Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
The acquittal of the president in the Senate was obvious at least from the time that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said he had no interest in being neutral. All that was left was for the GOP to figure a way to acquit the president while still holding up a fig leaf to cover their obviously political decision.
The broken law argument
Even without paying attention to the proceedings in the Senate, a couple of interesting points filtered through. One is that GOP senators raised the bar on the political process of impeachment to require broken law(s). That is not required by the constitution, which is silent on the point. Of course, that requires them to ignore or downplay the fact that the GAO found the president did break a law in the course of attempting to extort Ukraine.
But on the point of lawbreaking, the president’s attorney argued that a broken law is nonetheless required to impeach. The broken law defense first surfaced in 1868, when a lawyer defending president Andrew Johnson argued the president could not be removed from office because he was not guilty of a crime. The current situation again proves that impeachment can be fundamentally political if the people in congress choose to make it political. In this case, the GOP is making it partisan political, nothing more. It’s leader and/or party before country for the modern GOP. That mindset is a key trait of authoritarian regimes throughout history.
Idle speculation
Although this is obvious, it bears mention: If the facts were all the same except that president was Hillary Clinton and the House was also controlled by the GOP, the GOP would be calling and voting for impeachment. Again, impeachment is political. An interesting question asks how many, if any, congressional democrats would vote to impeach a president Clinton under the otherwise same circumstances. I bet it would not be zero as it has been and probably will be with the GOP. But that is just idle speculation.
The heads on pikes comment
House impeachment manager Adam Schiff commented that GOP senators had to vote to acquit the president or their heads would be on a pike. That rings true of the modern authoritarian GOP. Discussions here have pointed out that the modern GOP leadership is rigidly intolerant of internal dissent. For GOP congress people, they either tow the line or they will be primaried by a well-funded opponent in the next election cycle. As we all know, re-election comes before country and that is a bipartisan moral value.
It may be the case that no one explicitly made the head on a pike threat. Schiff acknowledged that. Nonetheless, it is obvious the threat is there and real. Schiff just stated what everyone knows: tow the line or we’ll have your head on a pike. Schiff’s comment arguably was a tactical error because it enraged GOP senators. They want to maintain a facade of plausible independence. Regardless, it makes no difference what Schiff says or what the evidence against the president is. The GOP is authoritarian and it politicians will acquit the president mostly or due to authoritarian tribe loyalty, pure terror or some combination of the two.
Swiss astrophysicist Michel Mayor, whose work detecting exoplanets recently earned him a share in the Nobel prize for physics, says humans will never migrate beyond our own solar system. Maybe it’s time we started taking this whole “climate change” thing seriously.
The first exoplanet with the potential to host life as we know it, meaning it was orbiting a star similar to the one we call ‘the sun,’ was discovered by Mayor and fellow Nobel winner Didier Queloz in 1995. In the time since, researchers have confirmed the existence of more than 4,000 exoplanets. But we won’t be making the trip to any of them, says Mayor.
If we are talking about exoplanets, things should be clear: we will not migrate there. These planets are much, much too far away. Even in the very optimistic case of a livable planet that is not too far, say a few dozen light years, which is not a lot, it’s in the neighborhood, the time to go there is considerable. We are talking about hundreds of millions of days using the means we have available today.
Rather than concern ourselves with dreams of colonizing planets throughout our galaxy and beyond, Mayor says “We must take care of our planet.” He told AFP that he wanted to dissuade people from thinking of migration as a viable solution to existential threats, telling reporters he felt the need to “kill all the statements that say ‘OK, we will go to a livable planet if one day life is not possible on earth.” He went on to call such sentiments “completely crazy.”
And he’s right. The current space race may not be a direct response to climate crisis science, but it’s turning out to be a fantastic distraction from the actual, scientifically proven catastrophe unfolding here on Earth.
We shouldn’t be online picking out curtains for some future mansion we hope to live in one day while our studio apartment is burning down around us.
Because, if exoplanets are off the table (barring some far-future tech like quantum warping), then we don’t really have any other options. The Moon? It’s not big enough. Mars? Let’s examine that one briefly.
The red planet is uninhabitable. Despite Elon Musk’s assertion that ‘nuking’ it would kick-start the atmosphere, there’s no current technology capable of “terraforming” it to make it livable. There’s a reason why people haven’t fled the crowded streets of New York, Paris, and Bangladesh to stretch their legs in the wide-open expanses of Antarctica. Because uninhabitable means you can’t survive without accommodations that don’t occur naturally. The challenge of surviving on Mars is almost infinitely more difficult than living on Earth‘s south pole.
