The press and the missing point of view

California Moderates (CM) is generally critical of the mainstream press, in large part for doing a poor job of informing the public. See, e.g., the comments at the bottom of each CM page. CM has argued that the pragmatic point of view is usually missing from political discourse. The press bears much, but not all, of the responsibility for that.

There are reasons for the press' failure on this point. Consciously or not, the press is sometimes hostile to pragmatism probably because it makes for bad entertainment for one reason or another, e.g., its boring (loses audience share) or offends the audience and/or advertisers (loses audience share and/or revenue). As argued here before, pragmatism means being realistic and unspun reality often (usually?) undermines people's beliefs/ideology. That's no fun. Given our standard universe consisting of three points, liberal, conservative and compromise, it is likely the press doesn't recognize that a fourth point of view (pragmatism) can even exist.

 Spiral galaxy NCG 2683

Hubble space telescope photo

An example came up yesterday on a program that aired on POTUS called Politics Straight Up. It was a bunch of reporters chatting live in a noisy crowded bar called the Truman Lounge (at the National Press Club) and drinking vodka tonics, or whatever. A truly strange venue for a political talk show. Anyway, two polls (poll 1, poll 2) suggesting that most Americans believe that the supreme court will decide the Obamacare case based on their politics, and not on the law came up as a topic for discussion. Not surprisingly, the scintillating reporters/commentators expressed varying degrees of sadness/distress that so many Americans were so cynical as to believe that the supreme court would put partisan politics above the law.

Cynical?

Hm. Cynical. Really? Is it cynical to believe that not only are democratic and republican presidents constrained to nominate judges in their respective parties, they must pick nominees that have to pass all sorts of political tests to even be considered. Can anyone imagine a republican president nominating the most brilliant jurist ever who just happened to be a pro-abortion liberal? Of course not. Maybe Americans think that because selecting supreme court justices and all other federal judges is political, their decisions will generally be political. Is that cynicism or pragmatic realism?  At the least, the logic of calling the supreme court a political institution is crystal clear.

Dubai at night from low earth orbit

Or naive?

Maybe Americans are not cynical. Maybe Americans are being realistic about this and the press is naive and/or co-opted into the standard three-point political universe. The press is usually content with having the liberal battle the conservative and then walk smugly away from the usually uninformative slugfest (spinfest, actually) with the feeling that the audience has been well-informed and well-served. That's a load of rot. That's not a competition of ideas in the marketplace, which is dead in American politics - its a competition between spinning spinners, a/k/a/ lying liars (see, e.g., FactCheck.org for current spinner spin on energy). Unless its by sheer accident, neither the liberal nor the conservative represents unspun pragmatic reality. They offer reality more or less twisted by their ideological and/or personal-interest straight jackets.

Its not just politicians: Of course, special interests spin as needed to fit whatever it is they need to do to maintain their revenue streams, see, e.g., the FactCheck.org link. If reality works for them they will take it but if not, which is usually the case, they won't. In a sick way, that's being pragmatic.

Politician's nest

RINOS, DINOS and outcasts

Maybe the press can't see reality for what it is because it flies in the face of how they have to see the world. They have to survive and succeed in a highly competitive world. Its not the case that press people are stupid. Most of them are very smart and articulate. Something else is going on. Maybe the constraints the press operates under, having to offer infotainment without offending the target audience or advertisers constrains the way they have to see the world. Is any of that such a stretch? In a way, press constraints are a lot like a political or religious ideology - you have to accept it or get kicked out of the herd.

So, which is it? Americans are cynical, the press has some issues it needs to confront, both or neither? CM thinks that the press has some reality check type issues to face. But, you will decide for yourself.

Are supreme court justices ideologically unbiased?

Having listened to most of the three days of Q&A at the supreme court (both the raw uncut feed and clips from several media sources - POTUS, NPR, CNN) two questions from a non-ideological, pragmatic point of view immediately jump out. First, why is it that nearly all questions/comments from liberal judges probe strengths of Obamacare or focus on strengths of liberal defenses? Second, why is it that nearly all questions/comments from conservative judges probe weaknesses of Obamacare or focus on strengths of conservative attacks?

M81 spiral galaxy

Spitzer space telescope photo

It's meaningless

Professional commentators and pundits everywhere uniformly say that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be inferred from the Q&A in supreme court cases. However, justice Scalia made this observation (paraphrasing): If the individual mandate is struck down, then the whole law goes down because it is the heart and soul of the law. That sounds like a statement from which something can be inferred.

