Barking RINO essay #13

Here is the basis for my postings.

It is my belief that the American political system is pretty dysfunctional at the moment. While the British Parliamentary melds the Executive and Legislative branches together, the American system does not. Therefore, we have a “competitive system” based upon two sides tugging over issues.

Popular media today, and the political parties, have learned that if they can divide, or appear to divide (Fiorina) the American electorate, they can distract already busy voters with false arguments such as Voter ID, the vapid debate over immigration, or the “threat” that China presents.

IOW’s, by serving up and encouraging arguments, (selling fear) which intentionally devolve into divisions based upon class, race, gender and sexuality, both parties are able to form blocs of voter which are based upon “group membership.” (Theiss-Morse)

It is my impression that folks want to engage in political discussions but the models we get for that engagement in the media is one of acrimony, character assassination and permission to objectify those we disagree with and those who are elected. Whether its Fox News, MSNBC, talk radio or nearly any form of online social media, it’s not about truth but about profits – selling advertising. It’s good that people want to engage in political discussions including presenting what they believe. It’s bad that we are being taught how to yell past one another.

As a white, middle aged male, I should desire membership in the white, middle-aged male party. As a member of that political party, I should use the rhetoric of membership to signal I belong. By affirming my membership, I exclude non-members. At least this is how the party system in America works. The use of rhetoric allows non-members to assume the argument, respond using the rhetoric of “their team” and thus signal membership in their party: thus reaffirming the assumed beliefs of their team.

Marshall McLuhan (The Medium is the Message) and George Orwell (1984) both discussed how rhetoric devolves into ‘mental shortcuts’ which assume arguments whereby we no longer need to interact intellectually with each other. We can simply label, assume and then objectify the opposition. This means that the very necessary role of intellectual discourse, or debate, ends and the basis of the American system of governance can be manipulated by those in power: including the media, the parties, and those that fund the system. (Diana Mutz)

I suggest that's all bullshit.

A political party exists for one reason only: electing members of its team. The (party) platform of the team is NOT about better government but about coagulating loosely formed special interest groups into a bloc of voters of sufficient size to win elections. This is why, for example, rural employers in Iowa hire illegal immigrants but vote for the most bombastic, anti-immigrant member of the Congress again and again. A similar argument was made by Thomas Frank in his book, ‘What the Matter with Kansas?’

Going back to school, and reading a great deal about politics does not mean I am any smarter. It simply means I am constantly being exposed to a wide variety of arguments – which often are in disagreement with each other. How does one know what the truth is? We don’t. According to most great philosophical minds, we are unable to know what the right answer (or truth) is. Thus the call for the necessary role of debate over complicated issues.

As H.L. Menken said, there is always an easy solution to every complicated problem, and it is always wrong. (I may have gotten the quote wrong but you get the point). Political party's and media are asking us to pursue the simple answer. Again, I think that's bunk.

From my current program of study, being exposed to all these ideas is great. I love it. And what one realizes quickly is that the topical political debates that we are invited to engage in, are trumped up distractions. The media talking heads, Limbaugh, Maddow, Stewart or O'Reilly are spoon-feeding their audience rhetorical talking points.

We are being asked to apply political Band-Aids when there are structural problems to American government at the moment. For example, we have a war on drugs, a war on poverty, a war on illiteracy and a war on crime. But what have been the fruit, the benefit, and the “win” on these wars?

Debt,

Voting blocs,

Stagnant political agendas (that do not really address the issues that need to be addresses),

Social division,

Objectification of non-group members,

Ultimately, hate.

Instead, if I can create constructive discussions on facebook that caters to busy but interested folks regarding issues that I believe are based upon the structural issues our society faces – not by acrimony but by “killing the dogma within,” I think there’s value to that. No one has to read any of these posts. If one doesn’t like’em - don’t read’em.

In the Academia of Political Science there are discussions over complex but interesting and important ideas. We could keep these discussions locked away in “ivy towers” or we could present them in a format that some will elect to engage in.

Said differently, I think we can steer the desire of those that want to engage in political discussions from vitriolic arguments to engaging, and SAFE, respectful discussions where we learn that the divisions that the media and parties reinforce are mythical. Ultimately, America looks exactly like us. It is a perfect mirror reflection of who we are. There are no victims: only victimizers. There are no sages – only those that continue to pursue the truth by identifying false truths and then choosing to reject them (Falsification: Popper).

The middle class, whether leaning left or right, generally, shares the similar values and concerns. We live, we die, we do the best the we can to raise our families, and we pay taxes. We are not so different, you and I.

Do I know the truth? Hell no. Do I have some leanings and inclinations? Of course. But, and you will notice this, I never tell anyone what they need to believe. I never, ever, castigate anyone for disagreeing with me. And I never personalize political candidates (since I know how taxing and difficult that row is to hoe).

