Paul Krugman: Know-Nothing Politics

Will "know-nothing politics" work in this election?:

Know-Nothing Politics, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: “Drill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!” O.K., I added that last part.

And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid.

Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. ... What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. ... What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil..., and that even then the effect on prices ... would be “insignificant”? Presumably they’re just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. ...

Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? Don’t count on it.

Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, “They attacked us, and we’re going to strike back” — and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren’t the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.

Let’s also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. “Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,” declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.” ...

What’s more, the politics of stupidity didn’t just appeal to the poorly informed..., members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002... I heard a number of people express ... the argument that ... the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy. ...

Republicans, despite Mr. Bush’s ... record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right. ... According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling — and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

The headway Republicans are making on this issue won’t prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains — and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race.

In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

Reducing complex problems and ideas to bumperstickers and slogans is a part of politics. I cannot see that Republican slogans are any more "stupid" than Democratic ones.

The problem is not that Republicans are particularly dumb -- the problem is that they are not genuinely willing to engage in discussion. Arguments are put forward, dictated by their effective merit as Public Relations propaganda. But, the arguments, however well focus-group tested, are fundamentally fake arguments, unrelated to genuine motives or objectives.

To motivate acceptance of the Iraq War, the Bush Administration offered a variety of rationalizations and proposed a kaleidoscope of goals. But, none of the rationalizations or goals articulated was genuine. When Bush needed to kick the can down the road, they synthesized the Surge and trotted it out, but no achievable goal was ever defined, before or after. McCain talks almost nonsensically about "winning" and "success". His speechifying is nonsensical, because he rarely even hits at what he would have the U.S. try to "win" or what "success" should be expected to a achieve.

This pattern of substituting clever P.R. for participation in debate about what course to take, in Iraq, or with regard to the economy, or global warming, or other issues, major or minor, has undermined democracy. Republicans don't want to debate or teach -- with them, it is pure manipulation. That's what's stupid.

[Bruce Wilder]

It would be easy to blame the poorly informed for being so easy to manipulate, but I think "How Dumb Are We Voters" can also be a bit too easy. In politics, as in any other activity, we seek to specialize and to benefit from specialization. Most people, other than me, have lives, and things to do, other than develop elaborate understanding of political science and economics, while being excessively well-informed on current events.

The Media elite, who facilitate so much of this nonsense, bear a great deal of responsibility for just how ignorant the typical American voter is. Lou Dobbs probably reduces his audience's IQ by 10 points on average; Bill O'Reilly, 20 points. Keith Olbermann, however delightful in his way, is certainly not making any part of his audience, smarter or better informed.

[reason]

Bruce,
I don't think you can call an equivalence here. Bill Clinton for all his faults was not, and never pretended to be, stupid.
And yes you can blame the voters, or at least ask why American voters are so vulnerable to this sort of manipulation.
Of course it is not just in politics that American's are pressured to be stupid. Look at their religious leaders.

[Philip Combs]

I must agree with Bruce's assertions in his first comment.

What folks in the thinking part of the country cannot seem to grasp is that on these issues. This way of 'thinking' and 'governing' the Demcocrats differ not on iota from the Republicans.

How could they they are all part of the same dysfunctional, corrupt mess we have in D.C. What motivation would the Democrats have for being any different than the Repugs?

None.

Until the citizenry starts to squash some of these pols like the scuttling vermin they are they will just continue to breed and infest out government like cockroaches in a filthy kitchen.

[Gegner]

Methinks you both have too much faith in the 'window dressing' that passes for 'elections' around here.

Who reports the results? The corporate owned MSM. Worse, there is no such thing as 'independent verification' of the ballot results.

Until the money is separated from the process there can be no such thing as an 'honest' election.

Ironically, in the not too distant future, we won't elect our leaders, they will 'earn' the job by proving they can do it.

I'm thinking 230 years is long enough to 'prove' that 'democracy'(as it is currently practiced) doesn't work.

The principal difference between our 'elected leaders' and those who 'win' their position is the 'winners' won't have the ability to alter or 'ignore' the law.

[reason]

Gegner
Don't mistake America for a typical democratic country. If you think that Democracy "doesn't work", maybe you should check out the alternatives. And if you suggesting that the "winner" can't change the law, who will make this eternally perfect law?

[reason]

The problem that America has is that it was founded in a revolution and its constitution has become a mythological holy writ, handed down by titans and earned by martyrs. You need to tear constitutions up every now and then and rewrite them. It is much harder to change constitutions (ask the Europeans) than to produce them. I assume there are some scholars somewhere who think seriously about these things, but nobody takes any notice. Systems matter, particularly systems of reciprocal accountability (hat tip David Brin).

But yes, the US Democracy is disfunctional for a number of reasons (#1 financing, #2 no independent agencies, #3 first past the post, #4 Gerrimandering, #5 the presidential system). I don't think any system is perfect, but the US one is very imperfect.

[reason]

I seriously think maybe the best thing for the US would be devolution. It would be better being broken up in 3 with some of super body on top of it (perhaps including Canada and/or Mexico). Otherwise the internal cold war might never end.

[kotzabasis]

How clever of Krugman to use his “Four legs good, two legs bad” drill to open a hole to the old debate about the levity of the decision of the Iraq war encapsulated in his
“They attacked us, and we are going to strike back.” After failing in all his prognostications about the unwinnable war and showering for years with mockery and disparagement the proponents and supporters of the war, now that the war is being won and Iraq makes its first strides toward democracy –with its corollary that history might after all crown the neocons with the laurels of victory-all he finds to fill the holes of his rotationally fallacious argument is to revive the old squib of the non-connection of Saddam with Osama and hence the conspiratorial origin of the war.

Although there was ample evidence, as provided by the NIE report, of such connection between the intelligent services of Saddam and agents of Osama, the Bush administration after the 9/11 attack was more concerned that this rudimentary connection might take in the near future a gargantuan form that would gravely threaten the strategic interests of the US and indeed, its own land and its people. No astute and responsible government could disregard such a potential threat and not take the defensive-offensive measures to negate it. It was in such a context that the decision to go to war was taken. As well as on the further reason that it’s always more prudent to defeat an IRRECONCILABLE IMPLACABLE enemy while he is still weak, which is an irreversible canon of war?

[Lafayette]

Article: Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.” ...

I keep harping on the Dumbing Down of America. Here's just another example, this time at the top -- ex-Cathedra from the Church of the WSJ. (Wall Street Jesuits? ;^)

What can prompt a grown person, in full possession of their senses, to make such an inane remark? Because it looks like a sound-bite - something a politician might say to make a complex subject easy to understand ... by trashing it?

Attila the Hun was an intellectual? Then Hitler must have been Nobel Prize material.

Such journalistic parlance is neither intelligent discourse, not debate, nor exchange of ideas. And, if it is "freedom of speech" as guaranteed by the Constitution, then let's extend the privilege to chimpanzees.

Very smart animals, the chimps. Evidently smarter than some journalists ...

[Lafayette]

Saddam disliked Osama

kotsa: Although there was ample evidence, as provided by the NIE report, of such connection between the intelligent services of Saddam and agents of Osama … No astute and responsible government could disregard such a potential threat and not take the defensive-offensive measures to negate it.

Saddam disliked Osama, see here, a minor fact that seems to escape you.

Saddam could not abide Osama's Saudi Salafist tendencies which, for the larger part of Sunni Muslims outside of Saudi Arabia, was far too fundamental. Which is why, when Osama proffered troops in the war (1980-88) against their supposed common enemy (the Iranian Shiites), Saddam refused. And he was not such a fool as to partner with the man responsible for 9/11 later on.

Of course, such subtleties are beyond people who view the world only through the prism of Judeo-Christian religious history. In fact, these subtleties are at the very heart of the modern Muslim world.

But, subtlety is not the forte of this lead-headed administration, which is why Uncle Sam finds himself in very deep sneakers in the Middle East, embroiled in a war he cannot win and only loose with grace.

