Why ideology is bad for politics

Reform Party of California Commentary

Why ideology is bad for politics

A key criticism the Reform Party of California (RPCA) has repeatedly leveled at the two-party system is its heavy reliance on rigid ideology as a guide to inform and evaluate competing policy choices.[1] That flaw is a key driver of fantasy, failure and waste in governance. The RPCA is not alone in seeing ideology as a major bad actor in politics.

The magazine Scientific American published a commentary on ideology in its October 2013 issue (page 95; online at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-should-choose-science-over-beliefs). The piece was written by Michael Shermer, a hard core libertarian who argues that when reality or science does not support belief or ideology, then the ideology needs to give way. Mr Shermer described simple but powerful examples of how ideology distorts reality.

One example was Mr. Shermer's slow realization that in the gun control debate he saw himself engaging in "the cherry picking and data mining of studies to suit ideological convictions." He further explained that "We all do it, and when the science is complicated, the confirmation bias (a type of motivated reasoning) that directs the mind to seek and find confirming facts and ignore disconfirming evidence kicks in."

Another example Mr. Shermer described related to global warming. The RPCA has used the same topic to illustrate the same corrupting influence of ideology on reality that Shermer sees.[2] There, Mr. Shermer was attending the libertarian 2013 FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, NV. At the meeting Mr. Sherment made the unremarkable observation that "between 90 and 98 percent of climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming, someone shouted, “LIAR!” and stormed out of the room."

Conclusion

The reasonable conclusion is simple: Ideology is bad for smart, efficient politics. As Mr. Shermer put it in his commentary: ". . . not all libertarians deny science, but all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be." Those comments reflect exactly the point about ideology that the RPCA has been making over and over.[3] The RPCA is not alone in rejecting a major role for ideology in politics. However, if you want waste and inefficiency, stick with your ideology and you will get more waste and inefficiency. If you want something better, the RPCA is offering centrism grounded in non-ideological pragmatism. Take your pick.

Footnotes:
1. Links: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-what-is-the-proper-size-and-scope-in-government/; http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
2. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
3. It is not the case that science has all the answers to everything. It doesn't. For example, science cannot prove the big bang theory. However, religion cannot prove Creationism. Nonetheless, there is scientific evidence that accords with the big bang. For Creationism there is religious faith, which is perfectly fine for personal religious belief. But when it comes to governing, which intellectual framework do you want to rely on: one grounded in scientific evidence or one grounded in religious faith and/or political ideology?

Uniting discontented groups

Reform Party of California
Can centrist political discontent coalesce on 
a pragmatic center and make a difference?

Context

If political independents, presumably centrists and/or pragmatists for the most part, could coalesce around a single party or entity, it would be larger than either the democratic or republican parties. Poll data indicates that about 40-42% of Americans identified as independents in 2011 (31% self-identified as democrat, 27% republican) and about 41% in 2012 (31% democrat, 28% republican).[1] There is a drift of a few self-described independents away from republican-leaning status. At the national level, the two parties are no longer the biggest game in town, nor are they aligned with opinion of the largest political group, the independents.

The relatively high level of independent identification is likely due to factors including (i) a low public image for the federal government, (ii) a low image both the democratic and republican parties and (iii) possibly a growing recognition that dropping party affiliation makes it easier to avoid having a partisan mindset and reflexive partisan support for or opposition to competing policy options.[2] If it is true, the latter point is evidence that there is erosion of blind faith in liberal and conservative ideology, at least as practiced by the two-party system. The Reform Party of California (RPCA) sees erosion in ideological faith as a major change for the better in how the U.S. public sees and thinks about politics.[3]

It is reasonable to believe that independents and presumably centrists and/or pragmatists are open to considering a reduced reliance on ideology as the main framework for doing politics. Ideology is a lens through which reality, politics and policy choices are usually viewed and assessed in the two-party system, which is something the RPCA has criticized repeatedly. That belief is based in part on the fact that the Democratic, Republican, Green, Socialist, Libertarian and most other political parties are firmly grounded in their ideologies.[4] If ideology was the key driver, most independents presumably would be in an existing ideologically-based party and not independent. Therefore, common sense says that loss of faith in ideology is at least partially behind the phenomenon of drift from the status quo model.

