California Moderates wrap-up

One post in two parts
Part 1
Answers to the ultimate questions

California Moderates (CM) was an experiment to test if it is possible to articulate a simple, workable, defensible framework for transparent, all-inclusive, pragmatic non-ideological (PNI) politics. It was also a very crude test to see if there was interest in the formation of a political party based on that kind of politics.

The first question: To the best of CM's knowledge, PNI politics is a brand of politics that no political party in existence in anywhere America is based upon. Every pother party in existence, with no exception, has its political and/or religious ideology that binds it together and brings in supporters. Despite it being essentially non-existent American politics, CM is comfortable concluding that it is in fact possible to come up with a workable framework for doing PNI politics. A workable initial framework is not hard to articulate. Its not complicated and it should work just fine.

 Marine CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter squadron 362

Helmand province, Afghanistan - August 9, 2012

Squadron formed 1952 - 1st squadron into Vietnam

Scheduled to be deactivated at end of current deployment

If asked, existing parties will no doubt assert that they are pragmatic and do practice PNI politics. Despite that assertion, no party or politician in America ever says something like this: "Join us, we are transparent, pragmatic, non-ideological and committed to serving the public interest by accepting the best solution to any problem, regardless of whether that solution is liberal, conservative, centrist or none of those. We base our politics on an fair, open competition in the marketplace of ideas."

No matter how hard any existing political party would deny it, none of them practice PNI politics. All parties in existence practice the politics of spin grounded in distortion caused in large part by their belief in their party's political and/or religious ideology. That is not PNI politics. That's politics as usual.

A test for PNI politics: There is a simple test that shows what's what. CM argues that status quo politics is grounded in ideology, emotion, spin and illogic, not pragmatism, reason and unspun reality. test it. Simply ask hard core liberals if conservatives are out of touch and/or deluded by their blinding political ideology. Most, probably 95% or more, will say that conservatives are out of touch with reality and/or self-deluded. Turn it around and ask the other side. Most, probably 95%, of conservatives will say liberals are out of touch with reality and/or self-deluded. Because of the huge gulf in perceptions of reality between the two sides, logic says that one side or the other can be more wrong than right most of the time. Logic says that neither side can be completely right when their realities and policy preferences are incompatible. There is only one reality and it doesn't care what anyone's ideology is.

 FA-18C Hornet on deck of USS Dwight D Eisenhower

Strike fighter squadron 131

Arabian Sea - August 14, 2012

When liberals accuse conservatives of being deluded by their ideology or otherwise wrong, they are right. When conservatives accuse liberals of being deluded by their ideology or otherwise wrong, they are right. In CM's opinion, they are both right about being deluded and that conclusion is fully consistent with logic.

Although partisans would deny it, there is no conclusive evidence showing that either liberals or conservatives have a clearly superior political framework. CM believes they are about equally flawed political bases to work from. That leaves something else as a possibly better framework in which politics is practiced. One contender is PNI politics. If you accept that politics as usual is ideological, PNI politics is the only contender that isn't politics as usual. 

The second question: When it comes to forming a new political party, CM simply cannot conclude if it is possible to set up a party based on PNI politics. In theory it is possible. However, the staggering but subtle power of ideology to conform reality to perception is obvious and undeniable. That seems to be a large part of its allure and staying power in the face of its failures in politics. The people who might accept PNI politics are mostly people who have truly open minds, mostly moderates or centrists. Essentially all committed liberals and conservatives of all types will reject PNI politics out of hand. Liberal and conservative ideology is, simply put, incompatible with a non-ideological way of doing politics. That leaves maybe 5-15% of the American public as the source of potential supporters. Of that, one can probably expect no more that half of those people to buy into PNI politics. That guess is based on the inherently conservative nature of how most Americans do politics, e.g., they doggedly stay with the two party system despite much discontent in the face of failed two party politics. Very few people, maybe 1 in 50, are willing to try something different.

D-30 122 mm howitzer - July 11, 2012

Afghan army gunners - Patrol base Sorkh Bid

Kandahar province, Afghanistan 

So, can you start a new PNI political party starting from a pool of potential supporters of about 2-8% of the voting public? In California that is probably enough. To do that, one needs to reach those people, describe PNI politics as a credible way to do politics and then get them to support the effort in at least some minimal way. What could a party in that position hope to do? Even moderates of stature and power are unwilling to buck the status quo. Powerful reform minded people have too much to personally lose by attacking the two-party political system by backing a new political party. The effort could take a decade or more to gain traction because well-known and trusted people refuse to participate.

In other words, Americans simply cannot and should not expect their elected politicians or wealthy individuals to lead. Average people will have to lead. Assuming the effort begins to gain traction, our "leaders" and essentially all special interests will oppose the effort every step of the way any way they could. The two political parties, elected politicians and special interests all have far too much to lose from the establishment of a group dedicated to PNI politics. They would have no choice but to oppose it once it becomes a real threat. In the meantime, the best defense is no defense. Just ignore the opposition as long as possible.

Fuel supply drop by parachute - September 22, 2011

Forward operating base Boris

Paktika province, Afghanistan

Why try?: Given the difficult landscape for a new PNI party, assuming one accepts that as unspun reality, why even think about it? The main argument to press this approach is that the payoff would be worth the effort. America can and would do much better if politics was slowly made more rational and grounded in reality unspun by ideology (and corrupted by special interest money, which PNI politics should be able to significantly reduce). The PNI approach is the best way to defend the American standard of living and the best way to serve the public interest. PNI politics is a win-win option. Special interests including the two political parties now in power would certainly not characterize it that way, but in the long run win-win is what it would deliver. As it stands now, we usually get win-lose results with special interests, including elected politicians, winning and the public interest losing.