[kotzabasis]

Lafayette
Of course Saddam was a secular leader. And indeed, he might have “disliked” and not “trusted’ fanatics. But power politics, which Saddam played as a virtuoso in the Arab world, are not propelled by likes and dislikes. And talking of subtleties, Saddam could see the ascendancy of Osama’s fanatics in the Muslim world and wanted to have contact with them not because of a predilection of amity toward them but because he wanted to control them and USE them for his own geopolitical goals. It’s this subtlety that escapes you. And it would be wise for someone who lives in a glass house not to throw stones at others, such as "this lead-headed administration", as it's obvious that subtlety is not your forte either.

[swells]

Well, I think there are more fundamental things at work. The posturing by the Republocrats and the Demopublicans just plays to an aspect of human nature that is nearly ubiquitous. For the bipedal primates known as homo sapiens, arguments are not, for the most part, about getting at the truth. Arguments are about enhancing and/or shoring up one's status and position in the hierarchy. Arguments are about winning instead of discovery. Who said it is taken to be more important than what was said.

One of the reasons I'm interested in this blog is because I have this naive hope that game theory and experimental economics may actually, one day, result in the provision of a scientific basis for morality and ethics.

From my perspective, the best thing any one of us can do individually or as part of a collective is to start to try to apply the scientific method systematically to all parts of our interactions with each other. That involves being willing to change one's mind when the evidence dictates. I don't see enough of that anywhere.

[OhNoNotAgain]

Hey kotzbasis, you need to show a little more respect for others like Lafayette and actually do some reading:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/29959.html

The bottom line is that you're wrong, the Bush administration was wrong, and the war was wrong. No amount of "fixing" of the evidence is going to change that, whether it's the administration or you that is trying to do so.

[Lafayette]

Yeah, right ...

kotza: But power politics, which Saddam played as a virtuoso in the Arab world, are not propelled by likes and dislikes.

Once again you are showing your ignorance of Muslim mentality and its subtlety. You wouldn't be the Ultimate Crusader perchance?

You justified the invasion of Iraq based upon a false argument – an improbable relationship between Hussein and bin Laden. We've been through this huckstering nonsense before. Why, on earth, bring it up again?

War in Iraq is indeed good for American business. I do hope you've invested your son in it.

Saddam could see the ascendancy of Osama’s fanatics in the Muslim world and wanted to have contact with them not because of a predilection of amity toward them but because he wanted to control them and USE them for his own geopolitical goals.

What is this, you're submission for a James Bond film?

It's hallucinatory nonsense. Saddam simply wanted to maintain Sunni control over a country that was largely populated by Shiites (who outnumber the Sunnis by 3 to 1).

And it would be wise for someone who lives in a glass house not to throw stones at others ... as it's obvious that subtlety is not your forte either.

Yeah, right. I live in a glass house. Now you are actually getting funny. In fact, hilarious.

Duhhhhhhh .....

PS: Yes, yes, I know .... don't feed the trolls ...

says...

swells: One of the reasons I'm interested in this blog is because I have this naive hope that game theory and experimental economics may actually, one day, result in the provision of a scientific basis for morality and ethics.

Wow! That is no small ambition.

I wish you luck.

[swells]

As a follow up to my earlier post just above, I am not a fan of Otto Neurath but he did say at least one thing that was remarkably profound in describing the nature of science. "We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction. "

I think the point here is important. The scientific method is a remarkable advance in human methodology because it is explicitly evolutionary. It relies, for its strength and utility, on the notion of making knowledge comport with itself and our body of knowledge varies over time toward that end.

One of the things about Obama's candidacy that has impressed me the most is that he has stated, as clearly as one can in the simple terms our current politics requires, how important it is to be way less concerned about winning an argument and way more concerned about discovering the truths that honest, respectful argument can reveal.

[One Salient Oversight]

A few comments in response to Krugman's piece:

1) Simple solutions often do exist, but may not be tried until it is too late (eg tight monetary policy by Volcker in response to 1970s inflation)

2) Simple solutions that impact negatively upon the lives of the simple minded are never considered, even if they're the best solution (eg raising taxes to cover spending increases).

[swells]

says, I'm not actively working toward it now. I spent four years writing a set of web applications, called ExLab originally and I think WebLab now, that provided an infrastructure to support the conduct of experimental economics. It provided facilities for signing up experimental subjects, scheduling lab facilites, etc. I only did a little programming of actual experimental software. I think it's still active at:

http://exlab.bus.ucf.edu/

The need to make a living interferred with my preferences.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Pelosi's fanatic opposition to any enhancement of domestic sources show an incredible ignorance of our short-to-medium run situation.

(I hear she left DC in her hubby's private jet, a la Al Gore.)

The Democrats' position may hurt Obama as gasoline, electricity and fuel oil prices stay high or get higher.

[anne]

"How clever of Krugman to use...."

Every line another lie; how clever.

[anne]

"I hear she left DC in her hubby's private jet, a la Al Gore."

Notice the language, hubby, hubby, hubby....

[ken melvin]

Stupid is as stupid does - Pelosi understands that much of of the current problem is due Ronnie's drilling and subsequent glut.

[chriss1519]

kotzabiasis wrote:
"...now that the war is being won and Iraq makes its first strides toward democracy –with its corollary that history might after all crown the neocons with the laurels of victory..."

What metrics are you using to assert the war is being won? What are the endstates you see these metrics trending towards? How do these endstates compare to the vision promoted by the administration back in '03? Was the "Afghanistan War" won in 2001-02? Is it being won now? Is Iraq spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, let alone within it's own country? Are body counts the sole determinant of winning or losing? Is it whenever W says he can begin force reductions? Are we closer to peace in the Middle East now than in 2003? Was it all worth it?

[save_the_rustbelt]

I'm a proud "hubby," although I have no political position to use to enhance my wealth.

At any rate, Pelosi may back Obama into a corner, and he is already trying to wiggle his way out.

[ddt]

"swells: One of the reasons I'm interested in this blog is because I have this naive hope that game theory and experimental economics may actually, one day, result in the provision of a scientific basis for morality and ethics."

noooo! that is a path to ruin.

IMO morality is not reducible to any sort of scientific or strictly logical basis. It has been tried many, many times and does not work.

Most intelligent people who go looking for moral science do not find it and end up adopting a half-baked form of morality that appears certain, while yielding monstrous results (Kantians + Utilitarians) or upon not finding a basis for universal morality advocate a kind of nihilism (Schopenhauer) or a new ethics for a new kind of man, because no system works very well with man as presently constituted (Nietzsche).

IMO ethics is a sense similar to having a sense of rhythm or melody. All of us have it to some degree, and you can teach basic rules so that those who don't have a strong sense of ethics know the guidelines (like musical scales) but there is no scientific way to determine what is morally "good" in the same way there is no scientific way to determine good music or art. Most people can sense the difference between great art and complete garbage, in the same way that most people can tell the difference between good actions and morally disgusting actions, but neither are reducible to universal truths. Most arguments that try to establish universal ethics remind me of Plato's attempt to theoretically define good and proper music (which was the height of learned discourse at the time, but now seems completely absurd and is quite a funny read).

[reason]

swells
One of the things about Obama's candidacy that has impressed me the most is that he has stated, as clearly as one can in the simple terms our current politics requires, how important it is to be way less concerned about winning an argument and way more concerned about discovering the truths that honest, respectful argument can reveal.
Yep, process, process, process. The big error in thinking is mostly making the assumption that there is ONE correct answer and that we can know it. De Bono should be compulsory in late primary school.

[swells]

ddt, your concerns are, at first glance, well-founded. However, there is a difference for which you have not accounted that render your concerns moot in the particular case of a science of morality. The previous attempts to systematize ethics to which you refer suffer from being based on sentiment (admittedly overlaid with some reasoning as a kind of mortar which hopefully can hold it together), appeals that are at bottom rooted in emotional rather than aesthetic sensibilities.

Emotions are contingent facts of our evolution; i.e., predispositions to feel a certain way about a certain set of circumstances. A well-watered valley with abundant wildlife and plants gives us warm fuzzies for instance.

Emotions reflect the past contingencies of our heritage and, while admittedly both pleasant and hurtful, do not equip us in all cases to deal with the future.

