Moral courage in politics

Most core concepts in politics are defined mostly by how people view them. Definitions may exist in dictionaries, but politically different people looking at the same thing often see different or even opposite things. Most (>95% ?) liberals and conservatives who are active in and/or ideological about their politics firmly believe that they stand on great or even sacred political principles or morals. They know that their ideological beliefs have survived the test of time and delivered great benefits to humanity. They know that their politics is firmly grounded in both unbiased truth and clear-headed reason. That mind set tends to see itself as standing in a valiant, patriotic defense of true reason and truth against an onslaught of evil, tyranny, self-deluded stupidity, cynical self-interest or things about like that. That mind set generally sees the political opposition as practicing politics firmly grounded in heavily biased truth and lies, rigid partisan ideology and addle-brained reason that borders on, or is, sheer nonsense.

It’s fair to say that most politically engaged people would sincerely characterize themselves and their efforts as being driven by true moral courage. A Wikipedia discussion about moral courage says this about the concept: Moral courage is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences. Courage is required to take action when one has doubts or fears about the consequences. Moral courage therefore involves deliberation or careful thought. Reflex action or dogmatic fanaticism do not involve moral courage because such impulsive actions are not based upon moral reasoning.

Given the common, opposing views that the left and the right have of each other as people mostly unable to deal honestly with truth, both sides would no doubt consider their own side to employ moral courage in their own politics. Many people on one side may see most people on the other side as having only some or no moral courage at all.

Does that thinking and belief by either side stand up to scrutiny? Not according to cognitive and social science. And not according to simple logic.

The science disconnect: Science finds that most or all people see political issues and think about them through a lens of intolerant, self-righteous personal morals or ideology. Facts and logic that undermines or contradicts those moral beliefs are usually either flatly rejected or rationalized away. One scientist put it this way: “We do moral reasoning not to reconstruct why we ourselves came to a judgment; we reason to find the best possible reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment. . . . . The rider (conscious reason) is skilled at fabricating post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant (unconscious moralistic thinking) has just done, and it is good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant wants to do next. . . . . We make our first judgments rapidly, and we are dreadful at seeking out evidence that might disconfirm those initial judgments.”

The logic disconnect: If it is true, as partisans on the left and right argue, that the opposition’s thinking and perceptions of reality is heavily distorted by a reality- and reason-distorting ideology or mind set (or other things such as self-interest), then neither side practices moral courage in politics. That’s an example of impulse actions that are not based upon moral reasoning. No authority says that both the left and right cannot be mostly correct in arguing that the other side acts on ideological impulse instead of deliberation or careful thought, i.e., not morally courageous.

The interesting thing about the pure logic argument is that it is supported by science. In that regard, the logic argument isn’t just a thought disconnected from everything else. It’s a hypothesis (theory?) supported by a great deal of research and evidence.

Is moral courage possible at all?: Practicing perfect moral courage is impossible if it requires perfect knowledge. Perfection in anything is impossible, as argued here before. Nonetheless, it is possible to practice an imperfect but recognizable form of moral courage if one acknowledges one’s own cognitive nature and honestly tries to deal with it. How can that be done? Since existing political ideologies are known fact- and reason-distorters, adopting a political ideology that fosters reductions in ideologically-inspired distortions is a real step toward moral courage. One example of such an ideology has been described here. Obviously, other variants or articulations of that ideology are possible, but the point is to reduce unrestrained fact and reason distortion that underpins standard that underpins standard subjective politics.

Of course, accepting that requires the intestinal fortitude to try to see unbiased reality and unbiased, reasoned argument for what they are instead of accepting the false realities and reason that create the liberal and conservative worlds that most partisans now view the world through.

B&B orig: 9/22/16; DP 8/13/19; DP repost 5/31/20

Are honest politicians electable?

One rather persuasive, reasonably rational person argued that, in general, politicians who try to be honest about their campaign rhetoric are often or usually more likely to lose than win. Lies appear to be more powerful than honesty and that seems to accord with science.

The argument for more lies: People aren't rational about politics and their opinions are mostly based on things that aren't true. When a politician is honest and candid, it gives the opponent a chance to distort what the politician says, use it to attack the speaker and that rallies the attacker's supporters and casts doubt among undecided voters. Hillary Clinton is under constant attack as being an incessant liar. Attempts to explain matters can make the situation worse.

Lies often don't faze most supporters of a given politician but they do cast doubt on the opponent's reputation with most everyone else. In view of that, candidates should be aggressive and persistent about lying and denying the truth the upsides outweigh the downsides. Neither candidate has more to lose than to gain. Being honest is an impediment to any candidate being elected. Hard core supporters generally believe what they want whether it's true or not and their job is to win, not to make the world a better place by fostering honesty.