Is it hopeless?: Its not hopeless to expect PNI politics to take hold and gain traction. Since there is no powerful, trusted voice for PNI politics, no one thinks about it or can begin to see the force for progress that it could be. The press is in the thrall of the endless two party smoke and mirrors mudfest competition. They have no economic interest in presenting anything else. If a powerful, trusted voice were to come into existence and begin to articulate alternatives to the two-party status quo, people would at least begin to consider it. Even the sleeping press might eventually be forced to wake up and deal with it.

Committed partisans will probably never change their minds, but the kids coming into the system need to hear a new voice advocating a new vision. The youth and the few open-minded older people must have a home base. This kind of change simply cannot come from existing political parties partly due to (i) their ideology, (ii) the corrupting grip that special interest money has on both of them and (iii) the fact that democratic and republican politicians serve themselves before they serve the public interest.

 Massive nuclear bomb, maybe the Russian 50 megaton Tsar Bombe, 

(the biggest nuclear blast ever) or maybe the French Licorne blast

The last question: Maybe the key question asks if it is reasonable or even fair to ask people to set aside their morals and values and let reason and reality guide thinking about what is compassionate and effective in politics. In the realm of personal morals and values, ideology is fine for personal needs. However, politics affects everyone. In politics, something bigger than personal emotional impulses can dominate the intellectual framework and analysis. Logic and unspun reality should be the primary source for thinking and policy, not ideology. The problem is how one can separate politics based on personal political and religious ideology from PNI politics. About only way that can be done, if it can be done at all, is to establish an example of PNI politics, i.e., a new PNI political party, and then show that that way of doing politics it isn't nearly as threatening to the public interest as the irrational, status quo political and religious ideology that dominates politics today.

When you get right down to it, practicing PNI politics does not ask anyone to set their morals or values aside. It only asks people to test their ideologies against reality and then assess how well their faith stacks up against reality. That takes moral courage, not abdication of morals or values.

End of part 1

U.S. Trinity test blast (20 kiloton)
The first nuclear blast in human history
Near Alomogordo, NM - July 16, 1945


Part 2
The post-game wrap up show

Over a year ago, it became obvious to California Moderates (CM) that the general public operating in the two-party status quo wasn't in any mood for the kind of PNI politics argued here. The public was, and still is, continuing its divide into more polarized ideological camps. Within that time, the few moderates or RINOS left in the republican party were getting killed off in the primaries or resigning in disgust. A serious attempt to make a change, e.g., Americans Elect, was botched by aloof, arrogant people. That effort and the roughly $35 million behind it went down in flames with no effect on anything. Other efforts like Movement to the Middle and icPurple were also ineffective, although that is understandable because they started late and the amount of money they put into their efforts was small or nonexistent.

The June elections here in California showed that the public was sticking with the two parties despite a fair amount of belly-aching about them. The June California primary also revealed the public's continuing disengagement with politics. Most people didn't know much about much and, the few who did vote voted mostly along party lines. The California Moderate Party discontinued its efforts from insufficient public support or interest. The California Modern Whig Party remains moribund. That is a shame since the Whigs seemed in theory to be the closest to the non-ideological logic-based thinking advocated here. CM had hoped they would gain some traction, but at the moment that appears unlikely. The caveat with the Whigs is that they are hard to figure out.

USS Iowa firing its Mark 7 guns (16 inch; 1,900 lb shells)
The Mark 7 and battleships in general are obsoleted by 
cruise missiles, airplanes and other weapons systems
Big guns are a relic of the past

Dissatisfied, but sticking with the status quo

It is fair to say that despite real discontent, many (most?) moderate/independent voters seem to be in no mood for a different kind of politics. At most, some might say they want compromise, but some analysis suggests that means the other side has to compromise, not them. The republicans have made it crystal clear that they simply won't compromise and thus we can expect more fun & games with the debt ceiling, along with other predictable malarkey. The current republican ideology and mind set is that compromise literally gives in to evil and thus it cannot and will not happen. At best, they are willing to find "common ground", which means the democrats have to give republicans what they demand or the gridlock continues. Maybe that isn't so bad, because it isn't clear that compromise between the two sides even makes much sense any more. Maybe options that neither side likes is what we need to be thinking about.

 USS Iowa - ~ 1984

The last battleships were decomissioned in the 1990s

The small herd

The people who appear to be potentially open to non-ideological politics is the roughly 10% of voters who are true moderates. That amounts to maybe 7% of the American public. Most "independents" vote along party lines but pretend to themselves and/or their friends that they are something other than garden variety democrats or republicans. Its a coolness thing. The few people who call themselves moderates apparently are the repository of most of the few open minded people remaining in American politics.

Given that landscape (reality) of political wreckage and desolation, it is easy to see that politics based on cold, unspun facts, non-ideological logic and true reality has no place in American politics at present. Emotion, ideology and illogic rules the day and will likely continue to do so for a while at least.

M777A2 (155 mm) firing exercise - U.S. marines at camp Fuji, Japan

January 18, 2012

Although every political party in existence will claim to be pragmatic and grounded in reality, that simply isn't true. As discussed above, they are all grounded in ideology and distorted reality. This applies to the democratic, republican, libertarian and green parties. It applies to socialists, fascists, liberals and conservatives. No one in politics, absolutely no one, stands up before the crowd, thumps his/her chest and loudly proclaims "By Golly! I am a non-ideological pragmatist and proud of it!!" The politicians, especially republicans, have to be stalwart conservatives, staunch liberals/ progressives, loyal libertarians, committed communists, righteous Christians or whatever the party ideology demands. The real patriots are non-ideological pragmatists with the moral courage to set their ideology and emotion aside and face sometimes harsh, unspun reality for what it is. Ideologues don't have that kind of courage.

