The fourth way to do politics

If you simplify it, there are roughly four basic ways to get political outcomes. The first is to do it the way the tax and spend Democrats do it. The second is to do it the way the debt and spend Republicans want. Third, you can pursue policy that amounts to a compromise. Compromise might be some new spending to appease Democratic party ideology and going further into debt to appease Republican party ideology.

The fourth way

However, there is another way. That approach ignores political and religious ideology, look at the reality of a problem and then try to find and pursue the most efficient and cost-effective solution that best serves the public interest. Approaching policy the fourth way could lead to four outcomes; (1) the Democratic way, (2) the Republican way, (3) compromise and (4) none of those. The fourth outcome is what's missing in politics.

An example helps clarify this. In the 2010 lame duck congressional session, congress passed a compromise bill. It extended unemployment benefits (what Democratic ideology wanted) and the Bush tax cuts (what Republican ideology wanted). The tax cuts were not paid for and added another $400 billion or so to the current fiscal year deficit. That is a clear impact of Republican ideology, despite their howls of outrage at the current year deficit. The impact of the extended benefits is not clear.

However, ignoring ideology and looking at the situation from a broader context than two-party ideology, there clearly was a fourth way. Sadly, it got no consideration. It had no chance. Broader context behind the compromise included, among other things, slow economic growth, high unemployment, out of control federal deficit spending and the endless clash of political ideologies. The compromise was justified in the minds of both parties. Otherwise, the compromise would not have passed congress.

But, was it really justified? Was it the best thing to do?

The fourth way: Extending the tax cuts probably won't do much for slow economic growth or unemployment (according to at least some economic opinion), but it did increase the deficit (according to everyone). Extending benefits may help some with unemployment, but at what cost? Would it (a fourth way) have made more sense to let the tax cuts expire and leave benefits alone? Maybe. Would it have been more efficient to let the tax cuts expire and use half of the new revenue for debt reduction and the other half for building critical infrastructure and/or extended unemployment benefits? Maybe. There are other scenarios. Regardless, we won't ever know because we didn't take a fourth way. We didn't even analyze or seriously consider a fourth way.

Enslaved

The problem is that the two parties are enslaved to their ideologies. They cannot contemplate solutions to problems that conflict with with their beliefs. In short, political ideologues can be largely (or completely) blind to reality for any given issue. That mostly prevents ideologues from thinking rationally or seeing outside their limits. If that is essentially true, the question is how many possible reasonable solutions to a given problem are off the ideologue's table and never seriously considered?

It wouldn't be surprising if the best solutions to complex problems fall into the fourth category more often than not. How could that be? That could be if you consider the failure of the political and religious ideology of both the left and the right. Compromise between two opposing but failed, ideologies may or may not be the best way to go. Failure of the felt and the right is the starting point. A compromise should result in failure. Accepting that makes it is easier to see that a fourth way could at least sometimes, maybe usually, be the best way.

Republican blindness

Unfortunately, the fourth way isn't going to get a fair shot at influencing policy from either the Democratic or Republican parties. They just don't have it in them. Republicans approach problems with the mind set "how can I kill off evil government", even if the best solution to an issue clearly is more government or regulation. That idea rubs their ideology the wrong way. That option cannot be fairly assessed - Republican ideology cannot easily conceive and/or accept such a scenario.

Democratic blindness

Democrats tend to have the flip side of that blindness problem, how to use government to fix a problem when more government or regulation isn't the answer. They cannot easily conceive and/or accept scenarios where it makes sense to have government stand aside to the extent doing that makes sense.

Arguably, the best way to approach problems is not to prejudge which solution is best or to allow ideology to distort reality so that the preferred solution fits the ideology. Instead, one should look coldly and honestly at a problem and accept the solution that makes the most sense, regardless of whose ideology, if anyone's, that solution conforms to.

It takes moral courage

The only way to break away from the weak and stunted political thinking that we get from the two parties is to form a new political party. That party would not prejudge political problems or issues from any particular ideological viewpoint. Of course, doing that takes strength of character. That approach to politics can lead to where people refuse to go. It takes courage to see reality for what it is and then test it against your own ideology.

It is probably the case that most people can't or won't do that. If that is basically true, it is should also be the case that having little or no strong ideological beliefs makes objectively looking at problems easier.

More often than not, reality doesn't fit ideology so ideologues retreat into their ideology. To accommodate that need, reality tends to get distorted into something it isn't. An ideologue can't be wrong if reality is distorted to conform. The psychological comfort is why political and religious ideologies in politics dominate. Its just human nature.