When people try to capture the universal truth of ethics, they are acting on their emotions, a desire to possess an exhaustive armory that will protect them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. They are trying to devise an etiquette, not a science of ethics.

In the scientific approach, theories of everything aren't sought because they foreclose the need for future inquiry but rather because such a theory of everything provides a standard against which one may judge how well different systems of knowledge comport with each other. They are devices for the exposure of inconsistencies.

A flawed but useful (and in many ways extremely beautiful) approach of the sort I recommend would be the Ethics of Spinoza.

So, I would agree with your concerns when the object of the effort toward systematics in ethics is to foreclose further inquiry. A truly scientific approach would have no such object for it's efforts.

[reason]

What is about America that makes the inhabitants look for simple, pure and (often acient) ideological solutions? What is wrong with a pragmatic approach. Of careful stepwise improvement. Slowly accumulating experience and empirical knowledge.

swells
As regards ethics, I think the question is impossible. Ethical paradoxes are the norm, not the exception. We don't see that much locally, but if look at things globally it is clear. Where saving the unsustainable might just result in greater devastation in the end.

[anne]

"At any rate, Pelosi may back Obama into a corner, and he is already trying to wiggle his way out."

Right.

[anne]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4378

August 6, 2008

Local Scientist Splits Water, Saves World, Gets On TV

This might have been a story of how a couple of MIT scientists happened upon a breakthrough discovery in the electrolysis of water; but they didn't (and so it isn't). This might also have been a story about an informed media which correctly and skeptically reports on such scientific discoveries -- in the midst of a public relations barrage from a leading university -- but nobody really expects such journalistic vigilance anymore. Instead, this story will try to examine what (if anything) was discovered, and how this news affects the landscape of the looming energy crisis. In addition, given that a number of encouraging research reports have surfaced suggesting a seamless transition to a hydrogen economy, I will revisit the fundamental challenge posed by moving to alternate liquid fuels: getting used to the idea of diffuse energy. (Some names have been omitted to protect the less guilty).

What the Report Reportedly Reports

Massachussets Institute of Technology chemistry professor Daniel Nocera and a postdoctoral fellow (who will remain blameless here) have published a report in Sciencepress, a rapid online publication channel for the journal Science, entitled In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+ (link). The report itself does not make outrageous claims, but when supercharged by misleading statements and exaggerated claims from Nocera to the media as well as by an apparent MIT public relations blitz, these modest research findings have been transformed into a calming salve for the public's current angst over high energy prices. A sampling:

Why Oil Really Fell Today—and Could Keep Falling, US News and World Report

MIT Scientists Unlock 'Nirvana' of Solar Power Storage PC Magazine

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution From MIT (of course)

Hydrogen Power on the Cheap--Or at Least, Cheaper Scientific American

Sunny Forecast For Fuel Cells Chemical and Engineering News
MIT develops way to bank solar energy at home Reuters
Solar-Power Breakthrough ABC News

So what is really in the report? ...
Summary

Despite the hype, it doesn't appear that Nocera et. al. have made any significant advances in water electrolysis.

Even if the researchers drove the cost of the oxygen-evolving anode to zero and its efficiency close to 100%, we are still only marginally closer to being able to produce significant quantities of hydrogen from solar energy.

Want to invest in cobalt futures? Too late.

-- JoulesBurn

[swells]

reason, I would agree that the question is impossible but only if the criteria an answer has to meet is itself impossible of achievement. The thinkers to which ddt referred, for instance, were people who were trying to draw an iron curtain around the universe of discourse in ethics. A truly scientific approach to ethics wouldn't have that as its goal. It would instead try to achieve, "careful stepwise improvement. Slowly accumulating experience and empirical knowledge." To the extent that it attempted the definition of universal truths, those truths would be so general that all they would be good for would be to make it clear when one set of propositions were incompatible with another, i.e., revealing inconsistency and thereby serving the function that experimental refutation serves in science in general.

My basic point is that the current environment where argument is mostly about winning precludes that because it keeps people from being convinced and changing their mind when they should do so.

[reason]

My basic point is that the current environment where argument is mostly about winning precludes that because it keeps people from being convinced and changing their mind when they should do so.

What would you do then? Go to multiple votes, proportional representation and parliamentary democracy so that elections aren't winner-take-all?

Not that I disagree with you, it would be better if people didn't personally identify themself with particular ideas or policies (but perhaps with specific values or approaches to life). But it is hard to see how this could be institutionalised. I'm actually all for having politics set the targets and technocrats worry about the how. But within the technocratic structure you still have worry about orthodoxy stifling progress.

[swells]

McCain's Great Wall of Duh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/protecting-mccains-ignora_b_117565.html

It's nice to see an article like this that says what needs to be said this truthfully.

[anne]

Daniel Nocera * has argued convincingly that energy independence is a fantasy for decades to come, but his hope is solar. I am not capable of judging the quality of the research he is doing, but have been told by 2 physicists that there has been no meaningful advance and the New York Times report of the matter was highly cautious. "Oil Drum" is dismissive.

The question then is what approaches are best taken from here, and neither candidate is convincing to me.

As for inflating my tires, for sake of winning the war in Afghanistan, not to mention "manhood," I am not the least impressed and in the wake of the suggestion feel like wasting energy everywhere I can.

* No link to paper....

[piglet]

"It is much harder to change constitutions (ask the Europeans) than to produce them."

Oh, but European constitutions are getting changed all the time. It is indeed a feature of American exceptionalism that the constitution has such a mythical status. When a constitution is not regularly evaluated, debated and from time to time adapted to changed circumstances, it becomes petrified. This is the case in the US. Ironically, Americans believe that their petrified constitution is a strength proving the success of their political system. No. Many century-old aspects of that political system (the electoral college, the king-like power accorded to the president, the way judges are politically nominated, the gaping holes in the Bill of Rights) are not serving Americans well any more but it is sacrilegious to even talk about that.

[swells]

reason, well to be truthful I would go to a very flat democracy. For instance, I would be happy with a system where politics determines how much needed to be spent on public goods and what percentage of income in taxes was required to raise that money and then let people individually allocate which programs their money would be spent on. I think it would function like exercise and put people in the position where they couldn't shirk their responsibilities for making critical decisions by delegating those decisions to others. I think it would also cut down on the ability of special interests to funnel ill-gotten gains into specific channels.

I'm sure there would be problems, at least initially, with this approach but consequences would establish a feed back loop that each person was plugged into pretty directly.

In short, I don't think the division of labor is as good when it comes to thinking and deciding policy as it is when one is manufacturing shoes.

[swells]

piglet, there are deficiencies in the US constitution. But, as I see it the main deficiencies are the wiggle room it provides for people to ignore it and contravene it. The fifth amendment takings clause is regularly ignored, the 10th is given extremely short shrift, the fourth is as full of holes as swiss cheese at this point, etc.

Of course, there is a method for amending it but that is usually too much trouble for people who have some private agenda they would like to see advanced.

[piglet]

swells, let me at least invite you to go beyond your superficialties and platitudes. The issue is really much deeper. It does not behoove a democracy to be based on a Holy Book that for all practical purposes is held to be beyond debate and criticism. The US political system has become dysfunctional for many reasons but one of them certainly is petrification.

[roger]

I'm not sure why Krugman is worried that the presidential race is so close. Anybody looking at the past twenty years would expect that. There is a easily identifiable core of GOP voters and a similar core of Democratic voters, and the win is all in the margins. Personally, I think the drilling all the time mantra of the Republicans is a response to their core, which is suburban and exurban and has been extremely shocked by the oil price spike. The Dems had a nice chance, all through the last seven months, to connect that oil price spike to Bush's foreign policy - which put a defacto tax on the sub/ex-urban crowd. The October surprise came early this year, and it was not a war, but its opposite - probably through the advice of Paulson, Bush soothed the oil futures market by making it clear that he wasn't going to war, thus knocking out the security premium and the elevated price of oil. It was always pretty simple. The Dems have been so concerned to show that they are "tough" on national security that they didn't even move, all this time, for the obvious shot, instead playing the silent partner in the D.C. game of pretending that a hyperaggressive, completely immoral foreign policy entails no domestic blowback. And that is very very dumb.