CM has said about everything that needs to be said for people interested in beginning to think about a different kind of politics. A simple initial PNI framework for how to approach political problems has been described along with some of what might flow therefrom. A simple rationale to leave both parties has been laid out and justified. A few flaws, (i) distortion of reality by political and religious ideology, (ii) corruption by special interest money and (iii) failure to serve the public interest by self-serving politicians and parties, are argued to be the key weaknesses that got us into the messes we are in. The key techniques the two party system use, raw advocacy (spin, lies, propaganda, etc.) and no real competition of ideas is argued to go a long way to getting us into our current state of political dysfunction. Those techniques distract the public, mask the failings of two party ideology and the corruption of their system. That also shields ideologies from a real, honest assessment. In the maelstrom of spin and distraction, the press is useless.

One result of the political status quo mess is a loss of trust by most Americans in the federal government and its elected leaders and political institutions. That probably is a big part of what makes it hard to govern in places where government is divided, e.g., the federal government and states like California. A loss of trust in government can have unpredictable, unpleasant effects as was seen in Japan after its earthquake and nuclear accident disasters of March 2011. Politicians in Washington at least do not seem to understand the asset they have lost by intentionally engaging in corrupt, divisive politics. Neither political party understands it either and they shown no sign whatever of altering their course. In fact, they are headed the wrong way, i.e., retreating further into ideology, spin and the politics of polarization and alienation, especially the dysfunctional republican party.

 Afghan National Army training exercise
Probably a D-30 122 mm howitzer
That looks like fun

Helmand province, Afghanistan - December 18, 2011

Under the circumstances, there's not much left for California Moderates to say. The horse can see the water from here, but there is no way to make it go there, much less drink. People need to accept or reject PNI politics on their own as something viable. Stick with status quo two-party politics or consider something compassionate, intelligent and shrewd. The status quo will deliver what it always has. PNI politics will deliver something different. Its your choice.

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

The End

The ever-popular M777 howitzer (155 mm)
Logar province, Afghanistan - February 7, 2009
U.S. army 10th Mountain division
 Deadly accurate at 35 miles with the M982 Excalibur shell - 
Miscreants and other deserving discipline recipients
don't even know what hit them

M982 155 mm Excalibur shell
It has GPS and internal navigation guidance
US$53,260 each
One of these has way more computer power in it than NASA's combined
space and ground capacity for the 1960s Apollo moon missions


We are a creative and violent species, aren't we?

Policies from a pragmatic, non-ideological point of view

Applying the simple pragmatic, non-ideological framework described before, some policy positions on important issues tend to reveal themselves. The massive differences in perceptions of reality between left and right should shrink, at least somewhat for most open minded people. Of course, that only works if you can set aside your political and religious ideological beliefs and apply logic to unspun facts while not losing sight of the public interest.

For the most part, hard core ideologues on the left and the right cannot try this little experiment. They are hopelessly locked into their version of reality and nothing will change that. For them it is a matter of pure faith. Those aren't the people that will change much of anything in politics. They aren't the audience for this kind of thinking. Ideologues are the ones who got us here and they don't have the courage to face that reality or their obvious failures.

U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook

Camp Marmal Afghanistan - September 9, 2012

The war in Afghanistan started October 7, 2001

and no one knows how it will ultimately turn out

The best political framework (ideology?)

The four point political framework described previously:
1. Serve the public interest before serving special interests, which include politicians, political parties,  private sector entities and government itself

The public interest defined: An optimum balance between serving American national domestic and foreign interests, defending its economy and the American standard of living, defending personal freedoms and protecting the environment (a reasonable, intelligent balance between special interests and everyone else, preferably focused on win-win scenarios)

2. Consciously try to limit the distorting influence of political and religious ideology on perceptions of reality and flawed policy that flows from distorted reality

3. Understand that the constitution is the highest and best source of authority for the law, political action and society's well-being

4. Understand that there is a role for government in society and it can be very effective and efficient in serving the public interest or, if you mess it up, it can be a detriment; That depends on how it functions or fails to function

That framework will not suit everyone, e.g., most ideologues maybe including most average liberals and conservatives will reject this out of hand. Despite that, this is a reasonable starting point if you have an open mind. This framework cannot be far off of the theoretically best way to do politics and solve problems.

 U.S. marine gets a high five from a smiling Afghan boy

Sangin district, Helmand provice, September 6, 2012

What will he grow up to be? Friend, neutral or foe?

U.S. embassies are burning right now (September 12, 2012), our diplomats are dying 

and hundreds of millions hate the U.S. for its middle east policies

Thanks democrats and republicans for another bad job poorly done

The key step: Framing the issues without bias or ideology

Tax changes as an example

The easiest and maybe only way to reduce the powerful but subtle influence of ideology is to frame every issue in about the same way. This helps reduce, to varying degrees with varying issues, the corrosive effect of ideology. Ideology is so subtle that its existence and influence on thinking is often subconscious. As an example, I propose several major changes to the tax code. Those changes are meant to increase tax revenues and to decrease opportunities and/or incentives for special interests to buy votes from legislators while serving the public interest defined above.

Framing the example: One change I propose is to make the flat 15% tax on capital gains and interest income graduated or progressive. My bias, i.e., ideology or belief, is that making it progressive makes sense and should be done. To reduce the influence of that unsupported ideology and come to a different conclusion on this specific issue if UNSPUN facts and UNBIASED analysis points to a different conclusion, I would frame the inquiry like this: "What evidence/facts shows that making the 15% flat tax progressive would serve the public interest, including the protecting the U.S. economy and the American standard of living? What are the most persuasive arguments and data pro and con, particularly including that from non-ideologues? Who are the winners and who loses? Can there be a win-win way to effect the change if doing that makes sense? If no win-win solution can be crafted, then what if anything can be done to limit economic or other damage to the losers without overly compromising benefits to the public interest?"