Big numbers, small impact: The independents' one-night stand?

Despite large numbers of independents, their impact on policy appears to be limited.[5] Although both sides openly appeal to independents in elections, once the election is over it is easy to argue that the winning candidate swings back to the left or right. The influence of the center fades into oblivion. That phenomenon is not new, nor is it a secret. As one observer aptly put it, once candidates who appealed to independents get what they want by winning their election, "independent voters are forgotten as quickly as a one-night stand."[6] Although the analogy might be inappropriate, the sentiment is clear.

If you listen to the rhetoric, it is reasonable to argue that independent voters are forgotten after most elections. The rhetorical focus is on political posturing and status quo party well-being, not problem solving or the will of the people.[7] The republican party is well-known for shooting RHINOs in pursuit of ideological purity and that purity isn't anywhere close to centrist or independent. The republican party is selling the same old time blind ideology of the hard core right.[8] Centrism has nothing to do with it. On the bright side, the polling data referenced above suggests that republican ideological extremism is slowly eroding public support, as it should. That's a good thing. The drift is toward the democratic party, which isn't a good thing because that reinforces the status quo.

How to unite independents and the political center?

Given the circumstances, an obvious thought is to somehow unite the independents, centrists and pragmatists in some way. That would appear to require an intellectual framework or ideology for people to see and accept. To a large extent, the politics of the left and right for average Americans is driven by strongly held ideological beliefs. Those beliefs constitute an intellectual framework for attracting and holding supporters. The content that the RPCA has generated was intended to provide an intellectual framework that differed from the ideology-based frameworks that other parties are based on. 

The point of being different, i.e., pragmatic and non-ideological, was intended to address three concerns. One was the loss of trust in both government and political parties that characterizes politics today. Another was to provide a different and better way to see and think about politics, i.e., objectivity and logic without distortion and knee-jerk instinctive thinking that ideology imposes on the process. The third concern was to elevate transparency and service to the public interest as key components of the different political approach.

Addressing those three concerns provided a clear alternative for doing politics in a way that would appeal to independents or centrists. The assumption behind that belief is simple. If it is true that the two parties and their ideologies are losing their grip on independents and centrists, then transparent logic and pragmatism[9] focused on service to the public interest ought to appeal to many or most of them. Offering some other kind of standard political or religious ideology, e.g., socialism or libertarianism, doesn't seem to be a promising way to appeal to discontented independents and centrists. If any ideological message was sufficiently appealing, then it would be capturing many of the independents. Reality and the poling data shows that those messages simply are not appealing to the mainstream public.

If you more or less accept the RPCA's version of reality, at least one conclusion is obvious. Centrists and pragmatists have no meaningful place in the two-party politics of the left and the right. What they get is, at best, lip service in elections followed by little, nothing or quiet derision for naïvety. That raises the question of what centrists and pragmatists can or should do if they want the status quo to change. One obvious answer is to unite just like the Tea Party and Occupy folks. If nothing else, both of those movements got attention in politics and the press. Their concerns are now mainstream in political discourse, if not yet policy. What their ultimate impact will be cannot be known. 

In politics, change happens only when people act. Therefore centrists and pragmatists have to unite or remain irrelevant in politics. The RPCA just cannot see any other reasonable conclusion. Given that reality, the RPCA will begin an initiative to unite the center, or if one is ongoing, join the existing effort. The goal is to generate an organization of some sort with sufficient presence that the press and politicians cannot ignore. Tea party and Occupy folks, are picketing-street protesting type folks. That draws press and political attention. Most centrists just do not do that kind of thing.

Throw down the gauntlet

 Despite that, there are other ways to have an impact. The RPCA will find that other way and work to use it. But here's the gauntlet: If centrists and pragmatists do nothing, nothing will change.[10] Therefore, they must become less passive and at least occasionally act in concert. That may not be protesting in the streets, but it has to be something more than just protesting on blogs. If others have not already figured out what actions to take that centrists would be willing to take for the long haul, the RPCA will figure it out. Its our job. There is a way forward to change.

Suitable music to accompany this cheerful commentary: We Are Telephone - Ahead or VNV Nation - Perpetual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikRbKhbvees). No pessimism there folks.

