Meet the young lawmakers crossing party lines for a green future

Though they both grew up in Iowa, they hail from different worlds. Now, these two legislators are joining forces to advance climate solutions in their state.

The two Iowa legislators make an unlikely pair. One’s a Democrat and the other is a Republian. One’s a Unitarian Universalist, the other is a Christian. One’s the son of two lesbian mothers and grew up in Iowa City, which has more than 76,000 residents. The other hails from a more traditional household, and he’s spent his life in Wayland, a small town with fewer than 1,000 people. One speaks at a rapid-fire pace, his voice full of energy and passion, the other has a calm demeanor and speaks in a measured, matter-of-fact way.

But Zach Wahls and Joe Mitchell do have some things in common. They grew up less than an hour from each other in southeast Iowa, for starters. They’re also young: Wahls is 28 and Mitchell is just shy of 23. They both ran for office in 2018 and won, part of a national upswell of young, first-time candidates who were elected during a midterm election that drew unprecedented numbers of people to the polls. Leaders from Iowa’s Democratic and Republican parties hailed their victories as a sign of changing times.

And even though these two legislators sit on different sides of the political aisle, they’ve still managed to find common ground, particularly when it comes to solutions for the climate crisis.

Mitchell, a state representative, and Wahls, a state senator, are part of a growing number of young legislators who are rising above the polarization that has soured politics nationwide and stalled action on climate change. At both the state and national level, legislators are forging friendships across the political divide and engaging in dialogue to better understand each others’ viewpoints.

They say their constituents are exhausted by the political circus and hungry for progress. Many Iowans agree on the need for things like economic opportunity, good schools, affordable health care, and renewable energy — and they’re looking for lawmakers who are willing to do the job they were elected to do: make laws that help Iowans thrive.

Wahls and Mitchell meet for beers, share meals, and travel the state together to talk with constituents. Their vision is to work across party lines to improve the lives of all Iowans. That’s what got them into politics to begin with, they say, and as bright-eyed young legislators, they aren’t going to let partisan strongholding or divisiveness stop them from achieving this goal.

“Relationships are everything in life and in politics,” said Mitchell, who represents a rural swath of southern Iowa’s farm country, one of the reddest districts in the state. “I understand that Zach and I are going to disagree on some issues, but for the most part we can find common ground in almost every area.”

“Just because I have a great relationship with Joe doesn’t mean I’ll vote the same way as him,” said Wahls, whose district is more urban and suburban. “But being able to start building those relationships now and creating a space for that dialogue is really important so that the politics are workable.”

If Zach Wahls’ name sounds familiar, there’s probably a good reason. Wahls rose to Internet fame in 2011 when he delivered a speech to the Iowa Legislature about growing up with lesbian parents. Millions saw it online and Ellen DeGeneres invited him to be on her show. Shortly after, he dropped out of college at the University of Iowa to promote his book, My Two Moms, and cofounded Scouts for Equality to advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Boy Scouts. (Zach is an Eagle Scout, the organization’s highest rank.)

“I lobbied the Boy Scouts to reverse their ban on gay members, and we were successful in that,” he said. “That wound up being a big part of my life, and I realized that politics would be an avenue I could pursue.”

Joe Mitchell got started young, too. He served on mission trips, and supported his parents’ small manufacturing business. In college, he worked at the Capitol for four legislative sessions. He was still a student at Drake University when he won his seat, and was the youngest lawmaker to take office in Iowa that year. Living in rural Iowa, he has a unique lens on an often underheard yet critical part of America that he hopes to revitalize.

“What propelled me into politics was the idea that government can be very helpful and very hurtful at times to the American worker and getting in the way of the ‘American Dream,’” Mitchell said.

The two first met at an orientation offered by the state for all incoming senators and representatives. Mitchell was the youngest representative to take office and Wahls was the youngest senator.

“We bonded over being the youngest,” Wahls said. “It’s funny, he was finishing college through his primary, and I was finishing grad school during my primary.”

As fate would have it, they ended up serving on the education budget sub-committee together, one of the few joint committees between the Senate and the House.

“We were both freshmen coming in and that was really helpful for both of us,” Wahls said. “So many legislators are there for a couple years and feel like they’ve been betrayed by the other side. For me, I said, you know what, we’re coming in at the same time, we both like and trust each other, this seems like a good place to start.”