By framing it that way, my ideology is forced to confront reality and it has to win the argument on the merits. By contrast, most or all republicans would ideologically frame the issue this way: "It is insane to raise taxes on the job creators. That's a job killer. I am going to filibuster this to death. We are already taxed far too much. I hate government." That's pure ideology doing the speaker's thinking for him or her. That's a stupid way to do politics. Facts, analysis and conclusions that undermine or contradict that ideology will simply be swept away by the powerful need (irrational emotion) to defend the ideology.

 U.S.S. New York - amphibious transport dock ship

Gulf of Aden

September 11, 2012 remembrance ceremony for the 9/11 attacks

Bin Ladn's motives for attacking the U.S.:

Sanctions against Iraq

U.S. support of Israel (what did we get in return for all of our  endless and

generous support and the blood we shed? A kick in the pants, that's what)

U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia

Thanks democrats and republicans for another bad job poorly done

Many or most Democrats would ideologically frame the issue about like this: "A flat 15% tax on billionaires' income is outrageous and needs to be immediately stopped. We cannot afford to continue with this idiotic policy. Our social safety net is fraying and we need more revenue right now." That is an equally stupid way to do politics for the same reason.

Why do hard core democrats and republicans do politics that way? Because they know that their (i) ideology and (ii) way of doing politics (self-service and service to special interests) can't stand up to honest, unbiased scrutiny. As argued here before, political and religious ideologues lack the moral courage needed to test their beliefs against unspun reality. They know, subconsciously or not, that their ideology will usually lose in a fair contest of ideas.

There will of course be issues, maybe most, where, once the "best" solution or policy is found, the person whose ideology is offended will simply reject the best solution as not the best. But, if they were forced to go through this pragmatic non-ideological ("PNI") exercise for every issue, every time, they would at least be forced to confront the disconnect between their ideology and the PNI reality. And, when the ideologue rejects PNI reality in defense of the reality that ideology spins into existence, they will be forced to either rationalize the difference away or simply ignore the discrepancies and dismiss the PNI approach and solution as nonsense. Sooner or later the sheer number of times they have to face the disconnect, will lead some (most?) people to begin to soften their opposition to a neutral approach to political issues. The PNI method has to be neutral, unbiased and transparent for this have much chance of success. Otherwise, ideologues will simply dismiss it without any concern.

 President Obama, September 12, 2012

Statement condemning the attack on our consulate in

Benghazi, Lybia

Neither democrats nor republicans know how to conduct foreign policy

they are out of ideas and out of touch

Thanks democrats and republicans for another bad job poorly done

(Hillary doesn't look so good - she needs a rest)  

Can you see it?: Either you can see the difference in how PNI politics could work or you can't. You can accept this as something that could work or you can reject it as unrealistic nonsense based on someone's personal bias (ideology). However, based on the irrational blither I routinely hear from the two parties, it strikes me that trying a PNI method like this could only help. Of course, hard core ideologues on both sides will instantly reject all of this out of hand. That's why California Moderates has no illusion that hard cores can be impacted any time soon or maybe ever. California Moderates is speaking to the few people out there who still have open minds. All of this will be completely lost on mainstream ideologues stuck in and limited to their old, failed ways of thinking. Sadly, the hard cores are a lost cause. However, maybe neutrals and soft core ideology can sometimes be spoken to. That's the hope at least.

Policies from the best political framework

Assuming the facts and reality accord with the following, the PNI framework and approach could lead to policies that might look something like this:

1. Realign political incentives to reward service to the public interest before service to special interests by implementing
  - Vicious public financing of political campaigns or some effective variant thereof;
  - Aggressive, unrelenting transparency regarding campaign contributions, the legislative process and executive functions to (i) find and (ii) publicize any connections, real or imagined, between special interest money and legislation and/or executive or agency action that flows from that money; and/or
  - Other mechanisms that punish service to special interests before service to the public interest

That is simple garden variety capitalism. It rewards service to the public interest and penalizes service to special interests, unless serving a special interest is ultimately in the public interest. No rocket science about it. Serving the public interest is front and center.

2. Develop and implement intelligent, coordinated national economic policies, especially trade, energy and foreign policies that serve the public interest by
  - Playing international trade games on the same terms as our competitors, e.g., when our competitors cheat on trade agreements or game the system, we cheat or game them more because our markets are bigger than theirs (leverage America's market size to its maximum advantage);
  - Reducing energy costs by putting tax dollars into publicly-owned, low carbon utilities, preferably nuclear, and forcing private sector utilities to actually compete (energy is a critical infrastructure need and it appears that the private sector does not serving the public interest as effectively as it can because it is serving the interests of shareholders, not the public);
  - Reconsidering policies that affect trade such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (bribery) and bring those policies into line with international norms if that is needed to balance the playing field;
  - Implementing some form of state capitalism to compete with the shrewd tactics of China in accumulating natural resources and manipulating markets;
  - Elevating internet security as one of the nations top two national security and economic vulnerabilities and fix the problems, including ignoring industry attempts to thwart fixes they dislike for their own self-serving reasons whenever that reasonably serves the public interest; and/or
  - Realign tax incentives to reward job creation in the U.S.