If the justices really are independent and unpolluted by partisan politics and ideology, which all of them would  firmly assert, then why did the questioning clearly break down along partisan lines? Why aren't liberal justices interested in knowing the strengths of conservative argument? Why aren't liberal or conservative justices interested in the other side's points? Why aren't any of them interested in something other than what liberal or conservative ideology says might to be a good decision? Their questions clearly point to that. Maybe that means nothing. Maybe it means something.

dust cloud in the emission nebula IC 1396 

young stars previously obscured by dust seen for the first time

A long time ago, an adage started to make sense. It went about like this: If something walks, quacks and looks like a duck, then its a duck. Although its not always right, it still often makes some sense, especially in high-stakes politics. When it comes to supreme court judges, the liberals and conservatives pretty much walk, quack and look like the kind of duck they probably are.

It doesn't look meaningless

It is easy to argue that the Q&A from the justices does telegraph more than just unbiased curiosity. It sure looks like they are setting up their ideological armored divisions for a massive tank & heavy artillery political (oops, legal) battle. If the Q&A does telegraph anything, a five to four straight party line decision seems to be the likely outcome with some or all of Obamacare biting the dust. Less likely, we will get a fragmented plurality with three or more opinions (concurrences, dissents) and who knows what muddy impact. Of course, that's contrary to overwhelming legal opinion which says that Obamacare will be fully upheld. At least that's what it was until the end of the Q&A today.

  wind from newborn star HH46-IR

blowing a dust cloud

Given today's partisan politics, its not unreasonable to expect partisan ideological politicians to put partisan ideological judges on the supreme court and other federal benchs. That wouldn't be so bad if the ideology of the left and right had a track record of success. Although ideology is cheap, easy and popular, it arguably has a track record of distorting reality and bipartisan failure. Regardless of the outcome, both sides will spin their talking point cannon blasts for the November elections. For the two-party status quo, its pretty good stuff. For the public interest, its not so good.

Faith lost in the U.S. supreme court

Do Americans believe that the U.S supreme court decide cases free of partisan political bias? According to one poll 75% of Americans say no. That result was reported by the Wall Street Journal law blog, Businessweek, and others. That result specifically applies to the court's current consideration of the Obamacare law. If it applies to that case, it probably applies to all others.

 STS 122 launch

February 7, 2008

No surprise

That should not surprise anyone. Democratic nominees to the supreme court have to pass tests or not be nominated, e.g., pro-labor, anti-management, pro-abortion. Republican nominees have to pass tests, anti-labor, pro-management, anti-abortion, or not be nominated. That's no secret. Partisan politics trumps everything else, i.e., serving the public interest, in selection of federal judges.

So what? Its just politics

If the poll is correct, most Americans believe that the U.S. supreme court is partisan. That reality can reasonably contribute to Americans' loss of faith in the one institution (the federal judiciary) that at least some of them think isn't partisan, or isn't supposed to be. That belief is misplaced and wrong. The problem is that once too much faith in too much of government is lost, government cannot necessarily function in the best interests of the public. As argued here before, that can cause bad things to happen.

Once too much faith in governments is lost, democrats and republicans can find themselves governing without the consent of the governed. Regardless of how the supreme court decides the Obamacare case, pollution of the federal judiciary by petty partisan ideological politics is another perfectly good reason to lose faith in government and whatever decision the court comes to, especially if it is a 5-4 decision along the obvious partisan ideological divide.

The complex tax code fosters corruption

Fareed Zakaria argued today on CNN that the complex U.S. tax code is a significant source of legalized corruption. That opinion is shared here and by some experts who have spent years considering this topic, e.g., David Cay Johnston. Both Zakaria and Johnston point out that, among other things, the complexity generates hundreds of billions per year in taxes that are not simply not collected and/or that are pure untaxed loopholes. This is not a trivial problem, as has been argued here before. Zakaria mentioned some tax code fixes, which California Moderates (CM) expresses no opinion on. The point is that the the problem is significant.

Young, massive stars in Messier 82 the "Cigar galaxy" 

Spitzer space telescope image reveals (first time)

the "smoke" around the fires

Maintaining perspective

Although CM opinion is almost always highly critical of the U.S. political status quo and nearly everything it does, that criticism is grounded in at least some awareness of the global context in which America operates. The U.S. competes with ferocious economic competitors who often (usually?) compete under unfair circumstances, e.,g, they subtly cheat on trade agreements, employ unfair tactics and/or generally don't much care about labor or environmental issues.