The reality and logic in the argument: That argument is fairly grounded in both reality (fact) and logic. Available evidence from social science is that most people are irrational about politics and most hold beliefs that are significantly grounded in false facts and flawed common sense. The rationale is that there's more to be gained by lying than by honesty.

That argument seems reasonable. It's well-known that misinformation including lies is sticky for many people. Once we get a false idea into our minds, correcting can be difficult or impossible, especially when the correct information contradicts beliefs or values that people hold. Trying to change false beliefs by presenting true but psychologically unpleasant information often elicits a backfire effect that actually reinforces belief in the false information.

In one paper, two misinformation researchers observed: “But many citizens may base their policy preferences on false, misleading, or unsubstantiated information that they believe to be true. . . . . authoritative statements of fact (such as those provided by a survey interviewer to a subject) are not reflective of how citizens typically receive information. Instead, people typically receive corrective information within “objective” news reports pitting two sides of an argument against each other, which is significantly more ambiguous than receiving a correct answer from an omniscient source. In such cases, citizens are likely to resist or reject arguments and evidence contradicting their opinions.”

If it is true that we are entering or in a post-truth world of politics, the argument that honest politicians may generally have disadvantages relative to less honest politicians makes sense from a cognitive science POV. Getting a feel for the veracity of the pro-liar politician hypothesis would probably take at least another 1 or 2 presidential elections and thus not be clear until 2016 or 2020.

B&B orig: 9/17/16

The new war: Post-truth politics

An aide to President George W. Bush speaking to New York Times reporter Ron Suskind in 2004: “The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”

“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.” Alex Hybel quoting Ronald Reagan’s 1986 comments in his 1993 book Power Over Rationality: The Bush Administration and the Gulf Crisis.

“The age of neutral journalism has passed. It is impossible because what you select from the huge sea of information is already subjective.” Dmitry Kiselyov, a prominent Russian propagandist, quoted in a September 2016 article, “Yes, I’d lie to you,” in The Economist magazine.

“‘I think it’s going to get stranger and stranger’ for people to listen to the advice of experts whose views are informed only by their subjective judgment. . . . ‘So what I want is that human expert paired with a computer to overcome the human cognitive limitations and biases.” IBM computer engineer David Ferrucci quoted in Philip Tetlock’s 2015 book Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction.

The new war: There’s a new war going on in politics and societies in the US and everywhere else. The stakes in this new war are just as high as they were in World War II or the current war against terrorism. It is more important than the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. The war is on truth and it is fought online and in the media. In a recent article, “Yes, I’d lie to you”, The Economist magazine argues that we live in a “post-truth world.” The introductory quotes point to the reality of the new war and some hint of the underlying human cognitive traits that make this kind of war both possible and important.

The Economist argues that the assaults on truth we face now in politics is fundamentally different than what we have experienced in the recent past. Governments that include China, Russia and Turkey now routinely flood social media with misinformation to confuse and distract from reality and then to reshape it. Reality and truth are diluted to the point that they have become weak and ineffective in shaping public understanding of the world and opinions. Reality and truth have become secondary to plays on human instinct and intuition and people’s thinking about national policy.

One can argue that reality and truth are now more subservient to ideological or other agendas, usually hidden, than it ever has been in all of human history. What’s different now that supports this argument are two recent developments. First, widespread access to social media and mass communications (cell phones, etc) has never existed in all of human history. Second, mankind’s social and cognitive science knowledge of just how easy it is to manipulate and distort perceptions of reality and facts on a mass scale has exploded in recent decades. The toxic fruits of social and cognitive science advances are becoming painfully apparent.

That brave new world of political thinking applies to the US. That is reflected in the 2004 comment by the Bush aide to the New York Times: “That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” There is real truth in what that mind set is saying. Once one acts, it really does create a new reality, e.g., an invasion of Iraq created the reality. “Studying that reality -- judiciously” were unimportant, i.e., considering the facts that prevailed before that war, the very real possibility of no WMD, didn’t matter.** Instincts, intuitions, emotions and morals, not cold hard facts, underpin the post-truth mind set. Reality has a role that ranges from secondary to no role. If one know how to play the mind game, human cognition and personal morals and beliefs trump everything else, including facts, reality and common sense.

** The NYT article included this on Bush’s thinking before invading Iraq: “Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.” When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, “Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.”

The Economist article makes points that flesh out the concept and reality of the post-truth world and the new war that rages right now.