3. Address the federal deficit by a reasonably balanced approach including
  - Reassessing the tax code to phase out tax breaks that don't have a defensible cost-benefit profile for the public interest, e.g. phase out home mortgage deduction over 20-30 years if that makes sense or various accelerated depreciation schemes over 4-6 years when that makes sense (overnight changes can be unduly disruptive and painful, so phasing may often make sense);
  - Forcing increased transparency into the tax legislation process to shine a light on the corruption;
  - Requiring publication (on pain of a felony conviction and some mandatory jail time) of donors of more than about $200 to any politically related organization, including contributors to political parties, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups, SuperPACs and the like (sunlight will help to disinfect the rot and jail gives the miscreants some peaceful quite time to contemplate the sleaziness of their weaseling ways)
  - Increase IRS enforcement by hiring more employees dedicated to chasing down tax cheats (goal: decrease owed but uncollected taxes from about $385 billion/year (in 2006) to $20 billion/year; or set a goal of getting a tax compliance rate of at least 95%; the IRS is intentionally understaffed by congress to allow tax cheats to get away with it);
  - Simplifying the tax code over time, e.g., by (i) limiting the size of any piece of tax code legislation to some reasonable limit (~ 4,000 words?), (ii) for every word of new tax code, eliminate about 1.1 or 1.2 words of existing code until some reasonable lower limit is reached and/or (iii) require the level of tax code and regulation language to drop to about the 13th or 14th grade level at most (complexity is the home of ambiguity and ambiguity is the hiding place for special interest payback for campaign contributions and tax cheats);
  - Assuming it does not inflict undue damage and from a fair and reasonable cost-benefit context, making the fixed 15% capital gains tax rate graduated, e.g., tax at 15% for the first $2 million/year, 19% for the next 2-6 million/year and 26% for amounts above that (an alt min tax for the wealthy who get this kind of income) and then leave it alone to provide certainty for conceiving and executing business plans;
  - Graduating the estate (death) tax, e.g., 0% for the first $3 million of an estate, 5% for the next $2-4 million, 15% for the next $5 million and 25% for amounts above that (this avoids any estate tax on about 99.9% of all estates) - once that is done, leave it alone so that people can plan their estates in peace and with some certainty;
  - With some exceptions and when it makes sense, cut the size of the federal government spending by some reasonable amount, e.g., 15%, probably by blunt across the board cuts (intelligent surgical cuts are not possible because each imperiled entity will resist and congress will capitulate to the pressure; dumb as across the board cuts are, that appears to be the only possible way to do it, given the profound dysfunction of a congress dominated by inept, corrupt democrats and republicans);
  - Converting public sector employees to 401k retirement plans and phase out fixed benefit plans to help make public sector spending sustainable at about current levels;
  - Phase in taxation of non-profits based on a fair and neutral cost-benefit analysis, e.g., impose:

(1) regular income, property and other taxes that are now waived if (i) the charity spends more than 30% of its income on operating "administrative and overhead" costs or (ii) it provides a tangible, real value to society (e.g., in helping the poor or providing tangible public services) of less than 70% of its income;
(2) a lower tax rate if (i) its operating costs are less than 30% of its income or the value provided to society is more than 70% of its income, or
(3) no taxes if (i) its operating costs are less than 10% of its income or the value provided to society is more than 90% of its income (this encourages efficiency and reduces waste and fraud) and require all information reported to the IRS to put online so that the public can see who is efficient, who isn't and exactly how much money flows into charities (Charity Navigator on steroids); and/or
  - Phase out tax exemptions for non-profit political organizations, which are now just ordinary business enterprises with no net benefit to the public interest (they are a detriment, actually)
  - Converting U.S. health care to a single government system or at least set up competing government entities in some states (as a test) to force the private sector to compete at delivering lower costs (the U.S. pays more for health care and gets less, which says the private sector has failed, e.g., exactly what value do insurance companies add? - the cost is about 10-15% of each dollar (maybe more), but the benefit to the public interest just isn't clear)

The list could go on, but it is an example of political thinking without ideological constraint. The list is just one person's opinion. It would no doubt differ some or maybe a lot if a group of pragmatic non-ideologues were to come up with a similar list, but it too would not look like anything the democrats or republicans would come up with. That difference is the main point of CM arguments about the bad influence of ideology on politics. Ideologues usually can't honestly face reality when it undercuts their ideology nor can they impartially assess policy options that undercuts their ideology. Ideologues are limited in their perceptions and thinking. Pragmatic non-ideologues are not nearly as limited.

 UH-60 Black hawk - special operations forces

Uruzgan province, Afghanistan - August 29, 2012

How this ends is anyone's guess

The top priority - kill the special interest beast

Of those issues, CM would argue that the first, realigning incentives to reward service to the public interest, is the most important. Without that sort of an attempt to blunt this pervasive political problem, progress on most of all other things is essentially impossible. For example, lobbyists backed by campaign contributions will kill any effort to fix the tax code in any meaningful way, even if the facts and unbiased analysis say that it should be done. Except when it is coincidental, special interest money serves special interests and not the public interest.

Compassionate pragmatism

Some of that may look liberal, some conservative and some may look like nothing you have seen before. That is correct, some does fit liberal ideology, some fits conservative and some probably fits no identifiable ideology. That is what you can get when you ignore ideology and just look at problems and potential solutions from the point of view of the public interest and within the simple framework. However, if it is true that there is a way to get the most efficiency and efficacy by ignoring ideology, then intelligent pragmatism is the best compassionate and sustainable way to do politics and run the country. Everything else will fail sooner or later, regardless of good intentions at the start.

Cruel reality

Since reality doesn't care what anyone's ideology is, the best solutions to problems won't care either because they are also a part of reality. In other words, there really is only one best solution to any problem from the point of view of the public interest. That's why neither the liberals nor the conservatives will never get it right most of the time. Only non-ideological pragmatism looking at undistorted reality can even come close to that ideal. Obviously, the devil is in the details, e.g., how one interprets the definition of the public interest given above, assuming one accepts it at all.

Some of this may sound harsh, but this is a result of the reality we have got ourselves into with the connivance of the two parties now in power. Wishful thinking isn't going to make our problems go away. Neither will the two parties, unfortunately. It is long past time for those dinosaurs to amble off the stage and just go away.

How politics distorts reality

A central California Moderates (CM) theme is that political and religious ideology distorts the believer's perceptions of reality and, in politics, that leads to ineffective and inefficient politics and policies. Variations of that have been articulated by people like George Lakoff, someone that CM has been aware of for several years. CM opinion on this point isn't new or unique.

