The best centrist party, part 3; Special interest money

Special interest money in politics at the national, some state and many local levels influences politics and political policies. It is one of three or four main reasons why America is in the situation it finds itself despite its recent position of advantage. The Centrist Party believes this is one of a few key factors behind why many (most?) Americans are unhappy with and distrust the two political parties, congress and many politicians.

There is no reason to believe that pursuit of money is any less powerful an incentive in politics than it is in business. Unfortunately, pursuit of special interest money often rewards political service to the special interest with little or no regard to its impact on the public interest. That is a statement of fact, not a criticism. A great deal of money is necessary to attain political power and influence policies and the terms of debate. To get that power and influence, politicians spend time pursuing special interest money and/or serving special interests (as much as 50% of their time). Much of that time is sacrificed serving the special interest without much consideration to the public interest.

MV-22B Osprey

U.S. training exercise - February 2011

Salient points and counterpoints are summarized below.

---------------------------------------------------------

Point 1: Special interest money always serves the public interest because it fosters political policies that create jobs and defends America's economy and security
Counterpoint: Special interest money serves the special interest because it fosters political policies that advantages the special interest, which is largely unconcerned with America's economy or security; Policies and spending flowing from serving a special interest can be positive, negative or neutral to the public interest, but the effects are typically negative

Point 2: Special interests need to spend money so that they can have access to politicians
Counterpoint: Special interests do not need to spend any money because they can have access to politicians or parties simply by picking up a phone and scheduling a meeting; There is absolutely no constitutional requirement that says obtaining access requires giving any money to any politician or political party

Point 3: Special interests have a constitutional right to spend money influencing politicians, political parties and politics because doing that is protected free speech
Counterpoint: Under current law, that point is correct and is not disputed

Point 4: Special interests have a constitutional right to advocate for advantage to the special interest without regard to, or even adverse impacts on, the public interest, America's economy or the general welfare of the American people
Counterpoint: Under current law, that point is correct and is not disputed

Point 5: Special interest money does not corrupt politicians or political policies
Counterpoint: Special interest money does corrupt politicians and political policies; The U.S. tax code and implementing regulations are prime examples of how special interest money deflects money from the American treasury by purchasing politicians and political parties

U.S. Marine training Colombian Navy infantryman

U.S. training exercise  - February 2011

Point 6: Special interests gain political or economic favors or advantage only if what is asked from politicians or parties is merited; Special interests win policies or favors strictly on the merits
Counterpoint: Special interests usually gain political or economic favors or advantage when the merits of what is asked from politicians or parties is not merited; If it were otherwise, special interests would not need to spend any money because the political ask would be an obvious policy or favor to legislate without any money changing hands; Special interests win policies or favors (i) to a significant extent or (ii) largely on the amount of money involved

Point 7: Politicians, political parties and special interests all uniformly and vehemently argue that special interest money in politics has absolutely no undue or adverse impact on any political policy, the public interest or any law, including any tax law
Counterpoint: The evidence that special interest money adversely affects political policies, political parties and the public interest is overwhelming; Examples range from Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney to the corruption riddled U.S. tax code, which costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of lost tax revenue every year

Point 8: When a special interest donates money to a politician or political party and then lobbies for and obtains a favor or proposed legislation, jobs are created and that benefits the public interest
Counterpoint: That is true when and only when the favor or legislation was merited in the first place; If the favor or legislation was simply bought and not earned on the merits, then the political action was, e.g., (i) less effective, (ii) less efficient and/or (iii) less favorable to the public interest (as defined by the Centrist Party) than (a) implementing a better competing policy option or (b) doing nothing, if that is the better option

Point 9: The Centrist Party's definition of "public interest" is deeply flawed and incorrect, i.e., it is not a balance between serving American national domestic and foreign interests, defending its economy, defending personal freedoms and protecting the environment as the Centrist Party asserts - for example, protecting the environment is irrelevant to the public interest because it is something that the government has no constitutional concern with; Special interests always act in the public interest as special interests define "public interest"
Counterpoint: The Centrist Party is willing and able to defend its definition of what the public interest is against any other definition; The Centrist Party definition of the public interest is firmly grounded in the constitution; The Centrist Party is the true defender of the public interest, not any special interest including the Democratic and Republican parties

Point 10: The Centrist Party's definition of what the "public interest" is a cynical attack on the political status quo
Counterpoint: The Centrist Party's definition is an attack on the status quo, but is it not cynical; Definitions of what the public interest is frames the issue and the debate; The Centrist Party refuses to allow others to frame the debate according to their definitions - allowing others to frame issues as they wish unfairly stacks arguments in favor of the advocate's preferred definitions and interests

Point 11: The Centrist Party's definition of what the "public interest" is self-serving
Counterpoint: The Centrist Party definition of public interest is not self-serving because by definition, the Centrist Party serves the public interest above any special interest; What others may contest is how one defines the public interest

Point 12: Special interests do not always act against the public interest, e.g., non-profits doing charity work in the public interest
Counterpoint: That point may very well be correct, especially if the special interest gets its favors on the merits without money changing hands; When money changes hands, there is simply no way for the average American to know if a policy or favor was merited or simply purchased from the political system; The two-party system has failed and it no longer deserves the benefit of a doubt on the issue

-----------------------------------------------------------

Navy Blue Angels - F/A-18A

Traning for air show - March 2011

In view of the foregoing points and counterpoints, all of which have been given full, fair and respectful consideration, the Centrist Party (CP) concludes that special interest money corrupts American politics and unduly damages the public interest. The CP therefore advocates establishing one or more incentives to counteract at least some of the corrosive influence of special interest money on American political parties and politicians. Incentives should be established at least at the national level.

