http://www.powells.com/biblio/17-9780679758945-5
Every nonzero (win-win) situation, has within it a zero-sum game (win-lose).
"Tragedy of the Commons" (Garret Harden): allowing overgrazing or overfishing by private means, that hurts or destroys the stock of the common. Regulatory restraint benefits all enterprises; for example, "hunting season."...so that "dear and ducks will live to die another day."
An interesting analysis of Big Man government (and non-zero sum games of greater complexity and wealth production) among Northwest coast tribes.
The rituals and language of kinship extend the values of non-zero. 38
constant war: a negative sum game. 60
most would choose submissness to death: war need not be a zero-sum game; in the "Art of War" Sun Tzu recognizes the lose-lose nature of war with the suggestion: leave your enemies a means of escape. 61
The dynamic of cultural evolution suggests that what is selected for is larger and larger expanses of non-zero-sumness, but on of the main selectors is the zero-sum dimension of war. "Waging war is waging peace." 64
Dawkins: memes, or bits of cultural knowledge (beliefs, values, etc.) are like viruses...they infect you and pass it to others. 89 For Dawkins, and philosophers like Daniel Dennett, belief in God is virus. 89
Memes pass among groups, and are selected by cultural evolution. Meme's that bring productive harmony get admired and adopted.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Notes: The Politics of Procreative Freedom
The Politics of Child Support, by Jocelyn Elise Crowley (Assistant Professor of Public Policy in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers), The State University of New Jersey.
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Child-Support-America/dp/0521535115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301085977&sr=8-1
"Defiant Dads": Father's Rights Activists in America
Paternity Fraud: Any child born into that marriage (even if it's another man's biological child) is automatically the responsibity of both man and woman in marriage. 7 (Sheldon, Sally. 2003. Unwilling Fathers and Abortion: Terminating Men's Child Support Obligations?" Modern Law Review 66 (2): 175-94.) In the past, states have made non-biological "fathers" responsible with arguments presuming a continuity of parenting is good for the child p. 7. Currently, some states are reconsidering these positions. [which ones].
non-marital birth rates: 1950: 14.1 PER 1000; 2004: 46.1, WHICH IS 35.8% OF ALL BIRTHS. 1 million, 475 thousand, 189 out-of-wedlock births in 2004 (how many of these were births without the commitment or the consent of the sperm doner.)
2008:From CDC (center for disease control and prevention)
"Two parents had created the child, but now the two parents were living apart". 21 [This is the false reading of the statistics, because in most cases two people did not make the decision to have the child, only one did, the woman. So the pretense is that an accidental production of a zygote is the "creation" of a child, although that is clearly not the case if "creation" includes the decision sphere, and therefor the moral sphere].
Congress first involvement with child support was targeted at welfare families, or those receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC) benefits, as a way to save tax-payer dollars (Crowley 2003). Began in 1950 (see for more detail); in 1975 Federal Child Support Enforcement Program: the law imposed financial penalties on mothers who were unwilling to identify the fathers of their children. 21. Money collected from fathers were reimbursement for welfare expenditures; the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 required states to withold a percentage of a father's unemployment benefits for child support. 22. Federal government left it up to states to enforce child support for those who were not on welfare; contempt of court citations were not enforced in most states.
1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments, as a result of women's groups and women legistators, nonwelfare families were incorporated into the child support enforcement program. In the fiscal year 2005, the program collected 23 billion for 15.9 millions "families" [do you mean women?].
Under president Reagan, the Family Support Act of 1988 created new paternity establishment standards and provided financial incentives to states to pursue DNA testing.
1988 imposed prison terms.
It has become increasingly expensive to run these programs. The states lost 87 million in 2000. By 2002 the Federal government was losing approximately 2.3 billion and the states were losing a total of 463 million.
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Child-Support-America/dp/0521535115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301085977&sr=8-1
"Defiant Dads": Father's Rights Activists in America
Paternity Fraud: Any child born into that marriage (even if it's another man's biological child) is automatically the responsibity of both man and woman in marriage. 7 (Sheldon, Sally. 2003. Unwilling Fathers and Abortion: Terminating Men's Child Support Obligations?" Modern Law Review 66 (2): 175-94.) In the past, states have made non-biological "fathers" responsible with arguments presuming a continuity of parenting is good for the child p. 7. Currently, some states are reconsidering these positions. [which ones].
non-marital birth rates: 1950: 14.1 PER 1000; 2004: 46.1, WHICH IS 35.8% OF ALL BIRTHS. 1 million, 475 thousand, 189 out-of-wedlock births in 2004 (how many of these were births without the commitment or the consent of the sperm doner.)
2008:From CDC (center for disease control and prevention)
- Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,726,566
- Birth rate for unmarried women: 52.5 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years
- Percent of all births to unmarried women: 41%
"Two parents had created the child, but now the two parents were living apart". 21 [This is the false reading of the statistics, because in most cases two people did not make the decision to have the child, only one did, the woman. So the pretense is that an accidental production of a zygote is the "creation" of a child, although that is clearly not the case if "creation" includes the decision sphere, and therefor the moral sphere].
Congress first involvement with child support was targeted at welfare families, or those receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC) benefits, as a way to save tax-payer dollars (Crowley 2003). Began in 1950 (see for more detail); in 1975 Federal Child Support Enforcement Program: the law imposed financial penalties on mothers who were unwilling to identify the fathers of their children. 21. Money collected from fathers were reimbursement for welfare expenditures; the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 required states to withold a percentage of a father's unemployment benefits for child support. 22. Federal government left it up to states to enforce child support for those who were not on welfare; contempt of court citations were not enforced in most states.
1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments, as a result of women's groups and women legistators, nonwelfare families were incorporated into the child support enforcement program. In the fiscal year 2005, the program collected 23 billion for 15.9 millions "families" [do you mean women?].
Under president Reagan, the Family Support Act of 1988 created new paternity establishment standards and provided financial incentives to states to pursue DNA testing.
1988 imposed prison terms.
It has become increasingly expensive to run these programs. The states lost 87 million in 2000. By 2002 the Federal government was losing approximately 2.3 billion and the states were losing a total of 463 million.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Notes: Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market and the American Right
by Jennifer Burns
Her family, a jewish family of the Russian bourgeoisie, lost everything to the Bolshevik revolution.
Her exaltation of the "individual", ethical egoism, and disparage of "altruism" as a disguised will to power, was based on Nietzsche's analysis of "resentful" Christianity and ubermensch ("superman"), which she later saw as the foundation of capitalism. 24-25
In Rand's earliest works of fiction, she "found criminality an irresistible metaphor for individualism...28 [a sociopath who had transcended herd sentiments..she, herself was cold and aloof, without concern for social connections]
in 1934 she began an philosophical journal, and in it she wrote: "I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion." 29
Her play, "We the living" is contemptuous for the masses, and exaults the individual. 32
"The first purpose of the book [Rand speaking] is a defense of egoism [as a moral system] in it's real meaning, egoism as a new faith,"... 41..a "transvaluation of values" redefines egoist as one who lives for himself...[the "fuck-you-rich"]. 42
Communism and Christianity were both destructive to selfhood "Christianity is the best kindergarten of communism possible" 43
She was skeptical of democracy because of it's demands on the individual, and many of the early writters who influenced her were also disciples of Nietzsche one way or another: HL Mencken, Spengler, Gasset, Nock [all elitists bordering on facism] 43
Burns gives us a breakdown of the characters of "The Fountainhead," and attributes the left as "fey, effeminate, and unnatural, as opposed to the rough-hewn masculinity of Roark's individualism." 45
Ayn Rand was childless [this explains a lot].
Rand was a "Roosevelt hater"...a cottage industry had developed...Menchen...the origin of the tern "libertarian" 48
[Research the "Liberty League" backed by the DuPont family, were facists and wealthy businessmen trying to wrest the conrol of government from the masses. 49
Roosevelt and public utilities 53...assult on private industry...and Walter Willkie as a foe of Roosevelt...Willkies grass roots support ended up being a carefully orchestrated corporate campaign. 53...Rand was member of the "Willkie Club"54
According to Rand, Roosevelt's "collectivism" would lead to a "Totalitariana America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and firing squads." 59
Rand's "Manifesto of Individualism" p.61
the political sphere is the opposite of the creative sphere, and always a threat to it. 62
another dualism of Rand's: Active Man vs. Passive Man, was the basic dictomy that ruled world history. 62 Second generation millionaires were passive and intellectuals, who really were just second raters lusting for power.
Anti-state, pro individualist, pro-capitalist American tradition: Our Enemy, The State by Nock; British economist Herbert Spencer (the man vs. the state) and his disciple, William Sumner (Yale).
Howard Roark, Rand's hero in "Fountainhead,": "The integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor." 83
The "evil of altruism": a Rand "signature idea": In her first notes of the novel, Rand attacked Christian ethics...and eventually "altruism" in general (the doctrine that man live for others and place others above self".
