The Barking RINO                           Essay 11

Readers of this column will already know that it is my supposition that internal debate is, at least at this stage of our political landscape, more effective than external debate. In other words, being critical of your own political platform, in the effort to vet proposals and thus put forward and achieve better ideas is a more effective method to get project ‘good’ ideas onto the political landscape.

In our current political landscape, the media has a vested interest creating schisms. By employing bias into their reporting, media outlets can assure an income stream based upon an audience size of sycophantic followers…or ‘true believers.’ While this works quite well for the media, as the assumed fourth leg of government, such an overt bias does little to stimulate effective debate which works towards much needed efficiency and inclusion in governmental operations. When one’s loyalty is based upon implicit agreement, debate dies and the search for truth is lost to the pursuit of advertising dollars. For example, when was the last time someone yelled and belittled you so effectively that you agreed with them? I don’t think it happens. So we know that Diana Mutz’s theory on media bias perpetuates schisms and abets the myth of a divided America. (Mutz and Reeves, The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust 2005) (Mutz, Effects of "In-Your'Face" Telvision Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition 2007) (M. P. Fiorina, The Great Divide 1991) (M. P. Fiorina, Congress,Keystone to the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed 1989) (M. Fiorina 2011) (M. Fiorina, Conversations on Religion in American Life November) (Abrahms 2007).

Some of the questions that Republicans might want to debate include: in a time of an on-going annual budget deficit and a national debt that exceeds $17 trillion dollars, does it make sense for the American military budget to continue to represent nearly 50% of the world’s military budget? Can we sustain an economy where government payment of benefits coupled with an inequality in the income tax base, perpetuates annual debt and seemingly endless cycle of borrowing? If we can foresee the retirement of Baby Boomers but know that, for the most part, they have woefully under-saved for their retirement, should we simply ignore the issue? Finally, how serious should a candidate be taken who promises tax cuts, increased military spending AND a balanced budget?

Even a cursory examination of popular conservative campaign rhetoric indicates that party platform goals do not align. Simply stated, if the effectiveness and efficiency of government and the seemingly unlimited nature of government intrusion are causes for legitimate concern, why on earth do we continue to give a consensual pass to candidates that we know are telling us what we want to hear at the expense of both our future and the messages that we need to hear? We are, in essence, complicit in perpetuating bad government simply because we lack the political courage to be critical of our own bad examples.

In 1993-1994 Canada enacted the ‘budget triumph.’ This action stated that for every seven dollars in cuts of government expenditures they would raise taxes by one dollar. By 1997 they had lowered debt as a percent of GDP by 38% and balanced the budget for eleven consecutive years (Makings 2010). While raising taxes is anathema to conservative politics, it will be the honest Statesman that creates the forum in which we honestly debate ‘what is the role of our government?’ We now know the day has arrived when America can no longer afford to borrow from others in order to achieve both “guns and butter.” Simply arithmetic demonstrates that it is foolish to suggest only cutting government expenditures can lead to a balanced budget. Honest political debate is needed so that leadership can develop that has the authority and ability and can make us go where we need to go, rather than current leadership which lead us to where we want to go. The ability to win elections by being honest is being stymied by a lack of honest debate which leads to the pursuit of real world solutions to issues which we all know need to be addressed. The ineffectiveness of government is not caused by partisan opposition; it is caused by listening to that fellow in the mirror who so comfortably lies to us and allows us to blame another while we shirk our own advice at the expense of this nation’s great future.

Suggested Reading and Listening:

Abrahms, Samuel. "Culture War? Exposing Myth of Red vs Blue States." National Public Radio. October 27, 2007. http://www.npr.org/books/authors/138440248/morris-p-fiorina (accessed December 27, 2014).

Fiorina, Morris. "Conversations on Religion in American Life." National Public Radio. 13 2004 , November. http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=4168707&m=4168708 (accessed December 27, 2014).

—. "Finding the Cure for Pendulum Politics." National Public Radio . November 13, 2011. http://www.npr.org/2011/11/13/142288879/finding-the-cure-for-pendulum-politics (accessed December 27, 2014).

Fiorina, Morris P. Congress,Keystone to the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

—. "The Great Divide." The Washington Monthly, December 1991: 53 - 55.

Heclo, Hugh. "Hyperdemocracy." The Wilson Quaterly, 1999: 62 - 71 .

Heclo, Hugh. "Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment." In The New American Political System, by Anthony King, 87 - 124. Washington D.C. : American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978.