However, it should be self-evident that distorting reality can easily lead to ineffective political policies and waste of resources and time. The innate human tendency to distort the world to fit belief has been a major factor in the failure of American politics. It is easy to let ideology tell you what is right and what isn't. Ideologues can't think freely and do not have to face the consequences of free thinking. They don't have the moral courage.

No wonder America is up to its eyeballs in nasty alligators and serious unsolved problems. We are sloshing around the swamp blindfolded by ideology with nothing rational to guide the way.

Democrats and Republicans betrayed the public trust

There are some times when a politician makes sense. What happens in those rare moments of lucid candor? The talk focuses on reality, not ideology. That's when politicians make sense. Real candor sometimes occurs these days because government does not have the money it needs to mask inept and corrupt politics as usual. Financial distress can force reality into the conversation.

Consider the following quotes from a recent political speech. Does this feel about right or not? The added emphasis is mine.

Confronted with a room full of angry firefighters facing salary and pension reductions, the politician, being booed by the crowd, tossed away his prepared speech and said this: "Here’s the deal: I understand you’re angry, and I understand you’re frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed. And the reason you feel all the things is because you have been deceived and you have been betrayed. . . . . . Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth? See, there is no political advantage to me coming into that room and telling the truth. The way we used to think about politics and unfortunately the way I fear they’re thinking about politics still in Washington DC. See, the old playbook says lie, deceive, obfuscate and make it to the next election. You know, there’s a study that says by 2020, . . . [our pension system] could be bankrupt. And when I told a friend of mine about that study, he said to me, well wait. By 2020, you won’t be [in office]. What the hell do you care? That’s the way politics has been practiced in our country for too long."


Commenting on President Obama's January 2011 state of the union speech, the politician said this: "He says the big things are high speed rail. The big things are high speed internet access for almost eighty percent of America or something by some date. One million electric cars on the road by some date. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the candy of American politics. Those are not the big things. Because let me guarantee you something, if we don’t fix the real big things, there are going to be no electric cars on the road. There is going to be no high speed internet access, or if there is you’re not going to be able to afford to get on it. . . . . . That’s not what we need to be talking about. No one is talking about it. And now what this has become . . . . is a political strategy. The President is not talking about it because he is waiting for the Republicans to talk about it. And our new bold Republicans that we just sent to the House of Representatives aren’t talking about it because they are waiting for him to talk about it. Let me suggest to you, that my children’s future and your children’s future is more important than some political strategy. Let me suggest to you that what game is being played down here is irresponsible and it’s dangerous."

Commenting on how legislators deal with serious problems, the politician said this: ". . . when a legislature - and I don’t care whether this is the Congress or whether this is [a] state legislature. When they say we need to study the executive’s proposal, you think because you speak English, that means they’re really going to take some time, consider it and then act. No, no. What that means [here in this state] and what I suspect it means in Washington also, is this: it means we are going to drag our feet for as long as we can until we hope it dies a natural death because God knows we don’t want our fingerprints on it for murdering it, but we also don’t have the guts to do it. That’s what ‘study’ means in government parlance."

Do those comments ring true? Sound about right?

The quotes are from a February 16, 2011 speech that republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie gave at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Republican think tank (C-Span video link;  transcript link). Gov. Christie's speech was aimed at both political parties. He did not say his remarks were directed only at Democrats. He gave his speech in a Republican stronghold but nonetheless criticized his own party as well. He was speaking truth to power.

A new political party

Some of the sentiments that Gov. Christie expressed have been expressed here as well (link 1, link 2, link 3). Does it make sense to vote for Democrats or Republicans when they have betrayed the public like this? Despite America's current difficulties, the Democratic and Republican parties still play their political games at our expense for their own benefit. Gov. Christie is another voice arguing that our two-party system failed. And, if that wasn't what he was saying, then what exactly was he saying? That they succeeded and served us well?

Culture wars: Ideologues taking away your rights

Culture Wars, part 2 of 2

(link to part 1)

Part 1 concluded that it is fair and reasonable to revoke the tax exempt status of religious organizations that engage in political advocacy. This is the rationale.

The level playing field

The courts say that spending money is constitutionally protected free political speech for legal entities (Citizens United v. F.E.C., 2010). Legal entities include for-profit corporations and non-profit charities. Given that, there is no longer any reason to use the tax code to protect any charity that is involved in any kind of political advocacy. Anything less is unfair and immoral to the rest of us who have to pay their full tax load to play the political games. As we all know, American politics is a pay to play system, despite some attempts to change that perception.