I suppose I could sit on the couch and watch ‘Dancing with the Stars…’ But I think that taking the things I am learning, and trying to share them, is more interesting and, as we can see from some of the discussions, some folks seem to like engaging in discussions where their intelligence and parentage are not threatened.

Finally, the only person our arguments are ever going to change is that lying bastard in the mirror and that is done by challenging one’s own paradigms of truth.

Anyway, that’s why I make some of the posts I make. I hope that seems a bit more enlightened than simply being a poser among friends. So, come along if you want, great. Or not: that’s fine too. 

"There is no political solution

  To our troubled evolution
  Have no faith in constitution
  There is no bloody revolution

  We are spirits in the material world
  (Are spirits in the material world

  Our socalled leaders speak
  With words they try to jail you
  The subjugate the meek
  But it's the rhetoric of failure." Sting, The Police 

Debunking the Media

The Barking RINO – debunking the media

As we know from studying the Progressive Era of America’s governmental development (1880 – 1920), as society moved from an Agrarian based economy to a more complex industrial economy, abetted largely by a Roman Catholic immigrant work force, the nature of government evolved to include unelected agencies which provided the much needed policy expertise in order to provide a objective foundation for legislative solutions. So government began to grow, the work force moved off the farm, and cities grew in size and pluralistic demographics.

After World War II, the economy sees a rise in the “managerial class” of the business sector, home ownership and the development of suburbs; including the ubiquitous shopping mall. It is a process of self-segregation stimulated by leaving the racially, ethnically, economically, and religiously mixed populations of cities. Despite these meta-trends in population, immigration and technology continued to fuel, in part, our nation’s prominence in the world: people wanted to live in the good old U.S.A.

Think about your life today, I know very few who feel they have a sense of balance and control over how their time is spent. With the challenges of a global economy workers are under immense pressure to “do more with less” or face work-place obsolesce. As Robert Putnam finds in his landmark research, Bowling Alone, (which can be found online for free), between work, family life, the gym and leisure time; membership in social obligations such as league bowling, church, the PTA, and civic organizations have been in a steady decline in America. We are simply too busy to stay on-top of our already busy lives.

Yet today, more than ever it seems to me, American’s want to engage and participate in party politics and governance issues. It is always a good idea to pursue the “consent of the governed” in governmental policy development. Historically, the media has been considered to be the “fourth leg of government” or the watchdog of government: a fount of news whereby busy Americans can monitor their government. The eagerness to engage and participate is an optimistic spark on our political landscape. 

So one might enquire, “Does the media continue to be a reliable source for objective reporting on governance issues?”

Despite hyperbolic rhetoric, when compared to the multitude of parties seen in other nations – each with their own agenda and constituency, our nation’s political spectrum of ideas is quite narrow: generally speaking, there ain’t much difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Yet a fundamental tenant of the American governance is the constructive debate between the two major political voices which, ultimately, leads to compromise and the to-n-fro of national leadership.

With the advent of cable television and the 24/7 news-cycle, and then the online explosion of “news sources” coupled with an ease of availability, competition for ad revenues began to dramatically “make-over” the media industry. We’ve all seen the change from objective news reporting to the use of pre-conceived bias in reporting. Regardless of left-wing or right-wing perspective, the media would not survive if it did not cater to a specific bias. Media uses bias to attract and keep its audience since, “reach” and “frequency” are the two methodologies that advertisers use to base their marketing dollars.

In other words, companies have a limited amount of advertising dollars to spend. Like any wise investor, they want their monies to be as effective (drive sales) as possible. Ergo, the media vehicles (cable, print, radio) that reaches the most people, for the longest amount of time, for the least cost per potential customer, is going to where the ad buy is placed. To say it even more directly, understandably, the media needs to anchor its audience in order to sell their ability to reach the audience so that when the advertisements are aired – there is a maximum value to the company paying for the advertising.

Here’s the rub…

If the media is using bias in its reporting in order to anchor and secure its market share, then the media is motivated to offer programming which is going to be maximizing its audience. Thus, programming is going to do market research in order to determine what its audience wants – and (wisely and profitably) “give the people what they want.” BUT WAIT A MINUTE! Didn’t we establish that we are simply too busy to follow the mechanizations of government? Yes. So how do we “know” what we want? Oh, by engaging in the media. Yes, it’s a self-reinforcing echo chamber of sycophantic ideas based upon…what?

Perhaps the sickest form of media is the confrontation. Like watching a car wreck in slo-motion, confrontation media is deliciously served up like Roman bloodbath as our gladiator batters opponents into oblivion and worse, intellectual scorn. Despite the desperately necessary call for the intellectual intercourse of ideas, confrontation media quickly applies labels to “their ideas” in an effort to drown out competing voices, assure market share, and provide the necessary entertainment value for a coliseum of frothing Romans citizens.