Rand's characters were cold, distant, and destructive relationships; Roark's rape of Dominique was a sadomasochistic scene--where Dominique wanted more. .86
In the final editinng of Fountainhead, the explicit references to Nietzsche was eliminated, but the disgust for the herd or "second handers" is still demonstrated in Wynand ("the man who could have been") as he walks the streets of New York and his disgust and contempt for "those who produce nothing" (663/87)
Nock's "Memoirs of a Superfluous Man", is profuse with educated disdain for the common man. 87
Altruism was just a disguised will-to-power. 88
morality was stark choice between egoism and self-sacrifice. 89
VIEWS OF HAYAK (and classical libertarianism):
Ayn Rand considered Hayak "poison" because he acknowledged there could be an important role for government-sponsored health care, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage. 104
Rand: "The man is an ass, with no conception of a free society at all".
Although Rand intended "Father Amadeus" to "realize the evil of forgiveness" she eventually cut the priest from her novel for fear of endorsing religion. 140
...the result of an angry and alienating childhood.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand developed her "objectivism", the idea of rational absolutes based on Aristotle and individualism, where even emotions could be deduced from thought and reason.
Objectivism became a religious cult: the outside world was a "dead culture," and Rand was their authoritarian priestess, and NBI (Nathan Brandon Institute) the church. 232 (The Cult of Atheistic Capitalism) [p. 233 is worth quoting at length; Rand didn't really understand the Socratic method; see Albert Ellis, "Is Objectivism a Religion").
"The playwright Sky Gilbert, once and enthusiastic Objectivist remembered, "As a young, self-hating, gay man, I welcomed Rand's Puritanism. I imagined I could argue myself out of homosexuality...always reminding myself that gay was 'irrational'" 236
JUST A BEAUTIFUL CASE OF HOW RATIONALISM AND SOCRATIC DISCOURSE BECAME IT'S OPPOSITE, A RELIGION.
An outgrowth of Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism 247 The state is a moral evil; for Rand it was a necessary evil, but for Anarcho-capitalists, it was an unnecessary evil. 250-251 Offshore tax havens are morally required because "taxation" is unjustified coercion.253
Leonard Peikoff, a follower of Rand's and philosopher at Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, wrote "The Ominous Parallels, a comparison of Nazi Germany and contemporary America.
Rand saw the environmentalist movement as "anti-industrial revolution", 262. Rand failed to notice the that a part of the environmentalist movement was a celebration of the creativity of man--e.g., the Whole earth Catalogue, "We are gods and we might as well get good at it"-- and his ability to solve social problems. Stewart Brand, the founder of Whole Earth, was also a rand fan.
But Rand was also aghast at pro-life agenda's: "The embryo has to rights"..."
but also saw the feminist movement as a quest for special treatment, arguing that feminists exalted gender over the development of their individuality and rationality. 264
"She attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that Europeans had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights...the same with Palestinian rights. 266
Hayak and Friedman, both admirers of Rand, and polemicists of free market economics, won nobel prizes in 1974 and 1976.
Robert Nozick was awarded the National Book Award i in 1975 for a philosophcial defense of the limited state, in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"
"Reason" magazine also made libertarianism into a respectable intellectual tradition.272
Rand smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, and in 1973 was diagnosed with lung cancer. 275
She did not support Reagan, because he was a conservative, sported a mixed economy opposed abortion. 275
The Koch Brothers are libertarians. 275
Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, was a devote of Rand, but developed a web site whose thrust is "trust in the wisdom of crowds," "warring sensibilities," "celebration of the social nature of knowledge, and faith taht many working together will produce something of enduring value contradict Rand's adage, "All creation is individual".
Craigs list founder, Craig Newmark, was also a following of Rand, but ultimately a web site that emphasized collaboration and mutuality.
"In both cases Newmark adn Wales built on Rands ideas but married them to a very different theory of human nature, one in which community and connection are paramount.285
Her family, a jewish family of the Russian bourgeoisie, lost everything to the Bolshevik revolution.
Her exaltation of the "individual", ethical egoism, and disparage of "altruism" as a disguised will to power, was based on Nietzsche's analysis of "resentful" Christianity and ubermensch ("superman"), which she later saw as the foundation of capitalism. 24-25
In Rand's earliest works of fiction, she "found criminality an irresistible metaphor for individualism...28 [a sociopath who had transcended herd sentiments..she, herself was cold and aloof, without concern for social connections]
in 1934 she began an philosophical journal, and in it she wrote: "I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion." 29
Her play, "We the living" is contemptuous for the masses, and exaults the individual. 32
"The first purpose of the book [Rand speaking] is a defense of egoism [as a moral system] in it's real meaning, egoism as a new faith,"... 41..a "transvaluation of values" redefines egoist as one who lives for himself...[the "fuck-you-rich"]. 42
Communism and Christianity were both destructive to selfhood "Christianity is the best kindergarten of communism possible" 43
She was skeptical of democracy because of it's demands on the individual, and many of the early writters who influenced her were also disciples of Nietzsche one way or another: HL Mencken, Spengler, Gasset, Nock [all elitists bordering on facism] 43
Burns gives us a breakdown of the characters of "The Fountainhead," and attributes the left as "fey, effeminate, and unnatural, as opposed to the rough-hewn masculinity of Roark's individualism." 45
Ayn Rand was childless [this explains a lot].
Rand was a "Roosevelt hater"...a cottage industry had developed...Menchen...the origin of the tern "libertarian" 48
[Research the "Liberty League" backed by the DuPont family, were facists and wealthy businessmen trying to wrest the conrol of government from the masses. 49
Roosevelt and public utilities 53...assult on private industry...and Walter Willkie as a foe of Roosevelt...Willkies grass roots support ended up being a carefully orchestrated corporate campaign. 53...Rand was member of the "Willkie Club"54
According to Rand, Roosevelt's "collectivism" would lead to a "Totalitariana America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and firing squads." 59
Rand's "Manifesto of Individualism" p.61
the political sphere is the opposite of the creative sphere, and always a threat to it. 62
another dualism of Rand's: Active Man vs. Passive Man, was the basic dictomy that ruled world history. 62 Second generation millionaires were passive and intellectuals, who really were just second raters lusting for power.
Anti-state, pro individualist, pro-capitalist American tradition: Our Enemy, The State by Nock; British economist Herbert Spencer (the man vs. the state) and his disciple, William Sumner (Yale).
Howard Roark, Rand's hero in "Fountainhead,": "The integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor." 83
The "evil of altruism": a Rand "signature idea": In her first notes of the novel, Rand attacked Christian ethics...and eventually "altruism" in general (the doctrine that man live for others and place others above self".
Rand's characters were cold, distant, and destructive relationships; Roark's rape of Dominique was a sadomasochistic scene--where Dominique wanted more. .86
In the final editinng of Fountainhead, the explicit references to Nietzsche was eliminated, but the disgust for the herd or "second handers" is still demonstrated in Wynand ("the man who could have been") as he walks the streets of New York and his disgust and contempt for "those who produce nothing" (663/87)
Nock's "Memoirs of a Superfluous Man", is profuse with educated disdain for the common man. 87
Altruism was just a disguised will-to-power. 88
morality was stark choice between egoism and self-sacrifice. 89
VIEWS OF HAYAK (and classical libertarianism):
Ayn Rand considered Hayak "poison" because he acknowledged there could be an important role for government-sponsored health care, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage. 104
Rand: "The man is an ass, with no conception of a free society at all".
Although Rand intended "Father Amadeus" to "realize the evil of forgiveness" she eventually cut the priest from her novel for fear of endorsing religion. 140
...the result of an angry and alienating childhood.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand developed her "objectivism", the idea of rational absolutes based on Aristotle and individualism, where even emotions could be deduced from thought and reason.
Objectivism became a religious cult: the outside world was a "dead culture," and Rand was their authoritarian priestess, and NBI (Nathan Brandon Institute) the church. 232 (The Cult of Atheistic Capitalism) [p. 233 is worth quoting at length; Rand didn't really understand the Socratic method; see Albert Ellis, "Is Objectivism a Religion").
"The playwright Sky Gilbert, once and enthusiastic Objectivist remembered, "As a young, self-hating, gay man, I welcomed Rand's Puritanism. I imagined I could argue myself out of homosexuality...always reminding myself that gay was 'irrational'" 236
JUST A BEAUTIFUL CASE OF HOW RATIONALISM AND SOCRATIC DISCOURSE BECAME IT'S OPPOSITE, A RELIGION.
An outgrowth of Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism 247 The state is a moral evil; for Rand it was a necessary evil, but for Anarcho-capitalists, it was an unnecessary evil. 250-251 Offshore tax havens are morally required because "taxation" is unjustified coercion.253
Leonard Peikoff, a follower of Rand's and philosopher at Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, wrote "The Ominous Parallels, a comparison of Nazi Germany and contemporary America.
Rand saw the environmentalist movement as "anti-industrial revolution", 262. Rand failed to notice the that a part of the environmentalist movement was a celebration of the creativity of man--e.g., the Whole earth Catalogue, "We are gods and we might as well get good at it"-- and his ability to solve social problems. Stewart Brand, the founder of Whole Earth, was also a rand fan.