One of the great advantages the U.S. does have over our competitors is our relative lack of corruption. China, Russia and India are among the most corrupt countries in the world (global corruption map). The U.S. isn't the cleanest but it is near the top. Corruption is one of the key weaknesses or flaws our competitors have to deal with. Corruption harms democracy and economic growth, which is something our competitors seem to know. They either are unable to do much about corruption or have corrupt governments that won't or can't address the issue. That gives the U.S. an advantage that has to be pressed as hard as possible if we want to maintain our standard of living.

One planet, four parents (maybe)

Artist conception of the quadruple-star system HD 98800

(in the nearby [150 light yrs] constellation TW Hydrae)

How to fix it?

To the extent that the U.S. tax code is an ecosystem where corruption can flourish, it hurts the U.S. economy and our democracy. There is a perception that the U.S. tax code is corrupt and that loopholes can be purchased from congress. Congress should fix the problem, but they cannot. Both parties derive too much of their operations and re-election money from special interests who take their payoffs via tax breaks in a complex tax code. That's something that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties will willingly walk away from. The pressure needed for meaningful change has to come from elsewhere.

Congress cares ⅛ about ethics

On the one hand, congress has passed legislation making inside trades by government employees and officials illegal. Although long overdue, that's a good thing. On the other hand, congress continued to allow the political intelligence industry (PII) to make insider trades based on knowledge of what congress is planning to do or not do. Congress didn't even have courage to simply require people trading on congressional inside knowledge to register as lobbyists. That's arguably a bad thing. From the standard point of view, one might ask if the glass is half empty or half full.

Supernova remnant G350.1-0.3 

Stellar debris field 14,700 light years from Earth 

toward the Milky Way center

The non-standard point of view: The glass is one-eighth full

From a non-ideological, pragmatic point of view, one can reasonably argue that congress as an institution does not care about ethics. There are individuals in congress who do care, e.g., representative Louise Slaughter. But none of them with the power to do so, e.g., senator Charles Grassley, actually assert themselves like they really mean it, i.e., by filibustering a half-measure bill like this one. Tea Party republicans routinely filibuster all kinds of bills, big and small, which shows that they really care. There is no irreconcilable Tea Party-type commitment to ethics in congress. There never has been in recent times (1950-2012).

Of course, a criticism of that criticism is that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or at least the better than nothing. That's fair. Americans should be grateful for whatever congress gives us, although that speaks to how low the performance bar is for congress.

Galaxy NGC 1097 

50 million light-years

The initial reaction here as to why congress protected the PII is that its protection is based on (i) political/religious ideology that says the private sector's impulses (the invisible hand) should be allowed to roam the economy free and unfettered by fairness and/or (ii) the PII purchased protection from key people in congress via "campaign contributions".

Maybe political intelligence is a critical strategic national interest

The PII has been criticized here before, so maybe the criticism of what congress did for the PII is hasty and/or unfair. Maybe it is in the public interest to allow people with access to key people in congress and/or government to freely trade securities based on that inside information. For example, it may be good to allow that because . . . . . hm. Because what? Can't think of anything. Try harder. OK. What congress did in protecting the PII is good because . . . . because (grunt, grunt), uh, um, . . . . because congress protected it. Huh, that's one hell of a rationale.

Peony nebula

Gas ball with equivalent light of 3.2 million suns

No one is going to defend the PII by arguing that it is fair to allow insiders with access to make trades against people without that information. At least people on the losing side of those trade would not argue that. Maybe an unregulated PII is good because it facilitates the flow of information from government to the public. That's what the press is supposed to do, so why handle information flow in that manner? That's just implausible and bizarre. Maybe language in the bill was too vague, as representative Eric Cantor argued. Opinion here and elsewhere, is that Cantor's vagueness argument is obvious sleight of hand to protect the PII, which is his real objective. Vague language can always be made clear - that's the job of congress. That's Cantor's job, but he chose not to do it.