[swells]

piglet, there is a means of amending the constitution. It is clearly spelled out and has been used successfully. To which superficialities and platitudes do you object? There is no point to my being wrong so I would appreciate, and value, your pointing them out specifically.

All I was saying is that having a constitution that provides the wiggle room for it to be effectively changed by being contravened and ignored kind of defeats the purpose of having one. I don't have a problem with it changing. I do have a problem with it changing in underhanded ways.

[Alex Tolley]

I'm not surprised that "know nothing" politics works. The average person knows very little about his world, is somewhat anti-expert (anti-elitist) and wants to elect people who are "like me".

The Republicans anti-Bi-Coastal-elitism stance has painted them into the corner of having to be exact opposite. Of course it doesn't hurt that religious answers are very simple too. Far too many people think that hard questions and nuanced answers makes their "brain hurt" and that simple, understandable answers are needed.

As Mencken said: "There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat,plausible, and wrong."

Not much has changed in 2 generations...

[anne]

Roger:

"The Dems have been so concerned to show that they are 'tough' on national security that they didn't even move, all this time, for the obvious shot, instead playing the silent partner in the D.C. game of pretending that a hyperaggressive, completely immoral foreign policy entails no domestic blowback."

Please explain further.

[anne]

"As Mencken said: 'There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat,plausible, and wrong.' "

These tautologies are absurd, but do keep on finding more. A penny saved a day is a dollar in 100 days (minus inflation.)

[anne]

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-was-visiting-my-local-toyota-dealer.html

May 28, 2008

"I was visiting my local Toyota dealer in Bethesda, Md., last week to trade in one hybrid car for another." * Oh, really? So what do you want from me? A blender? You need a reward because you are driving a hybrid? Do you want poor people to buy hybrids too even if they can't afford it? And how did that pie-in-your-face taste? Was it creamy enough for you? When I read Thomas Friedman writing about energy and conservation I get a strong urge to waste energy. I get a strong urge to cut down trees and to turn on all lights in the house, and to operate my blender on gasoline. Some people are most annoying when they do this public service shtick; when they act all righteous.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28friedman.html

-- As'ad AbuKhalil

[ddt]

swells,

first off, fantastic response. I actually agree with almost everything you have to say. I'm afraid I assumed that you were more of a capital r Rationalist or a proponent of capital s Scientism, which clearly you are not.

I don't think that my point that a total synthesis of rationality and morality is impossible is moot, it is just a limited certainty that has to be recognized, but does not preclude attempting logical synthesis of morality and logic as a means of furthering general understanding, like music theory studied in university. If you have the correct view of science as a skeptical, continual open-ended process (as you seem to), I see no problem with applying it to ethics. You seem to have both a sound view of ethics and an understanding of the usefulness and limits of scientific inquiry, so I take back my remark that you are on "a path to ruin".

"The previous attempts to systematize ethics to which you refer suffer from being based on sentiment (admittedly overlaid with some reasoning as a kind of mortar which hopefully can hold it together), appeals that are at bottom rooted in emotional rather than aesthetic sensibilities."

I think that the element of sentiment is absolutely impossible to avoid, and that no matter how sophisticated of reasoning you apply it will always be the case. I think that only half of the greatness of Spinoza's moral philosophy can be attributed to his command of logic, and the other half is due to his deep sense of ethics.

Although it might seem strange, being that I am generally anti-Rationalist (loathe Descartes, not that hot on Leibniz), I am actually a huge huge fan of Spinoza. The man was an absolute paradigm of ethics in both his life and his work, although with a bit of the "nice guys finish last" tragic element. As you noted, ultimately his work is flawed (IMO because of the fundamental gap between ethics and rationality) but it is still great because Spinoza was so profoundly intelligent and at the same time imbued with a profound sense of morality that he exercised in all his affairs. If you intend to carry on the work of a Spinoza with an understanding of its limits, I am all for it. Spinoza was really the best of the best in terms of ethical rationalism.

The thing about Spinoza is that he suffered a kind of martyrdom through ineffectuality, which I think is the fate of most honest attempts to reconcile rationality and ethics. A philosophy that only works for people who are already highly ethical and highly intelligent - although a good thing in itself - has only a limited influence. There are other ways to promote ethics that IMO have more effect on the world (which is the ultimate reason to study ethics, is it not?): Symbolic acts (Mother Teresa) that involve personal sacrifices that demonstrate ethical values to a large numbers of people, or political acts (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) that involve making difficult compromises and value judgements to the best of your abilities in order to harness historical/political/economic forces and direct them towards the most moral outcome.

Personally, I think that we have a good enough working sense of what is moral, and that the political realm is the best way to directly cause more moral outcomes. At the same time, I can't knock anyone for pursuing a different strategy like yours or Spinoza's given that you are working towards the common goal of a better society.

[Jrossi]

A few columns ago Krugman said the presidential election was essentially a lock for the Dems, but now he's back-pedaling. He went too far before--it is not and never was going to be easy. This is an example of his overconfidence.

[Lafayette]

swells: To the extent that it attempted the definition of universal truths, those truths would be so general that all they would be good for would be to make it clear when one set of propositions were incompatible with another, i.e., revealing inconsistency and thereby serving the function that experimental refutation serves in science in general.

The latitude of human interpretation of "truths" in any matter, may I suggest, is great due to the variety of contextual circumstances.

I suspect its varietal complexity is so great as to escape codification/classification algorithmically.

[swells]

ddt, I suspected that we would have a similar view we could get to by scratching a little deeper when I read your initial post. Certainly, your point that there is no perfect synthesis of rationality and morality is well-taken. I was only saying it was moot for what turn out to be extremely complicated reasons that I have been trying to distill into language for a long time.

Bottom line, one of the most effective means of predation in human relations over the ages has been to claim deficiencies to exist when people don't measure up to impossible standards(resulting in guilt, obediance to misconstituted authority, etc.) People are tricked into thinking themselves deficient for being what they are, an animal of bounded rationality. If something is truly impossible, how can it possibly be an appropriate yardstick by which to measure goodness or efficacy?

When I say the perfect synthesis of rationality and morality is moot, all I am saying is that it truly is an impossiblity and hence claiming some deficiency exists in a system that doesn't achieve the impossible simply because it doesn't achieve the impossible is well, deeply twisted. Schopenauer could have saved himself a lot of wasted effort (and avoided nihilism) had he realized this.

In my view, most of the know-nothing politics of today can be laid at this doorstep. People feel themselves to be deficient in some existential way because their rationality is bounded and they have been led to believe this is a bad thing, a thing that somehow reveals their deepest, darkest debasement from an ideal they really ought to have achieved or be on the path to achieving. They scramble for the reassuringly strident tones telling them they can correct for these deficiencies by participating in an ideological movement that can redeem them if they will just truly, deeply believe and adopt the mantle and the viewpoint.

All sorts of mischief gets done in this manner in my opinion.

I am not as sanguine as you in respect to whether we have a "good enough working sense of what is moral" for this reason. I am concerned by the coercive power available to the state for this reason. People will do some extremely bizarre things in attempting to correct their perceived deficiencies. I don't think it is an accident that more people died from government sponsored genocide in the 20th century than from any other cause(s) outside old age and disease.

[Thomas Daulton]

I wish Krugman had actually provided a bit more background on the American Know-Nothing Party, 1854-1856. I think there are strong historical relationships...

The only real problem with Krugman's article today is that he doesn't say anything about all the intense effort the GOP (and the conservative movement in general) spend in dressing up their Know-Nothing ideas, stupid to the core, with a veneer of intellectual sophistry. For example, show any Conservative this Krugman article and they will immediately respond that the mere announcement (that Obama and others, along with McCain, wanted to reconsider domestic drilling) was enough to lower the price of gasoline significantly last week... by impacting futures markets and re-allocating corporate exploratory financial positions and blah blah blah.