The wise consumer of the news will recognize that the media has a vested interest in NOT reporting objective news: that their interests, and profits, reside in creating false dichotomies, destroying the debate process and “giving us” what we already think we want to know. And you wonder why government is such a mess. Really? The problem is that dope in the mirror who, for fear of being branded, “not a real Republican” (or outsider) lacks the conviction to demand more from their media, more from their political acquaintances and, ultimately, more from themselves. The great unknown is in engaging, respectfully, those who disagree with you because that is where the new ideas can be found – and possible the solutions that we all seem to clamor…in between programs on Fox News or MSNBC. 

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)

Barking RINO, essay 7 "A Party of (Better) Ideas"

Barking RINO                                                                        Essay 7

A Party of Ideas

"In his book ‘7 Habits of Highly Effective People’ author Stephen Covey suggested that readers “sharpen the saw” by investing time in reflection and spiritual growth. Borrowing from Covey’s idea, successful political parties operate on ideas which ideally lead to campaign victory. In the highly contentious landscape that political society operates in today, seemingly ideas that stray too far from the norm are castigated by being branded as insufficiently conservative. Those who advocate a different line of thinking are labeled RINO’s. 

What seems to be rising to the surface is that if the singular objective of our party is to win elections…and if long term success of the party is based upon having better ideas… and if you agree it is difficult to propose ideas that include self-reliance, discipline and something other than the cynical tactic of using governmental benefits, then perhaps we, as a party, should examine more closely the ideas that we support with the objective of leading to better governance. Ideas should be vetted based upon quality and outcome rather than mere dogma. Over-reaching ideals at the cost of pragmatic governance can lead to impractical laws void of real world application and therefore potentially divisive with a significant cost at the polls.

At this juncture I do not want to propose any new ideas. I do want to suggest that we examine on the process of vetting ideas.

Start with the basic question; “What are the ideas that we as a party agree upon?” As with any group or association, fundamentally we will not agree on what these are. But there should be over-lapping agreements and a consensus of ideological direction but, I suggest, if one agrees with everyone and at all times – then what one stands for is fluid and insufficiently defined.

The proposal is not that we all agree. The proposal is that we look for the over-lapping ideals with the full recognition that healthy, thinking people disagree on some things and agree on others.  Identify the cohesive ideas that bring us together, recognize the direction and then embrace new ideas and approaches which pragmatically fulfill this agenda.

Within the sphere of political philosophy, “truth” can withstand all challenges. In other words, ideas that have been tempered by rigorous debate will eliminate bad ideas, incorporate better ideas and unify the constituency by hearing all the voices wanting to be heard. As the demographic sands shift, openness to new ideas and new voices will create a flexibility that replaces the brittleness that has led to Election Day losses.

Valid ideas do not have to be protected; certainly political opponents are going to attack our ideas – we should beat them to it. Ideas that have not been vetted are weaker ideas, or at least untested, than ideas that have been honed in the fires of respectful debate.

To say this differently, by respectfully challenging the ideas that have defined our party; today as well as in the past (and they differ sharply), we sharpen our saw with better ideas that are not so easily dismissed by the moderate middle (which all elections are incumbent to attract.) Ergo, the validity of someone’s political thought is not in their label or in their immediate agreement but in their willingness to respectfully challenge ideas yet abide by the post-debate results. 

The process of vetting ideas means ending the self-defeating paradigm of “RINO.” As engaged members whose commonality is better liberal governance (in the Lockean sense), disciplined values and self-reliance, we should engage in tactful and critical examinations of our ideas: this means debate and, once the vote has been cast, unity rather than the current castigation. Public debate based upon mutual respect engages a wider scope of participants creating a chorus of opinions which meld into better ideas that lead to victory at the polls. And if we are not together with the intent of winning elections – then we need to answer an even more basic question, “Why does this party exist if we are not interested in winning elections by offering better ideas which lead to better governance?”

Jean Stothert, Hispanics, and the Future of the GOP

The Barking RINO                                                               Essay Five

Hispanics and the Future of the GOP

In the 1970’s and 80’s conservative white Southern Democrats migrated over to the GOP. Among the many reason for the move, a prime impetus was Northern liberals aligning with the GOP to push for civil rights. (Zelizer, 2004) By not relying on population as the means to draw up Congressional districts, Southern conservative Democrats diluted voter blocs in order to maintain ‘safe seats’ and thereby cling to seniority and thus power in Congress. In 1962 the U.S. Supreme Court case, ‘Baker v. Carr,’ the court ordered districts be drawn based upon population. (See: Wesberry v.Sanders, 1964) This finding would result in urban votes having the same strength as rural votes. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed to further enfranchise Americans whose vote had historically been marginalized by procedural maneuvers. The long term result was that although African-Americans remained marginal voters, they voted Democrat.