Religious beliefs are generally viewed as sacred, infallible and not open to question. That is true regardless of adverse effects on America or Americans. Religious zealots will no doubt find it hard or impossible to see any rationale of cutting support to secular charities as applicable to religious charities.

Snowballs in a hot place

That is just a manifestation of the awesome power of strongly held beliefs (political or religious) to blind the believer to things like counterarguments and reality itself (facts). This phenomenon has been remarked on before. It is just part of human nature and it isn't going away. Leaving fairness in government spending and defense of our rights up to religious zealots is like asking snowballs in a hot place to not melt for a few months. It won't happen.

Our defender is . . . . . ?

So, who does that leave to defend the constitution and our rights? Secular people with common sense for the most part. Which entity will try to vindicate our rights? Certainly not the Republican party. They are the ones attacking us. And, not the Democratic party. They are largely constrained by religion as well. That leaves no powerful political entity to defend our rights, including our right to have our tax dollars spent fairly and equitably. What we get now is unfair and inequitable. Religion is a major force behind the inequity.

That's what the Republican attack on Planed Parenthood is. Because of Republican party religious beliefs, they don't like it. Therefore, there is no tax support for it. They can try to disguise defunding Planned Parenthood as "fiscal responsibility", but that is nonsense. This attack comes from the white hot guns of religious culture war and nothing else.

Fine, bring on the war as long as it is a fair and an honest competition of ideas in a free marketplace. That's what Republicans claim as a source of their ideological legitimacy. Unfortunately, they don't walk that walk. They just talk the talk. Under the circumstances, it is more than fair to take away the tax protected status of any religious organization as the fair and reasonable price of waging war in politics.

A new political party

It is time for the rise of a new political party. The old ones are broken and refuse to be fixed. If nothing else, common sense says that human nature, including religious beliefs, usually can't be changed much. However, the governed can withdraw their consent. My consent is withdrawn.

End of Culture Wars, part 2

(link to part 1)

Culture Wars: Ideologues taking away your rights

Culture Wars, part 1 of 2
(link to part 2)

Context: A central theme of this blog is to argue for a new political party that differs from the two main parties and the smaller alternatives. In view of popular discontent with the two parties and the urgent problems America faces, advocacy for something different is just common sense. The rationale is simple:

• If America's problems are any indication, our politics failed. 
• Democratic and Republican parties and policies are dominated by political and religious ideologues, special interest money and self-interest.
• The two parties will not or cannot reform themselves in any meaningful way.
• An uncorrupted, secular pragmatic party would be an improvement; It is inherently better able to defend our rights by defending the constitution.

Culture wars

Culture wars in politics include religious ideology (belief) dictating political policy. These days, religion in politics generally means fewer civil rights for Americans. Modern religious teachings seem to tell people what they cannot do, not what they should be free to do.

Sometimes religion directly conflicts with our secular constitution. That happens when religious belief argues that the constitution prohibits any civil liberty that offends the belief. That is the essence of culture war. Like it or not, we are in it. If people who believe in a secular constitution and a free society do not defend themselves, their rights will be taken away to the extent it suits religious belief. Those are the stakes.

Messin' with Texas, and everywhere else

Most religious zealots are not content to simply allow fellow Americans the common sense courtesy of lawful personal practice of their civil rights. If a civil right offends religious belief, zealots will try to take it away if it exists (abortion) or fight it if not (gay marriage). The situation is unfortunate and unnecessary, but that is the reality. If patriots do not fight for their rights, they can be lost or may never come to pass. Those rights will be lost to religious beliefs.

The war now

The culture war is intense. It is a top priority of politicians with aggressive religious agendas. The modern Republican party in particular is dominated by religious extremism. That extremism dictates top Republican party political goals. One goal is to intensify the attack on abortion that began after the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. An example is the recent Republican House vote to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

The House vote came despite the fact that Planned Parenthood was already banned from using tax dollars for nearly all abortions. Instead of making the new ban simply block tax dollars for all abortions, religious zealots want to crush Planned Parenthood out of existence if they can. This is all-out war and prisoners will be shot.

Symmetry: What's good for the goose . . . . 

Assume that in these times of budget austerity it is a good thing to ban federal funding of the Planned Parenthood charity. Planned Parenthood received $16.9 million in federal tax dollars in 2009. Fine. That is defensible. We save about $17 million and there will be a fight over every single cut tax dollar that is spent. We get a small fiscal victory by not funding Planned Parenthood. For this discussion, just ignore the good (or bad) work that the charity did with our tax dollars. But, that spending small cut isn't the end of the story. Not by a long, long shot.