This is a load of dingo's kidneys and everyone knows it, including the people who patiently explain the theory -- futures markets obviously don't affect current retail prices at the pump that fast. But the very smart, intellectual leaders of the Republican Party will work tirelessly on crafting these spurious arguments which incorporate just the slightest hint of technical understanding to dress up the Black Hole of Stupidity with an attractive lace nighty. The American Enterprise Institute will churn out 250-page research papers overnight to back up this horsepuckey, which all the rank-and-file conservatives can now brandish as "evidence". And if the numerical evidence doesn't exist, they use sophisticated statistical techniques to bring it into existence.

This technique (also clearly visible in debates over subjects such as Iraq and Global Warming) has shown a surprising resiliency, in much the same way that steel-reinforced concrete is stronger than either steel or concrete alone: the stupid core idea attracts people who are swayed by visceral arguments, and then the intellectual veneer protects the idea against anti-stupidity measures.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Vote Democratic for a combined energy policy.

[swells]

Lafayette, you are certainly correct when you say "truths" are not exhaustable by algorithmic means. Godel proved it even for the rigorously constrained set of formal systems of sufficient strength.

[dissent]

Not much forest for the trees, here.

The point isn't the difference between smart and stupid. Obama has to be sure that his intelligence and understanding of the difference between right and wrong answers doesn't come across as a professor, who judges people on that basis. Voters don't want to be judged.

What they want is productive solutions to the problems they face, and a sense of patriotism.

McCain can and should be attacked for being unpatriotic. Willfully stupid (unworkable) approaches to real problems are unpatriotic. It shows a lack of care about the country and its citizens - which should be the first requirement in a pres. candidate.

All those pressing stupid on the American people should likewise be attacked as unpatriotic.

I happen to think these Republicans are traitors to the well being of the American people. My rhetoric may be extreme but the point is valid. Bring it forward with a well-grounded argument that we are all worse off than we were 8 years ago.

[im1dc]

I loved and agreed with every word of Our Professor Krugman's Editorial today until I came to the following paragraphs.

So I offer one brain damaged toothless hillbilly's perspective on a few points of disagreement of PK's editorial perspective:

PK writes "...I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly — that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy."

You can hear almost anything any day of the week but that doesn't make what you heard worth repeating much less publishing.

The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush and his Administration framed the invasion of IRAQ as the removal of an imminent menace and threat -- a ME terrorist supporter, a WMD threat to its immediate neighbors and the West -- just months after 9-11 AND at the same time Saddam Hussein played his hand that made him appear guilty of having forbidden WMD's, a threat to his neighbors and a threat the the West.

The opposition, including the DEMS at the time, were mostly silent or supportive of Bush and the Administration. Check the roll call votes.

Those few who did speak out against were wholly ineffectual b/c they provided no evidence or data to support their argument against invasion of Iraq. They argued for more time to deal with Saddam, but offered no evidence he would suddenly cooperate.

Thus, the Bush/Cheney war machine won the argument, day and vote based solely on the idea, authored by Saddam Hussein himself, that IRAQ posed an imminent threat to its neighbors, had WMD's and advanced weapon delivery technology and supported ME terrorists. SoS Powell's UN presentation was key, remember?

That Bushco and Saddam Hussein lied to us to sell the policy of pre-emptive invasion became evident, but only AFTER no WMD's were found in IRAQ by Sept/Oct of '03.

PK's use of baseless history revisionism, "I heard...", must STOP NOW.

PK writes "Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling — and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year."

Bubba says that it makes sense to Drill and Burn here even if it is not the answer to our near or long term energy problem. There is no harm in partial answers.

Bubba also says that those who blindly oppose all drilling and burning here at home are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

Bubba notes that new drilling and burning should be approached with environmental concerns addressed, not ignored, but not made the sole arbitrary reason to drill or burn or not.

Bubba says we need to try it all until something is found that works for us all: drill, burn, conserve, alternative fuels, etc.

We will know what "works" when corn is once again is grown solely for food and not fuel in the USA.

Let's keep everything on the table until we have a workable solution to our national energy needs.

Politicians that do not understand the above dynamic will not and cannot win national elections.

PK writes "In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country’s problems. It’s not going to happen — not as long as one of America’s two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy."

Bubba points out that in TN's 1st district Republican Primary election yesterday that a Republican challenger defeated the first term Republican incumbent for Congress.

Why? B/C the incumbent after his first term in office was considered by the voters to be TOO PARTISAN, i.e., he put Party ahead of people.

He spouted Republican Party talking points every time he came home and went on the air or in print to blast and blame DEMS for every problem facing America.

Not once did he admit that Bush and or the Republicans contributed or made any mistakes or miscalculation, in particular he blamed high gasoline prices on DEMS, the IRAQ war on DEMS, Afghanistan on DEMS, high food prices on DEMS, on and on.

He appeared out of touch and the electorate had enough of his blame game.

His opponent won b/c he ran on a slogan of 'People first not Politics'.

That primary is a small thing but it does indicate enough voters were fed up with the Far Right Conservative Republicans confrontational blame game politics, even in a highly reliable Republican Conservative district.

I bet the entire RNC HQ is on Valium this morning after yesterday's Primary results.

Things have not changed since the first days of our Democratic Republic and today I sound the same alarm as our Founding Fathers, 'God save us from factions', whether religious, military, industrial, agricultural, manufacturing, commercial, banking, political, sectional, regional, etc.

[Bruce Wilder]

piglet: "When a constitution is not regularly evaluated, debated and from time to time adapted to changed circumstances, it becomes petrified."

Maybe.

"This is the case in the US."

Not the case, at all.

The Constitution is formally amended from time to time, and, the doctrine of judicial review permits the Supreme Court to lead a process of continuously changing interpretation. Beyond the confines of the written Constitution, a small-c constitution of legislative procedure, party politics and tradition is evolving in practice all the time.

The real issue with a Constitution ought to be whether it offers sufficient institutional resistance to channel change -- so that political and social change run in a sustained direction, and don't just slosh around chaotically. The problem of getting dammed up is a special case, with a hazard of flood. But, the general problem is to provide a structure for orderly change, with as little unnecessary backsliding or meandering as possible.

I would submit that there's plenty of evidence that the American Constitution works reasonably well. Trace, for example, the rapid progress of gay rights in the U.S. to see how the law and the constitution facilitate the steady progress of even a rapid social change, by modest resistance.

The case of the Imperial Presidency, and the deliberate weakening of the barriers to authoritarianism by some dominating elements of the Republican Party, stands as a continuing Constitutional controversy. We will see the outcome within a few years, I would think. I am not wholly optimistic, with regard to the triumph of my personal preferences in the matter, but I think the Constitution, as a legal and institutional mechanism, has been working quite well.

[Lafayette]

swells: If something is truly impossible, how can it possibly be an appropriate yardstick by which to measure goodness or efficacy?

May I suggest that "impossibility" is not the base criteria.

I must refer back to your initial mention of morality, and the ability to model it, so as to show outcomes. Impossibility is not a matter of morality; but will, determination or physical stamina to arrive at a goal.

So, I admit to being lost when you mention impossibility. I do not see its relevance to morality.

[Lafayette]

BW: a small-c constitution of legislative procedure, party politics and tradition is evolving in practice all the time.

I quite agree with this remark. And, I think it is far more important to the effective functioning of democracy than BIG-C Constitution.

A Constitution is a set of primary rules, open to interpretation with context. It applies to the application of basic law.

The series of established behavioural patterns is something altogether different. It's like the unwritten but certainly well known protocols that you might have with your neighbor. You don't ring one another's doorbells at midnight for a cup of flour.

Congress bipartisanship is the same. The Reps transgressed the "unwritten rules" in attempting to impeach Billy-boy. Starr was clearly out to hand his ass from a DC flagpole, aided and abetted by a political party seeking electoral advantage.

Presidents, of all nations, have immunity from prosecution. There is good reason for this. The foremost of which is to avoid upsetting the conduct of government. If a PotUS transgresses the law, s/he can certainly be called to task once they step down. But, in office, unless their behaviour is seditious, they remain bound by their sworn oath to conduct the business of the nation.

