500 million.

According to one source, IRS critics argue that the budget cuts educing the IRS budget “will result in more efficient use of funds and more accountability to the American people.” Some or most congressional republicans see the IRS as abusing its power and want to see the IRS shrink as a way to become more efficient and less abusive.

In 2012, I asked the IRS office in charge of fielding IRS operations questions when it planned to do another detailed tax compliance study to see what level of tax evasion existed after the 2001 and 2006 studies. That office said that they wouldn't answer the question because it was outside their purview. I rechecked and confirmed that that office was responsible for answering the question.

Congress has a track record of threatening federal agencies with budget cuts to curtail generation of data that congress doesn't the public to become aware of. For example, congress has effectively blocked federal funding of research into the public health impacts of gun ownership since 1996. I took the IRS's non-answer to my question as an indication that congress had threatened the IRS with even bigger budget cuts if it conducted another detailed tax evasion study. Presumably, tax evasion has been increasing since 2006 and congress doesn't want the public to know how bad tax cheating really is, even if congressional actions have gutted IRS functions and left many honest taxpayers on their own and many tax cheats unpunished.

Over the years, tax cheats have not paid trillions, even though the estimated return on investment is about $4 dollars collected for each dollar added to the IRS enforcement budget. The IRS Commissioner observed that “essentially, the government is losing billions to achieve budget savings of a few hundred million dollars.”

For people who value the rule of law, the situation can easily be seen as one where years of corrupt and incompetent, but bipartisan congresses have accepted massive tax evasion in return for campaign contributions, to vindicate anti-government ideology, curb real or perceived abuses and/or other reasons.

One observer sees the situation as “Congress' gift to tax cheats.”

If the concern over IRS abuse is real and non-trivial, should that concern trump the rule of law, or, is this a situation where congress fully supports the rule of law, and there is no cause and effect correlation between reduced IRS budgets and massive annual tax evasion? Is it plausible that congress threatened the IRS and forced it to prevent any further analysis of the size of tax cheating, thereby keeping the data and the issue off the public's radar screens?

If you are an honest taxpayer who pays your full federal tax bill, does roughly $400-$600 billion per year in tax evasion seem fair or reasonable? Does it matter that there would be a 4:1 return on investment in tax law enforcement for at least a portion (~ 80-85% ?) of evaded taxes? Is the situation one of (i) congressional corruption, (ii) congressional incompetence, (iii) justified anti-government ideology, (iv) some of all three, (v) none of those, or (vi) a combination of multiple factors?

B&B orig: 9/6/16

BSing vs. lying in politics

A well-known hard core conservative pundit, David Harsanyi writing at the hard core conservative site The Federalist, once argued the proposition that president Obama was a good BSer but a bad liar. It was posited like this: “Politicians break their promises and modify their positions all the time, of course. They BS us about their opinions and carefully craft identities that are palatable to the average voter. When a person enters this political universe, we need accept that most of the things we hear are, at best, poetic truths. But, yet, there is still a big difference between BSing and lying . . . .” According to the unreliable interwebs, BSing occurs “when someone has no f****ng clue what they are talking about, yet insists on trying to get others to believe him/her.”

The lament cites the “horrendous” job the political-media complex does because it routinely engages in “industrialized spin”, which was argued to be a bad thing that happens all the time. The author criticized misinformed, deceitful politics in general and president Obama's penchant to lie in particular. Obama allegedly always has a clue and therefore he does lies instead of BS.

Regarding the lies, BS, misinformation, deceit and spin in politics, politics-related social science research shows it's common, maybe the rule, not the exception. Politics really is based significantly on what one can argue is objectively false facts and objectively flawed common sense. Of course, that's not surprising in view of how weak and powerless human conscious thinking or bandwidth is relative to our much more powerful unconscious minds. That is true for democracies and probably all other forms of governance. In democracies, the typical voter has an inaccurate belief in how democracy really works or, more accurately, should work. A false belief in what “the will of the people” actually amounts to leads to cynicism. That's a bad thing for sure.