More fiscal restraint: In the spirit of fiscal restraint, the federal government should also ban all federal funding for any child that is born to any woman who tried to get an abortion but couldn't for any reason, e.g., poverty, lack of access, etc. In essence, that child would be off the federal and state books. The religious zealots can take the moral high ground and pay for the consequences of their religious policies - they can pay for the child's schooling and health care.
 
That may be harsh. But it is no less harsh than forcing a woman to have a child against her will and sometimes ruining her life, e.g., by interfering with her ability to finish school or driving her to death in a botched illegal abortion. Sometimes the consequence of forcing religion on us is the loss of human life, e.g., the mother, not the fetus.

That's not all: There should be a 100% ban on all federal money going to all religious organizations or charities that receive tax dollars. Common sense says that that is fine and defensible because of austere economic times. It is time to kill or defund the 1996 Faith-Based Initiative that uses federal tax dollars to fund religious charities ($2.2 billion in 2005). Religious charities get our tax money even though they can and do use our taxes to (i) illegally discriminate by hiring within their organizations on the basis of religion and (ii) discriminate against people receiving aid who do not share the charities' religious beliefs. According Theocracy Watch, President Bush said in 2004 that faith-based initiatives are there to "fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time".

Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to save souls, one at a time or in bulk. The cost-cutting rationale that applies to secular charities like Planned Parenthood fully and equally applies to religious charities. If cost saving is the rationale, then it is obviously time to stop spending tax dollars on both. That would in no way affect the capacity of any religious or secular organization to continue its charitable work. They just need to do it with their own resources.

The logic here is obvious and compelling: Symmetry is called for. It is right and decent. Asymmetry is not just unfair, it is un-American and immoral. Right now, the Republican party is in hot pursuit of immoral asymmetry. They want to kill secular charities they dislike but leave religious organizations alone. That is un-American. That is the kind of poison you get when religion is injected into politics.

The real fiscal prize: This is this is the prize worth fighting for. Religious organizations have declared and are fighting political war in the U.S., e.g., in the 2008 Pulpit Initiative and in other ways. For example, U.S. Catholic Bishops require strict bans on federal funding for abortions before allowing or consenting to passage of Obamacare and other legislation. Catholics who do not cooperate face the threat of excommunication. That is political hardball. Under the circumstances, it is fair and moral for religious organizations to start paying their fair share in return for their full and unfettered participation in politics and culture wars.

After all, religious organizations are trying to take away our rights through the political process. If that is where their sacred beliefs lead them, that is fine. But, Americans who disagree have every right to demand and expect a fight on a level playing field.

End of Culture Wars, part 1
(link to part 2)

Self service before public service: An example

A flaw in our two party system is that the Democratic and Republican parties usually put their political interests the public interest. That includes serving interests with money before the public. Weakness shows itself from time to time. This time, the federal budget debate blows away the smoke and mirrors. The problem is obvious. Neither party takes political leadership in the public interest seriously, certainly not before service to others.

According to a CNN report, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) accused president Obama of a "lack of seriousness" on fiscal issues. CNN quoted Mr. McConnell as saying "I have said repeatedly -- and I know Speaker (John) Boehner has as well -- that with regard to .... entitlements, we're waiting for presidential leadership. We know and will say again that entitlement reform will not be done except on a bipartisan basis with presidential leadership. . . . . . It doesn't have to be in public. We all understand there are some limitations to negotiating significant agreements in public. But we're still waiting for the president to lead."

What does that show?

How does that reveal anything about any political priorities? In the case of Mr. McConnell, it clearly shows that the Republicans will not propose anything first. If they did, they would take political flack for reducing popular spending. Entitlements and military spending are popular, but that's where big spending cuts need to be made if federal deficit spending is going to be tamed.

McConnell has repeatedly stated that the Republican party's top priority is to insure that president Obama is not reelected in 2012. That seems to make job creation and budget control lower priorities. Now all of a sudden, he wants "political leadership" from the person he blames for all of America's problems, including what he sees as cruel Socialist catastrophes like the job killing Obamacare law, the job killing stimulus spending plan and the job killing extension of unemployment benefits in the job killing lame duck session last December.