A defensible conclusion is that allowing the PII to graze freely on lush public pastures while the rest of us are kept on the dusty rock quarry outside the electrified fence is unethical. No regular person has access to the information. Just try walking into some congress person's office - you will be kicked out or arrested the instant you walk into the building to try to collect your little aliquot of inside information. We can thank people like Eric Cantor for not doing his job, thereby protecting the PII. One can reasonably wonder how much in campaign contributions Cantor harvested for his heroic defense of the PII. Was it none, some or a boatload of PII cash. Specifically, was it ideology alone, ideology plus money or just money? Those are questions with no answer.

Peony nebula with 2nd brightest star 

in the Milky Way

Congress - fixed itself, or not?

Ignoring the baffling gift congress gave the PII, how can one reasonably view what congress did in banning its own insider trade privileges? Why did they do that now after resisting doing it for years? According to at least some mainstream press, opinion (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) is that (i) its a little thing in the overall scheme of things (small ball or a crumb) and (ii) in view of its dismal public approval ratings, congress is desperate to make it look like the institution is not the corrupt, dysfunctional (divided) mess that it in fact is. In other words, Congress passed this ethics fix for the optics, not out of conviction there was any ethics issue of concern. If congress had an approval rating as 'high' as 25% or more, they probably would not have considered this legislation, much less passed it.

Given that view of reality, arguing that the ethics glass is ⅛ full is just common sense. Or, has something important been overlooked? You decide.

Americans want gridlock, not compromise

What do we want? Some say they want to end political gridlock and get important stuff done. A few want gridlock and not doing things. There's so much hot air and acrid smoke, it hard to tell what's what.

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey with

Gen. Eduardo Villas Boas, commander of the Amazon Regional Command

Manaus, Brazil - March 28, 2012

Occasionally a feeble ray of light penetrates the dense midnight smoke-fog. On March 13, 2012, NPR aired a social science analysis (audio link below) that says Americans tend to want compromise if its the other side that's compromising. Americans like consistency and dislike 'flip-floppers'. Some of this comes from our culture and how we see ourselves. Many of us apparently dislike inconsistency, in politics at least.


Well, if most Americans more or less see things that way then there is no reason for any politician to compromise on anything. Compromise by politicians is therefore just craven and unprincipled. Given that, most Americans may want compromise in theory, but they are not going to get it in practice. Just blow that off as 'bad' science if the reality the study appears to show is unpalatable. That's what some conservatives to do with climate science they don't like, i.e., if you don't like the facts, just deny them. Its simple and psychologically rewarding.

 Parachute drop at Fort Bragg, N.C. - March 22, 2012

The parachute looks like a menacing face?

From a non-ideological, pragmatic, common sense point of view, the results of the study seem generally reasonable. Why? Because the political status quo effectively manipulates and polarizes many of us into one of two warring political armies, i.e., liberals and conservatives. That injects emotion into politics. Emotion in politics diverts attention from the fact that both parties failed.

Politics trumps national security concerns

The chronic difficulty the U.S. has in assessing its critical national security interests was been noted here before. On top of that partially political flaw in our political system, America suffers from a second purely political, overlapping flaw that limits the use of logic and reason instead of emotion in politics, an issue also argued here before. The second flaw is elections.

Truth or spin?

According to  March 4, 2012 story by the New York Post, president Obama is negotiating with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu to not attack Iran's nuclear bomb facilities, until after the November 2012 elections in the U.S. The quid pro quo is that if Israel holds off in attacking Iran, the U.S. will provide air tankers for refuelling and bombs big enough to penetrate Iran's underground nuclear sites. Other press outlets (MSNBC) have repeated and presumably vetted this story. One can therefore reasonably assume it is true. For the sake of argument, assume that the Post's version of reality accurately reflects unspun facts.

 

 Army engaged in bomb (IED) disposal

Route Crowbar in Khowst province, Afghanistan, March 24, 2012

Background context: Based on some limited research, the Israeli air force uses specially designed U.S. F15s and F16s, the F15I and the F16I, that have extended range. The point from Israel's point of view is to reach Iran with a single in-air refuelling on the way out and one on the way back. Apparently, no other country has these extended range F15s and F16s, but that's not confirmed here - its based on only one source. The main point of designing those aircraft apparently was to prepare to prevent the day that Iran attained nuclear bomb capability. Israel now needs two things from the U.S. - bigger bunker buster bombs and better in-flight refueling capacity for the F15Is and F16Is. That gives the U.S. some leverage in negotiating terms of war with Israel.


If the Post story is true, then this is about as clear a case as there can be that domestic politics can trump a critical national security interest such as going to war with Iran. That directly leads to the question of whether partisan political outcomes in an election is a critical national security interest.

