I have read several books lately by John Kenneth Galbraith; while they are older, they are very informative. In “The Affluent Society” I think he was still formulating some of his later ideas but he has a whole chapter on conventional wisdom. When you break it down to its simplest explanation conventional wisdom is simply what most people find acceptable. This doesn’t seem completely negative until you start to consider what that really means in that it is simply the net average of the most common shortcut to understanding.
Conventional wisdom therefore can be a very functionally useless but dogmatic and dangerous thing when applied to politics, economics, or any other social based and therefore intricately complicated process. Because these processes inherently contain so many different variables they are constantly changing; often rapidly. In other words, since these fields are affected by an almost limitless array of variables, the rate of change in the basic laws of social systems is likely to be exponential. Therefore, a constantly evolving understanding is necessary to deal effectively with these changes. This requires a great deal of effort and concentrated study just to keep abreast of changing conditions so that one can even begin to know how to deal effectively with basic social concerns. Conventional wisdom, by its very nature, is fundamentally incapable of effectively dealing with changing circumstance yet it is the core principle of most of our modern political parties.
In other words, politicians cannot get elected unless they understand how to play upon most people’s perception of conventional wisdom. It is an absolute necessity for success at the polls in our modern system. The logical inverse to this is the ability to gain political power by controlling media so that you can shape conventional wisdom; now you have something that is infinitely powerful even though it is also functionally unable to deal with changing circumstance. The very tool that tends to strengthen a candidates ability to get elected weakens his ability to effectively govern. The upshot is that politicians cannot ever really go against conventional wisdom without alienating their own voter base. Unfortunately, this rules out the ability to innovate and deal with issues in a proactive way. Instead, politicians must wait for conventional wisdom to convincingly fail in order to prove the necessity for innovation. Conventional wisdom is the natural enemy of innovation of any kind. Therefore, both in the field of economics and politics what we have are groups of people steadfastly devoted to anachronistic systems that are outdated but cannot be discarded until they completely collapse. At that point, innovation must come about to solve the issue and we start the whole cycle all over with this innovation now becoming the new Conventional wisdom to be protected against further innovation until it also fails because it is not allowed to innovate for changing circumstance; ignoring the truth that circumstance is always changing.
Most of our social beliefs and economic theories have historically been controlled by this cyclical process of conservative resistance to change followed by failure. We are always far behind in reacting to change because we are so enamored with conventional wisdom and the mental laziness that nurtures it. Imagine if we took this model and applied it to scientific studies (although it could be argued that this is exactly what creationist theory is all about). We would still be riding horses and struggling to grow enough food to eat every day. For some reason we have accepted that our understanding of science is constantly evolving and that every theory is just that…. a theory that only remains to be proven wrong before we adapt a new one. Yet in the social sciences of economics and politics we treasure conventional wisdom and will often violently oppose innovation that threatens it. I would venture to say that most wars can actually be traced to this kind of collision between circumstance and conventional wisdom that becomes both outdated and fanatically defended.
This is exactly the reason why American politics is so enamored of opinion polls. Successful politicians are not leading they are following. Any successful politician on the American political scene today is much more interested in finding out what the majority of the voting public believes than actually searching out solutions to problems that come from ever changing circumstance. This tendency is not limited to one political party or another. It is also not limited to conservatives vs. liberals as both are equally careful to avoid contradicting the perceived conventional wisdom of the voter base that put them into office. The key to power is holding office, not in effectively governing once elected. Unfortunately, this pandering to conventional wisdom of any kind is the exact opposite of the innovation that is needed to solve the issues arising from the circumstantial complexity of the social and economic spectrum.
While there is a growing effort to control conventional wisdom by propaganda in this country there seems to be no effort to understand the real problem behind our inability to deal with changing circumstance; our fundamental reliance on conventional wisdom and its inherent inability to deal with change. It is the crippling deformity that paralyzes our government from the very top downward. We seem much more interested in finding men who have the wisdom to spout our own beliefs back at us than finding men who want to solve problems. What we need is the understanding that, like scientific knowledge, political expertise must first accept the premise that every theory is only as good as its most recent proven effectiveness for dealing with problems. We seem to value politicians who are principled beyond those who are willing to innovate. To be seen as someone who “flip-flops” on the issues is to be seen as politically weak or possibly even corrupt and is usually the death knell of an election effort. Innovation in almost all fields is well understood to be both desirable and necessary to increase efficiency but innovation in political or economic fields is looked upon as weakness or worse yet, fundamentally foolish.
