Parallel Realignments

Interesting thoughts from a friend:

I think we are seeing two simultaneous realignments around class and inequality. One is the have-somes and the have-a-littles against the have-a-lots; the other is the have-less-than-they’d-expecteds against the have-nots. The former is fueling the rise of economic populism on the left; the latter involves people trying to hold on to the government benefits they “earned” against people making “unearned” claims on government. [ . . . ]

One of these two realignments is reshaping presidential politics. The other is reshaping congressional and state-level politics. This disjuncture is partly a question of institutions—gerrymandering and the like. But it’s also a question of political engagement. Fifty-eight percent of eligible voters voted in the 2012 presidential election; 36% voted in the 2014 congressional elections, leading to an overrepresentation of conservative-leaning constituencies.

So I think that, while the public as a whole might be moving to the left, American politics is moving in two directions simultaneously. The system as a whole will move left only if a lot more people—millennials, new Americans—get involved in non-presidential politics and build new institutions capable of sustaining more robust political engagement.

Who Turned My Blue State Red?

Why poor areas vote for politicians who want to slash the safety net.

NYTIMES.COM|BY ALEC MACGILLIS

Some thoughts about reasoning, induction and the limits of facts

When people think of reasoning they often think of deductive reasoning: the old example is "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therfore Socrates is mortal." Assuming the premises are true, deductive reasoning gives us a truth.

Inductive reasoning is reasoning from what happened in the past to predict the future. Whenever the X we've seen Y. All men before Socrates eventually died, so he probably will too. 

Deduction yields a purer type of knowledge than induction. Deduction from true premises yields truths. Induction can only yield probabilities: likelihoods or odds.  

The problem with deduction and it's privileged position in teaching reasoning is that true, readily agreed upon premises are rare. I think that we should think more about induction. 

Thinking about induction in law and science

What has happened to facts?

Last night there was a Republican debate. Few would dispute that the audience appeals were strictly visceral. Candidates did not bother trying to say things that made sense, let alone that were true. Ted Cruz, for instance, spoke of precision carpet bombing, which is an oxymoron. The current leader in the Republican field, Donald Trump, habitually makes false claims.

How did facts - or lies - lose their power?

One possibility - not that there's likely one answer - is that everyone has a source for whatever they believe now. Anyone can find an authority who reinforces their beliefs and disparages people/authorities/ideas/media that challenge them. Perhaps the presence of creed-specific echo chambers has led to epistemic closure within them

But the idea of an echo chamber seems to suppose semantic beliefs, ones that can be verbalized and that maybe in some way are mutually consistent. And maybe that's a problem with the idea. Statements have become markers for being in a group rather than building blocks for ideas that can be advocated or defended. A crowd cheering the notion of precision carpet bombing may just be full of people too stupid to notice a contradiction, but it's more likely to be full of people cheering the rejection of articulable belief beyond articulation of support/loyalty for a party or candidate. "We have our facts, you have your facts," they might say to the outgroup, "so who needs facts at all?"

An explanation of my apparent fixation on the U.S. Constitution

Some people apparently read this blog. They may have noticed that the Constitution comes up a lot when I start ejecting opinions. I can understand why some might be put off by this. For one, Constitutional fetishization / founder worship is one symptom of today's problematic right-wing politics, which apparently seeks ownership of American symbols like the flag, Constitution and "our troops." But, more generally, it can be annoying to see someone invoking the same thing over and over (monomania?)

So let me be clear about my attitudes towards the Founders and the Constitution.

The Founders were men just like any other men, imperfect and a product of their times. But their times, if a member of their high social stratum, were intellectually fertile and ambitious. Among other things, the behavior and work of the Founders reflected the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment:

Harry Frankfurt's Theory of Bullshit: the basics

Take three people: the "straight shooter," the liar and the bullshitter.

What separates the straight shooter and the liar from the bullshitter? The relevance of what they believe to be true to what they are saying.

The straight shooter tries to communicate a true belief. The liar constructs a lie based on their true belief as well.

The bullshitter communicates without concern for truth or falsehood.

Here is a perfect example of the platonic Frankfurtian bullshit artist, Donald Trump, at work: 

Mr. Trump liked to tell guests that the nursery rhyme-themed tiles in the room were made by a young Walt Disney. 

“You don’t like that, do you?” Mr. Trump would say when he caught Mr. Senecal rolling his eyes. The house historian would protest that it was not true.  

“Who cares?” Mr. Trump would respond with a laugh.

A weaker example (but with higher stakes): 

Ted Cruz can be easily attacked without resorting to bullshit. Yet on the day of the Indiana primary, Trump maintained that Ted Cruz's father was "with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting" of JFK. This is, to put it mildly, an unsubstantiated claim. Trump doesn't know whether it's true or false. And he doesn't care. 

I encourage anyone reading this to check out On Bullshit. It's a short and entertaining read and has helped me understand present-day problems with discourse.

The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause, its violations and its enemies

• Justice Hugo Black: In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
• Pick a founding father and you'll find a similar expression of views. 
• James Madison: a  practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
• Based on the above, "In God we Trust" shouldn't be codified by law as a national motto nor should it be on our coins. The history of this practice is recent and rooted in wartime paranoia and it has continued support among the current political party that seems to oppose any "wall of separation."

• I'm going to defend my views against some anticipated objections:

Unforeseen Consequences

This is what happens when you don't think your foreign military adventures through. 