Makings, Emily. "Lessons from Canada." Washington Research Council. October 10 , 2010. http://researchcouncil.org/2010/10/07/lessons-from-canada/ (accessed December 27, 2014).

Mutz, Diana C. "Effects of "In-Your'Face" Telvision Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition." American Political Science Review, 2007: 621 - 635.

Mutz, Diana C., and Byron Reeves. "The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust." American Political Science Review (American Political Science Review), 2005: 1 - 15.

Why Do Candidates Say the Things They Say? Barking RINO Essay #10

The Barking Rino #10

Why do Candidates say the things they say?

In a recent statewide campaign a viable candidate for governor chose to modify his position on immigration away from an honest assessment to a position which aligned with the partisans and activists who promulgate out-of-the-mainstream ideas. In this situation, Gubernatorial candidate Pete Rickets was accused of being a “convenient conservative” for properly commenting in his 2006 failed Senatorial bid that “no one was being sent home” in reference to illegal immigration. In his 2014 campaign to become the Governor of Nebraska, Ricketts adopted a more palatable position to most conservative primary voters. Similar drastic changes in policy positions were seen in Presidential campaigns by Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney (healthcare).

Why?

Change is a natural by-product of aging. Winston Churchill is quoted as saying, “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” In the game of life these changes which are based upon life experiences are called, ‘wisdom.’ But in politics we call this ‘flip-flopping.’ Extreme examples of this including Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning’s comments as a second-year law student at the University of Nebraska in an Op-Ed for the November 13, 1992 edition of the Daily Nebraskan, when he wrote,

“I think a woman should have a right to choose.”

“I believe in gun control.”

“I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else.”

“I believe in affirmative action. If a woman or a black person takes the place of a white male in a law school entering class, we’re better off.”

“I would love to persuade you that trickle-down economics was a farce or that Ronald Reagan was incapable of understanding complex policy arguments.”

These are hardly the comments of a “real conservative.” None-the-less, Bruning’s resilience demonstrates that, in the end, winning the campaign is the only true test that matters in politics.

A second reason why candidates say the things they say is that primary campaign rhetoric is not intended to resonate with the entire voting bloc. Research indicates that in a primary, due to the traditional low voter turnout, party partisans and activist make-up a higher percentage of the voting pool than they do in the larger General Elections. In other words, candidates must make a play for the fringes of their political spectrum in order to pass on to the General Election. Said slightly differently, in the primary Republicans will run to the right while in the General Election candidates run to the middle.

Applying this logic, if ‘you’ are neither a partisan or an activist, or perhaps even a party member, then the campaign rhetoric of a primary is not designed to appeal to you. Consequently, it often doesn’t.

A definition of political rhetoric is, “Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.” Rhetoric and dogma carry a subtle connotation of dishonesty. Astute political observers will know that campaign rhetoric tolerates a ‘fast and loose’ use of the facts and a necessity to appeal to the voters that are most likely to vote. Voters need to remember that the single goal of candidates is to be elected (Fenno, 2003). The single purpose of a political party is to elect members of the party (Growth & Opportunity Project, 2013). In other words, basically any commentary is ‘fair game’ if the result is an Election Day victory.

One need not wonder too hard why, if voter toleration of empty campaign rhetoric, served up to them because it works by securing votes, realize that when the candidate is unable to fulfill campaign promises, they [voters] have the sense that the candidate lied to them. Obviously the candidate and the polity colluded in a convenient mischaracterization of the truth based upon the premise that voters want candidates to tell them what they already believe to be true.

Additionally, if one is unwilling to fully examine the issue beyond the rhetoric, one settles for undefined campaign rhetoric. I was read an insightful comment which I am unable to source, “For every complicated solution there are easy answers: and all of them are wrong.” In 1964 political scientist Phillip Converse suggested that 95% of Americans are politically ignorant (Converse, 1964). One wonders if he was being generous in his estimation.

Noted University of Nebraska political scientist Elizabeth Theiss-Morse theories on ‘in-group rhetoric’ in her book, ‘Who Counts as an American?’ Her theory suggests that groups are formed based upon common beliefs and mores. As a member of the group, individuals reiterate closely held group mantras in order to signify their allegiance as loyal group members. A component of the group is the sense that “we believe this” and those that disagree are not group members or, worse yet, disloyal group members. The power structure of the group is threatened by ideas that challenge the accepted ‘truths’ established and reinforced by the membership (Theiss-Morse, 2009).  We see rhetoric from this echo chamber of group think with the accepted usage of terms like RINO and “he’s not a real conservative.”