Their friendship grew, and in the summer of 2019, they decided to take a road trip together to a conference in Nashville. They drove south, stopping for gas, pausing for bathroom breaks, chatting about policy and politics, sharing stories from their pasts, and listening to the audiobook of Storm Lake: A Chronicle of Change, Resilience, and Hope from a Heartland Newspaper by the Pulitzer Prize-winning Iowan author Art Cullen.

Their destination was the Future Summit, hosted by the nonprofit group Millennial Action Project (MAP). The organization was founded by the charismatic Steven Olikara, a high-energy, ambitious millennial who grew up in Wisconsin — a state with its own colorful history of division.

The idea behind Millennial Action Project is to encourage Republicans and Democrats to form “future caucuses,” at both the state and national levels. Mitchell and Wahls are co-chairs of the Iowa Future Caucus, along with Representative Lindsay James (a Democrat) and Senator Zach Nunn (a Republican).

“The Iowa Future Caucus represents the widest array of districts you can imagine,” Olikara said, adding that “they have chosen to prioritize renewable energy as a top issue in their agenda.”

There are now more than 700 legislators like Mitchell and Wahls who are engaged in MAP’s initiatives across 29 states. The organization also supported the creation of the Congressional Future Caucus which works at the federal level and engages more than 40 U.S. Representatives with nearly equal representation from both parties.

“If you can develop these young leaders at the beginning of their legislative careers, we might be able to shift the paradigm and bridge the old divides that have held our society back,” Olikara said.

Shortly after their journey to Nashville together, Wahls and Mitchell went on another road trip — this time around Iowa — to tour wind and solar farms and biodiesel plants, and meet the Iowans who work at the state’s renewable energy operations. The statewide tour was covered in local papers and news channels, reinforcing a message of unity among Republicans and Democrats in support of renewable energy in Iowa.

“Senator Wahls and Representative Mitchell are two of our youngest legislators, and I’m glad they’re working on issues that are important for Iowans,” said state Senator Rob Hogg, a Democratic legislator (and member of the 2016 Grist 50) who’s been a vocal supporter of climate action.

At 53 years old, Hogg is not eligible to be a part of the Future Caucus, but he supports the work that’s happening across party lines.

“I think it reflects the broad support for clean renewable energies … regardless of party affiliation,” Hogg said. “It is extraordinary what we’re seeing from young people in Iowa and across the country on climate change and other issues.”

Last year, Mitchell and Wahls worked together to oppose a bill that proposed a “sunshine tax,” allowing utilities to force consumers to pay additional fees for using solar power.

“It was primarily Republicans that were pushing these fees, Democrats were generally against them,” Hogg said. “Representative Mitchell and other younger Republican legislators joined with Democrats to say they don’t want to do that.”

The battle gave birth to another unlikely alliance, as the Sierra Club joined forces with Iowa pork producers who use solar panels on their animal feeding operations. Many of these operations are in the middle of nowhere; they’re required to be a fair distance away from population centers due to air-quality concerns.

“Getting electricity to them is expensive, which is why distributed solar is a perfect solution for them,” Wahls said.

The bill stalled, and never came up for a vote in the House. Utilities and solar groups are now working on a compromise solution to present to legislators this year.

“We want to be proactive and have a system in place where we’re generating power from alternative sources,” Mitchell said. “It’s better for our environment as a whole as we start slowly getting away from fossil fuels.”

One of the next bills Wahls said he’s eager to work on with Mitchell focuses on regenerative agriculture, a method of farming that enriches and sustains soil while reversing the impacts of climate change. They’re also exploring legislation that would attract and retain young people in Iowa’s rural areas through a tax credit — an idea that came about during their drive to Nashville.

This work isn’t without risks or pushback, though. Both Wahls and Mitchell have experienced backlash from people in their own parties, and skepticism from groups that have grown accustomed to political divisiveness. To illustrate this, Mitchell described a recent visit with the Sierra Club.

“They’re not generally a group that’s friendly towards Republicans, and Republicans don’t generally meet with them,” Mitchell said. “But I met with them, and talked about the water-quality issues that the state is working on and how Republicans support initiatives such as cover crops.”

The Sierra Club representatives were surprised, Mitchell said, because they didn’t realize Iowa Republicans support environmental initiatives.

People need to realize that there’s a spectrum within group identities like “Democrat” or “Republican” — they are not monolithic, Mitchell and Wahls said.

There’s also an issue of semantics.

