Truth and Politics

A professor of mine, an avowed anarchist and 1960’s activist, once said to me “politics is the battle over the definition of reality.” At the time, this struck me as a profound observation, but years and experience have changed my understanding of the matter.

As a description of the way some idealistic political agents view their careers, I think Professor Ward was quite right. As a description of fact, an epistemological theory if you will, I can think of few things more disturbing than the idea that the political process itself is a truth-producing enterprise. Collective bargaining, dispute resolution, mobilization of resources, these are problems which can be solved through politicking.

To suggest for even a moment that politicians are or should be engaged with defining reality strikes me as not only incorrect but terrifying in its implications. Political acts are by definition divorced from the truth; they are inherently deceitful.

To make themselves palatable to diverse audiences, politicians abuse our language and our psychological weaknesses to make us believe that we share their opinions; on the basis of this “popular consensus,” they claim a mandate to wield power.

Upon closer inspection, the apparent consensus dissolves immediately.

Political agents not only do but must conceal their true beliefs from the pubic at large to attain and maintain power. Even if their parties did not openly demand it of them, the subjective nature of most political questions renders true consensus technically impossible. National consensus is a convenient fiction that has propped up the governments of the world for generations.

Asserting true national unity is akin to claiming in philosophical debate that one has once and for all proved the triumph of free will over determinism. Both assertions are usually accompanied by appeals to some deity or other and arguments that loop back on themselves with dizzying speed.

Truth is the result of conflict only in the sense that it is arrived at when the exhausted combatants see the absurdity of their battle and lay down their arms. Far from troubling, I find voter apathy in the U.S. a heartening sign that most people have noticed just how petty and pointless the political discourse in this country has become.

Now if everybody would just stop paying their taxes as well we might get somewhere. . .

Fun with Crack

Hey Crackhead

While this rant is set in San Fran rather than DC, it is still hillarious.

Enjoy.

A Kinder, Gentler Fascism

http://bureaucrash.com/blog/could_it_be_true

The Next World War

With people like Newt Gingrich announcing the beginning of World War III, the current conflict in the Middle East deserves at least some comment.

Let us for a moment concede that World War III is real. None the less, the interpretation of the conflict that America’s Republicans advance is all backwards and upside down.

What we are seeing is not the “Islamo-Fascists” against the “Free World.” These terms themselves are devoid of content; the vocabulary is purely persuasive rather than descriptive.

Fascists evil. Terror bad. Islamists wrong.

Freedom good. War necessary. America great.

Ya, ya, we all get it already.

The forces arrayed against the United States Government certainly do reject the “U.S. model,” but this rejection has very little to do with rejecting the values that supposedly define us. For some time now, our politicians have paid lip service to the values of market capitalism and representative democracy while increasing the role of the state both at home and abroad in allocating resources and directing economic activity. The state does these things poorly, and as a result, most of the world has stayed poor.

U.S. policy both assumes and attempts to create stable and sovereign states with fixed borders and the capacity to control their territory. These states are viewed as the only legitimate intermediaries between the populations they represent, the only legitimate conduits for goods and services, the eyes, ears, and voices of the people. This view has been bypassed by reality. The world is increasingly integrated and interdependent despite the best efforts of nationalists everywhere to maintain the provincial system that they inherited.

The statist/nationalist bent that infects the U.S. policy community is incompatible with true freedom because it implies that there is a legitimate role for the state in restricting the flow of goods, people, and ideas. The state as we know it is conservative and repressive by definition. Its employs violence and coercion as it sees fit, and maintains itself as sovereign to the exclusion of other goals.

U.S. policy is schizophrenic because it claims to want both strong states and individual rights. The tension between these goals is evident in the history of our policy toward the developing world.

We have toppled stable sovereign states because they were not sufficiently free, yet for decades we refused to approve of freedom-augmenting reforms across the developing world because they might have upset the highly profitable status-quo.