While groups must have members, and that membership is glued together by common goals and mission, which is reinforced by institutional story-telling and shared rhetoric, the danger of course is that eventually the allure of power demands stricter control of group ideas. An examination of historical despots demonstrates that as group rhetoric incrementally evolves, members of the group are willing to accept patently bad ideas from arguably bad leaders. For example, Iowa Congressman Steve King’s defense of the right flank of his political campaign with overtly racist comments.[1]

Another example of bad leadership within the GOP is Voter ID laws. While the empirical evidence demonstrates that this, at best, an issue with infinitesimal impact, the larger concern is that to date, however the rhetoric of the issue is applied, it culminates in an intense alienation of significant voter blocs. Because this law addresses no demonstrable problem, and because of the GOP’s sixty-year schism with Black voters, this issue is a painful reminder of America’s history of Jim Crowe laws. Again, the point is that seemingly ‘good rhetoric’ that is anchored in past arguments is bad politics in a modern pluralistic world.

Since in-group criticism results in being ostracized, one wonders what the value of fair criticism might be. I would argue that it is an effective methodology to hone campaign rhetoric into viable political solutions. In Federalist Paper Number Ten, American founder James Madison, writing under the non deplume Publius, warns readers that factions have the ability to destroy liberty (Madison, 2010). I would ask the reader to question what the function of politics and government is. If government exists to provider for our wants – then our national, as we know it, is doomed. If government exists merely to protect our rights and provide for our needs[2] then we need to demand that it do so. As ‘conservatives’ venture across our door-stops and into our bedrooms with their misguided desire to dictate morality, we may realize that what appeals to social conservatives during election cycles is in fact striking at the heart of Jefferson’s ideas embodies in the Declaration of Independence and in the First Amendment, the right of dissent (Jefferson, 1776), (Madison, 1791).

Discerning voters will strive to recognize the tension between the necessity to win elections and the inherent American ideal of pursuing the truth (An idea I suggest could be arguably equated to “the pursuit of happiness.”) Elections must be won and it has always been a nasty business. But when winning elections come at the cost of the pursuit of truth, then what is the value of supporting ideas that lead us into disharmony and discourse with foundational American ideals? Seemingly it is now okay to lie as long as your lies agree with the ones I have chosen to accept.

It is incumbent upon a Lockean Liberal Democracy[3] (in the classic definition rather than the contemporary definition) to pursue the truth by challenging bad ideas. Jefferson prescribes revolution when government pursues unjust actions (Jefferson, 1776). It is no mistake that Jefferson empowerment of government comes from, “the consent of the governed.”  

Our system of governance is dependent upon debate. Debate not only creates inclusion for a wide variety of voices (which is especially important is a rapidly changing pluralistic society) but, if properly respected, intra-party debate can sculpt ideas into winnable solutions that enhance the individual liberty of all Americans.

In the end, if it is about winning elections, I would rather see the GOP win because it offers better ideas which have been vetted and proven. In the party today the current mode is to ostracize the challenging voices. As party membership declines at a precipitous rate, and proposed party solutions are ignored[4], one can recognized that short term political wins are coming at the expense of long-term viability.

Either we pursue the truth or we abdicate any semblance of a true Liberal Democracy.

Adler, M. (1981). Six Great Ideas. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 206 - 261.

Fenno, R. F. (2003). Home Style - House Members in Their Districts. New York: Longman.

Fiorina, M. P. (1989). Congress,Keystone to the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

(2013). Growth & Opportunity Project. Washington D.C. : The Republican National Committee.

Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: National Archives .

Locke, J. (2002). The Second Treatise on Government. Mineola: Dover Thrift Editions.

Madison, J. (1791). The Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia: U.S. Archive.

Madison, J. (2010). Federalist Paper No. 10 . In J. Madison, A. Hamilton, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers. New York: Tribeca Books.

Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who Counts as an American? New York: Cambridge University Press.

---

[1] "For every one who's a valedictorian, there's another hundred out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with this same act." 

[2] (Adler, 1981) Tells us that a need is something that is necessary for survival such as food, water, healthcare, love, shelter – specifically, if one is deprived of a need, that person will die.

[3] (Locke, 2002)

[4] (Growth & Opportunity Project, 2013)

Essay #8 Media, The Truth, Dogma, and Debate

The Barking RINO                                     Essay #8

A central discussion of political science is weighing the actual political knowledge of the American public. In 1964 Dr. Converse determined objectively that 95% of the public was technically ignorant.[1] As dismal as this sounds, since that first study, repeated studies have verified this proximate number. Most Americans are unaware of the name or term of their elected officials, what the Constitution actually means or how laws come to exist. As noted social scientist Richard Fenno wrote in his seminal text, Home Style, most of us vote for candidates that “seem like a nice guy.”[2] Yet today, amid the flurry of social media, especially among older and predominately male demographics, everyone seems to have an opinion and a willingness to share it. Consequently, some of the questions that might spring to mind include: Where are these opinions coming from? What is the difference between an opinion and a fact? How do we know who to believe?