One way to establish a powerful incentive is to publicly match 2-for-1 or even 3-for-1 tax dollars to incumbents, challengers and political parties that flow directly or indirectly from any special interest. That was explained in detail earlier. Another option is to give voters or adults a voucher that is good only for political contributions. Both of those could be used together. Other ways to reward, i.e., incentivize, service to the public interest before self-interest or other special interests, may also be possible. The goals would be (i) to make it impossible and essentially pointless for special interests to even try outspending money from the public and (ii) thereby making special interests argue their cases on the merits with less regard to special interest money.

United Arab Republic F-16E Desert Falcon

Joint U.S. training exercise in Nevada - February 2011

To pay for public financing, the CP advocates matching increased tax expenditures by (i) limiting or eliminating ineffective tax loopholes that special interests have purchased and/or (ii) enforcing tax laws that are not not enforced via purchases by special interests. Those two revenue sources alone are much more than adequate to pay for any additional federal spending. The same revenue source could be tapped at state and local levels to offset some or all increases in state or local spending.

Other points or arguments not given above may be important to consider. If they do exist, they will be fairly considered and given appropriate weight. Real adult politics is open to any rationale or idea that can improve the American political system, including ones that contradict the CP's current policy. Politics should focus on defending the public interest and the American standard of living, not defending ideology or special interests.

The best centrist party, part 2; Abortion

Some new or existing political parties are unsure of whether they wish to wade into "social/religious" issues such as adopting a position on the legality of abortion. Some political parties and probably most religious organizations openly advocate social issues such as making abortion illegal. Social issues such as abortion are therefore current, contested and important political issues for all Americans. The Republican party is perfectly clear. They oppose abortion and will make it illegal. Under the circumstances, the Centrist Party has no choice but to opine on the issue because it is contested now and political policy can be affected now. The final opinion comes from a pragmatic point of view based on the party's stated principles.

Shah Joy province, Afghanistan

February 2012

Salient points and counterpoints are summarized below.

Point	Counterpoint
According to infallible sacred texts such as the Bible, it is against God’s word to kill a human fetus or baby and therefore it is both immoral and unconstitutional in view of the clear teachings of those texts	Abortion can be constitutional because it is not expressly prohibited; The U.S. constitution is the source of U.S. legal authority; The Bible is a source of personal spiritual belief, not law
Every human life is precious and therefore all reasonable measures must be taken to protect those lives	No counterpoint (the point is accepted)
Human life begins at conception because that is where sacred texts define it to be regardless of other sources such as the U.S. constitution	The constitution as currently defined by the Roe v. Wade decision holds that human life arises when the fetus develops into a baby; Sacred texts are irrelevant
A fertilized human egg, even before implantation, is a human being with full rights of an adult	A human being comes legally into existence only when the baby can survive on its own outside the womb
I don’t like abortion; Abortion is bad	I do like abortion; Abortion is good
All/most/some women regret having an abortion	Most women do not regret having an abortion
Having an abortion is not a personal freedom because the choice to have an abortion is illusory	Having an abortion is a personal freedom because having an abortion is real
Making abortion illegal will force at least some women and/or their partners to have a child against their will; What God allegedly wants is irrelevant	That isn’t relevant because what God wants is what counts; Making abortion illegal forces no one do anything they don’t really want to do because every pregnant woman and the father wants every pregnancy to end with a healthy baby
Jesus opposed abortion	Jesus supported abortion because at least 15-20% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)
Human life begins at conception and thus cannot be aborted at any time	Human life does not begin at conception - human life begins where the Roe v. Wade decision said it begins; A human fetus is not a sentient being - it is a fetus and thus can be legally aborted
The human soul begins at conception and thus abortion kills or harms a human soul, which begins at the instant an egg is fertilized in vivo or ex vivo	There is no such thing as a human soul because none has ever been proven to science in all of human history
The Bible is the supreme source of authority on this issue	The U.S. constitution is the supreme source of authority on this issue
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was unconstitutional judicial activism because the constitution clearly bans abortion on several grounds	The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion was constitutional strict constructionism because the constitution is silent on abortion and favors personal freedom
Women who get pregnant and then want an abortion made a bad decision and should be forced to live with the consequences of their bad decision; Otherwise it encourages personal irresponsibility by making the mother live with the consequences of her bad decision for a long time	Women who get pregnant and then want an abortion made a bad decision and should be allowed maximum reasonable freedom to deal with consequences; Otherwise it encourages personal irresponsibility by forcing taxpayers to pay the social cost of the mother’s bad decision for a long time
Individual states can regulate the legality of late term abortions	This is a federal matter and the states are pre-empted

F-15E at Baghram, Afghanistan

January 2012

In view of the foregoing points and counterpoints, all of which have been given full, fair and respectful consideration, the Centrist Party advocates keeping abortion law is it now is under the 1973 Roe v. Wade supreme court decision, where states can decide what later term abortions, if any, are legal. 