But Rand was also aghast at pro-life agenda's: "The embryo has to rights"..."
but also saw the feminist movement as a quest for special treatment, arguing that feminists exalted gender over the development of their individuality and rationality. 264
"She attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that Europeans had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights...the same with Palestinian rights. 266
Hayak and Friedman, both admirers of Rand, and polemicists of free market economics, won nobel prizes in 1974 and 1976.
Robert Nozick was awarded the National Book Award i in 1975 for a philosophcial defense of the limited state, in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"
"Reason" magazine also made libertarianism into a respectable intellectual tradition.272
Rand smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, and in 1973 was diagnosed with lung cancer. 275
She did not support Reagan, because he was a conservative, sported a mixed economy opposed abortion. 275
The Koch Brothers are libertarians. 275
Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, was a devote of Rand, but developed a web site whose thrust is "trust in the wisdom of crowds," "warring sensibilities," "celebration of the social nature of knowledge, and faith taht many working together will produce something of enduring value contradict Rand's adage, "All creation is individual".
Craigs list founder, Craig Newmark, was also a following of Rand, but ultimately a web site that emphasized collaboration and mutuality.
"In both cases Newmark adn Wales built on Rands ideas but married them to a very different theory of human nature, one in which community and connection are paramount.285
War on Greed
Winner of the War on Greed Contest:
Greenwald and the War on Greed
Robert Greenwald Announces Campaign to Expose the Koch Brothers - Political Ruminations
FROM THE ABOVE: "With a net worth of 43 Billion the Kochs have already spent decades of their lives and over 324 Million of their wealth exerting their influence. The Kochs accomplish their goals by funding a massive array of right wing front groups, think tanks and tea party efforts. They largely operate outside of the public eye, and target their funding to infiltrate public opinion, the media, judicial decisions and legislation. Over three dozen organizations are funded by the brothers, and they spend additional money lobbying and backing conservative candidates. Everything the Kochs do is to fight for a country free from protections and any degree of a social safety net for working Americans.
You might recognize names of some of the organizations that the Koch brothers fund. Americans for Prosperity is their Tea Party effort. They fund the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Institute for Justice, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and many many more. Through their massive funding efforts, they have fought against health care and are fighting against protecting social security, as well as fighting efforts to halt climate change, and fighting against LGBT rights, Immigration rights, unemployment insurance, environmental protections, the rights of unions to organize and educational opportunity, just to name a few areas they focus on.
When we started our research four months ago – inspired by Jane Mayer’s brilliant New Yorker article and Lee Fang’s great investigative work at ThinkProgress – we thought that a big part of our job was to bring attention to the Koch brothers. Boy have things changed over those months!
With their secret meeting in Palm Springs, brought into the light, and with their involvement in the atrocious happenings in Wisconsin, the Koch brothers have worked their way into the attention of a concerned public.
Greenwald and the War on Greed
Robert Greenwald Announces Campaign to Expose the Koch Brothers - Political Ruminations
FROM THE ABOVE: "With a net worth of 43 Billion the Kochs have already spent decades of their lives and over 324 Million of their wealth exerting their influence. The Kochs accomplish their goals by funding a massive array of right wing front groups, think tanks and tea party efforts. They largely operate outside of the public eye, and target their funding to infiltrate public opinion, the media, judicial decisions and legislation. Over three dozen organizations are funded by the brothers, and they spend additional money lobbying and backing conservative candidates. Everything the Kochs do is to fight for a country free from protections and any degree of a social safety net for working Americans.
You might recognize names of some of the organizations that the Koch brothers fund. Americans for Prosperity is their Tea Party effort. They fund the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Institute for Justice, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and many many more. Through their massive funding efforts, they have fought against health care and are fighting against protecting social security, as well as fighting efforts to halt climate change, and fighting against LGBT rights, Immigration rights, unemployment insurance, environmental protections, the rights of unions to organize and educational opportunity, just to name a few areas they focus on.
When we started our research four months ago – inspired by Jane Mayer’s brilliant New Yorker article and Lee Fang’s great investigative work at ThinkProgress – we thought that a big part of our job was to bring attention to the Koch brothers. Boy have things changed over those months!
With their secret meeting in Palm Springs, brought into the light, and with their involvement in the atrocious happenings in Wisconsin, the Koch brothers have worked their way into the attention of a concerned public.
Happiness
When the commission, headed by Amartya Sen and another Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, issued its final report, last fall, it was critical of the current reliance on G.D.P., which, it argued, is a poor proxy for social progress: “For example, traffic jams may increase G.D.P. as a result of the increased use of gasoline, but obviously not the quality of life.” The group recommended that a wide variety of new statistical tools be developed, including ones that measure income distribution, natural-resource depletion, and happiness.
Oregon Politics
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/business_lobby_at_oregon_legis.html
SALEM -- Over box lunches from a nearby sandwich shop, about 40 business lobbyists gather in a downtown Salem conference room to share the latest intelligence from the legislative session taking place at the nearby Capitol.
Jim Craven, a lobbyist for the high-tech industry, talks disparagingly about legislation to trim business tax credits. Tom Gallagher, another veteran lobbyist whose clients run from Schnitzer Steel to the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, analyzes the members of the House Revenue Committee.
State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, an emissary from the Senate Republican leadership, listens quietly. In February, Gov. John Kitzhaber came by to plead for help passing his budget.
Welcome to the weekly lunch of the Oregon Committee, a new coalition of business lobbyists that has become one of the major new power centers at the Legislature. Stung by their loss in the battle over taxes during the 2009 legislative session and resulting special election, business lobbyists have unified as never before.
After the defeat on Measures 66 and 67, which increased taxes on the well-to-do and on corporations, the lobbyists joined forces later in the year to target contributions to a handful of legislative races. Their goal: destroy the Democratic supermajority. They helped the Republicans pick up six seats in the House and two in the Senate, greatly changing the politics of the Legislature.
Now, during the session, the Oregon Committee is quietly flexing its muscle. The group's most public success came earlier this month when it helped block an effort by House Democrats to hold up $93 million in depreciation tax breaks for business. Several Democrats joined Republicans in the evenly divided House to approve the tax breaks, and the governor and Democrat-led Senate quickly fell in line.
"Over the last 20 years I've been here, I've never seen the business lobby get its act together more than it has now," says lawyer-lobbyist John DiLorenzo, one of few willing to stop and chat after the meeting. Most of the lobbyists rushed out of the conference room promptly at 12:45 to get back to the Capitol for the afternoon round of committees.
While business lobbyists typically agree on lower taxes and less government regulation, Oregon's business lobby has had its own rivalries.factions. Two of the largest trade associations, the Oregon Business Association and Associated Oregon Industries, have competed for members and clout. The Oregon Business Council, an elite group of about 40 of the state's top business executives, has tended to shy away from lobbying and focus more on policy research.
But this year, all of those groups are at the table, joined by an alphabet soup of industry groups, ranging from the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association to Associated General Contractors. One lobbyist involved in the group described it as an "oligopoly" where they each maintain their own power base and work together voluntarily.
The principal architect of the Oregon Committee is Mark Nelson, a contract lobbyist whose long client list includes the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company, beer maker Anheuser-Busch, Koch Industries, and retired public employees.
Nelson also managed the losing campaign against the Measure 66 and 67 tax measures. He says it was "out of the ashes" of that defeat that the Oregon Committee came together, first during the campaign and now in the session.
Nelson veers between describing himself as someone who merely chairs the meetings and a leader who cracks the whip.
"You're not going to very often see an Oregon Committee position," he says, explaining that mostly the lobbyists are trading information as they pursue their individual agendas. But when the Oregon Committee does take a position on something -- such as the business depreciation tax break -- Nelson says he expects everyone to get on board or leave the group.
Has anyone left under such circumstances?
"No," he says. "I'd break somebody's kneecaps if they did."
From his deadpan tone, it's not entirely clear he's joking.
For the most part, the business lobby's additional clout this session comes from having more Republicans in the Legislature. Republicans tend to be just as vigorous as the business lobby in arguing that the state should focus on reducing taxes and government regulations.
The Oregon Committee's "presence and their participation is welcome," says Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, "and we'd like to have more of it."
Some critics question whether the committee is merely coasting on the coattails of the strong Republican trend nationally in 2010 election and trying to claim more influence than it really has.
Scott Moore of Our Oregon, which represents several unions and other progressive groups, derisively refers to the group as "Mark Nelson's new self-marketing scam."
"They're attempting to amplify the perception of their impact," says Moore, arguing that the Oregon Committee has tried to sell the story that the state's economy was hurt by the tax measures. Instead, he says, Oregon still ranks low on overall business taxes and has not seen any major business defections since voters ratified the tax increases in January of 2010.
House Democratic Leader Dave Hunt of Gladstone describes the group as a "few corporate lobbyists living in the past and completely focused on taxes." And he insists Democrats continue to work productively with several business groups.