“The moment you say the word ‘climate change’, it can shut down and trigger,” Mitchell said.

But that doesn’t mean that people oppose policies and projects that combat climate change. Iowa, known for its exports of soybeans, pork, and corn, is a rising star in the nation for its production of renewable energy. The state generates more of its energy from wind power (40.1 percent) than any other state in the country.

Both Wahls and Mitchell agree that renewable energy is great for the environment, the economy, and the livelihoods of hardworking rural Iowans who lease their land for new wind and solar installations. The wind operators they met earned $90,000 a year on average, they said.

“We’ve created thousands of jobs in the solar and wind sectors, and in our agriculture economy here in Iowa,” Wahls said. “We know the state is better for it.”

In national politics especially, it’s clear that the divisiveness continues to ripple out through impeachment hearings, stonewalling, hate-filled tweets, and an “us vs. them” narrative.

Still, it’s this changing sense of politics among millennials and Gen Z that gives Wahls and Mitchell hope for the future — a counter-narrative to the type of political story we’re so used to hearing, full of animosity and partisanship.

“It gives me hope because the stakes could not be higher than they are right now,” Wahls said. “It seems like this evolution may be happening at just the right time … People are reaching across the divide and, despite having different opinions, are able to work together to achieve a common goal.”

https://grist.org/fix/meet-the-young-lawmakers-crossing-party-lines-for-a-green-future/

Hiding Government Loan Recipients

The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration can choose to hide the names of companies that apply for federal relief. Legislation to provide relief to businesses apparently doesn't require disclosure of all recipients of aid under the $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid bill. Critics argue that the opacity opens the spending program to fraud and favoritism. Favoritism, especially corrupt self-serving favoritism, is a hallmark of the current administration, e.g., Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner (currently working on building a massive privacy destroying surveillance system using coronavirus as cover), tax breaks for real estate developers, forced government business for Trump brand resorts and golf courses, etc.

WaPo writes: “Chief among the omissions is the $349 billion expected to be doled out to small companies in chunks as large as $10 million. .... So far, the agency has said it received about 487,000 applications totaling $125 billion in requests. .... A potentially even larger gap involves the trillions going out to businesses under the auspices of the Federal Reserve. .... Proponents of withholding the information argue that identifying coronavirus aid recipients could make firms hesitant to apply out of concerns for privacy, especially if they are small. Other needy firms may fear that an aid application, once made public, could be construed as a sign of financial frailty. Restarting the economy requires getting money to businesses quickly, these proponents say, so programs should avoid requirements that discourage applications.”

As usual, the president and Trump Party (formerly the GOP) prefer to conduct their business in as much secrecy as the law allows, or more if they think they can get away with breaking the law.*** Privacy certainly is a good things for themselves and their friends. Fraud under cover of secrecy and opacity is of no concern to the Trump Party or the president. Of no concern except, of course, in relation to voting and voter registration rolls, where voter fraud is seen as a critically urgent and an overwhelming problem for democracy and civilization itself. That fake perception massive voter fraud exists despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

*** Getting away with lawbreaking by the president, his friends and the Trump Party generally is a safe bet now that the Department of Justice has been corrupted and neutered to protect crimes by those people.

One can only wonder how many tens (hundreds?) of billions in taxpayer cash is going to be loaned to businesses that will never pay it back due to their financial frailty. Keeping loan recipients a secret makes it impossible to know if the loans were never merited in the first place. That way the government can falsely claim that all loans were good right from the get go, and no one can contradict such false claims based on data. Failing businesses (indirectly) owned by Ivanka and Jared probably have submitted their loan applications. Even if that is illegal, the federal government is not going to punish it. And, if the loan recipients are kept secret, state law enforcement will never know about any bad or illegal loans.

The hogs are gonna have a huge pigfest at the taxpayer trough. Accountability and transparency are extinct species.

Coronavirus Update 6

In a vindictive mood

Blame shifting on parade

Over the last month, the political defensive blame game by the president and his enablers heated up. A month ago, the president nonchalantly commented “I don’t take responsibility at all” for the federal government's failure to shepard the production and mass distribution of test kits for the virus. In his defense of his failure, he cited a “set of circumstances” and “rules, regulations and specifications from a different time.” What on Earth has the president been doing all this time on office? Playing golf? Hm. He was playing golf all the time.