Two scenarios - one real, the other not

Simple, unemotional, high-school level common sense (logic) says that (i) domestic politics (elections) is one critical national security interest that trumped another or (ii) if politics is not a critical national security interest, then something is seriously wrong because a relatively unimportant issue trumped policy about a much more important issue. So, which scenario is reality? It can't be both.

Afghan police patrol leader followed by a U.S. army sergeant

Khan Neshin district, Afghanistan, March 27, 2012

Should elections be so important that they dictate U.S. Israel and Iran policy? It is the case that, at least some elections are important enough that they paralyze politics for at least a year in advance (also argued here before). If that's true, and it is, then maybe elections should be so important that they trump other critical national security concerns.

Good, bad or indifferent?

Most democratic defenders of the status quo in March-November of 2012 would probably vehemently deny that elections have anything to do with the situation. Most republicans would likely be much more receptive to the argument because it offers a great opportunity attack president Obama during the current 48-18 month-long election season. If it were a republican president in this situation, the defending and attacking parties would no doubt be reversed. That would just be politics as usual. But what about an opinion from a non-ideological, pragmatic point of view?

Where are the pragmatists?

California Moderates is aware of no non-ideological, pragmatic point of view on this issue or on most any issue. To begin filling the void, this is humbly offered as a starting point from which rational thinking can begin.

First, domestic elections do not constitute a critical national security interest. Elections are something must be done under the constitution, but political concerns attached thereto do not trump a major national security concern like a new war in the middle east. It isn't even close. Given that, what president Obama has done by even entering into negotiations predicated on timing policy actions with his own reelection betrays the American people and American interests. That betrayal of the public interest is clearly in service to his own political interests, i.e., his own reelection.

U.S. army sergeant talking to Afghan police patrol leader through an interpreter

Khan Neshin district, Afghanistan, March 27, 2012

Betrayal of the public interest in service of political self-interest is another flaw in U.S. politics that has been criticized here again and again and again. In fact, that's a central theme behind the California Moderates opinion that politics as usual doesn't just fail the public interest, it betrays us.

What can happen when citizens lose faith in government

An NPR story (March 8, 2012) described an example of what can happen when faith in government is lost. This is from Japan, where its citizens have lost faith in their government's ability to act competently on an important issue.

A simple story

The story is simple. On March 8, 2011, Japan was hit with a massive earthquake and tsunami. That caused damage and a meltdown of a nuclear power plant in Fukushima Japan. Today, one year after the disaster, only two of Japan's 54 nuclear reactors are active. Before the disaster, Japan got about one-third of its electric power from nuclear plants. Now it gets essentially none and has to import energy. The Japanese government's response to the disaster has been inept.

 B2 Spirit bomber en route to Guam

April 6, 2005

With logical consequences

The reason that Japan's nuclear power plants are off-line is that the government's failure to competently respond to the meltodwn caused the Japanese people to simply lose faith in their government, not necessarily in nuclear power. That has major geopolitical effects on Japan's policies. Japan now needs to get gas from Russia to replace the lost energy. Before the disaster, Japan wanted to distance itself from Russia but is now compelled to do the opposite. Japan's balance of trade has taken a hit to pay for imported energy.

What does that have to do with U.S. politics?

That story is a warning. Most of the American public has lost faith in congress - it has a low approval rating. If the endless stream of vitriol and hate gushing from the republican primaries is any indication, most or all Republicans profoundly distrust President Obama and/or believe he is an alien extremist working to destroy America. That clearly reflects a loss of faith by the segment of the public that that rhetoric appeals to. There is a continuing trend in people registering as independents. That clearly reflects a lack of faith in both the democratic and republican parties. Moderates leave congress citing a loss of faith in the institution, among other things.

 B2 Spirit bomber taking off from Andersen Air Force Base

Guam, March 30, 2005

As the Japan story shows, bad things can happen when citizens lose faith in their government. Despite obvious warnings coming from the American public, the two-party system just carries on with partisan business as usual, i.e., spin, lies, obfuscation and catering to inane ideology and special interests with money. Maybe the two-party system should step back, take their hands off each other's throat for a moment and think real hard about what it is they are doing to trust in our political system and institutions. The two parties treat public trust as if it is an irrelevant and/or endless resource. They assume that at our peril, not theirs.