This is a vulnerable and hypocritical position. The problem as I see it is not that the “U.S. model” is under siege. In fact, our foreign and domestic policy demand immediate reform. Rather, the problem is that the opposition so far has come from the wrong direction.

The most serious and dedicated critics of U.S. policy in the modern world believe that the problem with the U.S. model is not that it advocates structures that are inimical to human freedom. Rather, they criticize it on the grounds that it does not permit the sort of centralized command and control they deem necessary to overcome poverty and resist foreign influence. They see the strengthening of the nation state, the augmentation of its ability to coerce its citizens and mediate their interaction with the outside world, as the objective of their resistance to the U.S.

The hyper-nationalists have dominated the world stage in part because their tactics and rhetoric are hyper-dramatic (martial parades, fiery speeches, and shiny new government programs). Unfortunately for the vast majority of humankind, the humanists of the world have been asleep at the wheel, unwilling since the 1960’s to say anything truly radical and unable to frame their objections in terms that capture the imagination of the silent majority. Unless we humanists wake up and make ourselves heard, the nationalists may succeed in carving up the globe once again.

This all too seductive path is one of ignorance, war, and decline. The current international order is dysfunctional and will be reformed or replaced one way or another, but we must decide now if we will push forward with the integration of the world or fall back into the comfortable and deadly provincialism that dominated for some many millennia. This is the next World War, and we are losing it already.

Can You Say Gerrymandering Boys and Girls? There, I Knew That You Could.

In this era of shrill partisan bickering, the one issue that draws the politicians of this country together, the one task that is confronted with true bipartisan effort, with sustained and focused attention is not securing the nation’s borders, not Medicare reform, not even increasing Congressional salaries.

No, it is Congressional redistricting that brings our legislators to the bargaining table sober and calm, their wind bags safely at home, their discourse respectful and honest.

Why, you might ask, would something so mundane create this reaction when the threats of economic decline and catastrophic war do nothing to halt the ceaseless point-scoring and self aggrandizement?

The answer is quite simple. However much any individual Congressman might wish to dance on the ashes of the other party’s delegation, the imperative he faces is to preserve his own place in the legislature.

The only way to do this – short of changing one’s views to align with the interests of the district that one represents of course – is for Congressmen to exchange opposition strongholds in their own districts for pieces of territory in their neighbor’s districts that consistently vote against their representatives. This is a true win-win situation for the Congressmen involved.

Even more than the complex problem of campaign finance reform, gerrymandering is responsible for the fact that it is almost impossible to oust incumbent legislators or to win on a third-party ticket in this country.

As one unusually candid and responsible congressman friend commented when asked if he though he would win reelection, “Well, unless they find me in bed with a live boy or a dead girl...”

The terrifying fact is, gross incompetence and bold disregard for the most pressing issues facing the nation are no longer enough to merit removal from state’s highest assembly. Our lawmakers lead long and illustrious careers based on character traits that would have a 7-11 clerk pounding the pavement in a week.

The vast majority of our politicians are not legal scholars, not skilled statesmen, not even wise observers of human nature. Most lack even the most basic understanding of economics, and habitually avoid philosophical debates about the proper role of the state they command. The dirty secret of Congress is that, after all the schmoozing, pandering, kissing babies, and being taken to lunch, representatives haven’t the time to even read legislation before voting on it (much less make solemn deliberations about its merits).

They have become professional election winners who are qualified to do little else.

Allow me to propose a very simple constitutional amendment that will never ever be put into law but which would solve our incumbency problem overnight. Rather than allowing congressmen to carve up the country however they like, the law would state that all congressional districts must approximate contiguous squares with the precise boundaries determined only by state boundaries, major roads, bodies of water, and topographical contours.

These districts would be sufficiently diverse to put the traditional political class out of business. This would allow the return of true representatives, citizens who take a few years from their real careers to serve their fellow men.

This was the idea of a house of representatives in the first place, but without proper control and oversight, the temptation was too strong for our Congressmen to resist.