Writing an opinion piece entitled “The unbearable stench of Trump's B.S.” in the Washington Post on August 4, 2016, pragmatic commentator Fareed Zakaria asserts that Donald trump is an inveterate “bullshit artist” based on how the moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt (Princeton) distinguishes lies from BS in his 1986 book On Bullshit:

“Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point. . . . In order to invent a lie at all, [the teller of a lie] must think he knows what is true.” By contrast, BS “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all . . . except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.” The BSer’s “focus is panoramic rather than particular” and he has “more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the ‘bullshit artist.’ ”

One can ask, so what? Why does any of this make any difference given how misinformation- or deceit-based and self-interested political rhetoric and thinking is? After all, almost all misinformation, lies and BS are constitutionally protected free political/commercial speech. Nobody files lawsuits. Nothing can and/or should be done about it because (i) congress no longer governs due to gridlock, and (ii) regardless of chronic congressional constipation, difficulty in governing is baked into the constitution and the constitution protects it. Leave it alone.

That's a rational, reasonable argument. Reasonable, that is, if one wants to stay with irrational politics based on objectively false reality and flawed common sense.

Maybe nothing can be done. However, there's no prohibition on bringing this up to inform the public about it over and over and over. Cognitive science is clear: repetition often works for breathing life into both truth and outrageous BS or lies.

One final point. Zakaria writes: “This [BS] has been Trump’s mode all his life. He boasts — and boasts and boasts — about his business, his buildings, his books, his wives. Much of it is a concoction of hyperbole and falsehoods. And when he’s found out, he’s like that guy we have all met at a bar who makes wild claims but when confronted with the truth, quickly responds, ‘I knew that!’ . . . . Harry Frankfurt concludes that liars and truth-tellers are both acutely aware of facts and truths. They are just choosing to play on opposite sides of the same game to serve their own ends. The B.S. artist, however, has lost all connection with reality. He pays no attention to the truth. ‘By virtue of this’, Frankfurt writes, ‘bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.’ ”

So, are Frankfurt and Zakaria right to argue that BS is a greater enemy of truth than lies? Or, is it irrelevant because politics is so hopelessly mired in fantasy and irrational nonsense that it makes no difference?

B&B orig: 8/10/16

Lies & BS in politics

Fog at sunrise

The issue of politicians, business people and the mainstream media lying to the American people is a hot issue in the 2016 elections. Lying to the American people can take several forms, the most obvious is a statement of fact that is false. The speaker may or may not know of or care about the falsity. Other kinds of lies include (i) withholding facts that undermine or contradict public statements, and (ii) taking actions that undermine or contradict public statements. None of the foregoing kinds of lies is illegal, unless a line is crossed, e.g., a politician inciting violence or treason, or false advertising by a business.

No one denies that politicians lie. One conservative commentator writing for The Federalist put it this way: “Politicians break their promises and modify their positions all the time, of course. They BS us about their opinions and carefully craft identities that are palatable to the average voter. When a person enters this political universe, we need accept that most of the things we hear are, at best, poetic truths. But, yet, there is still a big difference between BSing and lying– though the latter is . . . . pardonable if you happen to be lying for the cause.”

According to the Urban Dictionary, BSing happens “when someone has no f***ing clue what they are talking about, yet insists on trying to get others to believe him/her.” Apparently, that accords with how academia sees the lies vs. BS difference.

Given pipartisan bitterness, some historical context is appropriate.

The founding Fathers and the 1787 Constitutional Convention: The Constitutional Convention took place over about 4 months in 1787 in Philadelphia. The public was told that the Convention was convened to fix the Articles of Confederation. However, key founders including Washington, Madison, Adams and Hamilton wanted to replace the Articles as America’s political operating system with a new form of government.

The delegates elected George Washington to preside. Washington’s rules were that (1) Madison would take notes, (2) the delegates were not allowed to leak any of the proceedings and debate to the press or public, and (3) at the end of the convention, Madison’s notes would be burned and never seen by the public. Washington knew that if the public were fully informed of the proceedings as they developed, opponents would be able to sway public opinion against the new Constitution. Instead, the public would be presented with a completed Constitution that they could accept or reject. Sixteen of the 55 participating delegates refused to sign the final document because they disagreed with the new form of government it embodied.