What he is really saying

Look carefully at what CNN quotes McConnell as saying. In essence, he is saying, this: "Us Republicans are not dumb enough to make a real proposal first and in public. We would get slaughtered in public opinion just like President Reagan did when he proposed social security changes in 1983. We are going to go behind closed doors with you odious Socialists, hatch our plans jointly and then you, Mr. President, will give the public the bad news. That way you take a big hit and both parties take the remaining hit equally. Then we will be free to spin things as the Democrat's fault. Then us Republicans will blow you inept Socialist Democrats out office in 2012 and blame you for 100% of the pain, even if much of it was our fault. The public will never know or remember which party did what because it was hatched behind closed doors. But, they will remember you, Mr. President. By election time, we will be in full spin and blame the opposition mode. And our Republican spin is much, much better than your Democratic spin. We guarantee it. You will lose in 2012."

Timid Republicans

In effect, that is exactly what Mr. McConnell is saying. Look at his CNN quote: "It doesn't have to be in public. We all understand there are some limitations to negotiating significant agreements in public. But we're still waiting for the president to lead." Why would he say that if the Republican had true political courage? What are those "limitations"? Informing the public of how awful both parties are? The obvious answer is that McConnell would not say that if his useless party had any courage and wasn't just as culpable as the Democrats.

Timid Democrats

President Obama responds in kind. According to a Politico report, Obama said this: “This is not a matter of you go first or I go first. . . . . . everybody . . . . ultimately [needs to get] in that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over.” Tipping the boat over is a euphemism for not having only one party take blame for telling the American people how much the cuts are going to hurt. No courage from the Democrats either.

Opaque first, transparent second

It can't be any clearer. The Democratic and Republican parties serve themselves before they serve the public. Neither wants the blame and backlash from what is about to be unleashed on us. We will get the news from secret behind closed door discussions and have little or no chance to object. Recall Speaker John Boehner's recent pledge to make congress more transparent? That's just empty rhetoric from a partisan hypocrite. One can surmise that average Americans will get the transparency thing only when and if it serves the political parties' interests. As usual, the stunning hypocrisy here is completely irrelevant to these people.

So, what does the situation here show? Real political leadership in the public interest or something else? I am not alone in questioning the loyalties of the two parties - Solomon Kleinsmith at Rise of the Center are asking similar questions in this and other contexts.

This is just one more reason to leave the Democratic and Republican parties in favor of something new and different. They continue to fail and betray the public trust in favor of their personal interests.

Things we don't understand - Afghanistan, part 4

Based on information I hear from an American officer deployed in Afghanistan, the American people know essentially nothing about the Afghan people, their culture or how the U.S. military operates. The view of reality that I get makes talk of any sort of success sound either like outright fabrication or sheer naivety. For the most part, the press is AWOL. Maybe "embedding" journalists has succeeded in quieting them. Or, maybe the press has just lost interest, i.e., ad revenues.

My prior Afghanistan post described the occasional attack on Baghram airbase and how the military deals, or more accurately doesn't deal, with that nuisance. In one recent rocket (or mortar)  attach, the incoming shell hit a pole above a B hut on the airbase. Four U.S. soldiers in the B hut were injured but not killed because the shell exploded above the hut. Although it was unusual, a large enough piece of the shell remained for finding a fingerprint on the shell.

Who did the fingerprint belong to? One of our stalwart Afghan allies - an Afghan employee working on the airbase. Within a few weeks of that incident, another Afghani employee at the airbase was caught pacing off the distance from a target building on the airbase to a location from which an attack could be launched. Nobody can make stories like this up.

Given our apparent inability to win many Afghan hearts or minds, what is it we think we can accomplish? All our Afghan military allies care about is getting a paycheck and ignoring our troops at best or killing them at worst. Sure, there will be truly committed Afghan allies, but it sounds like they are outnumbered by about twenty to one and embedded in the Afghan culture. Other than dictatorship, Afghan culture does not seem to be compatible with other forms of government like democracy.

Can you recall the fall of Saigon and the helicopters getting pushed off the deck of the aircraft carrier? Although were were truly committed people in the South Vietnamese army, that wasn't nearly enough. They were swept aside shortly after the U.S. withdrew. Our military situation today feels very much like that sorry episode.

Vietnam vs. Afghanistan

In Vietnam, we had a viable and aggressive press. We had some idea of what was going on, despite the U.S. government's best efforts to keep the public in the dark. Remember the secret bombing of Cambodia? Eventually we found out. These days the U.S. government apparently doesn't have to work as hard to keep the public in the dark. The press and most the public just do not seem to care very much. Maybe the cost, about $377 billion so far, is too low to be of interest in view of our current fiscal problems.