Clinton was probably asking for what happened, I'll grant that. An intelligent man should not be caught thinking with his d*ck. Billy-boy was really quite stupid.

But the unwritten rules of inter-relational conduct were trespassed, I submit. They are as well in other circumstances, when parties try to outdo one another by occult means. The intent of democracy is to debate and take a vote, up or down; then proceed according to that vote.

Wiseacres have polluted the process. It seems, nowadays, that anything is fair to get one's hands on the levers of power. All that counts is power.

And the citizens be damned.

[roger]

im1dc, I took the sentence you object to differently. It wasn't a shot at hillbillies, but at Krugman's fellow columnist, Tom Friedman - Greenwald has often quoted the Friedman column in 2002 in which TF wrote that the axis of evil idea was stupid, and that is what he liked about it:

"No, the axis-of-evil idea isn't thought through -- but that's what I like about it. It says to these countries and their terrorist pals: "We know what you're cooking in your bathtubs. We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld -- he's even crazier than you are.'"

There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like, but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right."

I like it when Krugman spits in Friedman's eye.

[Patrick]

Speaking as a spectator looking at the show from the relative safety of Canada, I think that Krugman is spot on on his observation about the "real men don't think" disorder among politicians. And the disorder has spread to my country. Fortunately, it hasn't spread to the electorate. Yet. We at least used the option of installing a minority parliament and paralyzed the gov't. Let's agree, as good neighbors, to share a cure to this very dangerous disease if either of us finds one.

[kthomas]

Tom Friedman.....he's the king of butt-kissing journalism. After him would be that dopey guy from the Clear Eyes commercials (no, I will not bother to name him.)

[spencer]

SAVE THE RUSTBELT

You are going to have to remember to keep track of what you said before.

Don't you remember the "flap" over what type of military aircraft Pelos was entitled to in our new position as Speaker of the House.

SWhe no longer flies in a private jet.

[Bruce Wilder]

L: "The Reps transgressed the "unwritten rules" in attempting to impeach Billy-boy. Starr was clearly out to hand his ass from a DC flagpole, aided and abetted by a political party seeking electoral advantage."

I think the Republicans, including especially Starr, were deliberately trying to alter the small 'c' constitution, and succeeded. They poisoned the well of the Independent Prosecutor -- a necessary constitutional innovation from the Nixon era, which Republicans recognized as a constraint on their power-grabs -- and de-legitimized Impeachment, which had been elevated by the Democrats' careful and methodical moves to impeach Nixon. I believe that the Republicans -- especially the money men like Scaife and the insiders like Starr and Kristol -- knew that they were making way for the mad corruption of Bush (or something very much like it).

What I do not understand is the complacency of the Democrats -- from Bill Clinton through Nancy Pelosi. None of this matters to them, apparently. Maybe they think they are just being realistic, trying to avoid the high risk of a confrontation, which they fear they might lose -- but they're wrong about that: they are not being realistic, they are being cowardly. The failure to confront is losing the U.S. the merit of its political constitution.

[dilbert dogbert]

Did a Troll kidnap Save The Rust Belt?

[Bruce Wilder]

reason: "I don't think you can call an equivalence here."

Philip Combs: " . . . on these issues. This way of 'thinking' and 'governing' the Demcocrats differ not on iota from the Republicans."

I don't think that the two Parties are symmetrical mirror images of each, even if I don't think calling one stupid, (and by implication the other, smart,) gets at exactly how the Parties differ, or why American politics and political discourse have become dysfunctional.

Both Parties encompass lots of people, and many points of view. Their principles are necessarily simplistic, and their membership encompasses wide ranges of intellects and educational attainment.

But, it is the lack of strategic symmetry between the Parties, which gives rise to, not just the antipathies that lead partisans to call the other side, "stupid", but also the reliance on methods that promote "stupid" in the public discourse.

The Democratic Party forms its coalition differently from the Republican Party, and champions a different set of interests and worldviews. In recent years, worldview, [or ideology (though I doubt that many Americans have anything as elaborate as the European ideologies of the early to mid 20th century)] has become one of the dominant predictors of Party identification, alongside ethnic identity and socio-economic class and geographic origin.

The worldview that says, "I've got mine, screw you" is a Republican worldview. That contributes to "stupid".

Even though the Democratic Party in recent decades has been a loose coalition of "minority groups", as group identification has declined in importance, the Republicans have become, ironically, more intensely the Party of the Tribe.

The Republicans represent ("business" -- I use quotes to indicate I don't mean to insult legitimate business interests by association with crooks) interests and pursue agendas on the behalf of those interests, which are reprehensible, and cannot be honestly and openly espoused. Upward redistribution of income and wealth is not something you can further by plain-speaking. Slavery in the Marianas islands or Casino America lending the 'burbs or war-profiteering in Iraq are not causes that will win elections, if advocated for, openly and honestly.

Democrats don't have these problems. Most Democrats, rightly or wrongly, advocate for the broad interests of the country, for the poor and middle classes, for ordinary folk, in addition to legitimate business interests, if not "over" business interests. Most Democratic politicians can advocate openly and honestly for the policies they actually want to see enacted.

All the tension in American politics is over the labels Republicans attach to well-intended (although not always well-designed) policies advocated by Democrats, and the deceptive labels and theories Republicans use to cover their own policy desiderata. Every four years, the least-informed of American voters stick their heads into the political discourse for three weeks, and see "bickering" that they do not understand. They see a Republican acting the part of the hero, or the concerned father, reciting cliches of "toughness" and discipline and striving and self-reliance and a kind of idealism.

Somewhere right now, McCain is telling some (thankfully small) group how important it is to "win in Iraq" or how much he feels their pain over gas prices and food prices.

As long as the trusted Tribunes of the People in the Punditocrisy refuse to call the politicians on these lies, refuse honor the trust of people with lives by reporting on the politics of the Republican Party in action, the other 200 or so weeks of the election cycle, we are going to stuck with stupidity.

[Bruce Wilder]

dilbert dogbert: "Did a Troll kidnap Save The Rust Belt?"

STR has always been a troll.

[Bruce Wilder]

Swells, ddt and Lafayette et alia:

I enjoyed your symposium on morality and science.

It would seem to me that it is limits on cognitive reason, which make a simple consequentialism inferior to principles and imperatives of morality.

We make rules, because there is never enough information in present circumstances to be sure of making the "right" choice, based on anticipated consequences.

We can always refine our rules, narrowing and better defining the contexts in which the rules apply, as we accumulate and codify experience and knowledge.

But, in the end, we have rules precisely because our ability to anticipate consequences is severly limited.

In the context of our current politics, however, a lack of respect for well-established rules justifies the label, stupid.

"never get involved in a land war in Asia" would seem so obvious as to qualify as a joke, but no one told the history major from Yale, I guess.

[Patricia Shannon]

I once saw a statement that seemed to me encompass a large part of what I would consider morality:

The purpose of life is to maintain the gene pool.

To me it says that morality is not just that which helps oneself, or one's immediate family. It shows respect for diversity. Since we are in reality interdependent with each other and the rest of the interdependent web of life, it is a practical morality.

[Bruce Wilder]

PS: "morality: The purpose of life is to maintain the gene pool."

"maintain" seems like an ambiguous term -- surely it is not a mandate to keep the future gene pool exactly like the past gene pool

And, there would seem to elements of both competition and cooperation implied: a selfish desire to replicate one's own specific genes in the future gene pool, competes with a more altruistic desire to see that a gene pool continues to exist, in general; the desire to have some gene pool, and to accept that there are many genes in the pool, not only one's own, and even that allies are necessary and might have to be rewarded with space on the gene bus to the future, weighs against the wholly selfish imperative to have one's own, and, perhaps, as nearly as possible, only one's own, or only those friendly to one's self, survive.

It is out of those kinds of irreconcilable tensions that democratic politics is born. Morality, in my experience, not so much.

[Patricia Shannon]

Come on, Bruce, you know where I'm coming from.
However, your comments do illustrate the problem of a "rational" definition of morality, which will depend on one's values, which are dependent on emotions.