Nelson and Hunt are not friends. Last year, Nelson accused Hunt of trying to drive away his clients in retaliation for his leadership of the anti-tax campaign -- a charge Hunt denies.
Nelson says it's not surprising that Democrats could be worried about the Oregon Committee. "By its very nature, it's business oriented," he says, "which means you're going to be more oriented to R's than to D's."
--Jeff Mapes
SALEM -- Over box lunches from a nearby sandwich shop, about 40 business lobbyists gather in a downtown Salem conference room to share the latest intelligence from the legislative session taking place at the nearby Capitol.
Jim Craven, a lobbyist for the high-tech industry, talks disparagingly about legislation to trim business tax credits. Tom Gallagher, another veteran lobbyist whose clients run from Schnitzer Steel to the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, analyzes the members of the House Revenue Committee.
State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, an emissary from the Senate Republican leadership, listens quietly. In February, Gov. John Kitzhaber came by to plead for help passing his budget.
Welcome to the weekly lunch of the Oregon Committee, a new coalition of business lobbyists that has become one of the major new power centers at the Legislature. Stung by their loss in the battle over taxes during the 2009 legislative session and resulting special election, business lobbyists have unified as never before.
After the defeat on Measures 66 and 67, which increased taxes on the well-to-do and on corporations, the lobbyists joined forces later in the year to target contributions to a handful of legislative races. Their goal: destroy the Democratic supermajority. They helped the Republicans pick up six seats in the House and two in the Senate, greatly changing the politics of the Legislature.
Now, during the session, the Oregon Committee is quietly flexing its muscle. The group's most public success came earlier this month when it helped block an effort by House Democrats to hold up $93 million in depreciation tax breaks for business. Several Democrats joined Republicans in the evenly divided House to approve the tax breaks, and the governor and Democrat-led Senate quickly fell in line.
"Over the last 20 years I've been here, I've never seen the business lobby get its act together more than it has now," says lawyer-lobbyist John DiLorenzo, one of few willing to stop and chat after the meeting. Most of the lobbyists rushed out of the conference room promptly at 12:45 to get back to the Capitol for the afternoon round of committees.
While business lobbyists typically agree on lower taxes and less government regulation, Oregon's business lobby has had its own rivalries.factions. Two of the largest trade associations, the Oregon Business Association and Associated Oregon Industries, have competed for members and clout. The Oregon Business Council, an elite group of about 40 of the state's top business executives, has tended to shy away from lobbying and focus more on policy research.
But this year, all of those groups are at the table, joined by an alphabet soup of industry groups, ranging from the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association to Associated General Contractors. One lobbyist involved in the group described it as an "oligopoly" where they each maintain their own power base and work together voluntarily.
The principal architect of the Oregon Committee is Mark Nelson, a contract lobbyist whose long client list includes the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company, beer maker Anheuser-Busch, Koch Industries, and retired public employees.
Nelson also managed the losing campaign against the Measure 66 and 67 tax measures. He says it was "out of the ashes" of that defeat that the Oregon Committee came together, first during the campaign and now in the session.
Nelson veers between describing himself as someone who merely chairs the meetings and a leader who cracks the whip.
"You're not going to very often see an Oregon Committee position," he says, explaining that mostly the lobbyists are trading information as they pursue their individual agendas. But when the Oregon Committee does take a position on something -- such as the business depreciation tax break -- Nelson says he expects everyone to get on board or leave the group.
Has anyone left under such circumstances?
"No," he says. "I'd break somebody's kneecaps if they did."
From his deadpan tone, it's not entirely clear he's joking.
For the most part, the business lobby's additional clout this session comes from having more Republicans in the Legislature. Republicans tend to be just as vigorous as the business lobby in arguing that the state should focus on reducing taxes and government regulations.
The Oregon Committee's "presence and their participation is welcome," says Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, "and we'd like to have more of it."
Some critics question whether the committee is merely coasting on the coattails of the strong Republican trend nationally in 2010 election and trying to claim more influence than it really has.
Scott Moore of Our Oregon, which represents several unions and other progressive groups, derisively refers to the group as "Mark Nelson's new self-marketing scam."
"They're attempting to amplify the perception of their impact," says Moore, arguing that the Oregon Committee has tried to sell the story that the state's economy was hurt by the tax measures. Instead, he says, Oregon still ranks low on overall business taxes and has not seen any major business defections since voters ratified the tax increases in January of 2010.
House Democratic Leader Dave Hunt of Gladstone describes the group as a "few corporate lobbyists living in the past and completely focused on taxes." And he insists Democrats continue to work productively with several business groups.
Nelson and Hunt are not friends. Last year, Nelson accused Hunt of trying to drive away his clients in retaliation for his leadership of the anti-tax campaign -- a charge Hunt denies.
Nelson says it's not surprising that Democrats could be worried about the Oregon Committee. "By its very nature, it's business oriented," he says, "which means you're going to be more oriented to R's than to D's."
--Jeff Mapes
Monday, March 21, 2011
NOTES: "Winner-Take-All Politics", by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson
Winner-Take-All Politics: HowWashington Made the Rich Richer—And Turner It’s Back on the Middle Class, by Jacob Hacker (Yale political scientist), and Paul Pierson (Berkeley Political scientist).
“The Debate should not be whether government is involved in the formation of markets. It always is. The debate should be whether it is involved in a manner conducive to a good society.” [p. 82 Legal Realism]
See, Walter Lippmann, “Drift and Mastery.” Drift is the failure of a captured politics to adjust to the ever-changing markets and the way the lust for money and power finds a way to get around established rules. 83
Politics must “master” the greed of the market.
In American politics it’s easy to create gridlock—the filibuster. 85
The economic tyranny of the few. FDR
Calvinist social Darwinism 87 Economic success as a sign of superior personal character, and the reverse as a sign of individual moral failing. 87 (CNBC commentator in 2009 launched a tyrade against the government promoting bad behavior by helping out “loosers” and the surrounding traders cheered.
During three progressive eras, “a dynamic democracy tempered and civilized a dynamic capitalism.” 91
Nixon and the politics of resentment (95) [interface with Christian resentment].
A new metaphor of politics based on what actually gets done, i.e., policy, is based individuals, but on “organized combat”. 102
The individualism myth or narrative (as well as the moral accounting metaphor or morality tale: people get what they disserve) is uniquely American, and it hides the “massive organizational realities [that] lurk behind the individualist façade.” 103
The myth of the “entrepreneur”: “We extol scrappy upstart competitors even as we drive our Toyotas to Wal-Mart, pick up remodeling supplies from Home Depot, grab fast food from McDonalds, and check out our Bank of America accounts with software from Microsoft running on an Intel chip.”104
Why aren’t politicians voting for policies that promote middle and low income families: The politics of organized combat. 113
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, a metaphor for the relentless pursuit of profit by banks and big companies.115
Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).119
Business Roundtable an the March Group restricted to corporate CEO’s 113 of the top Fortune 200 accounting for nearly half the economy in 1972. 120
The emergence of “idea factories” [independent of academia], foundations and think tanks. Conservative: American Enterprise Institute.
Josephy Coors, John Olin (Olin Foundation), William Simon.
Heritage Foundation was not based on the academic model of investigation objective policy analysis, but one of ideology and marketing for the purposes of public policy persuasion; marketing, and “proselytizing” rather than investigate. For the GOP. 123
Charles Walker: American Council For Capital Formation, “…to sell the proposition that what was good for America’s richest corporations and individuals was good for America.” 124
Business groups initiated the politics of obstruction: drift. 127
An old rule of politics: Don’t field the team unless you can win. 129
“Business bankrolled an intellectual infrastructure committed to advancing the religion of free markets, refining messages for public consumption, and marketing them [marketing religion]..” 180
Money to democrats played as different role: insurance [like short selling]…and went to “moderates” for the purposes of blocking, dilution, or delay. 180
“Gramm was perhaps second only to Alan Greenspan as a high priest of deregulation.” 197-98 (huge $ for his wife as well) Graham went to work for UBS (Switzerland’s largest bank) which had to be bailed out by the Swiss gov. in 2008.
Greenspan “When I am on Wall Street, to me that’s a holy place.” 198
National Federation of Independent Businesses (600,000 members); Tom Delay..former pest control business owner who said EPA was “the Gestapo of Government, pure and simple. 205
Chamber of Commerce (large employer organization) 206
Radical tax organizations: Grover Norquist’s, American’s for tax Reform (ATR); and Stephen Moore’s Club for Growth (CFG)208
What will it take to pry up the “poisonous roots” of the winner-take-all culture and politics. 288
What is the difference between an hereditary aristocracy and a economic artistocracy?
“As in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid...the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang lost out to their much more resourceful and coordinated opponents..”301
“A vibrant, dynamic capitalism requires the guidance that only a vibrant, dynamic democracy can provide” 301
Here's a critical review of some of the main ideas by Ezra Klein:
http://www.democracyjournal.org/20/the-hood-robin-economy.php
http://www.democracyjournal.org/20/the-hood-robin-economy.php
Notes: The Political Mind, George Lakoff
[Thought: small business owners think of corporate “business” the same “frame” that they think of themselves…as “business men”. How can we change that frame, so that to vote for “corporations” is to vote against their own self-interest.]