What does success look like?

Given the situation, it is hard to see how we can succeed in Afghanistan. It is hard to imagine what success would even look like. Will it be like Iraq, where people are ready to riot over a chronic lack of electricity and other basic services while having to live with the "tolerable" level of violence (a mere 4,000 deaths in 2010) and massive Iraqi government incompetence and corruption? That's what America's $774 billion has bought us, Iraq and the rest of the world so far. Was it worth it? Will Afghanistan turn out any better? At the moment, it doesn't look like it. But, more time and money will tell. It is still to early to know if Iraq will have some sort of happy ending. Afghanistan is still few years behind that.

America's energy policy: Thirty five wasted years

Historical context: An issue America faces is its dependence on the foreign oil we need to keep our economy running. We were fully warned by the 1973 oil embargo and the 1967 oil embargo. Instead of attacking the problem America went to sleep and did nothing until recently under President Obama. Our energy problem is just another political failure in a long list of failures since the end of the second World War. One can argue and defend the opinion that our political institutions, including the Democratic and Republican parties, failed us and betrayed us. Now we may be waking up.

Wind power

There is serious political chatter about renewable and clean energy sources. Its about time. Decades overdue actually. One focus is on wind energy. Being a neutral, unbiased and pragmatic observer, it appears that wind energy may be a diversion from where we need to focus. Maybe it is mostly a waste of tax dollars. Some research into this situation suggests that that is essentially true unless, maybe, we look at wind power with more sophistication.

The essence of the wind "solution"

Problems with wind energy include one of inconsistent power output. If you rely on wind to supply about X% of the power to the local grid, you have to have about X% in backup generation capacity when the wind stops blowing. That would be fine, if starting and stopping a backup power was efficient.

But it apparently isn't. Backups either neutralize carbon savings from wind or increase them over emissions from what standard carbon based generators alone would produce. No coal fired power plant in the U.S. has closed as an offset to wind power. It looks like there is little or no upside for our economy or environment from wind energy.

Solutions to that have been proposed (e.g., in a Scientific American [SA] article about 1-2 years ago). SA discussed using wind energy to run air compressors to keep air in huge, stable underground holes. By increasing air pressure when the wind blows, generators run by compressed air from underground generates electricity when the wind isn't blowing. That is, at least as long as there is sufficient air pressure. That allows one to make the output constant, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for backup generation of some sort. In theory at least.

So far, I am aware of no progress on this front. Batteries are too weak to be seriously considered. Major advances in battery science will be needed for that. Batteries are struggling to run modest electric cars with the minimum performance needed for consumer acceptance, although there may be differences of opinion (see page 8) for modest (100 MW) outputs.

Early on, the Netherlands made large bets on wind energy, but is now walking away from wind and other renewable energy sources in favor of nuclear power. Some U.S. analysts caution against wind energy, despite a vigorous defense from the American Wind Energy Association.

Bring on the spin

As with essentially all contested issues in politics, the wind energy field is larded with spin (lies**) from people pushing hidden and open agendas. The Baltimore Sun recently said:

"Proponents of wind almost never compare industrial wind to nuclear power, probably because in every aspect of electricity generation, nuclear beats wind by a long shot. The following are informative comparisons. . . . . After coal, nuclear is the least costly generator of electricity for the ratepayer. After solar, wind is the most expensive. . . . . . Should inefficient industrial wind be pushed blindly, given its potential for greatly increasing our energy bills, requiring up to 50 percent taxpayer investment, and causing enormous environmental damage?"

The bias of an unspun, pragmatic realist

My bias is simple. I favor whatever works here and now in terms of balancing (i) consumer cost, (ii) local environmental concerns and (iii) global climate change concerns. Job creation backing the "wrong bet", e.g. wind energy, isn't a big factor. If wind energy made sense, that's fine and I would support it. It doesn't make sense, so I don't. Ditto for ethanol from corn. To me, those three seem to be the main factors. Our economy desperately needs cheap energy to compete with hungry, ferocious low-cost competitors like China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Although it may be a low probability event, e.g., one in ten thousand or even one in a million, global climate change could cause the end of the human species. That risk, although of a low, unknown degree, deserves respect because the worst case consequences are so bad, i.e., we go extinct. I do not like that scenario.

I support research into whatever may have big payoff potential for our economy and the climate. That includes fusion research, which is the real holy grail here. Unfortunately, fusion is still decades off, if it can ever help. Battery research makes sense, especially if electric cars can drain away significant oil imports in the next couple of decades. Short of that, it looks like nuclear power is the only choice that can now reliably deliver power that we need right now.