That is an example of politicians, the founding Fathers, saying or doing one thing in private or among themselves and saying (or doing) contrary things to the public. The founders were lying to the American people, not BSing them. At least, they knew exactly what they were doing.

There are many other examples of US politicians lying to the American people.

F.D.R. & World War II: In his 1940 run for re-election, F.D.R.’s campaign relied heavily on promises to keep America out of World War II. For example, F.D.R. said this on October 30, 1940: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Despite that, a F.D.R. sympathizer (a Stanford historian) justified his deception this way: “Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor ... He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient's own good.”

F.D.R.’s inner circle was aware of his intentions because many of his actions before Pearl Harbor actively fostered (probably forced) US entry into the war.

Lyndon Johnson & the Vietnam War: Before US entry into the Vietnam War, President Johnson lied the American people about a non-existent attack on a US Naval vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin that was falsely asserted to have occurred on August 4, 1964. An attack on a US vessel did occur two days earlier, but the second attack was fabricated for public consumption to generate support for US entry into a Vietnam War.

The cigarette industry’s lies: Lies to the public were routinely used for decades to sell cigarettes. For legal and public relations reasons, the industry “continues to deny that it is clear that smoking causes lung cancer.” Other industry lies include denial of cigarette addiction despite knowing “since the 1960s that the crucial selling point of its product is the chemical dependence of its customers.”

Mitt Romney & the 2012 campaign: Romney told a private campaign donor audience that Obama’s supporters would vote for Obama “no matter what”, arguing that they account for 47% of voters and therefore he did not “worry about those people.” That’s an example of a candidate saying one thing to one audience (rich donors) and never saying it to the American people.

The 2016 presidential election: Hillary Clinton is under fire for saying different things to the public and private audiences and other kinds of lies. That’s like Romney and the Founding Fathers. Fact checkers show that Trump lies much more than Clinton. What, if any qualitative or quantitative differences between the two are there? How is the average American to judge the differences in terms of fitness for elected office?

If nothing else, it should help to put lying or BSing to the public in at least some (not complete) context. It’s not even clear if lying is worse than BSing. At least with the liar, they know the truth. The BSer just doesn’t care. There’s one difference between Clinton and Trump. Clinton isn’t nearly as much a a BSer as Trump is.

Does being a less frequent liar vs. a more frequent liar/BSer make a meaningful difference? Is Lying better, worse or about the same relative to BSing? Or, does lying and/or BSing 'for the cause' justify misleading the American public making Clinton and Trump about the same?

B&B orig: 10/16/16

Is Significant Political Compromise Possible?

A New York Times article, ‘You Control Nothing’: House Republicans Brace for Life in the Minority, published yesterday raises the question of what role, if any, that political compromise should play once democrats assume control of the House. Congressional democrats and republicans see each other as generally unwilling to compromise.[1] That seems to be at least somewhat in error. Some legislation does pass through congress. The process is complicated in view of President Trump’s unpredictable temper and his preference to insult rather than negotiate.

Surprisingly, there appears to be some democratic thought to loosening House rules to allow more rank and file democratic participation: “Ms. Pelosi is now under pressure from some in her own party to cede some authority, give committee leaders more leeway and bring more Democrats into House decision making. As she rounded up votes in her drive to return as speaker, Ms. Pelosi also agreed to demands to enact rules changes intended to make the House more bipartisan and empower the rank and file. As a result, Republicans could have a chance to get proposals considered in committee and by the House provided they can secure some level of Democratic buy-in.

All of the Republicans said there was still a possibility, even in this hyper-polarized congressional era, for the two parties to find some consensus on a few issues, notably infrastructure. But given that the new Congress is kicking off with a shutdown caused by a deep partisan stalemate, it is hard to see much room for big compromises.”

Adding to the possibility of even more bitter division, one prominent House republican, Rep. Peter King (NY) commented about his party and its minority status: “You control nothing. . . . . There are going to be a lot of investigations. We have to be ready to be on defense when the investigations go too far.” Democrats plan relentless investigations of Trump, his campaign and his business activities, including his tax returns. Both Trump and some congressional republicans consider Trump family business activities and especially tax return audits to be off limits. That Trump promised in the 2016 elections to release his tax returns after alleged IRS audits were completed is now irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether IRS audits were nonexistent or are complete by now -- the investigations will come whether republicans like it or not.