Let's look further back in time: 

Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's secular and democratically elected leader, was overthrown in a 1953 coup orchestrated by the UK and the U.S., who then propped up a secular but undemocratically elected and autocratic regime whose excesses led to the rise of an unsecular, undemocratically elected autocratic regime in opposition to U.S. interests. America soon threw its support behind an secular, undemocratically elected autocratic regime at war with Iran . . . 



. . . who became an adversary and whose demise - in addition to the human and financial costs involved in bringing it about - helped lead to the advent of the Islamic State as described in the first link.

The Constitution trumps The Declaration of Independence (which people should quit invoking.)

Some people quote the Declaration of Independence to make claims about what the Founders of this nation valued and thus the character of this nation's fundamental values.

These people should stop. The only part of the Declaration that had force of law was the declaration that the U.S.A. was coming into being. All the other words were, to put it bluntly, unnecessary. 

On the other extreme, every word of the U.S. Constitution is law - "the supreme law of the land." As soon as it came into existence, it rendered the Declaration a historical artifact. 

If someone tries to support their political views by referring to the Declaration - particularly when it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution - don't let them. 

Hoist on its own "evenhandedness"

I feel like the (ugh, hate the phrase) "mainstream media's" general unwillingness to identify lies as such outside of the editorial pages/shows over the 2K's is finally coming around in a way it doesn't like. If the NyTimes presents birther screaming as a tenable point of view (even if just by implication/omission) it shouldn't be surprised when candidates feel no obligation to substantiate any assertions. 

http://www.nytimes.com/.../candidates-stick-to-script-if...

Candidates Stick to Script, if Not the Truth, in 2016 Race

NYTIMES.COM|BY MICHAEL BARBARO

The Founding Fathers didn't have pistols or assault rifles

I grew up in the South, bird hunting and all that stuff. Yeah, it's a part of the culture - in that many rural homes will have a shotgun or two and maybe a single shot hunting rifle.

Any gun that you can conceal on your person or get more than three shots off without reloading is a person-killing device. I'll say it - I don't think handguns should be available to the general public, let alone assault rifles. If you think having a mass-murder machine is part of your regional or national heritage then you're wrong. In the 1780's you could get off a shot every 15 seconds if you were a fast reloader.

P.S. - If you're worried about the federal government dominating you then demand more transparency in its operations and accountability from its officials. You're not going to beat it militarily, not even with a well regulated militia. 

Kim Davis

Since around 1995 - maybe before (I know, I know 1861) - the current unholy, unconservative, unrepublican coalition on our country's right political wing has rejected the legitimacy of government whenever government processes - elections, laws, judicial rulings - don't go their way. Government shutdowns, Clinton impeachment, Obama birth certificate fiasco, and then this nonsense: I can't imagine someone being dumb enough to cite the First Amendment in defense of failing to execute their duties as an elected official but now I don't have to.

Kim Davis clearly didn't feel that the Rowan County Clerk's office was, to quote Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a "great office that must" not "be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group."

If I remember correctly, those Houston Protestant Preachers were worried about Kennedy carrying the Pope's water. What's strange about today's brand of pan-Protestant-evangelicals is that they don't know whose water they're carrying. In lieu of a Pope they heed a miasmic echo chamber of politico-religious hucksters, nuts and verses whose incoherence is a model for its adherents. The Vatican knew it all along: If you let Kim Davis interpret the Bible it'll mean whatever the hell she wants it to.

What should a Good American value?

I saw a picture of a friend displaying markers of Orthodox Jewish piety. It made me think: he has notions of what it means to be a good Jew. I have other Jewish friends who have largely different notions of what it means to be a good Jew. But there is some overlap. And they are serious about being what they define as a good Jew and not letting Jewishness fade away. 

What quality might define a good American? What part of our national fabric - of Americanness - should we not let fade away? 

I think that a Good American must value freedom of expression. Even when it makes us uncomfortable or even feel unsafe. 

Because, for one, this value makes Americans different. Jews have ancient traditions and heritage that defines them. Americans don't have that. We are a new people, a new type of people even - a people lacking a genetic or geographic heritage. (In my experience, Europeans find it strange when Americans say "I'm Italian" or "I'm Scottish." But, unlike many Europeans, Americans have genetic/geographic origins that are independent of their state of citizenship.) 

If Americans continue to let people say what they will and believe what they will as a fundamental value, we will continue to be different. Because allowing that to happen is so unnatural and unprecedented. It goes against the grain of human tendency. It is natural for society to suppress unpopular ideas and voices.

Regarding freedom of expression as the fundamental, cornerstone value has a unique protective effect for a good society. It is a dogma that protects against dogmatism as the basis for oppression. It disallows regime-sponsored punishment of heretics, a common feature of every oppressive regime I can imagine.

A cultural shift is underway in this country in which freedom of speech is slipping as a keystone value. A walk through a college campus might illustrate this. Speech and speakers are being suppressed on the grounds that it makes certain people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. 

The students on these campuses, and everyone else, must realize that the free circulation of ideas is essential for a healthy academy, just as the free circulation of blood is necessary for a healthy body and the free circulation of money is necessary for a healthy economy. 

Valuing freedom of speech as an American is not just the continuation of a tradition. It is partial maintenance of the Enlightenment-era spirt underlying this country's creation, Constitution and political identity. If we wish for our oft-invoked Founders' beliefs to remain relevant to our national character, we should maintain freedom of expression as a paramount value. As someone once said, it's the First Amendment for a reason.