When Jean Stothert soundly defeated Jim Suttle to become Omaha’s next mayor, she handily won a majority of the Ward 4 or Hispanic South Omaha by taking nearly 57% of the votes. Of the three precincts that were lost, the tallys were 49.1%, 48.1% and 42.5%.

According to the non-partisan research center PEW, only 24% of registered voters are Republicans. (Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years, 2012) This means the Republican base is no longer sufficient to elect a president. (The Hispanic Challenge and Opportunities for Republicans, 2012)

Racial fertility rates indicate that there will be no majority race in America by 2050. A fertility rate of 2.2 is required to maintain a population. Currently Euro-American (white non-Hispanic) fertility rates are 1.8. The highest fertility rates are Hispanics at 2.4. While all immigrants represent 13% of the American population, their fertility rate represents 23% of American births. (U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants, 2012)

In short, a GOP that clings to the language of fear and race (See voter ID) over the pragmatic pursuit of winning elections is destine for the dustbin of history.

Party Registration by Race

Party	White	white trend	Black	black trend	Hispanic	hispanic trend
GOP	32%	Down	5%	down	11%	flat
Dem	26%	Down	69%	up	32%	down
Independent	38%	Up	22%	flat	46%	up

Source: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

North American has always been a nation of immigrants. From the Mongolian land-bridge that brought Native Americans here 10,000 years ago to groups that arrive daily. The expectation of all immigrants is learn the language, learn the norms, assimilate into the Middle Class and pay your taxes. When South High School’s soccer team recently raised the Mexican flag at their victory, is that so different than the Shamrocks and fervent celebration by Irish-Americans of St. Patrick’s Day or Omaha’s St. Stanislaus Polish Festival?

If the contemporary GOP wants to remain viable and win elections then it must be inclusive. The recent RNC report, ‘Growth & Opportunity Project’ list 15 steps to reach out to Hispanics which should, based upon shared value systems, fit comfortably within the GOP; although some disagree. (Williams, 2013) Perhaps most important is how the GOP conducts itself during the forthcoming Immigration Reform negotiations. Specifically, the Party needs to employ intelligent use of language while holding to the value of support for legal immigration.

What’s clear is that table turning lessons of the Civil Rights movement and the eventual transition of Southern Conservatives into the GOP are before us again. Will we acknowledge history and learn from it? Or will we choose race over our shared values thus handing an insurmountable advantage to liberal ideology?

The Administration of Mayor Jean Stothert has the opportunity to reach-out to Hispanic South Omaha and solidify support for the Nebraska GOP which is based upon the shared values of equality, strong families, religion, entrepreneurialism, legal immigration, fiscally conservative taxes and government expenditures, life and women’s rights (Women are the more active Hispanic voter.) Stothert received these votes in May and now has the precious opportunity to earn them for the future. By ramping down hurtful rhetoric and pursuing a long term relationship, Republicans have an opportunity to build a lasting coalition that bridges the present to a future of winning elections and growing individual freedom for all Americans, native-born or naturalized. (Jordan, 2013) (Kagan, 2013)

Works Cited

Center for Disease Control. (2010). Births - Final Data for 2010. Retrieved from National Vital Statistics Report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf

GOP Seen as Principled, But Out of Touch and Too Extreme. (2013, February 26th ). Retrieved from Pew Research: http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/26/gop-seen-as-principled-but-out-of-touch-and-too-extreme/

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

Jordan, J. (2013, June 10). Tea Partiers to Omahas New GOP Mayor. Retrieved from Nebraska Watchdog : http://watchdog.org/88313/tea-partiers-to-omahas-new-gop-mayor-make-bold-budget-cuts-big-changes/

Kagan, D. (2013). Illegal Aliens - What do they Cost, What Can We Do. Retrieved from Nebraska Tax Payers for Freedom: http://netaxpayers.org/alerts/illegal-aliens-what-do-they-cost-what-can-we-do

Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years. (2012, June 4). Retrieved from PEW Research: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

The Hispanic Challenge and Opportunities for Republicans. (2012, December 12). Retrieved from Resurgent Republic: http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/the-hispanic-challenge-and-opportunity-for-republicans

Total Fertility Rate by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2008. (2010). Retrieved from United States Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0083.pdf

U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants. (2012, November 29). Retrieved from PEW Research: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

Williams, J. (2013, February 11). Opinion: GOP image toxic with Hispanics. Retrieved from The Hill: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/282145-opinion-gop-image-toxic-with-hispanics-

Zelizer, J. E. (2004). On Capitol Hill- the struggle to reform Congress and its consequences, 1948 - 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.