Classic: The rags to riches narrative (p. 29).
No American narrative for: The Cheap Labor Trap: “a ladder with no rungs.”
Classic: reinvention of the self.
American Redemptive narrative.
Was Anna Nicole Smith a “Innocent Ingenue” : a sweet, smart woman, trying to make her way in a man’s world—the Marilyn Monroe narrative (p30); or a “Gold Digger”? They are mutually exclusive narratives, “Pick one and it will hide the other.” (31).
The Protective father narrative.
“We live our narratives” (p33).
“My goal as a cognitive scientist and a citizen is to make the cognitive unconscious as conscious as possible, to make reflexive decisions reglective.” (p. 34).
“When you accept a particular narrative, you ignore or hide realities that contradict it.” (37)
“The deep narratives are fixed in the brain: the synapses of the neural circuits characterizing them have been so strengthened that the highly general, deep narratives are permanently parts of our brains.”
“…each word is defined relative to at least one conceptual frame. (reference to Charles Fillmore) Those frames evoke other frames in the system. Understanding involves drawing out the logic of the frame…What cognitive semanticists have found is that we think in terms of systems of concepts, systems that fit together and make sense (43).
“When we apply this technique of analysis [cognitive semantics] to political speeches, interviews, call-ins on talk shows, op.eds.,…certain recurring patterns of thought emerge—general modes of thought based on assumptions about what is the right thing to do….98 percept of it is unconscious [I would say preconscious], unseen, but making sense of what is actually said.”
“Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy.” (p. 47). “The ethics of care.” The role of government is protection and empowerment.
Deregulation and privatization do not eliminate government, they only make it unaccountable and take away it’s moral mission. It merely shifts it to corporations, to private sector, and the ethics of profit with not public accountability. (p. 63).
Adam Smith was not a “conservative”62:
Health care is not a commodity. 66
Mythical narrative in conservative thought (p. 68-69)
Biconceptualism (or contradictions in worldview and values); the values of Saturday night (drinking, gambling, etc.) and Sunday morning. 71
The folk theory of moral essences, and conservative moral unconscousious. 79
Why are fundamentalist Christians conservatives: they view god as a stict father. Authority, obedience, discipline, punishment, good and evil. 80.
The nation as family metaphor: 75-82. Strict vs. nurturing (gender neutral).
The brain, primary metaphors (family), and government: a Governing institution is a family. 85-86.
The moral foundations of our society are being changed, transformed into a conservative, strict father, moral system. 91
There are dramatic (characters, plots, etc.) and somatic (emotional) structures and textures of our brains. 93.
Metaphorical thought governs moral thought and action..especially in politics. 94
The moral accounting metaphor: 94 “Well-being is wealth.
Moral Accounting is the basis of the philosophy of utilitarianism—the greatest good for the greatest number. 95 The rail yard switchman example: switch one way, one dies, switch the other way, 4 dies. “Moral arithmetic.”
The Moral Order metaphor: the logic behind the metaphor p. 98. What is natural is good. Natural hierarchies are good. God-man, Man-Nature, Adults-children, Western culture-non Western culture, American-other nations, men-women, Whites-non-whites, Christian-non-christian. The “divine right of kings” ; power and wealth is seen as a sign of morality and purity, hence a deserved social status; the Great Chain of Being..the lion, the most powerful preditors, the “king of beastas” and portrayed as noble. 99
‘Reverse Moral Order” metaphor: the oppressed are more moral than their oppressors.
Morality is Cleanliness metaphor: purification rituals; “wash your sins away.” 100
Morality is Well-being: we feel good when we do good. Prewired for empathy and cooperation.
“The metaphors of morality arise from bodily experiences of well-being.” “They are not ‘mere’ metaphors…The tell us what the heart of morality is”. 101
“Empathy is at the center of the progressive moral worldview.” 101
“Empathy is normal, and it takes a special education (such as basic training in the army), a special heartlessness, or a brain injury, to disengage it.” 102.
We are hardwired for empathy..mirror neurons.
Conservative often us the fear framework; Progressives use the empathy frame, responsibility and hope. 105
Morality is care vs. morality is Obedience to Authority. (nurturing parent, strick father model).
Why is “manliness” a political issue: It “fits” with the “strict father” metaphor (106).
Scooter Libby: he was loyal to the authority (GW) and therefore virtuous. 107
The existence of two different models of family, in the presence of the primary metaphor of a Governing Institution is Family, gives rise to two very different ways of conceptualizing governing institutions, including different moral worldviews and modes of thought. “These arise unconsciously.” 107
Progressive Christianity has a nurturing parent model for God;
A conservative fundamentalist Christian “might well have”…”God as a strict parent threatening the punishment of eternal damnation for violating God’s commandments…” 108 (is there research on this?)
There are evangelicals who are environmentalists; conservatives who believe in environmental controls. (biconceptualism)
One may support coal mines to support jobs, or to protect corporate profits. “Reasons matter” 110
“Democracy is too important to leave the shaping of the brains of American’s to authoritarians.”
“A New Consciousness”
“A deep ecological consciousness is also a spiritual consciousness: it encompasses our deepest connections to the world and to each other, if is fundamentally moral, it acknowledges gratitude, and it evokes aw every day. Real reason is emotional, and an ecological consciousness has aw as it’s central emotion.” 123
Prototypes and Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” who drove a Cadillac :160 Reagan used the welfare queen myth while campaigning in the south. What made this possible were strict father framings: morality requires discipline; discipline in the market leads to prosperity; a lack of honest prosperity means laziness, lack of discipline, and immorality. To be against Welfare was to be against good white taxpayers supporting lazy uppity blacks.
Immigrants are the new “welfare queens”. 161
The conservative “bad apple” frame: Libby, Abu Ghraib, Enron (Lay), why does the bad apple frame work? It’s the Hero-Villain narrative, and more difficult to discuss systemic, ideological, or institutional villains, e.g., a “captured regulatory system” and privateering. 165-167. [“Government, socialism, are ideological villains]
Causation: The strict father model, “responsibility” is focused on the individual, reward and punishment. The nurturing parent model requires that responsibility be shared, that problems can be individual and/or systemic. For example, what is the cause of crime: bad people in the conservative frame; in the progressive frame bad people AND systemic issues of culture, discrimination, and lack of education. 188
Direct causation, and the primary metaphor of Causes are forces, is easy to understand [it’s “experience near”]; systemic causation is more diffuse and difficult to understand [experience far].
Cognitive semantics. 197
Political psychology: J.T. Jost , “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 3 (may 2003), 339-375. Politicial conservative personality was marked by a need for authoritarianism and dogmaticism (or an intolerance of ambiguity, the epistemic and existential needs of a conservative person included a need for closure (in order to avoid uncertainty); regulatory focus (in order to cultivate discipline), and terror management. Or “conservatives show a higher personal need for order, structure, and closure. 198
Evolution selects groups on the basis of in-group competition, not competition—whether ants, biological films, or human beings.”205 (reference to H. Kern Reeve and Bert Holldobler)
The concept of 19th century “self-interest,” “utility,” and universal rationality is central to economic theory and political theory. Market’s are persons, with a “invisible hand”. Well being is reduced to economic utility. 206
Democrats put themselves in an untenable position when they argue from utility when they are really motivated by empathy. By arguing within the frame of the utility narrative, they fail to trigger empathy and the moral narrative, and they set themselves up for criticism from conservatives, who are specialists in the narrative of utility. 207
They set themselves up for being a “special interest” themselves, courting voting blocks. 209
Foreign policy metaphors: Nations are persons acting out of self-interest to maximize it’s military “strength”, economic “health” economic, and military “influence”. This rational action model “excludes culture, religion, national identity, social and political structure, the nature and level of development, etc.”210
Nation as Person includes “Adult and Children States, where maturity is industrialization”. Thus the nonindustrial nations are seen as “developing” or “underdeveloped” nations. …”that they should take the advise of the adult/industrialized nations as to how to develop (accept “free market” economics) or face “fiscal discipline” from the IMF and World Bank.210
Nation as person is related to national “competition,” and this competition is a zero sum game. John Nash: revolutionized “zero-sum game theory” with the “Nash equilibrium”, or the application of non-zero sum game strategies. 211
In literal models, “there are no alternative interpretations of the facts being modeled—no alternative framings.”
”’Externalized’ costs are outside the model.” Frames oversimplify reality. Frames stylize the facts, simplify and thereby cast a shadow on facts not noticed by the model. 218
The “cost” of pollution, was traditionally outside of the business model as an “externality”…something that taxpayers must pay to clean up, pay to filter water, costs to the health care system, etc.