Anyway, that cunning “I don’t take responsibility at all” stratagem is a brilliant way to try to avoid responsibility for any level of presidential incompetence in office. The president went on to blame president Obama for the failure, but cited no evidence. All of this is the typical irrational drivel we routinely get from our grossly incompetent president and his grossly incompetent administration.[1] Thank goodness, America is in SNAFU mode as usual for this chronically lying president and his chronically lying administration.

Bad instincts on the loose

The New York Times reported yesterday that the president was warned about a possible pandemic but his faith in his own instincts coupled with internal divisions and a lack of planning led to the failed federal response. The NYT wrote:

WASHINGTON — “Any way you cut it, this is going to be bad,” a senior medical adviser at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Carter Mecher, wrote on the night of Jan. 28, in an email to a group of public health experts scattered around the government and universities. “The projected size of the outbreak already seems hard to believe.”

A week after the first coronavirus case had been identified in the United States, and six long weeks before President Trump finally took aggressive action to confront the danger the nation was facing — a pandemic that is now forecast to take tens of thousands of American lives — Dr. Mecher was urging the upper ranks of the nation’s public health bureaucracy to wake up and prepare for the possibility of far more drastic action. 

“You guys made fun of me screaming to close the schools,” he wrote to the group, which called itself “Red Dawn,” an inside joke based on the 1984 movie about a band of Americans trying to save the country after a foreign invasion. “Now I’m screaming, close the colleges and universities.” 

His was hardly a lone voice. Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action.

The NYT mentions a litany of incompetence-driven failures by the president. For example, the National Security Council office responsible for tracking pandemics received intelligence predicted in early January that the virus would arrive in the United States. Within a couple of weeks that office was citing options like keeping Americans home from work and shutting down cities the size of Chicago. Also, Alex M. Azar warned Mr. Trump about a possible pandemic on Jan. 30. The president blithely dismissed that as alarmism. The president ignored all the warnings as white noise, deep state conspiracy, or whatever goes on in his deranged mind. He did not act until March. 

A lot of people are going to die from the very high level of incompetence that our always mendacious president operates with. His core competencies seem to be mendacity, corruption, anti-democratic authoritarianism, and as discussed below, revenge for anything and anyone he dislikes.

The viper’s poison - kill the messenger

The New York Times reports today that the president retweeted a post calling for the firing of Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease specialist. Fauci’s crime? He publicly stated that shutting down the country earlier could have saved lives. That infuriated the president, who tolerates nothing that might make him look incompetent, corrupt, mendacious or any of the other bad traits he clearly possess in abundance. That Emperor is butt naked to everyone except the Emperor and many or most of his supporters.

The vindictive way of life - I always hit back ... except 100x more.

Footnote:

1. To be fair, the president has failed or refused to fill dozens of vacancies that need to be filled for a competent federal response to occur. The fault for that is all on the president, which ratchets the level of his incompetence from super grossly incompetent to staggeringly, mind bogglingly, breathtakingly incompetent. That is just one step below the highest level of incompetence known to humanity. (That level is so awful, that it is best left unwritten until its use is absolutely necessary)

Social Distortion - Cold Feelings

Corporate Politics and Physicists Modeling Political Instability

Wild turkeys in the hay

Shawn Griffiths at IVN writes on modeling studies that are beginning to dissect and shed light on growing instability in US elections. Relevant to this is the fact that two private political corporations, the Republican and Democratic Parties, are largely in control of the deeper systemic problems in our elections process. Griffiths writes:

“A research group out of MIT, for instance, has shown how the same mathematical formulas that help scientists understand certain phenomena in the physical world can be used to analyze the growing instability in US elections -- an instability these researchers acknowledge is partly due to growing polarization between the two parties and the structure of party primaries. 

‘Our country seems more divided than ever, with election outcomes resembling a pendulum swinging with ever increasing force,’ MIT doctoral student in Physics, Alexander Siegenfeld, told MIT News. He adds that in these ‘unstable’ elections, “a small change in electorate opinion can dramatically swing the election outcome, just as the direction of a small push to a boulder perched on top of a hill can dramatically change its final location.’ 

The study’s analysis identifies a transition in elections beginning in 1970, from a period where elections captured the greater preference of voters to increasing instability that has resulted in an undemocratic phenomenon the study calls ‘negative representation’. In other words, election outcomes increasingly swing further in the opposite direction of the greater preference of voters.”

MIT News writes this about the research:

The findings appear in the journal Nature Physics, in a paper by Alexander Siegenfeld, a doctoral student in physics at MIT, and Yaneer Bar-Yam, the president of the New England Complex Systems Institute. 

