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?