When we imagine these ventures, the ones where we send brave explorers off to carve out a new home for humanity (Battlestar Galactica anyone?), we’re not thinking about the billions of ‘regular people‘ who don’t have ‘the right stuff,’ to survive in the harsher-than-anything-on-our-planet reality of space.
There’s no doubt we’ll eventually set up small colonies on the Moon and Mars, but feeding and housing billions of people?
If we’re trying to preserve the species, we need to fight the climate crisis head-on. Building cosmic arks won’t save us.
Yale psychologists used more than 1,000 volunteers to look at how different factors affected how the average person thinks, feels, and acts in various social contexts.
As part of the study, the team of scientists found that older people did no better than younger people at understanding the nuances of human behaviour.
Anton Gollwitzer, a graduate student at Yale University said: 'The lack of a relationship does suggest that the number of experiences one has had in the world does not seem to heighten one's ability to infer how most people think and behave in social contexts.'
If the oldest people are not the wisest, the researchers set out to determine which group of people are the best natural psychologists.
The researchers developed a forty question test to assess a persons skill at reading between the lines and understanding the dynamics of a social situation.
It can be taken here or online via the Yale website for people to see how intuitive and wise they are.
The authors then analysed the highest scoring participants in more detail to see what they had in common.
By doing this, the researchers unearthed the characteristics of the type of people who are best at understanding others.
They found that people of the ilk of famed author Harper Lee are the most adept at understanding social clues.
This means introverts prone to melancholy seem to be more astute at understanding how we behave in groups than their gregarious peers, the researchers found.
They also found intelligence and wanting to engage with complex problems was a key predictor of wisdom.
'It seems to be a case of sadder but wiser,' said Gollwitzer.
'They don't view the world through rose-colored glasses as jovial and extroverted people do.'
'It could be that the melancholic, introverted people are spending more time observing human nature than those who are busy interacting with others.'
Mr Gollwitzer added: 'Take, for instance, the novelist Ernest Hemingway, or the founder of modern psychology, William James.
'Without empirical backing, these individuals were able to accurately capture and communicate deep social human truths.'
(NOTE: If you are indeed a smart person, don't bother reading the report, it is long and boring)
ARE MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE WISER THAN WORKING CLASS PEOPLE?
Research has found that middle class values of self-reliance and individual attainment have left the bourgeois less prepared to handle their interpersonal relationships.
As a result, the working-class folk are more wise than their middle-class equivalents.
The University of Waterloo in Canada defined wisdom as the ability to be open-minded, intellectually humble and integrate different perspectives on important issues.
A higher social class provides greater opportunities to pursue knowledge and education.
Despite this, working class people show more wisdom when dealing with others.
Experts say economic hardship means less wealthy people spend more time considering the impact of their decisions on those around them.
They found that more affluent people are linked with diminished ability to reason wisely when it comes to other people.
Consciousness: the awareness or perception of something by a person; the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world;
Sentience: the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively; the ability to experience sensations, known in philosophy of mind as qualia; (this may not be true: “sentience appears at a certain stage in humans, as in other species, and brain damage can result in those abilities being lost so not all humans are sentient”)
Mind: the element or aspect of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought, including abstract thought about things not directly sensed by human senses such as sight, touch, smell or hearing
The February 2020 issue of Scientific American includes an article, In Search ofThe Brain’s Social Road Maps. The article summarizes research that is beginning to describe how the brain and mind might work in terms of monitoring and guiding our movements in space and time, social relations, memory and abstract thinking.
The concept of cognitive maps as a part of the workings of the mind arose in 1948 in experiments with rats that generated data interpreted as rats being able to think abstractly. The data was fully consistent with a brain that could think in terms of locations in space without having physically been to the locations. That was seen when rats knew how to navigate a maze they had never been through.
Later research discovered neurons in the brain that helped keep time, which facilitated mapping of space. The brain maps are little clumps of neurons (place cells) that fire together when sense inputs or abstract thinking lead to known locations. Three clumps of neurons (grid cells) constitute triangles corresponding to a known place. When a known person is encountered a 2-dimensional map for that person is activated with the perceived power of the person and their social closeness being the two axes. Place and grid cells are now hypothesized to play a role in creating social maps. If that is true, then the human mind creates maps for both places in space and the social position of other people relative to the observer.
The Jennifer Aniston Neuron
Our brains create concepts or images of other people they know. Specific neurons are involved. The authors write:
“The progression from the physical to the abstract carries over into the way the brain represents social relationships. Various bits of knowledge about another person are distilled into the concept of that individual. When we see a photograph of someone or hear or see that person’s name, the same hippocampal cells will fire, regardless of the sensory details of the stimulus (for example, the famous “Jennifer Aniston neuron” described by Itzhak Fried of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues). These hippocampal cells are responsible for representing concepts of specific individuals.