The “cost” of gasoline includes “hidden costs” outside the Commercial Event frame”, ten’s of billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies for exploration, billions of dollars a year for Coast Guard and Navy protection of oil tankers, billions of dollars a year in military costs to protect the operations of American oil companies abroad. 219
“Infrastructure costs are outside the model, while taxes are not”: “taxpayers put together their common wealth to build an infrastructure for everyone to use, especially in doing business. Highways, communications satellite system, the Internetf, the educational system for training employees, the banking system for making low cost loans available, the judicial system for adjudicating contract disputes, the SEC for making the stock market possible. 219
The model contains no cost for using the model itself” : the cold war, zero-sum model of Mutual Assured Destruction, created a arms race that was extremely expensive, and the current abundance and spread of fissionable material. 219
The model is taken as defining reality: “When you are applying the model, you are not only using all the metaphors defining the model but also the metaphors fitting the model to the stylized facts; that is , to a model of reality that is also not literal.” 219 [the financial crisis and the quant].
“The model is taken as defining what it means for a human being to be rational…it is often seen as natural for people to act so as to maximize their self-interest (or profit) and unnatural for them not to. Those who profit most are therefore seen as doing what comes natural, and those who profit much less are seen as irrational, unnatural, lesser beings who don’t deserve much no matter how hard they work.” 220
non-zero sum solutions…win-win situations. 221
Good summary of “real reason” , reflective vs. reflexive thought. 223
Cognitive bias:
Reflexive biases that effect Reflective judgements:
1. Optimism bias: Generals of war, policy makers, 35% of americans who think they will be in the top 1% of income earners.
2. Fundamental attribution error: people tend to overemphasize personality, character, or essence based explanations, rather than situation based explanations: Everyone has an “essence” (liberal, Islamofacist, conservative) that governs their behavior, rather than situational causes. Fits into the Hero (good)-Villian narrative.
3. The illusion of control: people exaggerate the control they have over important outcomes.
4. Reactive devaluation: a proposal is worth less because another side has offered it.
5. Risk aversion: a gambler refusing to cut his losses: the “cut and run” metaphor.
6. The salient exemplar effect: citing a well-known example of a rare phenomenon tends to make people believe the phenomena has a high probability.
These biases are based on the reflective [preconscious] unconscious use of metaphor, framing, prototyping, etc. 227-229
The Power of language, and the power of language in politics.n 231
“Don’t think of an elephant”: you can’t do it because you cannot consciously control your own neural system [which produces the image as you hear the word, just like questions, assertions, and words automatically produce frames for interpretations. To activate a frame is to activate a worldview—a word activates a whole system of frames and metaphors.
“The more that system is activated, the stronger its synapses become, the more entrenched it is in your brain—all without your conscious awareness. That is why the conservative message machine [echo chamber of Fox news, wall street journal, talk radio] operating over 35 years, has been so effective.” 234
The frames and narratives of the word “tax relief” p. activiates the “Rescue from Affliction” metaphors and narrative: “…those taxed are victims” the government is the villain, and opponents of taxation are heroes. Thus, “tax relief” makes sense in conservative worldview.
“…there are contexts in which “tax relief” does’t make sense. Suppose you are thinking from a progressive worldview, in which the role of government is to protect and empower citizens—to make possible highways, communication systems, public schools, the banking system, the stock market, the courts, and in addition to protect us not just by the use of force, but in the areas of health, disasters, clean air and water, civil rights, consumer protection, and so on. From this perspective, taxes make possible our freedom to, in the case of empowerment.” So in what sense is paying taxes an “affliction” we need relief from?237
“It is possible to understand taxes as making the good things in America happen and to literally feel good about contributing to the good of the country.” 238
Notes: The Political Brain, by Drew Westen
Democratic strategists have an “irrational emotional commitment to rationality.” 15
Voters are not calculating machines who add up the utility of your positions on “the issues”. 15
American politics is not a “marketplace of ideas” but a “marketplace of emotions” 36
Policies affect voters through the emotions they engender…and is one of the main reasons values tend to even self-interest. 121
“I’ll fight for the “working people” is an appeal to people’s material interests…but it has a weak emotional appeal…what is important is to appeal to the values (fairness) behind the tired phrase. 121
Frames, like a picture frame or camera frame determine what people view or notice, and determine what is excluded from notice or view. 164
Liberals need a master narrative that is also a master counternarrative—one that “rebrands” the conservative with inconvenient truths about the conservative tradition. E.G., So you want to be a conservative? Let me tell you something about your conservative heritage:
When conservatives had a choice between tax cuts for the upper 1 percent of Americans and the middle class, they chose the supper rich.
When conservatives had a choice between tax cuts for the super rich and the National Institutes of Health, which supports the develop of cures for cancer, heart disease, and other serious illness, they have cut funding for the National Institutes of Health…
When….choice body armor for troops dying in Iraq, they chose tax cuts for the rich.
Minimum wage…they chose tax cuts for the rich and huge bonuses for their CEO’s.
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid
When half the people who were going bankrupt every year were doing so because a catastrophic illness had wiped out their savings, conservatives changed the bankruptcy laws to make it impossible to file bankruptcy, so that credit card companies could expand their profits.
So you want to be a conservative…that’s your heritage.
What is surprising about this list, is not what’s on it, but the fact that most Americans don’t know it, and the fact that conservatives have been on the wrong side of virtually every effort to expand freedom in the last century. 169
Liberals are bad at “branding”; conservatives are great at it: “tax and spend” , “big government,” “weak on defense,” “soft on crime”, “family values”, activist judges, special rights,
The Left has no brand, no counter brand, no master narrative, no counternarrative.
“If this is how Coke marketed itself, we would all be drinking Pepsi.” 169
“From the perspective of the passionate mind, candidates shouldn’t be running on issues…Candidates should be running on principles, bolstered by a compelling personality, a compelling life story, a shared sense of values with their constituents, the emotional intelligence to identify and communicate these shared values, and some good ideas about how to actualize them.” 174-5
What matters most is master narrative, second, personality and character of the candidate, and leadership qualities. 175
Clair McCaskill: emotionally intelligent, 177 Why don’t liberals and democrats have a consistent narrative on abortion?
A woman’s right to choose: Shibboleth: a : a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning
The republican story about abortion is a Manichean one, a tale of good and evil, in which the good guys stand for life and the bad guys prefer death. 182
The republican narrative is inconsistent (government intrusion in one’s personal life is Ok, but not government intrusion to keep businesses from polluting ground water, air, etc.).; but so is the democratic position that is gray and apparently unprincipled. Democrates have to take a principled stand based on a master narrative. Democrats need a compelling moral vision that they can contrast with the right. 183
According to a conservative position, every rapist would have the right to choose the mother of his child: what the republican right is proposing is a “rapist bill of rights”. 188
Perhaps the most fundamental right of a women is to choose who’s children she shall bear. 188 According to the republican morality tale, if a women is raped she must have her rapists baby. 188
Same with incest: if a sixteen year old girl is molested by her father, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and is she doesn’t want to, she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent. 188
Democrats must be willing got “connect the dots” [reveal the internal logic] in such a way that produces gut level moral disgust.
As Bill Clinton campaigned on, the tax code should be en extension of the moral code, the rich should pay their “fair share”.
Emotional constituents: Union members and non-union members respond to different stimulus because union members have been exposed to experiences and rhetoric that foster their solidarity. 194
Gun Conroll:
If someone in NY city is packing a gun, he probably isn’t hunting quail. 203
Conservatives need to link traditionally conservative networks –hinting and fishing—to a network generally thought of as “liberal”—environmental protection. Where are you going to hunt and fish if you let industry foul and destroy the environment? 206
…and bring out the logic (counter narrative) of the NRA…that every murderer and rapist has the right to own a gun?
“Environmenalism” is a tired slogan: what liberals need to be talking about is protecting the land of our forefathers, the air that we breath, the water that we drink, the streams we fish, the game we hunt, the trails we walk with our children, the majesty of our land and the “God’s earth” 206
Evocative images with distinct emotional constituencies.
Democrats have a profound misunderstanding of the emotional landscape of America. 208
Does a terrorist have the right to own a gun? 211-212
NRA narrative: we have guns to protect us from police, and US military …”The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government…” Most americans would find this paranoid, and repugnant, worldview that lead to the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. “Listen to what they are saying: They want to carry guns so they can shoot at police, American soldiers, and National Guardsmen…’if all else fails’” 212-213.
“You only have to worry about slippery slopes if you aren’t standing on the high ground. And the way you get to the high ground is a coherent [emotionally powerful] narrative.” 213
The narrative must appeal to a broad range of emotional constituencies and American values.
"Words can take us to the doorstep of change, but it is often images that carry us of the threshold."
Images of Selma, Alabama catalyzed support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965; images from the An Inconvenient Truth galvanized many states to enact inititives to regulate carbon dioxide.274
"That Americans pay too little attention to competence in electoral decisions is beyond doubt. They put an exterminator (Tom Delay) in charge of Congress and a man who spent the better part of his life with his liquor cabinet better stocked than his bookshelf in charge of the world." 285
"Words can take us to the doorstep of change, but it is often images that carry us of the threshold."