Iran, Israel and America's critical strategic national interests

America defends its strategic interests by means that include war. Its generally hard to assess the cost-benefit of America's wars since the end of the second world war. Its not clear what benefit we got from the Vietnam war. Its too early to assess what benefit will come from the approximately $2 trillion we will have spent in Iraq to date and over the next 40 years or so as health care costs for U.S. veterans are finally paid out. About the same will likely be true for the Afghanistan war once it ends. Another $1-2 trillion will be spent when costs are finally no longer coming in. None of that includes accounting for the loss of human life on all sides, including innocent lives. Indeed, our strategic interests can be difficult to define and very expensive to defend.

Two new wars?

Its worth considering the issue of strategic American national interests because of recent talk of two new wars that some urge are or should be in America's near future. John McCain wants America to bomb Assad's forces in Syria to reduce the slaughter of innocents. That's an admirable goal, but does it constitute a critical strategic national interest? What would the cost-benefit be? A Syria that realigns away from Iran, Russia and China and toward the West? Maybe, but maybe not. Russia would not like an American attack in Syria, that's for sure.

Looking at how little we appear to have accomplished in Afghanistan to date suggests that it isn't easy to make friends in the Middle East or the Arab world in general regardless of how hard we try. Even now after ten years of war and trying to be helpful, Afghanis become enraged, kill our troops and demand we leave the country after we accidentally destroy some Qurans. That can't be called meaningful progress. A point argued here repeatedly is that we are blind when it comes to understanding Afghanistan, much less making progress, whatever that might look like.

Iran and the bomb

The other war some say we need to engage in is one with Iran to prevent their nuclear bomb from becoming a reality. America gets about 18% of its imported oil through the Persian Gulf and some other countries get a higher proportion of their oil from that source. That arguably amounts to a strategic national interest. But is it threatened by a nuclear armed Iran? Would Iran nuke the Persian Gulf to disrupt global oil exports? Would doing that even work for Iran?

Does defense of Israel constitute a strategic national interest?

Another argument for war with Iran comes from some who argue that defending Israel is a strategic national interest. But is that true? Israel exports no oil to the U.S. or elsewhere. Its a small country (bigger than New Jersey and smaller than Maine) about a third of which is uninhabitable desert, with a population of about 7.8 million and a GDP of about $217 billion. Israel is not one of America's biggest trade partners. It ranked 27th in 2011 in total import and export trade with the U.S. Millions of Arabs (and others apparently) dislike or hate the U.S. at least in part for its support of Israel, a point that has been recognized for a long time. Things don't seem to be improving. There is no critical strategic national interest in any of that.

Israel could simply cut all ties and interactions with the U.S. overnight and there would be little or no major effect on America or its economy. If that is true, and it is, then where is America's strategic national interest in Israel? Nonetheless, American politics in fact treats defense of Israel as a critical strategic national interest.

America has paid a high price for its association with and/or defense of Israel. It isn't just massive amounts of foreign aid (about $3 billion/year). Osama bin Ladn cited the U.S. presence in the Middle East and its support of Israel as key reasons for the 9/11 attacks. Maybe defending Israel is a reason to go to war with Iran, although the logic behind that is unclear. Maybe its historical U.S.-Israel ties and/or something to do with the politics here, e.g., money in politics or the American Jewish vote (about 2% of the American public, but 12% of the U.S. senate and 8.4% of all of congress), that elevates Israel to a strategic national interest. As argued here before, emotion, not logic, largely drives politics. Israel seems to be a case in point.

Think hard before releasing the dogs of war

If we do go to war with Iran, the cost-benefit question must be considered before the bombs and bullets start to fly. Politicians who advocate a muscular, military America really should stop and think real hard about exactly what it is they want to accomplish and what the cost will be. The hawks must not make the same colossal mistake that was made in "justifying" the Iraq war. War with Iran could easily turn out to be about as costly as Iraq or Afghanistan will ultimately turn out to be.


How will it be paid for and exactly what spending will be cut if taxes are not raised? Or, will the war be mostly financed by debt? If defending Israel is part of the rationale for war, that, and and the expected costs (spent tax dollars and negative Arab street opinion with creation of untold numbers of mortal enemies) and benefits (uninterrupted oil flow from the Persian Gulf) from that defense should be made very clear to the American people. The case that Iran is going to cut off oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz needs to be made clear without spin or subterfuge.