Sure, some environmentalists will squawk. Let 'em. We need thousands of gigawatts of cheap energy right now. Environmentalists have no immediate answers. Puny amounts of energy from composting organic carrot shavings, foul biodegradable diapers or whatever other feeble nonsense hard core environmentalists demand is irrelevant. In terms of energy and therefore our economy, we are up to our eyeballs in nasty alligators.

Square peg, round hole

There is another consideration. Its the "wind energy creates jobs" argument. That argument is heard and understood. It is not persuasive. Why? Common sense, not a Ph.D. in economics or physics.

Regardless of how well meaning, if government-backed industry and jobs aren't competitive, they go away when tax subsidies go away. The low cost provider wins, regardless of whether or not it is backed by tax dollars or is eco-friendly. Market distortion from politics or corruption, e.g., a bias against competitive nuclear power in favor of uncompetitive wind, can slow forces of nature (the economy) only as long as tax dollars support it.

Unless some new technology comes up, wind energy looks like a loser. If that is true, American tax dollars are mostly wasted in the effort. That doesn't mean that no support should go there - money should go to the finest, best American scientists in the field. But, it does mean an cold, honest, unbiased assessment. As of now, it looks like we waste too many scarce, precious research and incentive tax dollars on wind. Without external market distortion, e.g., subsidies, disconnected from real competitiveness you cannot pound an economic square peg into an economic round hole.

Regrets and lessons

It is regrettable that over the past 35 years or so, America led by its elected leaders and its political institutions failed to make energy independence a serious national security (i.e., economic) priority. We were warned about what might come if we were to become energy dependent, but we did nothing. Well, now we are energy dependent. We cannot go back and undo our mistakes. At best, maybe we can learn something.

One regret: One regret is that America didn't pursue research into nuclear fusion as a high national security priority. If we had been doing that since the mid 1970s (about 35 years ago), maybe by now we would have (i) figured out how to make it work or (ii) discovered limitations of nature/ technology to prove it will not work soon or ever. Too bad. Another precious opportunity lost.

Another regret: Maybe electricity from more standard nuclear power plants would not have completely replaced imported oil, which contributes to our endless trade deficit (about $253 billion for oil in 2009 alone). Having cheap energy in the American economy maybe would have shaved a a trillion or so off our negative balance of trade over those precious, 35 wasted years. That assumes that electric car/ truck development could have kept improving. That's not an unreasonable assumption, if things like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, are reasonable examples of where we could go if we were serious. That lost trillion overwhelmingly went to our enemies/ neutrals. It helped them when it should have stayed here and helped us.

First lesson: First, if Americans take their eyes off the political ball, like we have for national energy policy, our politicians and special interests will act in their own interest. That is why we are vulnerable and bleeding massive amounts of wealth. We are paying dearly for our failure to force our elected leaders to do their jobs. Even if Jefferson didn't say it, the price of freedom is eternal diligence. Diligence against who? Foreign enemies? Yes, sometimes. But always, always diligence against our own government.

Second lesson: Free market forces in the U.S. have pretty much had their way, decades of time and the biggest, best economy on Earth and other major advantages since the end of the second World War. Despite the relative advantages and freedom, the free market did not save us in terms of new ways to generate clean, low cost energy for our economy. For the most part, the private sector doesn't care about us, fusion energy or the environment. They focus on the next quarterly report, not our welfare.

In their defense: In defense of real world capitalist markets, no one should have expected more from them than what they delivered. Their job is to make money, not to make the world a better place. If a business is too soft there are shareholder lawsuits or a takeover or bankruptcy at the hands of more ruthless competitors. That's the point of competition.

In theory, government is there to protect the public interest without destroying private interests. Its a balancing act. The private sector can help some but defense of the public interest has to come mainly from what government can do, e.g., public education, public safety or environmental laws. What society demands helps some as well.

Regardless, we are in the situation we are now in. We could be in a much better position if we had had competent politics and political leaders. But we didn't. The inept Democratic and Republican parties failed us. Now we are paying for it.

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

** My definition of a lie (spin) in politics means (1) a regular lie and (2) withholding fair counterpoints, facts and arguments that undermine or contradict what a spinner argues. What advocates/ spinners don't say is usually more important than what they do say. That is routine politics for both political parties and most (not all) powerful special interests. In the meantime, us poor, mushroom taxpayers are kept in the warm, moist dark and get fed interesting but funny-smelling nutrient sources.