Images of Selma, Alabama catalyzed support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965; images from the An Inconvenient Truth galvanized many states to enact inititives to regulate carbon dioxide.274
"That Americans pay too little attention to competence in electoral decisions is beyond doubt. They put an exterminator (Tom Delay) in charge of Congress and a man who spent the better part of his life with his liquor cabinet better stocked than his bookshelf in charge of the world." 285
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Liberal Economics:
Issue #20, Spring 2011
First Principles: Arguing the Economy
No debate is more fundamental in politics than economics. It’s the sun; everything else revolves around it.This debate has never been more important than it is today. As the economy slowly rouses itself from its long slumber, it’s vital that progressives are adequately armed for the economic battles to come. We need forward-looking arguments that take new economic realities into account, and stronger ways of showing how badly supply-side economics has failed the country.
In this second installment of our “First Principles” series, we take on these challenges. Leading off the package, Andrei Cherny writes of the need today to use “Jeffersonian means to Hamiltonian ends”—to adapt our top-down economic policies to the bottom-up world of individualized workplaces, which are more and more central to our post-industrial economy with each passing year. We hope progressive policy-makers heed his notions about how to rethink our economic policies in what he calls the “Individual Age.” David Madland lays out a new theory of the middle class. It is not merely that a healthy middle class should be an end in and of itself, as progressive politicians have usually argued. Rather, it is that a strong middle class is a means to better social ends: It produces higher rates of growth, leads to more trust, and brings on better governance. This is an important linkage that progressives usually don’t make.
Since Madland’s and Cherny’s lessons will take time to seep into the bloodstream, we need to chalk up some wins in the meantime. We asked Elaine C. Kamarck to describe three economic fights that progressives should pick now, in the short term, even as we recalibrate our long-term thinking. What she suggests may surprise you.
But returning to our first principles is only half the battle. We also need to take on the conservative ideas that led to our current predicament. Paul Pierson explains the damage conservative economic policies have done to the country and shows how—in toxic combination with the concomitant increase in the importance of lobbying and campaign money—those policies altered our political system, making it far more responsive to the wealthy and far less responsive to the middle class. It’s a history lesson every liberal needs to know and internalize.
Finally, Jonathan Chait looks at the principle that most defines conservative economics today: taxophobia. Chait reminds us of some dark corners not often visited, and makes a point that should be more central to progressive arguments than it is: that what conservatives really care about above all else is protecting the well-off from any hint of redistribution. That’s a devastating charge; a shame we don’t hear prominent progressives make it more often.
First Principles: Arguing the Economy
Individual Age Economics by Andrei Cherny
Growth and the Middle Class by David Madland
Three Fights We Can Win by Elaine C. Kamarck
Inequality and Its Casualties by Paul Pierson
The Triumph of Taxophobia by Jonathan Chait
Individual Age Economics by Andrei Cherny
Growth and the Middle Class by David Madland
Three Fights We Can Win by Elaine C. Kamarck
Inequality and Its Casualties by Paul Pierson
The Triumph of Taxophobia by Jonathan Chait
Economic Fundamentalism
http://www.democracyjournal.org/20/the-triumph-of-taxophobia.php
Taxophobia has spawned an epistemology of its own and has completely reshaped the landscape of American politics. It more than anything else has driven the widely decried rise in partisan conflict. More profoundly, conservative taxophobia has redefined the terms of the political debate. Two generations ago, economic liberalism meant Keynesian deficit spending and a rapidly expanding welfare state with little concern for deficits. Fiscal conservatism meant opposition to deficits and inflation. Today, the old fiscal conservatism has been embraced by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The old fiscal liberalism has been confined to the margins, espoused by left-wing dissidents to the Democratic mainstream. And the Republican Party inhabits an otherworldly new realm that even the staunchest right-wingers of a generation before could scarcely have imagined. As the two parties trade power back and forth, the ideological basis for economic policy pingpongs between the old right and a loopy kind of far-right. Periods of Republican governance have grown increasingly disastrous, while periods of Democratic governance are largely consumed with staving off fiscal collapse.
How did this happen? All conservatives, and many liberals, explain this transformation as the story of the rise of a new idea. But I don’t think that’s right. As I will explain, ideas only serve to rationalize political and economic self-interest. However, the story does begin with a new idea.
The Birth of a Notion
In the mid-1970s, the new doctrine of supply-side economics suddenly emerged on the right. The doctrine took what had been a marginal notion within the economics profession—the idea that higher tax rates can dampen the incentive to work and innovate—and elevated it to something close to a religion. The supply-side creed held that tax rates, especially on the rich, had enormous effects on economic growth. It was even possible, the supply-siders famously promised, that tax cuts could unleash so much economic growth that the net effect would increase tax revenue.
Jude Wanniski, a Wall Street Journal editorial writer who did more than anybody else to formulate and spread the new doctrine, spoke of the new creed in quasi-religious terms, as did many of his adherents. “It was Jude who introduced me to Jack Kemp, a young congressman and recent convert,” recalled Irving Kristol, who helped spread the gospel of supply-side economics. “It was Jack Kemp who, almost single-handed, converted Ronald Reagan...”
"Opposition to the progressive income tax is at once a sacred and a hidden value for Republicans, and thus one that makes compromise nearly impossible."
"Not long ago, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan—who enjoys unparalleled prestige on budget issues among conservatives of all stripes—railed against the deficit and was asked about the massive cost of extending tax cuts. He replied, “Keeping tax rates where they are, and preventing them from going up, is not spending, because that is people’s money in the first place.” What on earth could this mean? Here is the answer. Ryan has declared his deep intellectual debt to Ayn Rand. He required all his staffers to read her work. When he responds to a question rooted in simple accounting with a moral claim (“people’s money in the first place”), he is saying that the arithmetic of revenue, outlays, and deficits does not matter to him. None of the pecuniary issues that he claims to care about so deeply ultimately matter. He is fighting a class war, which he views as a war for freedom itself."
"We can identify three phases of supply-side craziness in Republican Party history." [notice he goes from the metaphors of "religion" to "crazy".
Issue #20, Spring 2011
The Triumph of Taxophobia
First Principles: Arguing the Economy
To read the other essays in the First Principles: Arguing the Economy symposium, click here.
The conservative movement’s embrace of taxophobia is probably the most important development in American political life over the last three decades. It is the one quality that most distinguishes American conservative elites from conservative elites in other countries. They’re more likely to question climate science, more sanguine about people dying for lack of health insurance, and less xenophobic (which is rather nice). But above all—far above all—they hate taxes.Taxophobia has spawned an epistemology of its own and has completely reshaped the landscape of American politics. It more than anything else has driven the widely decried rise in partisan conflict. More profoundly, conservative taxophobia has redefined the terms of the political debate. Two generations ago, economic liberalism meant Keynesian deficit spending and a rapidly expanding welfare state with little concern for deficits. Fiscal conservatism meant opposition to deficits and inflation. Today, the old fiscal conservatism has been embraced by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The old fiscal liberalism has been confined to the margins, espoused by left-wing dissidents to the Democratic mainstream. And the Republican Party inhabits an otherworldly new realm that even the staunchest right-wingers of a generation before could scarcely have imagined. As the two parties trade power back and forth, the ideological basis for economic policy pingpongs between the old right and a loopy kind of far-right. Periods of Republican governance have grown increasingly disastrous, while periods of Democratic governance are largely consumed with staving off fiscal collapse.
How did this happen? All conservatives, and many liberals, explain this transformation as the story of the rise of a new idea. But I don’t think that’s right. As I will explain, ideas only serve to rationalize political and economic self-interest. However, the story does begin with a new idea.
The Birth of a Notion
In the mid-1970s, the new doctrine of supply-side economics suddenly emerged on the right. The doctrine took what had been a marginal notion within the economics profession—the idea that higher tax rates can dampen the incentive to work and innovate—and elevated it to something close to a religion. The supply-side creed held that tax rates, especially on the rich, had enormous effects on economic growth. It was even possible, the supply-siders famously promised, that tax cuts could unleash so much economic growth that the net effect would increase tax revenue.
Jude Wanniski, a Wall Street Journal editorial writer who did more than anybody else to formulate and spread the new doctrine, spoke of the new creed in quasi-religious terms, as did many of his adherents. “It was Jude who introduced me to Jack Kemp, a young congressman and recent convert,” recalled Irving Kristol, who helped spread the gospel of supply-side economics. “It was Jack Kemp who, almost single-handed, converted Ronald Reagan...”
"Opposition to the progressive income tax is at once a sacred and a hidden value for Republicans, and thus one that makes compromise nearly impossible."
"Not long ago, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan—who enjoys unparalleled prestige on budget issues among conservatives of all stripes—railed against the deficit and was asked about the massive cost of extending tax cuts. He replied, “Keeping tax rates where they are, and preventing them from going up, is not spending, because that is people’s money in the first place.” What on earth could this mean? Here is the answer. Ryan has declared his deep intellectual debt to Ayn Rand. He required all his staffers to read her work. When he responds to a question rooted in simple accounting with a moral claim (“people’s money in the first place”), he is saying that the arithmetic of revenue, outlays, and deficits does not matter to him. None of the pecuniary issues that he claims to care about so deeply ultimately matter. He is fighting a class war, which he views as a war for freedom itself."