The term Conservative in its most basic sense implies an effort to preserve. This preservation can extend to many different areas or beliefs but is most often a basic resistance to change and supports the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports in society. While most conservatives would probably agree that a certain amount of change in society is inevitable, it is their basic belief that the amount of change should be minimal so as to provide stability. Unfortunately, this puts them in the insupportable position of resisting change in a modern world where technological advancement has literally exploded in the last 30 years. The fields of modern communications, economics, manufacturing, and energy are vastly different than they were just a short time ago. Advances in these fields have impacted every strata of modern society and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The conventional wisdom of the conservative agenda is quite literally unable to deal with how these changes have impacted society effectively. To be fair conventional wisdom in any form is incapable of dealing with innovation but a political movement that insists in basing its core beliefs on conventional wisdom to the exclusion of innovation is especially prone to this tendency. Abraham Lincoln was fond of explaining to his detractors that he “dealt with circumstances as he found them” rather than trying to control them to meet his preconceived beliefs. It is that spirit of understanding that we need to promulgate in politics and economics today. The spirit of modern conservatism can be captured in two observations.
1) Those who have power are the most anxious to maintain the status quo.
2) Fear of the unknown is directly proportional to how comfortable you are right now.
It is my own basic antithesis to the idea that conventional wisdom is an effective means of governance that leads me to say that I am not a Conservative. It is this same understanding that deeply confounds me when so many people who are obviously at the bottom of the social strata proudly proclaim that they are.
Showing posts with label local politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Tea Party of the Religious Right?
Being unusually interested in the idea of government of the people, by the people I sometimes find myself drawn to movements who purport to express such sentiments. I would basically define my political leanings as moderate to libertarian, depending on which particular issue I happen to be pondering at the moment. I reserve the right to be proven wrong and jump at the chance to learn something new with the reservation that I don't like smoke being blown up my ass, no matter what particularly fine blend it might happen to be.
Recently I have noticed some excitement over a grassroots movement known as the Tea Party Movement. Portraying itself as a movement of the "we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" type I have noticed it has a decided leaning to the right of the political spectrum judging by its loudest proponents but as it defines itself as a movement of the people I found the idea interesting. Anything that can stir the American public beyond its lethargy of an American Idol Dancing with the Stars induced coma could be a step in the right direction. Of course the original Tea Party which illegally dumped what in today’s terms would amount to some one million dollars worth of private property into the sea can be construed many ways depending on what perspective you have. Still, it is a little ironic that so many right wing conservatives with their mantra of private property rights would seize upon an incident whereby private property was randomly destroyed to make a political point as the fulcrum upon which to leverage their arguments.
On a recent edition of a local morning talk show that I sometimes listen to I was interested to hear two of the founders of the Tea Party Movement here in Huntsville discussing their movement. One of the basic tenets they were espousing that day had to do with trying to force candidates for office to stand on their principles. In other words, the representative of the group on the show was asking that politicians simply stand up for what they believe in rather than pander to whatever idea seems the most likely to get the most votes. I have long held the opinion that this would be a marked improvement over the way elections are currently carried out so I was interested to learn more about this movement. I was directed to their website to further my education about their purpose.
The website proposed that the purpose of the group was to promote their core principles in each and every level of government:
“fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual freedoms, and the free market system”
I found these principles to be much in line with most of my own core principles so I did a little more perusing of the website. It occurred to me that these principles are about as vague and general as one could possibly get but I liked them just the same. Still, I wonder if a group that is interested in getting a candidate for political office to stand up for his principles would accept these as a statement of his purposes. I decided that if the group was incredibly naïve and vacuous they probably would but most intelligent individuals would require more information about a candidate before deciding whether to throw their support his or her direction. Maybe there is a difference in a candidate and a political group as far as how specific they should be in espousing their principles but I suspect there probably shouldn’t be.
One of the sections of the Huntsville Tea Party website listed books that presumably would further the reader’s understandings of what the movement’s core principles are. After all, if I am being asked to contribute money and support to such a group I would like to know what I am contributing to in a little more detail than such a vague statement of values. An alarm bell went off when I saw some of the books on the recommended reading list. “Original Intent” and “America’s Godly Heritage” by David Barton were the first two that seemed to be noticeably out of place on a website considering “individual freedoms” to be one of their main tenets. I am pretty familiar with Mr. Barton and his ideology. Mr. Barton is founder of a movement known as “Wall Builders” which is dedicated to tearing down the wall between church and state in our constitutional government. His movement seeks to inculcate Christian ideology into our school systems through the means of historical revision and outright deception by numerous dubious and disproven claims among which one is how the Supreme Court has misquoted Jefferson in making its separation of church and state a part of our legal edifice. Mr. Barton himself claims that he received a message from God to study SAT scores and compare the decline in said scores with the removal of religious prayer in public schools. Evidently, God is punishing us for no longer praying in school by making morons out of our children. I presume all the locusts and frogs were too busy elsewhere or he was too busy causing earthquakes in Haiti to punish them for making deals with the devil to remove the French so he just decided to make our children stupid instead. Besides, it would be a more directly cause and affect relationship so that such brilliant oracles as Mr. Barton could more easily make the connection between the terribly devastating effect of removing prayer from school and the fact that our education system is failing. Forget all that stuff about more money and better teachers; just start praying in school again and we will instantaneously turn a failed system back into the shining example of education it was in the good old days.