[Patricia Shannon]

Well, it's not as though the Bushies didn't give us fair warning when they ridiculed "reality-based" politics. What's wrong with the Democrats that they didn't hammer that. Or maybe they tried, but couldn't get it in the media.

Gegner voiced my own concerns about how muchwe can trust the results of elections. We know they Repubs have been trying, and at least sometimes succeeding, in rigging elections. But what's going on that never comes to light. I was told that the reason the Democrats didn't make a big stink about Republican shenanigans in the 2004 presidential election, esp. in Ohio, was that they were afraid the U.S. voters would give up voting if they lost faith in the electoral process.

Evidence of the conservatives stupidity is that they don't understand that the reason democracies tend to be more peaceful and prosperous is not that people can go to a voting booth and pull a lever, touch a screen, etc. It's that theyfeel there votes are fairly counted. Also, they will vote for corrective measures when things get too bad. For Bush to give bring democracy as a rational for attacking another country is mind-boggling.

[kotzabasis]

OhNoNotAgain

I "show" respect only for those who respect themselves, and Lafayette with all his merry-go-round pretensions does not belong in this category.

Chriss1519

I'm using the metrics of incontrovertible reality: Reduction of violence, the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, the defeat and disarming of the Mahdi militia, and the first strides of Iraq toward democracy which if they prove to be successful they will be planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. All of them encapsulated in the Bush Doctrine and which were the "endstates" of the neocons.

Now if this reality does not measure up with your metrics then all I can say is that your metrics are good only in measuring metaphysics.

[Bruce Wilder]

PS: "However, your comments do illustrate the problem of a "rational" definition of morality, which will depend on one's values, which are dependent on emotions."

I admire the rationalism of 18th century gentlemen, who would give great weight to the passions.

Being an institutionalist, my own view of morality and ethics, is that specific ethical injunctions only make meaningful sense within the context of an institutional regime, i.e. an existing scheme of rule-dominated social cooperation. Every institutional regime has an ethics approprite to its own rationalized functioning. Morality, though, can be a means for transcendant evaluation of institutions, using reason and empathetic imagination to levitate to a personally disinterested God's Eye view.

For the individual, qua individual and distinct and apart from the institutional arrangements that govern relations with others, ethics and morality give way, simply, to good and bad. For the individual, at base, perception of what is good, or bad, rests on feeling, appetite and taste, a moral sense and empathy for others, experienced (more than expressed) in desire, pleasure, suffering and disgust.

Emotions, which I take to have social functions and to relate, always, to social relations, help to give force and effect to the regulation of behavior within the social cooperation of institutions. So, I would tie emotion to ethics in that way. Ethics plus emotion is why we get mad at the guy, who cuts in line behind us.

Analyzing the complex regulation of rule-driven behavior within an institutional regime opens great scope for rational thought on specifically ethical behavior, because the institution can be thought of having an instrumental function for society as well as for the individual. I would contend that emotions are simply the tools of the institution, the entry points of society into the motivation of the individual.

So, society creates marriage as an institutional regime, for society's common purposes -- social stability, raising the next generation, property ownership, etc. It is the institution, which is a bundle of rules, that imposes ethical obligations that make sense in the context of the institution: don't cheat on your spouse, for example. Emotions are as much hooks as ethics, in attaching individuals to institutions and persuading them to follow the rules, cooperate in enforcing the rules, and so on.

At the level of biological base, humans just instinctively want to get laid, want to bond, want to (and can) fall in love, and so on. There's energy in such organic desires and passions, but no structure or shape or form or rules. All of the structure, shape, form, rules are supplied by the virtual reality of the institution, which channels the desires, passion and ambition of the individual into social cooperation. Both emotions and ethics combine to attach the individual to (imperfect) compliance with the institution and social cooperation as the structured means of satisfying idiosyncratic, organic needs, desires and impulses.

[Bruce Wilder]

k: "I'm using the metrics of incontrovertible reality: Reduction of violence, the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, the defeat and disarming of the Mahdi militia, and the first strides of Iraq toward democracy . . . "

I think you are confusing the Right-wing Noise Machine's continuing kabuki play version of the Iraq War with a reality, with which your are too little acquainted.

"Reduction in violence", I guess, is the new peace, like pink is the new black -- hopefully a short-lived fashion. You have scarcely any idea what the Mahdi Militia is, let alone why the U.S. should be the least bit interested in its vicissitudes.

Al Qaeda in Iraq?? "Defeating" Al Qaeda in Iraq is like defeating swatting a swarm of specially imported may flies with a $3 trillion sledge hammer, which we financed by borrowing from China -- not the kind of pointless, extravagant and unnecessary victory any sane person would celebrate.

[Patricia Shannon]

Bruce,
People who have had brain damage that causes them to lose emotion, also lose motivation, and lose response behavior. Emotion gives us our motivation, our drive. I certainly think rational thinking is important, but if you don't care about something, there is no reason to act in relation to it.

I agree with your statement:
Morality, though, can be a means for transcendant evaluation of institutions, using reason and empathetic imagination to levitate to a personally disinterested God's Eye view.

My experience is that many or most people would find such a disinterested view to be very difficult, maybe impossible, to attain, or even to imagine. Such a way of thinking takes effort, which requires motivation, which requires emotion. A narcissist or sociopath may have a brain that is simply incapable of such a way of thinking. (We all are narcissistic to some extent, it is necessary for survival. We are on a continuum in that regard.)

[kotzabasis]

Bruce-Starting from the end of your post, victory over a mortal foe is priceless and only the historically fatuous would not celebrate. The “Mahdi Militia” being the major combative militia against the coalition forces and you say that “the US should be the least bit interested in its vicissitudes.” In what kind of strategic cuckoo land are you domiciled?

But two words of your post provide the KEY to the secrets of your heart, “hopefully” and “unnecessary.”

By ‘discolouring’ the “reduction of violence” by your intellectually invented colours or rather by ‘defining’ it, “like pink is the new black—HOPEFULLY a short-lived fashion,” you show pellucidly that your HOPE lies in a future INCREASE of violence against the Iraqi people and the coalition forces, so you can justify your original misplaced antiwar stand and gratify as well your fervent anti-Bush emotions. And your UNNECESSARY victory over a deadly irreconcilable enemy reveals your historical blindness and ignorance as well as your bereftness of foresight.

Lastly, ironically by your own ‘unborrowed’ sledge hammer you knock yourself off your pedestal of “institutional ethical injunctions” as an outcome of your ‘secret’ wish to see the US defeated in this war, which as a nation is the foundation of your institutional moral existence, according to your own philosophical standards. This is intellectual, spiritual, and ethical SUICIDE at its best.

[anne]

"I'm using the metrics of incontrovertible reality...."

The metrics of incontrovertible lying....

[kotzabasis]

anne
It's a great pity to have on an 'intelligent' head such a bitter ugly tongue.

[Patricia Shannon]

That should have been "lose responsible behavior" in my previous comment

[anne]

I'm, like, "incontrovertible."

[anne]

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/looking/chapter6.html

1872

Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
By Lewis Carroll

Humpty Dumpty

There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t— till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master— that’s all.’

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them— particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’

‘Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice ‘what that means?’

‘Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ‘I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’

‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’

‘Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

‘Ah, you should see ’em come round me of a Saturday night,’ Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: ‘for to get their wages, you know.’

(Alice didn’t venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can’t tell you.)

[anne]

I'm, like all, the metrics of incontrovertible impenetrability.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Dilbert:

No, my cute and darling grandchildren kidnapped me to go fishing and to the park.

Bruce Wilder is the sort of sloganeering acerbic pseudo-wit who gives liberals a bad name and causes people to have second thoughts in polling places. Have a nice day Bruce.

If the Dems go off to wild-eyed lefty land Obama could lose.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Spencer:

Rumor was the private jet belonged to or was chartered by her rich hubby. Have not confirmed yet.

I actually would not mind her using an Air Force jet when appropriate, emphasis on appropriate.

[Lafayette]

kotzabullsh*t: It's a great pity to have on an 'intelligent' head such a bitter ugly tongue.

Why don't you take your "ad hominems" and go see if we are not elsewhere?

Really, you are OTT.