"We can identify three phases of supply-side craziness in Republican Party history." [notice he goes from the metaphors of "religion" to "crazy".
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Center for American Progess: Prt 2: Founding
Progressives believe that a dogmatic opinion of the Constitution as a fixed document
requires not only the suspension of advanced knowledge collected over
time, but also a bizarre acquiescence to illiberal opinions from centuries past.
Treating the Constitution this way would mean reviving the Founders’ original
intent regarding slavery and excluding most men and all women from voting and
other forms of democratic life. (Progressive: Founding: 6)
The colonists complained most famously that they were required to pay new taxes imposed upon them by institutions that did not include representatives from the colonies. It is important to note
that the colonists were not opposed to taxation as a general rule, but to taxation
imposed by nonrepresentative institutions.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Progressivism has always been about
the search for liberty, equality, and happiness for all within a system of democratic
government and social and economic opportunity. 8
Yet early progressives recognized as the nation’s economic situation changed
that the original ends of Jeffersonian thought would have to be adapted to new
forms of government. As Dewey wrote, “[T]he interests originally represented by
Jefferson…have now changed places with respect to exercise of federal power. For
Jeffersonian principles of self-government, of the prime authority of the people, of
general happiness or welfare as the end of government, can be appealed to in support
of policies that are opposite to those urged by Jefferson in his day.”9/14
requires not only the suspension of advanced knowledge collected over
time, but also a bizarre acquiescence to illiberal opinions from centuries past.
Treating the Constitution this way would mean reviving the Founders’ original
intent regarding slavery and excluding most men and all women from voting and
other forms of democratic life. (Progressive: Founding: 6)
The colonists complained most famously that they were required to pay new taxes imposed upon them by institutions that did not include representatives from the colonies. It is important to note
that the colonists were not opposed to taxation as a general rule, but to taxation
imposed by nonrepresentative institutions.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Progressivism has always been about
the search for liberty, equality, and happiness for all within a system of democratic
government and social and economic opportunity. 8
Yet early progressives recognized as the nation’s economic situation changed
that the original ends of Jeffersonian thought would have to be adapted to new
forms of government. As Dewey wrote, “[T]he interests originally represented by
Jefferson…have now changed places with respect to exercise of federal power. For
Jeffersonian principles of self-government, of the prime authority of the people, of
general happiness or welfare as the end of government, can be appealed to in support
of policies that are opposite to those urged by Jefferson in his day.”9/14
Center for American Progess: Prt 1: Intellectual
Center for American Progress: Prt 1: Intellectual Heritage
Thomas Jefferson: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate
ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But
I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might
as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized
society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1816)
Justice Louis Brandeis, Holmes’ colleague, is especially eloquent on this point. Brandeis
explained in his famed essay, “The Living Law,” that the meaning of the American
Constitution necessarily shifted as democracy “deepened” over time. First pursuing a
“government of laws and not of men,” Americans later sought “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and finally pursued “democracy and social justice.”
It should be noted, however, that Brandeis believed his argument to be well within the
American founding tradition. He considered Alexander Hamilton “an apostle of the living
law,” since he always considered the law to be “ a reality, quick and human, buxom and
jolly, and not a formula, pinched, stiff, banded and dusty like a royal mummy of Egypt.” (p.11/footnote 28)
Pragmaticism: "James formulated the same idea in somewhat more straightforward
terms: “The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by
tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to
anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? You must bring out of each word
its practical cash value, set it at work within the stream of your experience.”33
"The meaning of natural rights in pragmatic terms consisted of
their effects. If the traditional interpretation of the right to amass property resulted in
suffering, exploitation, and inequality, then this was the real meaning of this principle. It
remained for voters and political leaders to consider if these consequences were in keeping
with the good of the community, but Dewey was convinced that they were not." 13
While American individuals at the founding sought protection from government intervention in
their private lives, 20th century Americans found their lives more dangerously determined
by massive economic and social forces. Dewey wrote, “Present evil consequences are
treated as if they were eternally necessary, because they cannot be made consistent with
the ideals of another age. In reality, a machine age is a challenge to generate new conceptions
of the ideal and the spiritual.”38
In his famous essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” philosopher Isaiah Berlin argues that there are two fundamental ways of understanding liberty. Negative liberty is the freedom from formal coercion, restraint, or limits. It is closely linked to the classical liberal school of political thought. Positive liberty is the freedom to pursue and achieve ends. It is often considered in terms of human individual flourishing. Individuals are free insofar as they are capable of pursuing the ends they choose. Dewey took this to be the true meaning of liberty in a modern democratic state.40
The Role of Science: Since progressives argued that public policy ought
to be designed to serve the common good, many enthusiastically applied the scientific
method to the study of politics. Invigorated by recent successes in the natural sciences,
progressives believed that economic and political science could help to improve public
policy’s effectiveness and accountability. Modern sociology and psychology provided progressives with helpful evidence in support of political change. In many cases, this approach
led to new, comprehensive shifts in the approach to longstanding political problems. This
was particularly useful for adjudicating between competing interests in the political, economic,
and social spheres, since it provided a way of stripping away rhetoric and exploring
the actual consequences of various policy approaches. Progressivism—the promotion of human autonomy within a democratic national community— thus provided Americans with the means and the ideas to shape their own lives and destinies in better ways. It provided them a viable way to free themselves from the tyranny of excessive corporate power and a corrupt political class without losing the positive effects of technology, industrialization, and capitalism. It made economic behavior subject to public regulation, instead of neglecting the domination of public institutions by economic interests. It paved the way toward the midcentury “mixed economy” that lifted living standards for millions of people, reduced poverty and inequality, and helped to create the vast American middle class.
Thomas Jefferson: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate
ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But
I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might
as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized
society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1816)
Justice Louis Brandeis, Holmes’ colleague, is especially eloquent on this point. Brandeis
explained in his famed essay, “The Living Law,” that the meaning of the American
Constitution necessarily shifted as democracy “deepened” over time. First pursuing a
“government of laws and not of men,” Americans later sought “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and finally pursued “democracy and social justice.”
It should be noted, however, that Brandeis believed his argument to be well within the
American founding tradition. He considered Alexander Hamilton “an apostle of the living
law,” since he always considered the law to be “ a reality, quick and human, buxom and
jolly, and not a formula, pinched, stiff, banded and dusty like a royal mummy of Egypt.” (p.11/footnote 28)
Pragmaticism: "James formulated the same idea in somewhat more straightforward
terms: “The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by
tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to
anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? You must bring out of each word
its practical cash value, set it at work within the stream of your experience.”33
"The meaning of natural rights in pragmatic terms consisted of
their effects. If the traditional interpretation of the right to amass property resulted in
suffering, exploitation, and inequality, then this was the real meaning of this principle. It
remained for voters and political leaders to consider if these consequences were in keeping
with the good of the community, but Dewey was convinced that they were not." 13
While American individuals at the founding sought protection from government intervention in
their private lives, 20th century Americans found their lives more dangerously determined
by massive economic and social forces. Dewey wrote, “Present evil consequences are
treated as if they were eternally necessary, because they cannot be made consistent with
the ideals of another age. In reality, a machine age is a challenge to generate new conceptions
of the ideal and the spiritual.”38
In his famous essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” philosopher Isaiah Berlin argues that there are two fundamental ways of understanding liberty. Negative liberty is the freedom from formal coercion, restraint, or limits. It is closely linked to the classical liberal school of political thought. Positive liberty is the freedom to pursue and achieve ends. It is often considered in terms of human individual flourishing. Individuals are free insofar as they are capable of pursuing the ends they choose. Dewey took this to be the true meaning of liberty in a modern democratic state.40
The Role of Science: Since progressives argued that public policy ought
to be designed to serve the common good, many enthusiastically applied the scientific
method to the study of politics. Invigorated by recent successes in the natural sciences,
progressives believed that economic and political science could help to improve public
policy’s effectiveness and accountability. Modern sociology and psychology provided progressives with helpful evidence in support of political change. In many cases, this approach
led to new, comprehensive shifts in the approach to longstanding political problems. This
was particularly useful for adjudicating between competing interests in the political, economic,
and social spheres, since it provided a way of stripping away rhetoric and exploring
the actual consequences of various policy approaches. Progressivism—the promotion of human autonomy within a democratic national community— thus provided Americans with the means and the ideas to shape their own lives and destinies in better ways. It provided them a viable way to free themselves from the tyranny of excessive corporate power and a corrupt political class without losing the positive effects of technology, industrialization, and capitalism. It made economic behavior subject to public regulation, instead of neglecting the domination of public institutions by economic interests. It paved the way toward the midcentury “mixed economy” that lifted living standards for millions of people, reduced poverty and inequality, and helped to create the vast American middle class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)