“Our country seems more divided than ever, with election outcomes resembling a pendulum swinging with ever increasing force,” Siegenfeld says. In this regime of “unstable” elections, he says, “a small change in electorate opinion can dramatically swing the election outcome, just as the direction of a small push to a boulder perched on top of a hill can dramatically change its final location.” 

That’s partly a result of an increasingly polarized electorate, he explains. The researchers drew from a previous analysis that went through the Republican and Democratic party platforms in every presidential election year since 1944 and counted the number of polarizing words using a combination of machine learning and human analysis. The numbers show a relatively stable situation before 1970 but a dramatic increase in polarization since then. 

The team then found that the Ising model, which was developed to explain the behavior of ferromagnets and other physical systems, is mathematically equivalent to certain models of elections and accurately describes the onset of instability in electoral systems. 

“What happened in 1970 is a phase transition[1] like the boiling of water. Elections went from stable to unstable,” explained Bar-Yam. 

The increasing instability also results in part from the structure of party primary systems, which have greatly increased their role in candidate selection since the ’70s. Because the voters in primaries tend to have more extreme partisan views than those of the general electorate, politicians are more inclined to take positions to appeal to those voters — positions that may be more extreme than those favored by more mainstream voters, and thus less likely to win in the general election. 

This long-term shift from a stable to unstable electoral situation closely resembles what happens to a ferromagnetic metal exposed to a magnetic field, Siegenfeld says, and can be described by the same mathematical formulas. But why should formulas derived for such unrelated subject matter be relevant to this field? 

Siegenfeld says that’s because in physics, it’s not always necessary to know the details of the underlying objects or mechanisms to be able to produce useful and meaningful results. He compares that to the way physicists were able to describe the behavior of sound waves — which are essentially the aggregate motions of atoms — with great precision, long before they knew about the existence of atoms. 

“When we apply physics to understanding the fundamental particles of our universe, we don’t actually know the underlying details of the theories,” he says. “Yet we can still make incredibly accurate predictions.”

This looks like an at least partial explanation for why so many Americans are unhappy with the two party system. It could help explain why the outcomes of elections seems to lead to government that is not responsive to majority public opinion.[2] The concept of negative representation is something that never occurred to me. But, as the physicists describe the concept, it seems spot on in describing what is going on in America’s increasingly minority-driven politics. Maybe the physicists are starting to get a handle on what’s going on and where we can possibly look for solutions, e.g., democratic and republican corporate ownership of the electoral process.


Footnotes: 
1. Reference to phase transition is compatible with seeing politics as a complex adaptive system and the transition period we are in as a bifurcation point that such systems undergo from time to time. It may be the case that over time this line of research can lead to deeper insights about both politics and human history in general. As long as there is sufficient data to input to the model, the predictions and/or explanations could be very helpful to inform strategies to foster long-term human survival and well being. Time will tell.

2. The very first consideration in the core ‘service to the public interest’ moral of pragmatic rationalism is, and always has been, reasonable consideration for majority public opinion, e.g., “being reasonably responsive to public opinion.” It seems that as more data accumulates, pragmatic rationalism increasingly looks to be directly relevant to try to at least partly fix what what is broken in US politics.

Promoting the Strong in Spirit While Suppressing the Weak

A topic the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses is the concept of evil. Evil is an essentially contested concept. People will not and cannot universally agree on when the term applies to specific acts. One section of the discussion of evil focuses on an attack on use of the concept in thinking and talking about it. Nietzsche’s attack on the concept of evil argues that the concept of evil is dangerous and should be abandoned. The Encyclopedia writes:

“The Dangers of ‘Evil’: An evil-skeptic might reply that we should abandon only the concept of evil, and not other normative concepts, because the concept of evil is particularly dangerous or susceptible to abuse. We can discern several reasons why ascriptions of evil might be thought to be more harmful or dangerous than ascriptions of other normative concepts such as badness or wrongdoing. First, since ascriptions of evil are the greatest form of moral condemnation, when the term ‘evil’ is misapplied we subject someone to a particularly harsh judgement undeservedly. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that evildoers not only deserve the greatest form of moral condemnation but also the greatest form of punishment. Thus, not only are wrongfully accused evildoers subjected to harsh judgments undeservedly, they may be subjected to harsh punishments undeservedly as well. 