1. The “backfire effect”, a cognitive bias that makes many people (~30-70% ?) reject truth that corrects falsity is in full-blown effect right now in the Clinton vs. Trump war for hearts and minds. The Economist observes: “Given such biases, it is somewhat surprising that people can ever agree on facts, particularly in politics.” (one can ask if “people” (e.g., >75% ?) ever agree on facts in US politics)

2. The loss of trust in political and social institutions makes the post-truth world (and war) possible because people are free to accept or reject whatever they want. There’s a widespread public sentiment that “people in this country have had enough of experts” and there’s a yearning for politicians who are “authentic” and willing to “tell it how it is.” The loss of trust in politics and the press-media are real and relevant. There’s no gatekeeper for truth that people can agree on.

3. Regarding social media and content that is either true or false, research shows that “there is no advantage to being correct.” People who see false information tend to give it credibility and spread it. The backfire effect prevents subsequent correcting truth from changing the minds of many people. (in other words, it’s better to lie and defend the lie than to try to be honest; that assumes that lies can and do shape “better” realities than honesty)

4. Quoting an observer of events in Turkey: “Information glut is the new censorship. Even I can no longer really tell what is happening in parts of Turkey.” Governments can flood social media with propaganda to dilute real information to the point that it is impossible to determine truth from lies, even for determined fact checkers.

B&B orig: 9/16/16

Cognitive Biology: Reality vs. perception in politics

Moon at dawn

That people can and do perceive something like a speech very differently probably isn't new to most people. What is new is mankind's understanding of how those differences in perception arise.

The biology of cognition & perception vs. reality: Cognitive science now understands that the human mind evolved to create perceptions of reality that may or may not have much objective truth in them. The conscious human mind processes information at a low rate or bandwidth of about 2-45 bits/second. By contrast, our unconscious minds process about 11 million bits/second and it brings to our conscious attention the little dribble of info that it thinks we need to be aware of. What's lost is just stuff our unconscious minds decides we don't need to know about. The process of bringing that trickle of information to our attention is fascinating.

Our unconscious minds creates powerful illusions, which include (i) a firmly-held, often unshakeable, belief that our conscious mind is in control of what we see, think and decide to do, and (ii) what we do become aware of accurately reflects reality without bias or distortion. One author refers to how we perceive our conscious minds as the User Illusion.

When biology and politics collide: On July 7, 2106 an armed gunman shot and killed 5 Dallas Texas police officers and injured 11 others including 9 police officers. A few days after the shooting, president Obama went to Dallas and gave a speech about the event. How different people reacted to that speech is a garden variety example of what happens when biology crashes into politics.

A Washington Post editorial characterized Obama’s Dallas speech like this: “President Obama gave a majestic speech in Dallas, one of the best of his presidency, at once a soaring tribute to slain police officers and an affirmation of peaceful protest. But he was wrong about one thing: On race, sadly, we are as divided as we seem. This condition is not due to anything Obama has said or done. He bends so far backward to avoid giving offense, even to those who richly deserve offending, that he must need regular sessions with a chiropractor. The racial divide, which has its roots in lingering claims of white supremacy, has been there all along.”

By contrast, an editorial at Breitbart characterized the speech like this: “President Barack Obama converted the commemoration of five Dallas police officers killed by a cop-hating African-American into an extended speech in support of the radical Black Lives Matter movement. . . . . the bulk of his speech broadcast the progressive claim that America is racist because racism prevents all groups from prospering as well as other groups.”

The best-liked comment to the Breitbart editorial characterized Obama's speech like this: “This man has no shame. The disrespect he showed today was breathtaking. I could not believe what I was reading. The man is pure evil!”

Finally, CNN characterized the president's speech like this: “President Barack Obama on Tuesday emotionally hailed the bravery of America's police forces at a memorial for five officers gunned down in Dallas, but warned the despair of minority communities who see the criminal justice system weighted against them must not be ignored. In a soaring address, Obama said that a week of violence and racial tension had exposed the deepest fault lines in American democracy and acknowledged that the events of a traumatic week left the nation shocked and fearful. But ultimately, after one of the most searching discourses on race of his presidency, he concluded that the country's divides were not as acute as they often seemed.”

Characterizations of Obama's speech included, (i) an explicit understatement of racism, (ii) an implied overstatement of racism, (iii) an expression of pure evil, and (iv) a balanced, nuanced assessment of a complex social situation.

In the minds of each of those speakers, their vision of reality is sincere and believed to be objectively true and accurate. For those people, their perceptions are reality. Differences of opinion in politics like this are routine. That shows what can happen when human cognitive biology gets its hands (neurons, actually) on reality and unconsciously filters it to conform to personal world views, morals and beliefs.

That's why politics is more subjective than objective. It has to be that way because that's how the human mind works.

B&B orig: 9/15/16

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