Lakoff lecture on moral politics (2008)

Through a post at the Rise of the Center politics site, CM has recently become aware of another analyst who argues essentially the same thing. Social scientist Johnathan Haidt has argued that American politics has become polarized. He also argues that political and religious ideology associated with that polarization tends to blind ideologues on both the left and the right.

In a February 2010 interview with Bill Moyers, Haidt argues that the polarized politics colors our perceptions of reality and, for many republicans, makes compromise literally impossible because that amounts to a capitulation to evil. Through the lens of polarized American politics, differences of opinion amounts to a battle of good vs. evil, not a competition of reasonable ideas. Each side believes they are good and the opposition is literally evil (or maybe severely self-deluded at the least).

Haidt's interview with Moyers

For example, at 23:43 through 24:40 of the interview, Haidt points out a political situation, the 9/11 attacks, where most republicans cannot fully see reality for what it is because reality undermines one of their key ideological reference points for understanding and thus seeing the world and politics. Distortion of reality by ideology is a key point CM has been making over and over and over. The problem of course is that ideologues reject this kind of thinking and logic. They have to reject that thinking because anything less capitulates to evil.

How does one get past the mental impasse? Unfortunately, CM has no answer.

Where are the independents?

California held its primary last Tuesday and as expected, the event was irrelevant to the presidential election. Nothing remarkable or newsworthy about it. But, the San Diego mayoral race was interesting. Unfortunately, it was discouraging if you want fundamental change in politics. If you want status quo two-party politics, it was reassuring.

 Caudiforms, one of which is blooming

These bizarre plants sometimes look more like rocks than plants

Context

California now has open primary elections where candidates from all parties are on the ballot. The only office that requires a party ballot is the presidential vote. The two candidates with the most votes move on to the general election and it is pretty much over for everyone else. Third parties hate the top two vote rule because they believe it will make them go extinct. They may be right, but that's a different issue.

The mayor race

Presidential politics aside, the San Diego mayoral race showed what is essentially an absolute grip on power that the two parties have. In that race, Nathan Fletcher ran as an independent after the local republican party refused to endorse him in preference to another, more hard core republican candidate Carl DeMaio. Fletcher was endorsed by Movement to the Middle (a group of senior San Diego business executives) and icPurple (billionaire Ted Waitt), which are self-described independent organizations.

The democrat in the race, liberal democratic congressman Bob Filner, ran what was called by most local pundits a lackluster, uninspired campaign. In response to those criticisms, Filner basically said, don't worry, I know what I am doing. I know how to win elections. Filner was right - he didn't have to do much of anything, other than be a democrat. The same was true for DeMaio. Being the endorsed republican was enough. In the campaign, DeMaio campaigned mostly against Fletcher with garden variety negative campaign tactics, but it is unclear how much effect that had compared to simply being the endorsed republican. DeMaio mostly ignored the other republican in the race, district attorney Bonnie Dumanis.

The result:

DeMaio (R) 32%

Filner (D) 30%

Fletcher (I) 24%

Dumanis (R) 13%

The status quo wins . . . . again

Despite independent support, Fletcher came in behind the unconcerned (bored) status quo democrat and the mildly concerned (mostly bored) status quo republican. Fletcher's loss appears to result mostly from a combination of two things. First, a low turnout, with committed party supporters tending to dominate by voting along party lines. Second, according to local political observers (and California Moderates) busy (distracted) voters who are not necessarily committed party supporters who generally vote along party lines as their way of generally/sort of stating their political preferences.

Of course, one can say that Fletcher was really just another republican who ran as an independent to (i) side-step the republican party endorsement of DeMaio and (ii) appeal to independents to replace lost republican votes. Maybe so. But, if independents are to ever gain a foot fold anywhere, they have to start somewhere. Any 1,000 mile journey on foot (or by rocket) starts with the first step on the path (or into the rocket). It has to be recognized that the only place a politician can go to get elected is the democratic and republican parties. No other political engine exists in the U.S. that can drive a person into most political offices. So far, libertarians, socialists, Christian and other parties have elected no one of importance in the last 100 years or so.

What does it mean?

That context suggests that currently there are insufficient independent voters to affect much of anything. Assuming this story can be more or less be extrapolated to the rest of the country, one can argue that under current political conditions third parties and independents are going to remain impotent and ignored. Even without the top two open primary here in California, third parties here and in other states have been around for a long time but have been irrelevant all that time in terms of getting people elected. The third parties' share of the electorate in California has been essentially static at about 5% for the last 12 years or so. The ideology of existing third parties simply isn't appealing to the masses.

 

An Asian Cycad

All of that would seem to argue that the only way to actually change politics is to change the two parties from within. California Moderates opinion is that that cannot be done in the face of powerful forces that are aligned to maintain the status quo. Those forces include (1) special interest money that maintains and co-opts both parties and essentially all politicians, (2) ideology that divides the public into the two party narratives, (3) no credible, respected, powerful voice advocating for anything other than the status quo, (4) the tendencies of voters to vote like they do as described above and (5) the irrelevance of non-voters. Collectively, all of that constitutes a massive bulwark against meaningful change.

What else is there?

If one accepts that version of reality as reasonably accurate, then there arguably is only one thing that has not been tried. Its a non-ideological approach to politics. A framework for that kind of politics can be pretty simple and straightforward. The real questions is whether that kind of reality-based politics is something the American public, including most independents and moderates, can stomach. That's an open question and one can argue that they do not have that kind of courage. If that is true, then there may be nothing that people unhappy with the status quo can do but sit back and watch the bus drive right over the cliff. The question then becomes how far the fall to Earth will be. With some luck, it will be a short, non-lethal fall onto a big pile of fluff.

At the moment, the democratic and republican parties can honestly say all your base are belong to us. That's about as status quo as it can get.

What a pragmatic political framework looks like

The political framework from a pragmatic, non-ideological point of view might look something about like the following. This is part of the core structure on which a non-ideological political party could be formed. No political party adheres to these principles, which makes this a unique brand of politics, regardless of what all existing political parties or most special interests say to the contrary.