A demand for truth, not smoke & mirrors

To justify war, there must credible, tangible benefits that could be logically and reasonably counted on. If what we have accomplished in Afghanistan to date is any indication, nation building isn't going to be one of them. Going to war will create thousands or millions of new enemies for America. That will be part of the cost and that point should be clearly made to the American people. That's only reasonable because  the American people will bear all the cost burden. They deserve to be informed of what they will be getting into before they get into it. Politicians don't mention the costs of war with Iran, which shows profound disrespect for the American public, but some analysts think it could be massive. That kind of opinion stands unrebutted so far. Worse yet, the nonsense that the politicians advocating war have provided to date falls far short of a logical rational.

Recurring stories: High gasoline prices

Some political stories come back again and again. It happens when gas prices spike. It gives the warring sides a good opportunity to blame each other and/or to defend their valiant efforts to free America from its deplorable dependence on foreign oil. Its a great chance for republicans to rip democrats and Obama in particular for impeding domestic energy development and killing (at least temporarily) the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to U.S. refineries.

Smoke, mirrors and lies

Even Newt dived in and unleashed his own 30-minute blast (including some flat out lying, which is standard in partisan political rhetoric these days; play the 3.5 minute audio clip). Democrats point to levels of domestic energy production higher than under Bush. Republicans dismiss that as nonsense because domestic energy production is up despite Obama's opposition to generating domestic energy, not because of him. Meanwhile, the April 20, 2010 Gulf oil spill is completely forgotten as trivial ancient history, while BP quietly whittles away its liabilities via shrewd negotiation tactics. We get lots of smoke about America's energy options but no real light. And, as usual, the mainstream press is generally of little or no use in blowing the smoke away or shedding any light.

BP Gulf oil spill - May 2010

Ocean on fire, lots of smoke, not much light

Where's the beef?

When gas prices spike like now, the politicians just blow the dust off their old talking points and let the rhetoric fly. The problem is that neither democrats nor republicans have the faintest idea of how to do anything about raising gas prices any more than they know how to do anything about falling gas prices when that happens. They are both largely powerless but (i) are clueless about their situation and/or (ii) know they can't do much but just cannot let a good crisis go unused. Its such a good opportunity to manipulate reality and public opinion to benefit the political status quo.

Building the XL pipeline won't do anything substantial for years because it will take years to build. Even if it is built, Canadian oil is still foreign oil and it will still cost global prices. That would be true even if the oil was produced in the U.S. Neither U.S. nor foreign oil companies do charity. They all charge international oil prices for a global commodity. Period. And, Canadian oil won't help our perpetually negative balance of trade, which exists largely because of imported oil.

Our energy dependence and hopeless negative trade balance will take decades to fix, assuming it can ever be fixed under standard two-party politics. All of that completely ignores global warming. Canadian oil is dirty oil, but that doesn't faze republicans. They think global warming doesn't exist. It doesn't seem to faze democrats much either - they don't even mention it.

Gulf of Mexico

April 21, 2010

As pointed out here before, America's energy policy is a failure and it has been for decades, assuming we even have a credible energy policy. We were warned long ago about our vulnerabilities and our leaders chose to do nothing of substance. There was some talk, but essentially no action. Given the democratic and republican record of failure, its hard to take anything that any of them say seriously now. Its just empty blither from clueless ideologues.

Public vs. private

The real question is whether it makes sense to leave energy production, an absolutely critical resource, in the hands of the private sector. Its a matter of national security. Its not as if the two political parties or the oil industry has our back. They just look out for themselves, as they should. Business (including political parties) is in the business of business, not making America a safe place. Government, not the private sector, is there to defend the public interest. Oil companies have essentially no interest in helping the U.S. with anything. That's not a criticism - its a neutral statement of fact. Oil company shareholders and executives demand profits. Partisan politicians are the same. They demand power and reelection and that generally does not serve the public interest very well.

The American people are on their own. Our political leadership either has no idea of how to deal with high or low gas prices and/or don't want to seriously interfere with a good thing (for them). On top of that, the situation is largely out of their control as long as oil companies remain private and oil remains a global commodity subject to global prices regardless of whether it is produced in the U.S. The situation is unfortunate for all of us because we are going to pay dearly for our political "energy policy" failures for a long time. As argued here before, our standard of living remains threatened, e.g., by a negative balance of trade and no coherent national energy policy.

Do average liberals and conservatives distort reality?