Footnotes:
1. Links: http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/Record-High-Americans-Identify-Independents.aspx;
www.gallup.com/poll/159740/democrats-establish-lead-party-affiliation.aspx.
2. Links: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156713/Americans-Rate-Computer-Industry-Best-Oil-Gas-Worst.aspx; http://www.gallup.com/poll/24655/Party-Images.aspx; http://www.gallup.com/poll/149795/Republican-Democratic-Party-Images-Equally-Negative.aspx; http://ivn.us/2012/10/22/50-reasons-register-independent/.
3. Links: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-what-is-the-proper-size-and-scope-in-government/; http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
4. The RPCA, like the national Reform Party, is grounded in centrist/pragmatic non-ideological politics. The RPCA emphasizes objectivity in politics, policy options and the definition of service to the public interest. Ideologically-grounded parties see these things through the lens of their ideology. In RPCA opinion, that makes ideologically-based politics more subjective than objective, which in turn is less effective politics in the long run. Obviously, ideologically-based parties would strongly disagree to say the least. This amounts to a simple difference of opinion and differing views of reality.
5. Link: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/independent-voters-on-the-rise-but-do-they-matter/.
6. Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/4-types-of-independent-voters-who-could-swing-the-2012-elections/252363/.
7. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-commentary-colloquies-in-venom/.
8. Conservatives are correct that our fiscal situation is unsustainable and probably very dangerous, maybe out of control. Where conservative ideologues fall flat is applying unspun reality to unbiased analysis in arriving at their policy solutions (less taxes, less regulation and less domestic spending) to this very real and urgent problem. The RPCA has argued that point elsewhere (http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-elusive-economic-reality/). In RPCA opinion, pragmatic problem solving, not ideology, best solves problems that affect the public interest. Ideology solves problems that affect the ideological interest, which here is the extremist republican party resides these days. Whether the ideological approach best serves the public interest is mostly a matter of chance.
9. Pragmatism means accepting the best policy choices based on unspun facts and unbiased analysis with an eye on sustainably serving the public interest. That is discussed elsewhere (http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/). The implication of being pragmatic (not centrist) is that a fair hearing may suggest that a particular policy choice is best, regardless of whether it would be considered a preferred choice by the left, right, center or elsewhere. In practice most pragmatic policy will probably amount to centrist policy, more or less. If nothing else, that comes from the nature of the two-party system as it exists now because compromise is necessary to do much of anything. What differs is that arguments from the pragmatist can come from places other than the center even though the end result might be elsewhere.
10. Millions of Americans have sworn off politics arguing that it is a waste of time and that the system is rigged and corrupt. Yes, it is rigged and corrupt. However, if enough people do something it will not be a waste of time. Many wonks and partisans still argue that what dissidents like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader did to their presidential elections was counterproductive or a waste of time/votes. The RPCA disagrees. They made the status quo pay attention, even if in the long run little or nothing changed. Inflicting change on an unresponsive, corrupt and arrogant two-party system will require sustained participation by millions or tens of millions of Americans. There is no other way. Rest assured, the RPCA will find a way to make that task doable. For optimists, there is always a way.

Simpson-Bowles commission report commentary

Reform Party of California Commentary

The reality of America's fiscal situation

Context

In the next few weeks, the federal government faces major deadlines for passing spending bills. The Treasury Department estimates that sometime in October, the federal government will hit the federal debt limit.[1] In addition, spending bills to authorize federal budgets for fiscal year 2013 need to be passed by the end of September. These spending issues are among the most contentious and disputed issues the two parties have to deal with. Unfortunately, recent rhetoric indicates that inter-party vitriol and gridlock will continue.[2]

In the first post in this series of commentaries on the economy, spending and debt, the Reform Party of California (RPCA) discussed a republican budget plan would address America's long-term fiscal situation. The plan is based on conservative ideology[3] with an unknown degree of influence by special interests, which include the republican party. Critics argue that the republican plan shifts too much of the sacrifice and pain onto the lower and middle classes and favors wealthy individuals and interests. Republicans reject those criticisms as nonsense. Independent analyses suggest that spending cuts will adversely impact millions of people in the lower and middle classes.[3] Impacts on wealthy individuals and businesses are unclear.