One consideration in an open minded, analytical decision is that since the 1973 Roe decision is the law, it has persuasive, constitutional advantages for personal freedom that society can reasonably accomodate: (a) It does forces no one to have an abortion against their will, i.e., there is absolutely no limit on the practice of any religious belief because current law forces absolutely no one to have an abortion against their will and (b) it increases the personal freedom of every American without any damage to personal freedom, American society, our economy or the enviroment.

Kandahar province, Afghanistan

January 2012

Unless other arguments (points or counterpoints) supporting (i) the opposing side or (ii) a different side of the issue are found, support for abortion is official policy. As always, that serves the public interest before any special interest or ideology.

The best centrist party 1; Statement of principles

The best political party that Americans can devise would be based on the following facts, considerations and principles. These are antithetical to the Democratic, Republican and all other parties grounded in ideology. Therefore, these considerations and principles can be major factors only in a new pragmatic (centrist) party.

USAF, Alaska, January 2012

• The Centrist Party’s (or another name, e.g., Moderate Party, Pragmatic Party, etc) goal is to maximize benefit to the public interest from government policy and actions
• The Centrist Party defines the public interest as being an optimum balance between serving American national domestic and foreign interests, defending its economy, defending personal freedoms and protecting the environment
• Reliance on political and religious ideology makes government less efficient and effective than reliance on pragmatism
• The Centrist Party therefore rejects ideology to formulate and implement political policies; Policies grounded in ideology must compete on the merits with other policies for acceptance; Policies inspired by ideology will be accepted, rejected or modified based on a neutral, pragmatic assessment of the merits
• The Centrist Party employs a pragmatic point of view to assess political issues and policy. Policies will be based on all competing viewpoints, including the pragmatic point of view.
• The Centrist Party believes that to serve the public interest, the preferred political policies that are win-win propositions to the extent possible for stake holders and the public interest in general.
• The Centrist Party believes that to serve the public interest, policies should be debated and formulated in as transparent a manner as possible with as little unmerited influence by special interest money as possible. All members of the public and all special interests are invited to assert any policy arguments they wish, but those arguments will be accepted, rejected or modified based on their merits and in the context of service to the public interest.
• The Centrist Party advocates establishing one or more powerful incentives that reward elected leaders for putting service to the public interest before service to special or personal political interests, for example, by providing more public financing for elections than the combined financing provided by special interests, or equal public financing for bona fide candidates if special interests choose to not make any campaign contributions to the candidate or the candidate's party.

Afghanistan, Paktiya provence, January 30, 2012

Those simple principles allow a pragmatic centrist party to easily identify and adopt the best policies depending on the facts and circumstances. These principles take into account major problems that led to the failure of our political institutions and policies. They confront the human flaw that elevates self-interest (the drive for re-election) above service to the public interest. They also provide a means to blunt the power of special interest to subvert politics to serve special interests at the expense of the public interest.

Those guiding principles can lead to policies generally considered liberal, e.g., more government or regulation, conservative, compromise or none of those depending on the facts and circumstances. Since ideology is not paramount, facts will be less distorted. Accepting facts and logic as guiding principles for forming policy from the left, right, compromise and elsewhere requires strength of character. Personal character is something not tested in ideologues - they retreat into ideology and that can result in wrong policy positions when facts or circumstances contradict their ideology. Facing the discomforts of unvarnished reality is the psychological cost of rejecting ideology.

However, by rejecting ideology the Centrist Party has intellectual flexibility and freedom to problem solve that no other modern political party has. Entrenched political and religious ideologies dominate and constrain the creativity and open mindedness of all other political parties. In short, ideology has significantly impaired the effectiveness of existing political parties and it renders many politicians worse than useless.

Afghanistan, Zabul provence, Shah Joy district, 

January 31, 2012

If advocates for any policy (liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.) grounded in any ideology wishes to compete within the framework of a transparent pragmatic party, these principles force that policy to compete openly on the merits against competing policies that are grounded in facts and reality. These guiding principles revive the currently defunct competitive marketplace of ideas in U.S. politics.

Elections are on the distant horizon. Its paralysis time, not clobberin' time.

Opinion here is that two-party politics and politicians failed and there are a few key reasons that can explain most the failure. Political party and incumbent self-interest is one of them. The situation is common, garden variety service to political self-interest pushing aside service to the public interest. This complaint and variants thereof have been aired here before. The topic is old but still relevant.

 U.S. supplies to Pakistanis - 2010

Are we paralyzed yet?

One can easily argue that political self-interest sometimes manifests itself in the form of political paralysis associated with political elections. Is it fair or reasonable to believe that in November of 2011, one year from a presidential election, American politics at the national level is already poisoned and paralyzed by partisan politics? In view of our serious, complex problems, is it sane to even suggest that American politics is largely diverted to serving partisan politics for at least one year out of every four, i.e., about 25% of the time, in presidential election years and for several months more for off-year elections, maybe about 35-40% of the time in total? Is that just a nutty opinion unique to Calmoderate? Is Calmoderate wrong? Cal doesn't think so for either question.


Arguing that American politics is in full blown political paralysis in anticipation of an election one year from now is completely nuts. Or is it? What does reasonable, well-informed opinion from outside the U.S. have to say? The November 5-11, 2011 (page 15) issue of The Economist opines on the issue (online article here):

"The coming presidential election badly needs a shot of centrist pragmatism. . . . . . . . Already American politics has succumbed to election paralysis, with neither party interested in bipartisan solutions."