As far back in history as you care to look you will be hard pressed to find many instances where conservative religious leaders have been champions of “personal freedoms” and it doesn’t appear that they are today either. Mr. Barton’s group lists their goals as follows:
WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.
I suppose this could be construed as championing personal freedom; provided of course you either don’t understand anything at all about what either term actually means or you are simply so ignorant of history that you never heard of inquisitions or dark ages.
The second author on the list is a man named H. L. (Bill) Richardson who is the founder of Gun Owners of America amongst other things. Mr. Richardson is an ex Senator from California who is also the author of “Slightly to the Right” which is somewhat of a conservative primer for taking on the Communists and Socialists amongst us. In June of 2009 he posted the following in a blog in response to a question as to what could be done to correct the political problems we have today:
“No matter what the response, I have to tell them anyway. Why? Because the Scripture tells me that if I know the answer, I should give them an ear full. In Ezekiel 3:18, the prophet Ezekiel was told to inform the people to shape up or else. The Lord commanded him to tell the impudent and stubborn children, both the good and the bad ones, to repent and ask for forgiveness. God told Ezekiel that if he didn't tell them, their blood was on his hands. What was good advice for Ezekiel was meant for all of us today. If we know and don't tell, the blood is on our hands as well.”
Presumably, this message was delivered from something less than a burning bush but with no less authority. Mr. Richardson later in the same blog goes on to describe Darwin as “thoroughly discredited and debunked my modern science, logic and time.” I would surmise that he is also a proponent of the same “intelligent design” theories that Mr. Barton is pushing so hard to have inserted into our public school system. Once again, an agenda that seems somehow diametrically opposed to the core belief of “personal freedom”.
I was concerned to find such rabid Bible thumpers on the Tea Parties recommended reading site but more concerned that the group itself couldn’t seem to recognize the disparity between what they say they promote and the thoughts contained in their recommended reading section so I contacted the local leader of the group via email to point out these discrepancies. This leader was kind enough to respond to my email with an email that included the following:
“The purpose of the Huntsville Tea Party is not at all to promote specific religious agenda. It is to teach, promote, and secure our core principles: limited govt, fiscal responsibility, individual rights, and free market.”
She explained that she hadn’t actually read any of these books but the “core leadership” of the group recommended them. Because this seems to be very much where I started in researching their site I responded by asking how it is possible to promote such an agenda while simultaneously recommending literature which is diametrically opposed to one of these basic principles. I have yet to receive a reply to my last question but I will be glad to pass it on when I do.
It seems that the Huntsville Tea Party is pretty good at saying one thing while simultaneously doing something else. Maybe they should run for office. No wait… I have a better idea; they shouldn’t actually run for office or put an agenda out there so that everyone knows what they stand for because they could easily gain more power by simply telling everyone else who to vote for while simultaneously hiding their own agenda.
Recently I have noticed some excitement over a grassroots movement known as the Tea Party Movement. Portraying itself as a movement of the "we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" type I have noticed it has a decided leaning to the right of the political spectrum judging by its loudest proponents but as it defines itself as a movement of the people I found the idea interesting. Anything that can stir the American public beyond its lethargy of an American Idol Dancing with the Stars induced coma could be a step in the right direction. Of course the original Tea Party which illegally dumped what in today’s terms would amount to some one million dollars worth of private property into the sea can be construed many ways depending on what perspective you have. Still, it is a little ironic that so many right wing conservatives with their mantra of private property rights would seize upon an incident whereby private property was randomly destroyed to make a political point as the fulcrum upon which to leverage their arguments.
On a recent edition of a local morning talk show that I sometimes listen to I was interested to hear two of the founders of the Tea Party Movement here in Huntsville discussing their movement. One of the basic tenets they were espousing that day had to do with trying to force candidates for office to stand on their principles. In other words, the representative of the group on the show was asking that politicians simply stand up for what they believe in rather than pander to whatever idea seems the most likely to get the most votes. I have long held the opinion that this would be a marked improvement over the way elections are currently carried out so I was interested to learn more about this movement. I was directed to their website to further my education about their purpose.