In particular, the two parties in power now would argue that they do adhere to these principles or at least to reliance on unspun reality and logic, while arguing that the opposing party does not. When they accuse each other of living in spin (their perception/definition of reality), they are both exactly right.

Cock's Comb Coral tree

Erythrina crista-galli

S. America

The political framework

1. Serve the public interest before serving special interests, which include politicians, political parties,  private sector entities and government itself
  - Identify true special interest needs and intelligently balance those with public interest needs
  - Find win-win or win-neutral solutions whenever possible
  - Require win-win outcomes for special interest favors that are not true competitive needs, e.g., are
simple money grabs with little or no demonstrable benefit to the public interest
  - The public interest: The optimum balance between serving American national domestic and foreign interests, defending its economy and the American standard of living, defending personal freedoms and protecting the environment

2. Limit the distorting influence of political and religious ideology on policy and perceptions of reality
  - Approach problems and issues with an open mind
  - Do not spin facts, analysis of issues or the merits of competing solutions
  - Understand that the best solutions to any given issue can be liberal, conservative, compromise or none of those
  - Ideology in politics is not sacred, it is just political theory
  - Ideologues have to win their case in a competitive marketplace of ideas based on reason and logic, not preconceived belief

3. Understand that the constitution is the highest and best source of authority for the law, political action and society's well-being
  - The constitution is a secular document and is grounded in pragmatism, reason and logic, not spin or any liberal, conservative, socialist, Christian or other ideology
  - The constitution is what the founding fathers left us and it was the product of bitter, hard-fought, pragmatic compromise, not any political or religious ideology
  - The constitution is in fact the ultimate basis for the law today, i.e., the courts do not decide cases based on any other document such as the Declaration of Independence or any religious text
  - The constitution is not frozen in time as clearly indicated by simple, open ended concepts such as "due process", "equal protection" and regulation of interstate commerce and by its self-described means for changing it through a defined amendment process
  - The constitution was designed to accommodate as much personal freedom as society can reasonably tolerate at any given time, which reflects its capacity for change to accommodate changes in society over time

4.  Understand that there is a role for government in society and that it can be very effective and efficient in serving the public interest or it can be a detriment depending on how it functions or fails to function
  - The contours of the proper role and scope of government in any given area is easier to see without distortion by ideology and spun reality
  - The constitution created a central government to address matters that individual states cannot or would not address
  - Some ideology holds that government is an enemy of society and should be blindly attacked, but that ideology is wrong
  - Some ideology holds that government is society's only friend and should be blindly supported, but that ideology is wrong

Where the Cock's Comb name comes from

The simple approach

With that simple framework, anyone can approach any political problem or social issue and get a long way toward coming to some reasonable options for compassionate, efficient policies and solutions that serve the public interest. Without that framework, you get political business as usual, i.e., failed politics, policies and service to special interests without much or any regard to the public interest. Serving special interests with money is where political incentives/rewards are aligned.

The question is do you have the moral courage to check your biases/ideology at the door and face reality or not. Talking the talk is easy. Walking the walk is hard.

Campaign contributions are business investments, not patriotism

Context

A central California Moderates (CM) theme is that the effect of special interest money on politics is usually bad because it typically is a business investment intended to benefit a special interest. Serving special interests that way impairs and corrupts American politics and unnecessarily hurts the public interest, unless the public interest is properly balanced. CM believes that politics as usual usually does not take the public interest into account when serving special interests. The special interest can be a wealthy person, a specific business or an industry. The political payback on the investment is often laundered through the blindingly complex U.S. tax code. 

 M42 Orion Nebula infrared light (1,450 light years)

Spitzer Space telescope photo, February 29, 2012

To be crystal clear, CM firmly believes that most campaign contributions are not given to help America or the public. The money is not for mom, Apple Pie or the flag. Putting money into political parties and candidates is just a business investment.

What kind of rot is that?

Obviously, the special interests involved in this kind of corruption, i.e., elected politicians, both political parties and the special interest donors, would all vehemently argue that CM's perception is a profoundly flawed perception of reality. According to their perception, i.e., their version of reality, the money has no detrimental effect and in fact is very good and absolutely necessary for the well-being of mom, Apple Pie and the flag. In short, special interests will certainly dismiss CM's opinion as a boatload of sheer, stinking treasonous rot.

 Tanantula nebula in the large Magellanic Cloud (160,000 light years)

Spitzer (red - cool gas & dust), Hubble (green - stars) and 

Chandra (blue - hot gas by X-ray)

April 17, 2012

OK. The special interest version of reality is clearly heard and fully understood. Is CM opinion a load of stinking rot? Its a fair and reasonable question.

Some donors admit it

In what must be unguarded an moment, some donors admit to the reality CM described above. Bill Moyers and Michael Winship had this to say in a piece that seems to have first appeared on the internet on June 2, 2012:

“Most of the megadonors backing [Romney’s] candidacy are elderly billionaires,” Tim Dickinson writes in Rolling Stone. “Their median age is 66, and their median wealth is $1 billion. Each is looking for a payoff that will benefit his business interests, and they will all profit from Romney’s pledge to eliminate inheritance taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts for the superwealthy — and then slash the top tax rate by another 20 percent.” As at least one of them has said, they view these cash infusions as an “investment,” plain and simple.

 Carina nebula in the Milky Way showing Eta Carinae (a star 100x heavier 

than the sun, 1,000,000x brighter and 10,000 light years away)

Spitzer space telescope, May 24, 2012

 

There you have it. A billionaire donor admitting that campaign contributions are business investments intended to benefit a special interest. There is no mention of serving the public interest. Obviously, special interest will deny this and say that the story is a fabricated lie and/or that the donor was drugged and out of his mind. They might even argue that whatever it is that any special interest ever asks must, by definition, be good for the public interest because otherwise politics would not function properly and we would fail as a society and political experiment.*

Which perception of reality is closer to the truth, the special interest version or the CM version? You choose.