First of all, I want to suggest that two of the consequences of the 24/7 news cycle is that (POINT ONE) consumers of the news have easier access to awareness of political issues and topics. If it was the intention that “we the people” hold the reins of power in our democracy, issue awareness is probably a good thing. But what is the contextual foundation that these media factoids are being applied against? For example, a recent topic was the “cuts” in benefits for veterans.[3] After much online ballyhoos back and forth, this bi-partisan bill actually reduced the annual increases in veteran benefits: in other words, it was a less of an increase but still a net increase. Gauging from the social media conversations, most of those that commented on this topic did not understand that the bill was neither an actual cut nor that it was a bipartisan effort to reduce deficit and ultimately debt. And, in a period of exceptionally low economic growth, one wonders how big annual increases actually need to be in order to keep up with the cost of living.  

None-the-less, passions were fired up. What is interesting is that ‘Joe six pack’ was engaged in this issue. Never mind that Joe’s facts were wrong or that Joe’s foundation of political knowledge for applying these facts was equally murky. What we know is that Joe is receiving this political information from the news media…and that he is watching. Joe wants to learn and participate in our democracy. The good that is demonstrated by this example is that Joe and all his friends and foes, seemingly want to engage in the issues that test our nation and concern us about our collective future. Find me a box, I want to step on top of it and applaud Joe and his friends, sincerely. American philosopher Mortimer Adler tells us that the pursuit of the truth, in this case knowledge, is the basis for a good life. In fact, Adler tells us that the pursuit of the truth is the highest calling any human animal is capable of.[4]

But how could Joe’s opinion be so poorly formed?

Historically the media was the ‘fourth leg of government’ or the ‘watchdog of government.’ I would argue that despite the tsunami of available information and opinion that the internet provides, along with traditional radio, television, newspapers and magazines, Americans continue to be politically ignorant (uneducated). This is not to say that they are stupid.

Today, amid the intense competition for viewers, the media has sacrificed accuracy on the altar of expediency. Additionally, unscrupulous online outlets simply provide un-vetting opinion in the guise of facts. In other words, they are intentionally being deceitful. An excellent example of this is the recent news stories that partisan economist Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy. [5] This story indicates that not only are the facts for stories poorly researched before they are passed along but that online news sources are, at best, unreliable. Finally, as John Gottshalk, former Publisher and CEO of the Omaha World Herald once stated while holding up a copy of the newspaper he held (paraphrasing), ‘This is an advertising vehicle. We use the news to sell ads.’ In other words, the single “duty” of the media is to create wealth, through the sale of advertisements, for investors. News, like music on the radio, is the bait that attracts the audience.

Gone are the days of reliable truth and accuracy in the media.(POINT TWO) 

Today, in an effort to maximize profits in a highly competitive industry, news sources have to engage in appealing to overt ‘audience bias’ in order to develop and maintain the largest audience possible. (Advertisers pay for ‘reach and frequency’ or audience size. The larger the size of the audience, the more advertisers are willing to pay to have their name and sales pitch in front of the audience. This is why TV ads during the ‘Super Bowl’ or the Olympics are more expensive than ads during college football games: larger audience.) We all know that Fox News is not, ‘fair and balanced’ or that the token Conservative on MSNBC is simply a battering post for a liberal bias served up to the delight of an ensconced progressive audience seeking reaffirmation that their views are correct.

Ergo, when we see interaction among online social media users – the arguments are predictable and based upon the talking points of media that one imbibes. This media has a demonstrated history of using bias in reporting, shirking accuracy in favor of expediency and providing (low cost) content (news) in the form of facts when it is actually the opinion of an employee purported to be an “expert” who colludes with the medium to maximize ad sales.

How do we know what the truth is? We don’t...especially in the social sciences.

Outside of the realm of science and mathematics, there are few truths which can be empirically demonstrated and reliable tested. Gravity is a truth but the existence of ‘good’ is subjective.