Given that there is nothing House republicans will be able to do to block House investigations, it is not clear what it means to even be on defense. At most, the US Senate can reopen investigations into the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, James Comey and any other democratic or perceived enemy target they deem worthy of investigating and trying taking down, or at least smear.

The NYT is probably right that there is not much room for major compromises. That would require compromise by both the Senate and Trump for any legislation that comes from the House. Time will tell.

Footnote:
1. Reasonable compromise is considered here to be a core moral political imperative. It is necessary for liberal democracy. Without compromise, there is either gridlock when political opposition can at least slow and sometimes stop the majority exercise of power. Under tyranny or authoritarianism, compromise is unnecessary and political opposition can be ignored or crushed as political leadership deems appropriate.

BYB orig: 12/30/18

“Seriously” Weighing the Options?

Author: Just_PrimalSoup (aka Susan)

During President Barack Obama’s eight years in office, his administration managed to enact many environmental regulations for improving our universally shared home, Planet Earth. I must say, I for one appreciated that. But it seems not everyone would agree with me.

For example, it should be noted that Donald Trump’s prior EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, a Cabinet-ranked official, criticized Obama’s record. For reasons which shall remain nameless here, Mr. Pruitt is no longer with us, Cabinet Administrator-wise, continuing to go about making environmental policy. We now have Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, as acting administrator, effective July 9, 2018.

Regardless of who is in charge, I would hope that we can all agree that our global environment, a once healthy, natural, and self-sustaining ecosystem, is not in as good a shape as it could be. She’s rather sickly. It’s also true that no human on earth can instantaneous fix (disappear) the current 8-million metric tons/yr of plastics that choke our oceans.

and the ongoing carbon emissions that eat away at our air supply (the atmosphere). Fixing it is going to take some time, if it can be fixed at all. But at least President Obama, during his term, put forth some efforts toward mitigating the negative impact.

2016: ENTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

As some of us are aware, President Trump and company has sought to, and accomplished, rolling back many of those previous Obama regulations, in deference to their short term Capitalistic rewards; that is to say, in the name of profits. My guess is that, from Trump's and the accommodating Republicans’ perspective, the benefit of short term personal monetary gains outweighs the long term consequences of a provably negative environmental impact. In other words, for those who would agree with regulation rollback, they are on board with an “immediate gratification” kind of mindset.

While Donald Trump’s poll numbers seemingly fluctuate from day to day, my understanding is that the bulk of registered Republicans still stand with him. I’ve even heard that although some of the “buyer’s remorse types” who were willing to take a chance on him and have now abandoned him, in spite of that, Trump’s support numbers of those staunch Republicans who remain are slowly creeping upwards. Yes, his numbers are getting better there! Wow, remarkable (to me). Could it be ”Ann Coulter Syndrome” in action, a la Germaine’s OP?

Well, okay… you’ve waded through my preamble and waited long enough. Here comes my punch line (the question):

Can you give me some reasons why ANY person would be AGAINST stronger environmental regulations? Are any of the reasons legit, from your point of view? What’s going on there? Could it be:

-Money is much more important than the environment (my “Capitalism Gone Awry” complaint)?
-Such threats are NOT real (climate change deniers)?
-Threats may be real but are way overblown (Chicken Little Syndrome)?
-Stubbornness (a game of “us against them” and I’m in it to win it!)?
-Other problems should and must take priority (bigger fish to fry)?
-Science and technology can always and adequately deal with anything later that becomes serious enough or life threatening? (Let’s wait until The Sky really is Falling)?
-Environmental ignorance can be bliss (I’ll be at the mall ;)?
-Just_PrimalSoup is the one with the problem (experiencing the liberals’ version of “Ann Coulter Syndrome”)? -[Your suggestions here]

Please explain it (the mindset/justification) to me. I want to understand it better. I especially want to hear from you if you have any formal training in the human psyche, but all please feel free to chime in. I’m listening. Thank you.