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

* It is CM opinion that U.S. politics does not function properly and we are failing as a society and political experiment.

Thanks to The Moderate Voice, who posted this on June 3, which is how this little nugget of unvarnished political truth (a very rare thing indeed) first came to CM's attention.

Are Americans ready for reality politics?

Some evidence suggests that many Americans want compromise to reduce political gridlock and "get things done". However, that really isn't the case. Most of those people want the other side to compromise. That just isn't going to happen with the polarized, corroded politics we have now. U.S. politics is corroded by emotion or faith based political and religious ideology, which probably distorts reality to the point that political policies based on false reality are mostly nonsense. The power of ideology to distort reality is astounding.

 USS Blueridge with South Korean destroyer ROKS Yulgok Yil

Sea of Japan, March 6, 2012

U.S. politics is also corroded by (i) special interest money, (ii) political parties, especially the republican party, focused on their bitter fight to the death, (iii) politicians who are out for themselves and (iv) an infotainment-focused press who, for the most part, buys into and does not seriously question the fundamentals of any of the nonsense. Honest service to the public interest is largely lost among all those other more important priorities. Everyone has their agendas and, with few exceptions, serving the public isn't a major agenda item.

The toxic stew

Collectively those toxic ingredients overwhelm the efforts of people with the moral courage to face reality and try to solve problems using non-ideological, non-self serving common sense. Those efforts are usually derailed by the toxins. It is easy to argue and defend the proposition that people who try to honestly face reality for what it is have much more moral courage than red meat-eating ideologues who check their brains at the door and let their ideology do their thinking and talking for them.

 U.S Army patrol (M240B machine gun)

Paktya province, Afghanistan, March 2, 2012

Facing reality takes courage, especially in the face of wealthy special interests spinning their false realities, i.e., creating and/or pandering to false realities, to get what they want. Special interests getting what they want requires excellent propaganda skills and patience in addition to the cash. On the other hand, being an ideologue is easy, simple and psychologically comfortable. That's why it is so popular. True independents, maybe 10-15% of voters, who can go with either party are just a fraction of people who call themselves independents. Everyone else pretty much lines up with their ideologies and/or self-interests when it is time to vote.

 Sailors man the rails of the carrier USS John C. Stennis as it arrives in San Diego

San Diego bay, February 27, 2012

Americans are not ready

The most obvious conclusion is that Americans are not ready for reality politics. Facing harsh, unspun reality, e.g., the federal debt and a need for effective government, is just too intimidating for the average politician and voter. That brand of politics could lead to real discomfort, both psychological and otherwise. We are not going to get much hope or change from either party or from politics as usual. What that will lead to is anyone's guess. Defenders of the status quo will argue that things will turn out just fine. Despite that defense, the vibe sensed here is that things are going to get very ugly fairly soon (within 2-4 years or so) and stay that way a very, very long time (15-30 years or so).

With any luck, that sense of the future will turn out to be completely wrong. But at the moment, California Moderates would not bet any money on it. The stew just looks to be too toxic for a better outcome.

The awesome power of ideology to distort reality

A Gallup poll released on June 1, 2012 indicates that 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. About 32% believe that humans evolved over time but that God guided the evolution. Only 15% believe that humans evolved over time and God had nothing to do with it.

Spitzer Space telescope photo, May 23, 2012

M101, a/k/a the Pinwheel Galaxy; This is 21 million light years away

(That means the light captured in this photo was emitted from that galaxy

21 million years ago.)

That speaks for itself. This is a poll from 2012, not 1012. It is a poll of Americans, not people living in a theocracy like Iran or Israel. A majority of Americans (about 78%*) cannot distinguish scientific theory based on supporting facts and reason from the faith basis on which religion stands. This is about as clear as any example could ever be that the human mind does not rely mainly on logic and reason to arrive at perceptions of reality. When scientific truth conflicts with religious faith, the real (scientific) truth can lose as much as about 78% of the time. That's just a fact.

* Actually, its 85% if you count the people who didn't express an opinion. How can any adult American not have an opinion about whether God literally made humans within the last 10,000 years? Maybe the 7% thought it was a trick question. Whatever, that confused and/or suspicious bunch really does belong with the other 78%.

Spitzer Space telescope photo, April 24, 2012

M104, a/k/a the Sombrero Galaxy; This galaxy within a galaxy is 28 million light years away

This is contemporary proof of the awesome power of ideology to distort reality into something it is not. That is a reason that California Moderates constantly criticizes the role of ideology in politics. If religious faith can so utterly distort something as rock solid as the theory of evolution, just think what political and religious ideology does in politics. In politics, the evidence and theory are much softer and more subtle than in the evolution 'debate'.

This doesn't speak well of the state of K-12 public education in America. In fact, one could easily argue it is clear evidence of profound failure at the K-12 level.

 Spitzer Space telescope photo, February 29, 2012

M42, a/k/a the Orion nebula; This nebula is 1,450 light years away

It is no wonder that liberals and conservatives often see utterly different realities even though they are looking at the exact same thing. Liberals and conservatives cannot possibly see the same thing through the distorting lens of their political and religious faiths. The problem is, of course, that reality doesn't care what anyone wants it to be. Reality just is what it is. That is why ideologues tend to distort and reject it when it doesn't align with their faith.

The big question

The question is whether one side in politics or both have it wrong for any given issue when they see two very different and incompatible realities. Both can logically be wrong. But, they both can't possibly be right, unless one's definition of logic allows mutually incompatible realities to coexist at the same time. Or, is there a flaw in that view of reality? If so, what?

 Spitzer Space telescope photo, December 21, 2011

GN-108036

 This galaxy is 12.9 billion light years away