Other hippocampal cells track the physical locations of others and are called social place cells. In an experiment by David Omer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Nachum Ulanovsky of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and their colleagues, bats observed other bats navigating a simple maze to reach a reward. The task of an observer bat was to simply watch and learn from a navigating bat, enabling it to subsequently navigate the same route to get the same reward. When the observer bat watched, hippocampal cells fired corresponding to the location of the other bat.
Hippocampal activity also tracks social hierarchies: the demands of a boss and a co-worker, for instance, may be valued differently and confer different social standings. Common metaphors illustrate the spatial dimensions of a hierarchy: a person may try to gain status to “climb the social ladder” or “look down” at someone below them. Other factors are also critical. Biological relatedness, common group goals, the remembered history of favors and slights—all determine social proximity or distance. Human relationships can be conceived of as geometric coordinates in social space that are defined by the dimensions of hierarchy and affiliation.”
Thus if bat and human brains work alike, they commingle map information about space and time with images of the social power vs. closeness map location of others. Experiments can follow human brains in space and time as they form various social relationships with characters in computer games. Evolving human relationships in these games can be plotted as trajectories through social space, giving data on angles and lengths of the social vectors our brains create.
The world is too complex, we need to model and map it to simplify it
What all this appears to boil down to is this: The world is too complicated to deal with directly. We cannot test all possibilities in life, so we need some way to think abstractly about them. That avoids the need to test many possibilities without ever directly experiencing them. To simplify and model reality, our brains use clusters of neurons to create and represent physical maps of space, time and other people. Using that information our brains can recall memories, think abstractly and come to new insights and beliefs about their physical and social situation without directly experiencing reality. Maybe this sort of exercise in reviewing and making maps is the basis of consciousness and/or sentience for humans, and possibly other animals.
The Twitterverse is lit up like a Christmas Tree.With the POTUS impeachment trial underway, the nasty, name-calling insults are flying, and
in part, being led by America’s Commander-in-Chief.Here’s one interesting example:
Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Cryin’
Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, &
the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M.
on @FoxNews, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC!
I know that it is said that geniuses can be quite eccentric.I can get that.They say even Einstein had a problem tying
his shoelaces. But to me, in my opinion, this tweet, these musings, are of
someone not quite in control of his mental faculties, let alone some “stable
genius.”And these apparently are the
thoughts of a man who, it is said, occupies the “most powerful political office
on the planet.”
Questions:
Though there are many to choose from, what is your
assessment of this particular tweet by Donald Trump?If there are any psychologists in the house,
we’d especially like to read your considered, qualified thoughts.But all feel free to analyze.
Is Donald Trump a good role model for our country, for the
rest of the world, not to mention his young son, Barron, still in his somewhat formative
years?
Should a man of Donald Trump’s mental state have access to and complete
control over the nuclear launch codes, which cannot be questioned by
(apparently) anyone?
Is America in big trouble?If so, is it “fixable?”If yes, “how?”
The Public Philosophy of Contemporary Liberalism is chapter 1 of Michael Sandel’s 1996 book, Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Sandel, a philosopher and Professor of Government at Harvard, is an astute observer of the human condition and America’s social and political predicament. His book asks questions[1] about why so many Americans are unhappy with government and each other and why the two parties are unable to make sense of America’s situation. Those question sound relevant today in January of 2020. Sandel understood in 1996 a significant part of why some people rebelled and voted to reject the broken system they saw in 2016.
One key argument that Sandel makes is that politics and morality cannot be disentangled. That argument goes against the liberalism ideology that arose in the 1950s and still dominates American politics today. The belief that politics is inherently and mostly a moral endeavor is one I came to myself in the last 18 years or so. That was based on empirical evidence from modern cognitive and social science. By contrast, Sandel arrived at his understanding based on his observations and how he logically analyzed society’s situation. Two different lines of inquiry point to the same conclusion.
The discontent
Sandel argues that two fears lie at the heart of modern American discontent. The first is that we are losing control of the forces that govern our lives (self-government), e.g., demographic changes are unsettling to some people. The second is that the moral fabric of family, community and nation are unravelling. These fear generate anxiety: “It is an anxiety that the prevailing political agenda has failed to answer or even address.” Sandel’s anxiety argument is supported by some evidence from recent empirical research indicating that many people are concerned about loss of status and social changes. The core of the anxiety argument is that feelings of loss of control or self-government and moral unravelling are products of the rise of a variant of liberalism that has come to dominate American politics since the 1950s.