Afghanistan 2010

In an interview (Nov. 14, 2011), presidential candidate John Huntsman opined that a president typically has only the first two years or so in office to get anything done. After that, election cycle paralysis sets in, e.g., as lame duck syndrome, etc. If that is true, and it seems to be, is electing a president for two of every four good or not? I suppose that for most people it is good if you don't like the president and bad if you do. That's a heck of a way to run a representative democracy. Probably a bad way, unless dysfunction is a good thing.

Its not just Cal who thinks that the two political parties and their politicians put their agendas first and foremost. When you think about whose side they are on, it is hard to see how the situation could get much clearer. About the only thing that could make political priorities more clear would be if they just came out and admitted it.

How can you know if money in politics corrupts politics?

Opinion from here holds that two-party politics has failed and that there are a few key reasons behind most the failure. Special interest money corrupting politics is one of them. Arguments that support or justify effects of special interest money in politics are weak at best. A reasonable question is how far can one carry the argument. Can small amounts of special interest money donated to specific federal government agencies have any meaningful impact on agency policy?

An example - Did $13 million affect national park policy?

The New York Times (pages A1, A4, November 10, 2011; online article) reported that head of federal parks Jon Jarvis blocked a planned ban on sales of plastic water bottles in Grand Canyon National Park. The NYT article linked that action to $13 million Coca-Cola donated to the National Park Foundation and a recent meeting between Coca-Cola and national park officials. The water bottles are the biggest source of litter in the park and a source of income for Coca-Cola ($400,000/year in sales, profit margin unknown). Mr. Jarvis was reported to block the ban to allow time to "get more information".

 Desert Storm - Kuwait - 1991

Coca-Cola argued that imposing the ban would be a mistake because it limited personal choice and that increasing recycling would address the problem. As usual when questions about the effect of money in politics comes up, park officials denied that the money had any impact on the decision to block the bottle ban. The park service also denied that Coca-Cola's donations bought "access". Requests for information turned up not much. Events occurred behind closed doors. Other details are in the article. Presumably the littered bottles in the park are disposed of sooner or later when someone picks them up at taxpayer expense.

Under the circumstances, could $13 million in donations to a foundation dedicated to helping national parks affect the decision to block a planned policy action? In other political contexts, e.g., attempts to impose recycling fees in many states, have been blocked or limited by bottlers and retail outlets who don't want the cost and mess associated with recycling discarded bottles.

Cruise missile launch, Operation Odyssey Dawn 

Libya (Mediterranean fleet) - March 2011

(defending Libyan civilians)

Did Coca-Cola's donations affect the federal decision making process and prevent implementing the ban? Is this an example of politics corrupted by special interest money? Will this force taxpayers to foot the bill to implement recycling infrastructure in Grand Canyon National Park so that Coca-Cola can continue to make money as usual without paying for infrastructure to deal with the litter problem?

Its likely that many or most liberals generally hostile to business would see corruption while many or most conservatives would not. How should a pragmatist with no faith in the two-party system or politics as usual look at it? Pragmatically, that's how. Let the facts speak for themselves, ignore political or religious ideology and then draw reasonable common-sense conclusions.

The facts are that special interest money was paid and the special interest argued against a planned federal action that would impair the special interest's economic interest. According to the NYT article, it is a fact that a bottle ban in another national park in Utah was highly successful in reducing litter. It is also a fact that people involved deny anything wrong was done and that there is nothing to be concerned about.

Afghanistan 2010 - U.S. Air Force Capt. Ryan Weld talks with 

villagers during a wroowali (brotherhood) mission in 

Bakorzai village, Afghanistan, Dec. 22, 2010 - 

do you know what they are thinking?

It was corruption: The preponderance of evidence (more likely than not standard) is a reasonable standard of evidence to use if you don't trust the people or interests involved. Applying that without bias one way or the other to the facts at hand, its reasonable to conclude that special interest money corrupted political policy. In other words, $13 million did in fact corrupt a planned federal agency policy. The denials of everyone involved is heard and fully understood but not persuasive. If no money had been donated, the conclusion would have been different. But since money was involved and the policy change was inexplicable, the logical conclusion was that special interest money corrupted politics.

A big problem: That's a major problem in politics. How does one know if corruption occurs in cases where special interest money is involved, government action or policy later favors the special interest, everyone denies that the money had anything whatever to do with it and everything was done in the public interest? That is always the case for that fact pattern. I am aware of no exceptions. Given that, how do you tell an honest government action or policy that is not affected by special interest money from one that is?

If there was reason to have some trust two-party politics or our political system (and maybe apply a different standard of evidence to give the parties some benefit of a doubt), then the conclusion might go the other way. The amount of money involved, $13 million, was relatively small. Or, was it so small? There is no way to know. When special interest money is involved and the special interest inexplicably gets what it wants, then the fair and balanced conclusion is that politics was corrupted. For some people, like me, that's how people can perceive government when trust is lost.

How to blunt special interest money corruption? Fight fire with hotter fire.