The website proposed that the purpose of the group was to promote their core principles in each and every level of government:
“fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual freedoms, and the free market system”
I found these principles to be much in line with most of my own core principles so I did a little more perusing of the website. It occurred to me that these principles are about as vague and general as one could possibly get but I liked them just the same. Still, I wonder if a group that is interested in getting a candidate for political office to stand up for his principles would accept these as a statement of his purposes. I decided that if the group was incredibly naïve and vacuous they probably would but most intelligent individuals would require more information about a candidate before deciding whether to throw their support his or her direction. Maybe there is a difference in a candidate and a political group as far as how specific they should be in espousing their principles but I suspect there probably shouldn’t be.
One of the sections of the Huntsville Tea Party website listed books that presumably would further the reader’s understandings of what the movement’s core principles are. After all, if I am being asked to contribute money and support to such a group I would like to know what I am contributing to in a little more detail than such a vague statement of values. An alarm bell went off when I saw some of the books on the recommended reading list. “Original Intent” and “America’s Godly Heritage” by David Barton were the first two that seemed to be noticeably out of place on a website considering “individual freedoms” to be one of their main tenets. I am pretty familiar with Mr. Barton and his ideology. Mr. Barton is founder of a movement known as “Wall Builders” which is dedicated to tearing down the wall between church and state in our constitutional government. His movement seeks to inculcate Christian ideology into our school systems through the means of historical revision and outright deception by numerous dubious and disproven claims among which one is how the Supreme Court has misquoted Jefferson in making its separation of church and state a part of our legal edifice. Mr. Barton himself claims that he received a message from God to study SAT scores and compare the decline in said scores with the removal of religious prayer in public schools. Evidently, God is punishing us for no longer praying in school by making morons out of our children. I presume all the locusts and frogs were too busy elsewhere or he was too busy causing earthquakes in Haiti to punish them for making deals with the devil to remove the French so he just decided to make our children stupid instead. Besides, it would be a more directly cause and affect relationship so that such brilliant oracles as Mr. Barton could more easily make the connection between the terribly devastating effect of removing prayer from school and the fact that our education system is failing. Forget all that stuff about more money and better teachers; just start praying in school again and we will instantaneously turn a failed system back into the shining example of education it was in the good old days.
As far back in history as you care to look you will be hard pressed to find many instances where conservative religious leaders have been champions of “personal freedoms” and it doesn’t appear that they are today either. Mr. Barton’s group lists their goals as follows:
WallBuilders' goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.
I suppose this could be construed as championing personal freedom; provided of course you either don’t understand anything at all about what either term actually means or you are simply so ignorant of history that you never heard of inquisitions or dark ages.
The second author on the list is a man named H. L. (Bill) Richardson who is the founder of Gun Owners of America amongst other things. Mr. Richardson is an ex Senator from California who is also the author of “Slightly to the Right” which is somewhat of a conservative primer for taking on the Communists and Socialists amongst us. In June of 2009 he posted the following in a blog in response to a question as to what could be done to correct the political problems we have today:
“No matter what the response, I have to tell them anyway. Why? Because the Scripture tells me that if I know the answer, I should give them an ear full. In Ezekiel 3:18, the prophet Ezekiel was told to inform the people to shape up or else. The Lord commanded him to tell the impudent and stubborn children, both the good and the bad ones, to repent and ask for forgiveness. God told Ezekiel that if he didn't tell them, their blood was on his hands. What was good advice for Ezekiel was meant for all of us today. If we know and don't tell, the blood is on our hands as well.”
Presumably, this message was delivered from something less than a burning bush but with no less authority. Mr. Richardson later in the same blog goes on to describe Darwin as “thoroughly discredited and debunked my modern science, logic and time.” I would surmise that he is also a proponent of the same “intelligent design” theories that Mr. Barton is pushing so hard to have inserted into our public school system. Once again, an agenda that seems somehow diametrically opposed to the core belief of “personal freedom”.
I was concerned to find such rabid Bible thumpers on the Tea Parties recommended reading site but more concerned that the group itself couldn’t seem to recognize the disparity between what they say they promote and the thoughts contained in their recommended reading section so I contacted the local leader of the group via email to point out these discrepancies. This leader was kind enough to respond to my email with an email that included the following:
“The purpose of the Huntsville Tea Party is not at all to promote specific religious agenda. It is to teach, promote, and secure our core principles: limited govt, fiscal responsibility, individual rights, and free market.”
She explained that she hadn’t actually read any of these books but the “core leadership” of the group recommended them. Because this seems to be very much where I started in researching their site I responded by asking how it is possible to promote such an agenda while simultaneously recommending literature which is diametrically opposed to one of these basic principles. I have yet to receive a reply to my last question but I will be glad to pass it on when I do.
It seems that the Huntsville Tea Party is pretty good at saying one thing while simultaneously doing something else. Maybe they should run for office. No wait… I have a better idea; they shouldn’t actually run for office or put an agenda out there so that everyone knows what they stand for because they could easily gain more power by simply telling everyone else who to vote for while simultaneously hiding their own agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)