 

When it comes to politics we need to understand that ‘the truth’ is especially murky and usually relative. Some will employ, ‘the greater good’ argument – which is a nice way to pick and choose the facts that apply and those facts that are dismissed. A disciplined thinker will engage uncomfortable facts since it forces her to ‘test’ her truths. A truth which is unable to withstand vigorous testing is dogma. In his book, Six Great Ideas, Adler tells us to replace truths once we have learned that they are less-accurate or incomplete.[6] This means that the disciplined thinker must constantly vet their assumptions by engaging in fruitful debates – most often debates that occur within their own head. An unvetted truth is simply an opinion that is no more valid that any other opinion. “De gustibus non est disputandum.”[7]  In other words, you prefer chocolate, and I prefer Strawberry.

Thus, we are called to test our own truths first. Never mind the partisan meanderings which provide little more than acrimony, distrust and divide. (Partisanship is about overtly demonstrating your group membership  and loyalty. It is the fulfillment of the choice to abstain from individualism in favor of group membership) [10]

If you want a debate – challenge your own beliefs…or those of people whom you agree with.

In parting, the divisions in America are historical divisions. The nature of the human mind is to segregate into groups where a commonality conjoins us. When the data to recognize this bond is absent, schema allows us to ‘fill-in’ the missing parts in order to make sense of our reality. This automatic process which occurs in our head has historically been a survival, ‘fight or flight’ mechanism. Today, we call it racism, sexism, Republicanism, Progressivism, Nebraskaism (okay, I made that last one up). But no matter how hard we try not to – we will innately bind ourselves to groups since groups provide security and enhance the opportunity to procreate. It is as fundamental to our existence as breathing and eating. But we can choose to not allow this tendency to control how we perceive and interact with the world.

The fundamental tenant of our Representative Democracy is that “we the people” must learn to agreeable disagree, or how to debate important issues. The tug-and-pull of government is the process whereby ideas are vetted –with the hope that the outcome is a better idea. When we lose the ability to discuss difficult, hard, complicated issues with those we disagree with – we have given up the pursuit of the truth in favor of the allure of dogma and inevitably the death of truth. We are allowing ourselves to tolerate a lie because we are simply too lazy to pursue the truth. In a metaphysical sense, I suggest, we have given up on God. When we no longer pursue the truth, in all aspects of our imperfect lives, we no longer seek the beauty that this world has to offer – replacing it with the modern lies of consumption including: everyone should be skinny, members of the group I belong to use this brand (BMW, Nike, Coke), and everyone should think the way I do.

In the end, the tolerance and fruitful engagement of those we disagree with makes us smarter, our ideas better vetted and our debates eventually lead to better real-world solutions; solutions that can actually change the quality of people’s lives. But the moment we engage in comfort of mindless regurgitation of media talking points – we become sycophantic automatons that have given up on the one thing we know our Maker entrusted us with, “Cogito ergo sum.”[8] (*)

How do begin to pursue the truth? By exploring our individual values. If “I” am the one who gets to determine “good” from “bad” and since the nature of man is sin,[9] then my perspective will be based on self-interest and, by definition, errant. We begin by searching for an external yardstick of truth to vet our individual values and truths against. And if you have read this far, I bid you good luck for taking the first step in a journey that, by design, will never end.


(*) An interesting theological theory suggests that the self-awareness of our own mortality is the planted-seed by which our Creator beckons us to search for (It/ Her/ Him.) That in the pursuit of the truth, in order to answer the only question every human being asks, "Why?" we will become aware that of the few things we take with us to the grave (and presumably the after-life) including: an understanding of who we are, the formation of what the truth is, and what our values really are. 

Works Cited

(2012). 2012 American Values Survey. Washington D.C. : Pew Research Center.

Adler, M. (1981). Six Great Ideas. New York: Simon & Schuster.

(2010). Americans' Outlook for U.S. Morality Remains Bleak. Omaha: Gallup.

(2013). Civic Engagement in the Digital Age. Washington D.C. : Pew Reserach Center.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 206 - 261.

Fenno, R. F. (2003). Home Style - House Members in Their Districts. New York: Longman.

(2013). Growth & Opportunity Project. Washington D.C. : The Republican National Committee.

Weber Shandwick. (2011). Civility in America. New York City : KRC Reserach Powell Tate.

---

[1] (Converse, 1964)

[2] (Fenno, 2003)

[3] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Senate-Votes-for-Ryan-Murray-Budget-That-Cuts-Veteran-Pensions

[4] (Adler, 1981)

[5] http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/03/breitbart-krugman-bankruptcy/62952/

[6] (Adler, 1981)

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

[9] See the writings of Jefferson, St. Paul, Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Adler (Example - Romans 3:10)
[10] (Theiss Morse, 2014)