The dead marketplace of ideas

The marketplace of ideas concept has been around for a long time. In a democracy, it means that competing ideas are free to compete for influence over policy based on their merits compared to competing ideas. Politicians and other political folks occasionally mention it as something they do or should support. In theory, it sounds like a good idea and useful tool to inform society about competing political policies.

Does it really exist?

Is American politics dominated by a fair and honest competition between competing ideas and political policies? Is the competition fair and honest when special interest money behind a special interest idea in competition with a better idea with no money behind it? Free speech experts think about these things and they seem to think that money can affect the outcome.

If that is true, then special interest money can get its second best idea elevated to law and policy while the best idea is discarded. Is that a a fair and honest competition between competing ideas? Or, is that a failure of the marketplace (full article here)?

Reasoned debate or deception and spin?

Consider how many politicians, political partisans and hard core ideologues usually conduct policy debates. Are the debates usually based on a fair and unspun description of the preferred idea? Do opposing ideas always get a fair hearing? Is the source of political discourse transparent and honest? For example, in the rhetoric leading up to the passage in 2010 of health care reform  (Obamacare) were Republican criticisms, e.g., "death squads", principled, fair and reasonable? Were those criticisms grounded mainly in facts or mostly in spin? Is deceptive criticism and spin a fair use of the marketplace or is it abuse? Does spin help or hurt society, especially when it backs the win of a second best idea?

Dead or almost dead

Given the degree and scope of sophisticated spin in politics, it is fair to say that the marketplace of ideas either doesn't exist or is heavily damaged and almost non-functional. It is hard to see any ideas debated at the national level that are not full of spin. Competing ideas with no money behind them are out there, but they usually have no or low impact for lack of a national audience. They can be hard to find and evaluate by ordinary people. That leaves the players with money and power to dominate political discourse.

I define spin as (a) outright lying, (b) not acknowledging or denying the existence of good opposing arguments or (c) withholding or distorting important facts that undermine the spinner's argument or version of reality. With a definition like that, it is pretty easy to argue that 90-98% of political discourse is spin.

Why do they do it?

If that version of reality is essentially correct, and I believe it is, then why do we have it? The answer is simple. A fair an honest marketplace of ideas undermines the status quo. The status quo favors individuals and entities with money. It allows politicians a way to get elected and re-elected. In other words, all kinds of players exploit the system to their advantage. That is just human nature. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

That status quo used to look like it worked fine because America had great wealth, unrivaled power and many resource and competitive advantages. Our wealth and advantages masked failure and corruption. Those days are gone and not coming back. Unfortunately, neither political party can change and allow a truly free marketplace of ideas. That would undermine their deeply held political and religious ideologies. Competing new ideas are too threatening. People and entities with money are going to continue to press their points using their spin advantage. That's just human nature.

Is it hopeless?

No. Real change can start once people decide to leave the two parties and work to form a pragmatic new party grounded in transparency, shrewd thinking, reality and not spin. A new party can institute a functioning marketplace of ideas. Until then, the marketplace is dead and we will continue to pay for that failure.

Why political parties can't change

This blog is dedicated first and foremost to removing the Democratic and/or Republican parties from power as fair payment for their corruption and failures. Its just a matter of being fair and balanced. Nothing personal.

The nature of the two political

parties is human nature

Consider the Democratic and Republican parties. Who has real power and influence? Outsiders and newcomers? Life-long insiders, hard core partisans and major campaign contributors like MoveOn.org, American CrossRoads, Crossroads GPS, the American Enterprise Institute or Emily's list? Neutral and objective analysts? People like you? People like me? Common sense argues the real influence is with the money and life-long or partisan insiders. The money probably carries the most weight.

Why might that be? Why shouldn't outsiders or newcomers with no money but a good idea get a fair hearing? Three main reasons:

• One, ordinary outsiders don't have money. Like it or not, American politics is mostly pay to play, i.e., no pay, no play. The money is "extracting rent" from interest groups, which is just the cost of doing business with political power. There can be a great return on investment.
• Two, newcomers are not life-long insider activists. People tend to trust and work with people they know. That's human nature.
• Three, outsiders with a truly good idea will, more often than not, suggest something that goes against the grain of the prevailing political and/or religious ideology. The idea gets rejected and that's human nature too.

Asking too much?

Does it ask too much to expect real reform and openness to new ideas? If that description of human nature and political parties is mostly true, then would the Democratic or Republican parties be able to make meaningful reforms or open their thinking? Expecting real change at the heart of politics and the two party system asks too much.

Remember Newt's 1994 "Contract with America"? It went OK until it hit up against the part that said lobbyists had to be reigned in. Once that happened, the "contract" died and went away forever. Special interests with money didn't like it, end of story. The reigning in special interest money concept morphed into the corrupt K street project, a 180 degree flip. In politics, big money talks and most everything else walks.

How can anyone reasonably expect that to change? Why should it change? Money is a major pillar of the two parties. Without it, they would have to survive more on the merits and less on the publicity spin that hundreds of million of dollars buys. If the two parties had to survive on the merits, they would die. The money is critical life-support.

A softer appeal

Life-long insider activists have a different appeal. They are hard core ideologues and have often spent years toiling for the cause. They know they are right. The parties can't turn their backs on them. Why should the parties listen to much of anything form an outsider who goes against the grain? They shouldn't, right? Especially in the Republican party where ideology is king and RINOs are hunted down and shot. The Democrats may even be considering something like that for DINOs.

It is hard to see how either party can be open to new ideas or break free from special interest money. Both go against the grain, even though there is a crying need for new thinking. There is no plausible defense for the money other than buying votes, but everyone involved vehemently denies anything unsavory.

Homeless pragmatists and moderates

So, where do pragmatists and moderates go to get a fair hearing? Nowhere. No major third party is free of ideology. That seems to be why pragmatists and moderates slosh back and forth between the Republican and Democratic parties. Neither party represents their views, but there is no other place to go for political power. Nationally, people registered as independents are on a par with Democrats and Republicans. Despite the parity, pragmatists and moderates get no fair hearing for the most part.

Until pragmatists and moderates understand that the two big parties and the third parties do not share their views, those viewpoints will be largely ignored. The only way to change that is to form a third party based on (1) pragmatic thinking and politics and (2) rejection of special interest "access" bought by special interest money.

Given human nature and our pay to play political system, expecting meaningful reform from the Democratic or Republican parties is unreasonable. It won't happen unless forced by powerful outside pressure, like the collapse of our economy. Short of that, pragmatists and moderates will remain third class citizens behind special interest money and partisans.