Procreation, abortion, the courts and congress

Procreation and abortion are two of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics. There are a couple of turning points. One player absent from the scene was congress. Progress came from the courts, not congress.There was a reason for the absence of our elected leaders from the process.

You cannot have as many babies as you want

In 1927, the U.S. supreme court decided the fate of Carrie Buck's future babies in the Buck v. Bell case. By then, the medical procedure of sterilization had become fairly safe. The state of Virginia wanted to sterilize Ms. Buck, who was considered to be "feeble minded", which meant promiscuous, poor or abnormal. The supreme court ruled (8-1) that Ms. Buck could be sterilized.

Well, OK, maybe you can have as many 

babies as you want - just be respectable

In 1942, the supreme court decided the Skinner v. Oklahoma case. The supreme court said that sterilization as punishment for a white collar crime was unconstitutional (under Oklahoma law). If it was a blue collar crime, e.g., murder, burglary, rape, etc, you could be sterilized. It was OK to break white collar laws, which was a "crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation". That was 1942.

You can have an abortion

Roe v. Wade is a modern flash point. In 1973, the supreme court said that a woman (in consultation with her doctor) had an interest that the state could not override until after the third trimester. In the third trimester, the states could decide abortion's legality. That was in deference to state's rights. The Roe reasoning was that as a fetus came closer to viability outside the mother, the more the state had an interest.

In modern culture wars, it makes a big difference if one uses the term embryo, fetus or baby. Modern anti-abortionists never use the terms embryo or fetus. It is always a baby because that is more emotionally compelling. See how labeling works? It's just routine political spin.

Where was congress?

Why didn't congress ever step in and pass laws to try to reflect changes in society as they evolved? They could have, but were afraid for their political lives. Elected politicians would not touch some controversies because they were too politically toxic.

The politics of procreation and abortion reflected a weakness in our political system. Sometimes the courts had to do what congress lacked the courage to do. The courts may get blamed by congress for being "activist", but without that activism progress probably would not come for a long, long time. It's an example of self-interest (re-election) beofre the public interest, a topic addressed both here and elsewhere. All of that procreation and abortion stuff was a long time ago. Is this concern still relevant?

Still relevant 

In one of those rare moments of candor from a politician in office and running for re-election (2012), senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) made the following comments: "We have a bunch of people in Congress that have made a lifetime career of saying yes. We don't want there to be controversy about decisions we make, so how do we avoid that controversy? We say yes. So we've said yes and yes and yes and yes until we find ourself at this point in history."

Senator McCaskill's comments were made in the context of federal deficit spending. That is one of those rare admissions by a politician about how political business in Washington gets done. Political self-interest comes before the public interest. No controversy means re-election. Controversy spells doom. 

The strange thing about this admission is that on it's face it seems to be speaking truth in the public interest. However, it isn't just that - self-interest lies just beneath the surface. McCaskill voted for both the stimulus spending plan and and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which she defends. Those votes still irritate people in Missouri so now McCaskill is assailing government spending and backing a new GOP anti-deficit plan that includes cuts in social security and medicare. At one time, those were political third rails. Times have changed. 

She is running for her political life and openly admits it - "This is a bold step; it has risks. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat."

To save her political career, McCaskill needs to show people in the show-me state that she is a true fiscal conservative. When it comes to truth in political advertising, the public has to take whatever crumbs politicians and spinners toss at us and be grateful there was a crumb. But even when a crumb does occasionally come our way, it can still be as full of self-interest as it is of public interest. Its best to just take what you can get and appreciate it.

How does any of this apply 
to a new political party?

The matter of political self-interest before the public interest teaches harsh lessons. It says that good political leaders probably won't last long in office for the most part. Why? Because the good ones will face controversies and likely lose their seat when acting in the public interest hurts the politicians re-election chances. Voters tend to toss out politicians when they are irritated enough. 

That makes most politicians unwilling to engage in controversy, even when it is clear that the controversy needs to be engaged. Maybe that's why the founding fathers talked of citizen politicians instead of just a ruling class. Good leaders are willing to personally sacrifice for the public good. We don't have many leaders like that, but we do need them.

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties look like a place that can incubate and grow that kind of leadership. If it were otherwise, why did Senator McCaskill resort to saying what she said? It is hard to imagine that she would have accused people in congress of self-service before public service believing that was false. If her allegation is true, and I believe it is, then who gets the credit if you like it or blame if you don't? The Democratic and Republican parties, that's who. Other than those two, no other party has held power in congress or the white house for over a century.