It has been argued here and other places that hard core liberal and conservative ideologues are often, probably usually, blinded to reality by their ideology. For example, conservatives sometimes call liberals blind, liberals sometimes call conservatives blind, a few Germans call the Tea Party blind, irate entertainers do it, etc.  The disconnect arises because reality doesn't care what anyone thinks. Reality can and usually does significantly differ from what an ideologue's ideology says the world is. A distorted view of reality leads to political and economic failure and waste. That's a central California Moderates theme.

Australian Air Force F/A-18

Refueling near Nellis AFB, Nevada, March 9, 2012

But, that argument is directed at hard core ideologues. What about regular liberals and conservatives? Those folks may or may not typically vote in primaries, they may sometimes vote across party lines or they may even be in the "wrong" party, e.g., conservative democrats. Does their milder political temperament mean that they more accurately see reality for what it is? Probably. But that does mean that there is no ideology-induced distortion going on in many or most regular liberals and conservatives? No, it doesn't. There is no reason to believe that "soft" ideology wouldn't be a source of distortion, although probably not as much as it is for the average hard core ideologue.

Evidence of that includes the fact that most people (96% in one 2007 poll) consider themselves to be liberal, conservative or moderate. Why is that? It apparently has to be that way because, at least for the 61% who consider themselves liberals or conservatives, they must see different worlds or realities and different ways to address issues. If that is true, and it is for the most part, when they look at some issue or facts they see the issue and/or facts differently, weigh the issue or facts differently and/or otherwise analyze the things differently to arrive at their differing conclusions and perceptions.

 SM-2 missile launch from USS Oscar Austin

Training exercise, Atlantic Ocean, March 21, 2012

Something fundamental has to differ between groups, otherwise the huge gap in policy conclusions and world views we have today should be much smaller. There is only one true reality. That is undeniable. Differences of opinion must be largely grounded in political and/or religious ideology and/or analytical differences of some sort. If there is only one reality, then among sharply differing world views, opinions or versions of facts, (i) somebody simply has to be more wrong than others or (ii) the differing versions are all more wrong than right

What about the moderates?

Do moderates see reality with less distortion than liberals and conservatives? Maybe so. Some argue that moderates are pragmatists. Depending on how moderates and pragmatists are defined, that may or may not be mostly true. If being moderate means compromising between the left and right, it may not be so true for any given issue. If being a moderate means being pragmatic in the sense that if the (i) facts and (ii) logic without deference to ideology argues the best solution to any given problem could be liberal, conservative, compromise or none of those, then arguably that kind of moderate sees with less distortion than any other type of individual. That's the California Moderates definition of a moderate. Maybe some or most of the 4% in the poll who didn't call themselves liberal, conservative or moderate are that kind of moderate, i.e., mostly pragmatic.

 U.S Army personnel training with Bulgarian Air Force

AS532 Cougar helicopter

Hohenfels, Germany, March 18, 2012

Regardless, there is clear and solid logic to argue that even mild ideology leads to some degree of distortion and that leads to to some degree of inefficiency and waste. The argument explains the split among people who either do or do not believe that global warming is real and/or a serious issue, despite a relatively settled set of facts and overwhelming consensus scientific opinion. It explains how religious ideology can skew perceptions of reality and that is arguably true even for moderately religious people.

A reasonable conclusion is that average liberals and conservatives have the same "weakness" or "flaw" that hard core ideologues have, i.e., their ideological beliefs distort reality. They may inject a lesser degree of or different kind of distortion into political debate and thinking, but nonetheless its there. Of course, most or all average liberals and conservatives would dispute that. Everyone knows that they (i) are pragmatic and (ii) see reality for what it is; Its the political opposition that's blind, not me. That can't be true if you accept the notion that there is only one true reality. Otherwise, one has to accept the proposition that two or more often mutually incompatible realities exist at the same time. That's pure religion of some sort, although it arguably does accurately describe modern U.S. politics.

 Marine MV-22 Osprey taking off from George H.W. Bush carrier

Atlantic Ocean, March 20, 2012

Collectively, these considerations clearly argue that pragmatists as defined here would generally make the best political leaders and thinkers, all other things being equal. Maybe at least about 96% of Americans would dispute that assertion as well. Despite that, no one can accuse California Moderates for thinking only inside the box. Its that darned pragmatism - it frees the mind and goes where the road takes it, i.e., not in the ditch. That is ideology's typical destination.