In 2010 president Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. It was a bipartisan group charged with the task of preparing a non-partisan plan to address America's long-term fiscal situation. The Simpson-Bowles commission, named after its two co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, released its final report in December of 2010.[4] The Simpson-Bowles (SB) report includes the following conclusions and statements:

"The problem is real. The solution will be painful. There is no easy way out. Everything must be on the table. And Washington must lead. . . . America's long-term fiscal gap is unsustainable, and if left unchecked, we will see our children and grandchildren living in a poorer, weaker nation. . . . . If the U.S. does not put its house in order, the reckoning will be sure and the devastation will be severe. . . . . In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from shared purpose and common sacrifice. The national interest, not special interests, must prevail." (SB report at pages 7-8)

The SB report says that, among other things, the SB plan would "sharply reduce tax rates, abolish the AMT, and cut backdoor spending in the tax code. . . . . ensure lasting social security solvency, prevent the projected 22% cuts to come in 2037, reduce elderly poverty, and distribute the burden fairly. . . . . stabilize debt by 2014 and reduce debt to 60% of GDP by 2023 and 40% by 2035." (SB report at page 15)

Finally, the SB report says that it will "reform corporate taxes to make America more competitive, and cap revenue to avoid excessive taxation." (SB report at page 16)

After the SB report was made public, president Obama thanked the commissioners for their hard work and then simply ignored the report's recommendations. The president apparently felt the commission's proposals were unacceptable, but his reasons for walking away from it are not entirely clear.[5] In the wake of the president's unwillingness to do anything, congress melted down into, or simply remained in, the useless gridlock and blame shifting mode that dominates that broken institution today.

Who you gonna trust?

In RPCA opinion, the president's failure to back the report in any meaningful way was a serious, major mistake. It was a wasted opportunity to seriously address our fiscal situation beginning in 2010. Now it is three years later and nothing has changed, except that we are three years closer to a tipping point in sustainability. Three years is a long time for the government to do essentially nothing. In this case, the president failed to lead and his failure could precipitate some unpleasant or even catastrophic consequences. Time will tell. It is solid evidence that Washington is incapable of leading. That presumably arises mostly from the unpleasant news that will accompany any real attempts to fix things.

In terms of politically-inspired options there are two main plans out there - republican and democratic. The SB plan appears to be more or less non-political. The republican plan has been discussed.[3] It is viewed here with deep suspicion. The republican plan is firmly grounded in conservative ideology, not non-ideological pragmatism. Arguably it contains more than a small tinge of political self-interest. Both of those factors appear to be significantly out of synch with optimum service to the public interest. Optimum service to the public interest is the RPCA's only political focus.[6]

SB's statement that "everything must be on the table" appears to be simple common sense, given the depth and breadth of the problem. SB's explicit urge to focus on the national interest over special interests is not something one hears much about from either of the two parties. They get much or most of their money from special interests. Naturally they won't bite that hand because it feeds them. The "national interest" that SB refers to is another term for the the public interest, which is the the RPCA's main concern. Finally, a major focus of the SB plan is "backdoor spending in the tax code", which is something that conservative ideology apparently cannot and will not consider as part of the solution to the problem.[7] Collectively, the content and tone of the SB commission report make it far more credible than the republican plan.

Reality doesn't care about ideology

In terms of credibility, the SB plan provides a better starting place and general guidance about what needs to be done to begin to address unsustainable America's fiscal situation. Some of the portions of the SB commission report quoted above are generally in accord with other analyses from other sources.[8] The non-partisan nature of the SB plan seems genuine. In RPCA opinion, problem solving from an ideological point of view is less effective in serving the public interest than problem solving from a pragmatic non-ideological point of view. At the very least, the ideological viewpoint has to serve the ideology. That would be fine if reality and problems cared about some ideology or another or if reality accorded with one particular ideology. Unfortunately for ideologues and the rest of us who suffer with the inefficiency that arises from policies grounded in ideologically distorted world views, reality could not care less about any one's ideology. As far as the RPCA is concerned, open-minded, pragmatic problem solving, not ideology, solves problems.