The new ideology
Sandel describes the variant of liberalism that arose in the 1950s in America. Its origins date back to John Locke (1632-1704), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The central idea of the American variant is that “government should be neutral toward the moral and religious views its citizens espouse.” This ideological belief recognizes that people disagree about how best to live. Government and laws should therefore be neutral about what vision is best. Instead, liberty arises when government provides rights that respect people as “free and independent selves, capable of choosing their own values and ends.” Sandel calls this form of public life a ‘procedural public’ because government emphasizes fair procedures over particular ends.
Importantly, because liberalism conceives of people as free and independent, they are unencumbered by any moral or civic burdens or ties that they do not choose to accept. Sandel argues that this lack of moral and civic burdens and ties leads to the sense of disempowerment and anxiety that America is experiencing now. In short, liberalism “cannot secure the liberty it promises, because it cannot inspire the sense of community and civic engagement that liberty requires.” That is Sandel’s core complaint about modern American liberalism.
The old ideology
The modern liberalism variant replaced a republicanism ideology. That republicanism held that liberty depends on people sharing in self-government or self-rule. Unlike sharing in self-government under liberalism, under republicanism means citizens deliberate to define and shape the public interest and the people’s destiny. Unlike liberalism, republicanism asks of citizens that they acquire some knowledge of public affairs and have a sense of moral concern for the whole of society. Republican citizens are thus asked to acquire republican qualities of character and civic virtues. Republican government is tasked with cultivating qualities of character that self-government requires.
Thus, unlike the liberal citizen, the republican citizen is asked to take on moral and civic burdens that are inherent in self-rule.
Sandel points out that both liberal and republican[2] forms of governance have been present in America from the start but their influence has waxed and waned over various periods of time.
It’s about morals and social glue
Liberalism tends to shy away from engaging moral issues. That creates a sense of emptiness and anxiety because humans are moral creatures and politics is riddled with moral concerns. Liberalism doesn't provide a glue to hold people together and create a common sense of community. Liberalism doesn't promote a particular view and thus “liberal political theory insists on toleration, fair procedures and respect for individual rights.” People choose their own values, including anti-social and destructive values. That is moral relativism, which basically says, all morals and all ways of life are equal. Of course, the logic flaw there is that liberalism does support core moral values of freedom and fairness: “The relativist defense of liberalism is no defense at all.”
At least sometimes, probably usually, it is impossible to separate decisions about morals from political choices. Policy based on moral decisions can be unconscious decisions, but they are decisions nonetheless. Even a political choice that claims to be purely neutral about underlying moral issues cannot always (ever?) be neutral. In the case of abortion, a liberal can defend abortion arguing the woman’s right to choose and a right to privacy. That may seem morally neutral but it isn’t. It implicitly rejects the moral argument that the moral status of a fertilized human egg, a human fetus and a baby are all equivalent and thus abortion is murder.
Sandel makes the same case regarding the slavery debates between Abe Lincoln and Steven Douglas. Douglas argued the liberal point that since people disagreed over the morality of slavery, the central government should not decide the slavery issue. To do so would violate the constitution and risk civil war. Therefore, ignore the moral question and let the states should decide. Lincoln took the republican position and rejected that. He argued the question was inherently and unavoidably moral. Pretending to be neutral makes no difference: “Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about?” Even in the face of civil war, Lincoln understood that it made no political or moral sense to aspire to political neutrality.
In essence, what Sandel argues is that our current political ideology isn’t up to the task of socially gluing a complex, diverse country like the US together. If he is at least mostly right, then is republicanism an ideology that can do better? Sandel believes it could be.
In this 2-minute video, Sandel briefly touches on republicanism. He argues that wealth inequality erodes republican ideals, which require some sort of shared experience to help build a shared sense of community, social cohesion and the common good.
Footnotes: 1. Sandel’s book deals with complicated political theory and moral philosophy. It was hard for me to to read and understand. His style of prose in this book is dense, technical, academic. That is unfortunate. This insightful book deserves a wider audience that a simplifying rewrite might generate.
So familiar is this vision of freedom that it seems a permanent feature of the American political and constitutional tradition. But Americans have not always understood freedom in this way. As a reigning public philosophy, the version of liberalism that informs our present debates is a recent arrival, a development of the last forty or fifty years. Its distinctive character can best be seen by contrast with a rival philosophy that it gradually displaced. This rival public philosophy is a version of republican political theory. Central to republican theory is the idea that liberty depends on sharing in self-government.
2. Sandel acknowledges that republicanism has lead to bad things in the past that he calls “episodes of darkness.” He wrote in 1996, a time when government was still somewhat functional. American conservatives still mostly believed in facts and logic, although that moral standard was eroding. It would be interesting to know what Sandel thinks of our current situation and whether current conservatism is a toxic variant of liberalism, republicanism or something mostly different.