Other ambiguities concerning the meaning of the term ‘evil’ may be even more harmful. For instance, on some conceptions of evil, evildoers are possessed, inhuman, incorrigible, or have fixed character traits. These metaphysical and psychological theses about evildoers are controversial. Many who use the term ‘evil’ do not mean to imply that evildoers are possessed, inhuman, incorrigible, or that they have fixed character traits. But others do. 

Nietzsche’s Attack on Evil: The most celebrated evil-skeptic, nineteenth century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, also argues that the concept of evil should be abandoned because it is dangerous. But his reasons for thinking that the concept of evil is dangerous are different from those discussed above. Nietzsche believes that the concept of evil is dangerous because it has a negative effect on human potential and vitality by promoting the weak in spirit and suppressing the strong. .... Nietzsche argues that the concept of evil arose from the negative emotions of envy, hatred, and resentment. He contends that the powerless and weak created the concept of evil to take revenge against their oppressors. Nietzsche believes that the concepts of good and evil contribute to an unhealthy view of life which judges relief from suffering as more valuable than creative self-expression and accomplishment. For this reason Nietzsche believes that we should seek to move beyond judgements of good and evil. 

Nietzsche’s skeptical attack on the concept of evil has encouraged philosophers to ignore the nature and moral significance of evil and instead focus on the motives people might have for using the term evil.”

Pragmatic rationalism and human biology

The pragmatic rationalism political ideology is built on four core morals or moral values (simplified explanation here). The morals are respect for facts, respect for true truths, service to the public interest and reasonable compromise. The morals were derived primarily from cognitive and social science insights about the how the human mind works and how humans as social creatures behave in complex modern societies that are awash in a tidal wave of information, including an endless stream of dark free speech (DFS).[1]

If one believes that DFS is fundamentally immoral as at least one moral philosopher argues, then it directly or indirectly violates all four core morals. For example, reliance on DFS to persuade people damages service to the public interest and reasonable compromise because the basis for service or compromise are corrupted in some way(s). Can that immorality ever rise to the level of evil?
If one defines evil as (i) a manifestation of profound human immorality and wickedness, especially in people's actions, or (ii) intent to harm or malevolence, it is clear that DFS can be evil if one believes in pragmatic rationalism. If one believes in an different ideology that holds it is morally acceptable to use DFS in political discourse because the ends justify the means, then DFS arguably rarely or never rises to the level of evil or even mere immorality.

So if one has a pragmatic rationalist mindset, is it wrong to call certain DFS evil if it meets the definition of evil? Does that wrongfully accuse people who rely heavily on DFS or subject them to unreasonably harsh judgments undeservedly? By definition, political DFS is legal and thus calling it immoral or evil leads to no undeserved or punishments of any kind. The only sanction is social disapproval and at present, a significant slice of American society seems to more or less accept and even defend DFS.

Is Nietzsche correct to say that evil in the context of DFS and politics arises from negative emotions of envy, hatred, and/or resentment? Or can it simply arise from the moral authority inherent in pragmatic rationalism? Is it possible for one to call malevolent DFS, e.g., public incitement to a race riot or a lynching, immoral or evil merely because that's just what it is?

What about law breakers in society or politics? Can law breaking ever rise to the level of evil? Were Hitler or Stalin evil, and if not, then what were they from the pragmatic rationalist point of view? From an authoritarian point of view, some people might believe that Hitler and/or Stalin were good and moral.

In its intent, pragmatic rationalism tries to promote the strong in spirit (rationality, tolerance, moral courage, etc.), while suppressing the weak (hate, anger, bigotry, etc.). Is use of the concept of evil so emotionally powerful that the intent is swept away in all the hate, bigotry, intolerance, distrust that DFS foments in many or most people? Does it matter if one is an atheist or otherwise non-religious and applies evil as a concept in a secular context based on a secular mindset?

Is Nietzsche right or wrong about this? Should we get rid of the concept of evil because the human mind is, e.g., biologically, morally or otherwise too weak to handle ‘evil’ in a reasonably rational or socially useful way?

Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

The Spirit of Liberty

The following is a speech by federal judge Learned Hand, an influential American jurist. He gave this speech, The Spirit of Liberty, in 1944 in celebration of I Am an American Day.

We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. 

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.

A couple of sentiments here resonate strongly. In particular these stand out as important but maybe too often left unconsidered or underweighted:

The spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; and the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias. 

It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.