The matter of trust (again)

The RPCA acknowledges a mostly unspoken concern that conservatives have about trying to fix our fiscal situation. Specifically, there is a great deal of sentiment among most conservatives and probably many independents as well that you simply cannot give Washington more money and expect it to solve any fiscal problem in the long run. The reason for that belief is simple. When you give liberals more money, they will spend it faster than it comes in.[9] Therefore, any fix you put in place will be dissipated in a few years and the situation will continue to deteriorate. That concern is valid. The RPCA shares the belief that government, both in California and in Washington, is a black hole for money. You can throw more money into the gaping maw of government and it will never be enough. In that scenario, things will not change or get better, fiscally speaking.

The dilemma

That being said, there is a dilemma here. Some experts believe that revenue increases and spending cuts are necessary to fix our situation over the long run. If that is true, and the RPCA believes it is, it means there are two basic mainstream choices here. One is to take the republican approach and rely only on spending cuts and accept the massive pain that will inflict. The advantage of doing that is that spending will be kept under control. The other is to take an approach similar to SB's and build in rock-solid revenue and spending caps. That should minimize pain somewhat while giving some assurance that congress won't come along a year or two later and wreck the plan. Such hard caps could require, for example, changes to come only after a 75% majority vote by House and Senate members. Getting that kind of concurrence these days is impossible for almost anything of substance, so hardened caps like that would likely be safe for a long time.

The question is whether the public would trust even that kind of a plan. Regrettably, mustering sufficient public trust for even that kind of a scenario to come about is hard to envision. The public has heard so many untruths from so many politicians and seen so much special interest power over the years that maybe nothing will convince most of the public that it is possible to fix this while being fair, intelligent and compassionate in service to the public interest. Maybe it is that attitude that allows the left and right extremes to call the shots in the debate. The center, arguably represented by the SB report, may have simply pulled too far back to have much impact. Regardless of the causes, the situation reflects a profound failure of the two-party system to effectively serve the public interest.


Footnotes:
1. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/lew-tells-congress-treasury-will-hit-debt-limit-in-mid-october.html.
2. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-commentary-colloquies-in-venom/.

3. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-elusive-economic-reality.
4. Link: www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf; a summary of the report is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform.
5. Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225620234902106.html. One possible reason for president Obama to turn his back on the SB commission and its report is his opinion that the U.S. does not have a spending problem. According to that viewpoint, we only have a revenue problem and that could be fixed by tax increases alone. There is some truth in that. If it is true that the U.S. treasury does not collect roughly $430 billion/year due to tax evasion (http://reformparty.org/the-tax-gap/), then if the evasion could be reduced by, say, 85%, revenue would increase by $365 billion/year. Although that alone won't solve the whole problem, it isn't something that can be ignored. There is real money there. Another oddity here is that Obama asked for a bipartisan report and that is what he got. If he had expected a report that said we can fix thing by just increasing taxes, he should have asked liberal democrats and socialists to write the report. One can sometimes wonder if this guy isn't just a bit naïve.
6. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
7. Link: http://reformparty.org/the-tax-gap/. In RPCA opinion, "backdoor" spending in the tax code is a major problem that contributes to our dismal fiscal situation. It probably costs the U.S. treasury well over $400 billion/year in illegal tax evasion plus additional hundreds of billions/year in unintended but legal tax avoidance tactics that congress never contemplated or is even aware of. The mess and blinding complexity is completely due to how the two-party system operates. Whether that is seen as as good governance, evidence of incompetence and special interest corruption or something else will of course vary from person to person. The RPCA sees it as evidence of incompetence and corruption.
8. Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html; http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8185-02.pdf; See page 2 of the analysis; http://www.offthechartsblog.org/dont-forget-ryans-budget-of-last-year/.
9. Blaming it all on liberals doesn't convey the whole reality here. Conservatives in government have repeatedly shown that they are happy to go into debt without regard for future obligations. That was made brought home again when republicans in congress failed to pay for, e.g., either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars, with anything other than debt. The argument above simply presents the republican point of view, which downplays or ignores these little inconvenient truths. With the likely exception of the Tea Party folks, deficit spending is an old bipartisan habit. For most Americans, that makes trust in long-term budget plans very hard or impossible to have.