Lobbyists currently spend about $3.5 billion per year trying to influence congress. In response, members of congress spend a lot of time with lobbyists, 25-50% by one estimate. There are about 13,000 registered lobbyists and 535 voting members of congress, a ratio of about 24:1. Logic and common sense says that people who hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions do it on that scale because it is effective. Common sense argues that the money would not be there if it was ineffective. Otherwise, businesses being efficient and not stupid, would not waste money and would simply try to persuade congress by arguing their case on the merits and not waste the cash.

What is a reasonable conclusion? Special interest money buys some, many or most people in congress and that's the incentive to pay incumbents in the first place. Of course, everyone involved usually (i) denies that money buys anything other than innocent "access" to congress and (ii) whatever goes on is 100% in the public interest. Special interests include (i) private and public sector campaign contributors and their lobbyists, (ii) members of congress and (iii) both political parties. On occasion, a player does come clean and admit that the money game is something other than pure innocence. Those folks are usually (but not always*) retired or not running for re-election. They have nothing to lose in their quest to burnish their public record for posterity.

* This exception to the rule is revealing. Search for "lobby" in the transcript and scan the text associated with the hits. The situation can't get any clearer without the people involved going to jail for admitting to felonies.

So, can anything be done about it? Probably. Consider the following two scenarios.

  USS Ronald Reagan 

Near Hawaii - July 2010

Scenario 1 - Politics as usual: Powerful senator X is at a high powered cocktail party in Georgetown with many high powered lobbyists. Loads of power are everywhere. Those are folks loaded with cash to contribute to the senator's re-election campaign through "gentle" persuasion, or if things don't go well, the senator's challenger in the next election. The senator really wants to be re-elected and doesn't want that cash going to whoever X's next opponent. The senator's interest is piqued and he/she sets up an appointment with the lobbyist and the two speak off the record behind closed doors. A law is altered somehow and the lobbyist got what he/she wanted.

What happened was off the record and behind closed doors. But if on the outside chance the senator is caught red-handed fudging the law and is publicly called on it, senator X will argue it was in the public interest. And, if there is enough at stake and it is necessary, the special interest will pay millions or tens of millions in media buys to convince us. That's politics as usual. What is the net effect of that kind of political business as usual on the public interest over time? Good, bad or indifferent?

U.S. Cruise missile launch - operation Odyssey Dawn

defending Libyan civilians - March 2011

Scenario 2 - Politics not as usual: The same scenario as above, e.g., senator X is at a high powered cocktail party in Georgetown with high powered lobbyists loaded with cash to help the senator's re-election campaign or the senator's challenger in the next election. But in this hypothetical scenario, there is a difference. Here, if senator X takes lobbyist money his top one or two bona fide challengers in the next election gets three (or two or whatever is needed) dollars for every dollar that the senator takes from any special interest while in office, including his own political party. But if the incumbent takes no special interest money, he/she and their bona fide opponents all get the same in the next election. Everyone is on the same financial footing.

Vicious public financing

In that not politics as usual scenario senator's thoughts might be: "Geez, wait a minute. If I take $400,000 from lobbyist Z, my opponent will have $1.2 million with which to distort my record and smear my good name - I would have only $400,000 in comparable smear power. I might even lose the next election - I live in a God-awful purple state. On the other hand, I could just (i) listen to what Z has to say, not take his money, and then decide if acting on his request is in my best interest, er, um, no wait, the public interest, or not or (ii) ignore Z because he obviously has nothing of real importance to ask for - there is no political risk (no harm to the public and thus no avenue of attack against me in the next election ) in just blowing him off." In this scenario the politician has to consider the public interest. There is no financial incentive favoring the special interest unless the two interests more or less overlap, e.g., win-win scenarios, which is just fine (preferred, actually) whenever they arise.

  Air dropped supplies for Company D, 1st Battalion 

4th Infantry Regiment over Forward Operating Base Baylough, 

Zabul province, Afghanistan - June 2010

What is the net effect of that kind of political business not as usual on the public interest over time? Good, bad or indifferent? What if every special interest knew that there was no way they could ever provide any incumbent or challenger with anything but a financial disadvantage regardless of how much they spent? Would it blunt the power of special interest money to buy people in congress without compelling arguments? It should.

Logically speaking, outspending special interests should at least partly neuter the special interest incentive to buy the senator and/or get the politician to be more attentive to public service. There is no reason to believe it would not work in that manner. This is just a matter of aligning capitalist incentives to favor the public interest.

Religion in politics is relevant

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece (November 4, 2011, page A17; online version) argued that the differing religious beliefs of Republican candidate Herman Cain and President Obama affected their campaigns and different ways of dealing with the U.S. economy. I recently argued here (and elsewhere) that religion affects all kinds of perceptions, right or wrong. Perception is reality, and perceived reality guides politics. Of course, if perception is wrong*, politics is on balance less effective and efficient than when perception isn't clouded.

* Wrong and other 'absolute' terms mean mostly wrong, not necessarily completely wrong. In politics, there is no true consensus about what most anything means.

 The A-10C

So, who do you want calling the shots in Washington: The theology exemplified by the Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta (Cain), the theology exemplified by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama) or whatever makes pragmatic sense in view of the problem at hand (me)? Mr. Cain's conservative theology holds that the scripture is perfect (inerrant) and that historic Christian creeds, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15, are literally true. Mr. Obama's theology does not so hold and the opinion piece points out how their different religious beliefs could easily affect their political beliefs. Religion is usually (but not always) just fine for personal spiritual needs. But it isn't usually fine for political policy. The "theology" of pragmatism and unspun reality is best for politics. Personal salvation needs are different from public policy and the public interest.