[Blissex]

«The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”»

But that's not just the Republican slogan, it is the general goal of USA advertising: impulse buying is a fabulous idea for salesmen.

And the USA consumers both for political and material goods have fallen for it big time.

As someone said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Eventually since it is a anti-survival meme/trait ("think before you leaf/vote/buy") it will burn itself out (just like no-kids women), and maybe in a few decades in the USA thinking carefully about issues and mutual support and insurance will make a comeback, but perhaps it will take something traumatic like the Depression did.

[anne]

By the way, I have several times been told by physics folks that air travel is especially inefficient in terms of emissions. But, I have no figures and have to ask. What portion of carbon emissions are caused by commercial and military air travel?

[Ryan]

"It's a great pity to have on an 'intelligent' head such a bitter ugly tongue."

Unfortunately, many of the intelligent heads around here are far more concerned with going on polysyllabic rants and personal attacks about nothing than actually making any sort of sense. Now, I despise wars as much, if not more, than your typical lefty, but it requires a self imposed blindness to contend that the US is losing the war in Iraq, and that Iraq isn’t slowly becoming more Democratic. Whether that constitutes a victory is a matter of arbitrary opinion.

[Ryan]

"By the way, I have several times been told by physics folks that air travel is especially inefficient in terms of emissions. But, I have no figures and have to ask. What portion of carbon emissions are caused by commercial and military air travel?"

From what I understand, a good portion of the issue in commercial flights is the routing, and not having direct flights. Comparably, planes are less efficient than cars, and definitely worse than buses or trains. Here's a couple links that would support that position. Of course, emissions aren't the end all be all of travel decisions.

http://evansparks.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/us-aviation-has-indeed-reduced-its-emissions/

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/10/17/

[anne]

"Now, I despise wars as much, if not more, than your typical lefty, but it requires a self imposed blindness to contend that the US is losing the war in Iraq, and that Iraq isn’t slowly becoming more Democratic."

Notice the language carefully; notice the use of lefty because we understand that being a lefty is to despise war even when lefties have for years been going about supporting wars and are especially doing so now. Also, of course, I understand that America has won the war in Iraq, because when millions of Iraqis are forced from country and homes, hundreds of thousands of killed, trillions of dollars are spent needlessly, we should at least have been able to, like, win. There is though the loveliness of a democratic vision of Iraq to sustain us, sort of a democracy of walls, walls, walls.

I get it.

[anne]

Ryan, thank you, but I only want to understand what the relative energy consumption of air travel amount to and the relative emissions efficiency. I have no idea what I will find. The air travel issue may be of little general significance.

I thought I read authoritatively that 40% of emissions in America was from electricity generation, and 20% from travel. I know the date come from an "Earth Policy" paper, but where?

[anne]

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006.htm

November 21, 2006

2005 Another Record Year for Global Carbon Emissions
By Joseph A. Florence

Some 40 percent of energy-related emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, to generate electrical power. The transportation sector is the second-largest source worldwide, responsible for 20 percent of all carbon emitted. Residential and commercial buildings account for roughly 15 percent of the total, and the industrial sector, another 15 percent. The remaining 10 percent of energy-related emissions come from a variety of minor uses, including fuels burned by sea-going ships....

[Julio]

Typo of the day: Today it was Ryan's

...it requires a self imposed blindness to contend ... that Iraq isn’t slowly becoming more Democratic (sic).

I'll have to think about that one...

[anne]

Clever.

[Julio]

kotzabasis:

...victory over a mortal foe is priceless and only the historically fatuous would not celebrate. The “Mahdi Militia” being the major combative militia against the coalition forces and you say that “the US should be the least bit interested in its vicissitudes.” In what kind of strategic cuckoo land are you domiciled?

Er, why are they fighting us? Is it maybe because we're there?

"We're fighting them there so we don't have to ignore them here"?

While we're on the subject, if 20,000 extra troops were all that was needed to make the difference between horrible disastrous violence and "victory", WTF were our leaders doing since 2003?

Me, I'm giving a $20 tip to the word "surge". It has sure worked overtime.

[Cyrille]

Er, "winning the war" (gotta put quotes to that -there is no war in Iraq at the moment, other than a civil war, but that's something USA can't win because it's not part of Iraq, remember) measured by a reduction in violence and the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that should be core to the "Bush doctrine" (that too needed quotes -and a laugh).

So, apart from the fact that the invasion was said to be about something else entirely (the refusal to let inspectors check that there were no WMDs -yes, I know, inspectors actually were in Iraq, but what's a contradiction to a Repbublican?), I wonder:
-how much LESS violence is there now in Iraq than there were in 2002?
-Since there was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, if the "winning the war" is to be measured by some defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq, there needs to be a significantly negative quantity of it at the end. I wonder how that will be achieved.

Other than that, do keep propaganding along.

[ken melvin]

Were it the additional 20k or the $300/mo to the 100k Sunnis that decreased the level of violence?

As to victory, There can be no victory resulting from an illegal, immoral invasion. In addition the 4k plus dead Americans and tens of thousands horribly wounded, any tally must include the illegality and immorality of the invasion, the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis; the loss of global standing, the lost opportunities here at home, ...

[Bruce Wilder]

Ryan: "Whether that constitutes a victory is a matter of arbitrary opinion."

When "victory" becomes a matter of arbitrary opinion, it loses its meaning altogether.

The U.S. has "lost" in Iraq, not in the sense that it has been defeated by any recognizable, political or military foe, but because of all the costs of immoral and ill-considered action, that ken melvin articulates, in a conflict where the only constant foe has been our own moral integrity.

[RW]

And so we come full circle back to Krugman's essential point: The venality and stupidity of those who falsely led us into unnecessary war is sustained and even actively promoted by those who would substitute ad hominem, specious data, sophistry, ...anything to avoid confession, the terrible possibility that they, no all of us, were duped into supporting a wrong.

It is a thought I have had from time to time even in regards to those in PNAC and others most deeply immersed in wrong-doing, in deploying our country in pursuit of their selfish or apocalyptic purpose. They may not believe they need that cleansing ...now, but: When the inevitable becomes clear, when they must know beyond all need to know further that they have sanctioned murder, violated their oaths of office, to whom will they confess ...and will that confession be accepted?

[Lafayette]

Religious sophistry

RW: those who falsely led us into unnecessary war is sustained and even actively promoted by those who would substitute ad hominem, specious data, sophistry

Let’s remember why that sophistry worked. Because a gullible American public was willing to believe that Saddam’s time was up, and that he had met his match in this current lead-head of a PotUS.

The question remains: Why did this happen?

Let’s remember, initially, the War on Saddam was popular. And, since nothing succeeds like success, Americans thought that war “won”. Lead-head basked in the reflected sunshine. It took years to convince Americans otherwise.

Upon reflection, one wonders if the notion of God-willed Invincibility or Just Cause has not become firmly inculcated within the American mentality. Religion is to Americans about as fundamental as it is to Muslims. Religion shapes the way they live their lives for both. European Christians are more ambivalent religiously. (If the census data showing religious practice is to be believed.)

Is it not entirely possible that Americans have come to believe that, because of their religion, they can do no wrong? And, if so, is this not religious sophistry? (Of the same kind that set the European Crusaders off centuries ago to re-conquer the Holy Land?)

Would a Just God take sides to determine destiny? Why? If a Just God created heaven and earth and humanity, why would that Just God demonstrate preferences?

I must admit, the sort of reasoning employed that mixes religion and politics befuddles me personally. I am convinced that the Founding Fathers, who knew all too well how such created an unjust autocracy in Europe, intended willingly for our nation to avoid such entrapment.

[Richard H. Serlin]

Krugman very deservingly calls today's Republicans the party of stupid, but one could also call them the party of debt: government debt, turning record surpluses to record deficits in just one administration; personal debt, bringing the savings rate to negative numbers for the first time since the height of the great depression, and environmental debt with an ever greater debt to be paid in the future in profound risk from global warming.

Of course there are many things you could call this party that's reached such a historically disgraceful low, the party of corruption, the party of deceit, the party of, by, and for the super rich, to name a few.