B&B orig: 1/28/19

James Madison's Defense Against Human Nature

“The government cannot endure permanently if administered on a spoils basis. If this form of corruption is permitted and encouraged, other forms of corruption will inevitably follow in its train. When a department at Washington, or at a state capitol, or in the city hall in some big town is thronged with place-hunters and office-mongers who seek and dispense patronage from considerations of personal and party greed, the tone of public life is necessarily so lowered that the bribe-taker and the bribe-giver, the blackmailer and the corruptionist, find their places ready prepared for them.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1895

Mob: (Hannah Arendt, Imperialism, 155) the mob is not the industrial working class or the people as a whole, but it is “the refuse of all classes”; citing Arendt, the mob is “the riff-raff of bohemians, crackpots, gangsters and conspirators”; James Madison: impetuous mobs are factions, which he defined in Federalist 10 as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”, wherein (i) factions arise when public opinion forms and spreads quickly, but (ii) they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification

An article The Atlantic recently published, America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare, is one in a series that asks if democracy is dying. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, argues the barriers that Madison helped design to prevent mob rule have failed. Rosen argues that Madison tried to design a representative democratic form of government that would avoid the fate of “ancient and modern confederacies,” which had fallen to rule by demagogues and mobs. Madison felt that direct democracy would always fall to demagogues who stir mob passions on their way to political power. Madison wanted to avoid government where “passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. . . . . Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

Rosen writes:

Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America.

Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in Federalist No. 10 as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.

The US Senate was intended to be an institution to cool inflamed mob passions that would invariably arise from the House. Mechanisms to cool mob passions included a Senate comprised of natural aristocrats chosen by state legislators. And, instead of directly electing the President, “the people would vote for wise electors—that is, propertied white men—who would ultimately choose a president of the highest character and most discerning judgment.”

Rosen describes the failure:

What would Madison make of American democracy today, an era in which Jacksonian populism looks restrained by comparison? Madison’s worst fears of mob rule have been realized—and the cooling mechanisms he designed to slow down the formation of impetuous majorities have broken.

The polarization of Congress, reflecting an electorate that has not been this divided since about the time of the Civil War, has led to ideological warfare between parties that directly channels the passions of their most extreme constituents and donors—precisely the type of factionalism the Founders abhorred.

The executive branch, meanwhile, has been transformed by the spectacle of tweeting presidents, though the presidency had broken from its constitutional restraints long before the advent of social media. During the election of 1912, the progressive populists Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson insisted that the president derived his authority directly from the people. Since then, the office has moved in precisely the direction the Founders had hoped to avoid: Presidents now make emotional appeals, communicate directly with voters, and pander to the mob.

From the very beginning, the devices that the Founders hoped would prevent the rapid mobilization of passionate majorities didn’t work in all the ways they expected. After the election of 1800, the Electoral College, envisioned as a group of independent sages, became little more than a rubber stamp for the presidential nominees of the newly emergent political parties.

Rosen goes on the describe other phenomena that foster mob rule, e.g., (i) media polarization, (ii) social-media platforms that spread misinformation and inflame partisan differences, and (iii) the physical sorting of people into communities of like-minded citizens. He sees no short-term solution to the problem. Free speech cannot be suppressed, so dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, irrational emotional manipulation, etc) is now a permanent fixture. It is also coming from America's enemies, especially Russia and China, so the social damage is impossible to accurately assess.

Rosen mentions a potential at least partial remedy that Madison proposed: “The best way of promoting a return to Madisonian principles, however, may be one Madison himself identified: constitutional education. . . . . Framers themselves believed that the fate of the republic depended on an educated citizenry.” Regarding public education, the Funders, Rosen and this channel are similar pages. Rosen and the Founders, looked to education about how the Constitution and government work.

This channel adds to that, education in cognitive biology and social behavior. Without at least a modest understanding of the human mind and how it works or fails to work, any defense against the dark arts of opacity, propaganda, lies and unscrupulous manipulation will be incomplete and probably much less effective than it could be.

This is a link to other articles in the series.

B&B orig: 1/1/19