Force an answer

Of course, President Obama would, if forced to answer the question of whether his religion affects his economic policies, would demur and say that he defends the constitution. He's  a Democrat. If asked, Mr. Cain probably would not demur like that. He would assert that religion is front and center (just like it was for President Bush). He's a Republican for whom religion is key. When under stress, he sometimes sings solo gospel songs in public, e.g., at the national press club.

 A drone

Who wrote it?

The WSJ opinion was written by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville Maryland. A reasonable guess is that Bishop Jackson isn't an evil agnostic or something worse from the religious point of view. If what he said about politics isn't true, then why did he say what he said? Why did he say that religion can explain where Obama and Cain can come from in terms of economic policy? He said it because it is true.

That looks ominous

In view of the WSJ opinion piece, at least some folks can see the power of religious belief in politics. Is it important and relevant, or not? Your choice.

Who are the patriots: Ideologues or pragmatists?

We are generally familiar with the rock-solid belief in political and religious ideology that characterize many or most hard core liberals and conservatives. Faith in ideology is a source of strength and certitude in their belief. In short, they know they have it all just about right. Their ideological opposition is wrong and therefore responsible for most of the problems. These folks stand on rock-solid principle, black and white reality and the moral high ground. They are respected pillars of the community and towers of strength and truth in troubled times. They are real patriots.

Reality check

OK, that's one way to look at ideologues. It's a fairly common perception among ideologues. That's how many hard core ideologues look at it for the most part, especially conservatives. That's reasonable. If it were otherwise, rock-solid belief in infallible ideology wouldn't make much sense. It is just 8th or 9th grade logic, not rocket science.

M777 howitzer - Afghanistan 2009

Yes, but . . . . 

But what about true, hard core pragmatists? By my definition and that of others, and yet more others, pragmatists don't rely on political or religious ideology to guide them. They tend to see more shades of gray and nuance than black and white. They tend to look for facts, unspun truth and unspun analysis to get at the nature of political problems and issues. They try to see reality for what it is, not for what it should be to fit any infallible political or religious ideology. What could such odious people possibly bring to the party that isn't already there? How can they be considered patriots or courageous in any way, shape or form? Aren't they weak of character, untrustworthy folks with bland spines of Jello® and no real political or moral principles?

Reality check, part 2

OK, that's one way to look at pragmatists. That's how many ideologues probably look at it, especially hard core conservatives. Maybe that's how the majority of the American public looks at it. For the ideologues, that makes sense. If it were otherwise, it would not make much sense to discard belief in ideology. Again, that's just simple logic. We are all on the same page here, right? Well, no we are not. Not by a long shot.

M777 howitzer - Afghanistan 2010

A different way of looking at it

To a large extent, most Americans probably don't think much one way or another about pragmatists. They are distracted by their everyday lives and/or polluted by partisan spin, which is what dominates politics. The word pragmatism is rarely mentioned in politics. No hard core liberal or conservative stands up and thunders to the crowd that they are pragmatic. They are "liberal", "conservative" and/or, for the religious set, "devout", not pragmatic. There is at least one other way to look at pragmatism. From a pragmatic point of view, real political courage and patriotism* generally resides in pragmatists and weakness resides in political/religious ideologues.

* In this context patriotism means having the strength of character to see reality for what it is, regardless of whether it's comfortable. For this discussion, it does not mean patriotism in terms of other kinds of courage, e.g., courage in war or self-sacrifice in another service to the public. The two can be different - they may or may not overlap much.

How could that possibly be? It could be like this. Pragmatists try to face reality for what it is, even if that means (i) accepting uncomfortable realities as true and (ii) logically concluding that uncomfortable political policies should be implemented to address uncomfortable reality. By contrast, what do hard core ideologues usually do? They generally deny, distort or downplay realities (facts) and political policies that contradict or undercut their ideology. That might reasonably be called a lack of moral courage.

Put up or shut up

The blast back from ideologues is obvious: Is there even a shred of evidence that ideology distorts reality and thus impairs politics or makes it ineffective? No there isn't a shred of evidence. There are boat loads of it. Some religious ideologues know (believe) that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Some others know that intelligent design is a true scientific theory, not religious belief, that should be taught in public schools exclusively or on an equal par with the theory of evolution. Those beliefs come from religious ideology or faith, not pragmatic, scientific reality. Many political conservative ideologues tend to be skeptical of or outright deny that global warming (i) is real and/or (ii) humans have anything to do with it. Mainstream science doesn't comport with that, but ideologue skeptics refuse to see it that way because it undercuts their politics. Obviously, ideology can distort perceptions of reality and when it does, it generally (but not always) makes political policies less effective, increases waste and does not serve the public interest.

M777 howitzer - Afghanistan 2009

Pragmatists generally accept reality for what it is, even if they sometimes don't much like it. By contrast, most ideologues accept reality if they like it but tend not to if they don't. Who has the moral courage? Who are the patriots? People who retreat into comfortable ideology and deny reality or people who have the moral courage to face it?

Emotion, not logic, drives politics

A major interest behind a fair number of California Moderates posts was to see if arguing that emotion, i.e., political or religious ideology, (i) significantly drives people's political beliefs and world view and (ii) resonates with the public. In part, this blog was  an experiment to test the American appetite for logic and reason in politics. That was a conscious poke with a stick in the eye of the sleeping dog to see if it would wake up and bite. Would those logic/reality arguments resonate with the public? Well, within the confines of this obscure blog, they didn't. Maybe on a large scale these things might resonate.

Given the response so far, it looks like the sleeping dog (i) doesn't care, (ii) does care but is too busy to afford to pay much attention, (iii) is not educated enough or cannot think clearly free from emotional distortion, (iv) disagrees and/or (v) has a special (personal) interest in injecting emotion into politics (distort reality). Item (v) is a real killer - it has endless cash and some of the finest and/or wealthiest minds in America supporting it. Those are some of the main ingredients in the toxic stew called contemporary American politics. American politics since the end of the second world war betrayed and failed the U.S. public. Emotion is a key reason why it failed.

A reasonable conclusion: There are powerful incentives to inject emotion into politics. Emotion dominates politics because it serves special interests, not the public interest. That's political business as usual. That has already delivered to most of the American public a significant decrease in median income (about 9.8% since the start of the recession in 2007). If U.S. politics remains the same sloppy, emotional, irrational enterprise that it is now, we are going to see if (i) politics as usual can fix the messes it created, (ii) the situation rights itself despite business as usual or (iii) we go over the cliff and take a bigger and/or permanent hit to our standard of living. Time will tell.

Of course, if the situation rights itself despite their inept or even counterproductuive efforts, ideologues will claim full credit for the success. That too is just politics as usual.

In politics, religion is an ineffective source of authority

There are many instances where religious belief dictates facts and reality despite contrary evidence of a "secular" nature. Over the centuries, the Christian religion has rejected all sorts of realities or facts that it later conceded were real, e.g., the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today a few Christians believe that the Earth is literally about 6,500 years old (link 1, link 2, link 3). Because of that and coupled with acceptance of the fact that dinosaurs existed, some Christians believe that humans and dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time (link 1, link 2). Concluding that the Earth is a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a perception of reality grounded in religious faith and belief, not modern science.

If religious faith can lead people to believe things that compelling evidence says is not true, then how might religion affect politics when the evidence (reality) is less compelling? Consider, for example, climate change (discussed here before in a similar facts/reality vs. perception context), the impact of human activity on it and its potential severity.

Assume for the sake of argument, that something important in the Bible or Christian faith holds that Christian belief about the issue should come down on the side that says humans have no affect on climate change, it can't be affected and it is a mortal sin to even try to interfere with God's sacred intent. Also assume that that Christian driven belief comes to dominate politics and becomes official policy, the policy is ultimately proven wrong and the consequences are worse than catastrophic. Could that happen if this hypothetical were true? If not, why not?

Religious belief can lead some to believe that humans and dinosaurs literally coexisted. Given that, why can't religious belief lead some to believe that God does not want humans to interfere with global warming or advocate something else that reality says ought not to be done?

None of this is an attack on religion. Religion is an innate part of human beings. For addressing a person's spiritual needs, religion can be a great thing and can effectively serve that innate human need. A human need for religion simply needs to be acknowledged while minimizing its capacity to inflict damage on politics and political policy.

Religious beliefs are not the only source of distortion. Political ideology such as liberal and conservative ideology can and do distort reality. But in politics, devout religious belief is a more powerful source of distortion of fact and reality than pragmatism or political ideology. That can undeniably lead to flawed or ineffective political policy and waste. Compared to reliance on pragmatism or liberal or conservative ideology, religion is the worst source of political authority because it has the greatest power to distort reality.

A version of this with more context was posted earlier.

A different debate, part three: Religion - the worst source of authority

There have always been two main manifestations of human nature, thought and/or ingenuity: Religion or spirituality, collectively "religion" or "emotion" and secular humanism or pragmatism. In general, religion is faith in the unknowable. It is belief in things that we cannot perceive or analyze. It is not grounded in reason and based on tangible (provable) knowledge. It is mostly grounded in culture and things other than tangible facts. Call it emotion for lack of a better term. Pragmatism is generally the opposite. Its mostly reasoned faith in the knowable (tangible) based on what we can perceive and test or analyze and is generally less tainted by culture.

Guam Rail - extinct in the wild

Science and pragmatism mostly end where our ability to test and analyze ends. Beyond that is the realm of religion. The relatively thin line between them is usually, but not always, clear. Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus and the theory of relativity are obviously on opposite sides of the line. That clarity creates an unusual situation in human affairs: Distinguishing between two complex ways of seeing the world can usually be determined. One world view is faith based and the other is reality based.

Hard wiring

Religion and pragmatism have always been there. They are innate and fundamental characteristics hard wired into the human brain. Depending on the situation and the individual, one may dominate the other, but both are always there contending for mental bandwidth and influence. The interplay is mostly unconscious. The result of the competition manifests as an opinion or belief about something. Sometimes the result accurately reflects reality. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes facts and logic dominates the output. Sometimes emotion dominates.

It isn't the case that pragmatism will always get reality right or mostly right. Nor does religion always get it wrong. But on balance, it is reasonable to expect that beliefs or perceptions of reality coming mainly from pragmatism will get things more right more often than when religion dominates. Why? Because attempts to see or understand reality for what it is should be more accurate if religious ideology is not a source of distortion. Of course, that only makes some sense if you believe that religious faith can distort a person's view of facts and thus reality.

The following is a political argument, not an attack on religion. As argued here before, religion is hard wired into the human brain. It is part of our innate character. What varies between individuals is how that character manifests itself in a person's world view including (i) what constitutes fact vs. fallacy and (ii) the person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. Attacking religion makes no sense.

Can religious faith dictate facts and reality?

Are there instances where religious belief dictates facts and reality despite contrary evidence of a "secular" nature? Yes, there are. Over the centuries, the Christian religion has rejected all sorts of realities that it later was forced to concede were real, e.g., the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today some, but not most, Christians believe that the Earth is literally about 6,500 years old (link 1, link 2, link 3). Because of that and coupled with acceptance of the existence of dinosaurs as a fact, some Christians believe that humans and dinosaurs and humans in fact existed at the same time (link 1, link 2). None of that means that Christians reject logic and reason (link). However, concluding that the Earth is a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a perception of reality based on religious faith and belief, not modern science.

Specifically, the context and facts that Christians use to conclude these things comes from religious belief, not science. Their conclusions do not mean that their logic or reasoning is flawed. It is just that the context and facts they use are at odds with modern secular reality. Faith in the bible dictates the facts and once those facts are accepted, logic and reason can flow naturally.

Religion and politics

If religious faith can lead people to believe things that overwhelming evidence says is not true, then what might the effect of religion on politics be when the evidence is much less compelling? Consider, for example, climate change (discussed here before in a similar facts/reality vs. perception context), the impact of human activity on it and its potential severity. The facts are hotly contested, in politics. But not so much in science. Majority scientific opinion, approaching overwhelming consensus opinion, if not already there, says its an urgent problem and we should at least try to do something about it.

Assume just for the sake of argument, that something important in the Bible or Christian faith said that Christian belief about the issue should come down on the side that says humans have no affect on climate change, it can't be affected and it is God's will to not to even try to interfere. Assume that the contrary facts and consensus scientific opinion on climate change are dealt with the same that some Christians use to conclude that the Earth is 6,500 years old in the face of those contrary facts. Finally assume that Christian driven belief comes to dominate politics and becomes official policy, the policy is ultimately proven wrong and the consequences are worse than catastrophic. Could that happen if this hypothetical scenario were true? If not, why not?

Its not about global warming, its about

how your ideology affects your perception of reality

It does not appear that Christian faith underlies most of the distortion of facts and reality in the global warming political debate. Instead, that distortion seems to come mostly from rigid conservative ideology that dislikes government and has faith in the belief that government should not deal with such matters. From the rigid conservative ideological point of view, the facts make it look like addressing global warming will require coordinated action at the federal level and would have adverse impacts on the economy.

Given that accurately perceived reality, many or most conservatives unconsciously distort or discount contrary majority scientific opinion and facts that global warming is something to be concerned about. They come to an inaccurately perceived reality based on their faith in their "sacred" ideology. That politically ideologically driven distortion is necessary to logically conclude that global warming is nothing to worry about. Its the same process that leads some Christians to conclude the Earth is just a few thousand years old.

Consider dealing with facts that are less convincing than facts about the age of the Earth. What could religious faith do to those less convincing facts if they contradict an important sacred, infallible religious belief? How hard would it be for many (most?) believers to conclude something that conforms to the religious faith but contradicted by the facts? What proportion of people with faith would come to the wrong faith based conclusion? Its reasonable to guess a lot higher than for the young Earth issue because the facts and science are less solid and more open to attack and doubt.

Liberal, conservative, religious,

compromise (moderate) ideologies & pragmatism

Of those five sources of authority and world view in politics, two stand out as fundamentally the most different, religion and pragmatism. Religion and faith for their capacity to lead believers to conclusions and perceptions regardless of contradictory facts and reality. Pragmatism, as I define it, for its emphasis on trying to understand facts and reality for what they are while trying to downplay effects of other ideologies. Those are two very different vantage points from which to see the world and from which to conduct politics.

It is not the case that liberal, conservative and moderate ideologues don't let their ideology affect the way they see things. As discussed above for global warming, they clearly do and sometimes to a surprising degree. Despite that, it seems that facts and unspun reality generally have a bigger impact on perceptions of people with those "secular" beliefs than on persons who are also deeply (and maybe moderately) religious. That is just opinion, but it is based on listening to people and trying to understand what shapes their perceptions of reality. Religion seems to have a more powerful effect on perception than the other authority sources. That's fine, if it leads to an accurate perception of reality and intelligent politics. It can be a bad thing when it doesn't and mistaken perception leads to bad political policy and a waste of tax dollars.

The foregoing describes the context in which our politics operates for the most part. From that context, it is reasonable to believe that reliance on sources of authority that can more easily lead to mistakes from misunderstanding reality should be de-emphasized. Reliance on sources of authority that minimize mistakes should be emphasized. From that, it is reasonable to conclude that the influence of ideologies on politics should be minimized as much as possible. Reliance on pragmatism should be increased as much as possible.

For addressing a person's spiritual needs, religion can be a great thing. But for politics, religion is the most powerful source of distortion of fact and reality. It is the worst source of political authority.