Political Sphere

We typically think of the political "spectrum" as representing the differences between liberals on the "Left" and conservatives on the "Right." 

But this linear view fails to emphasize an important distinction that exists within both the Left and the Right: Blind Belief vs Rational Skepticism. If we add this dimension, the political world is better represented by a sphere divided into four quadrants:

Blind believers refuse to compromise, even when confronted with contrary evidence. Blind believers move forward motivated by the faith in their own beliefs. 

Rational skeptics willingly admit when the 'other side' has valid points and they keep open the possibility that they may be wrong. Rational skeptics move forward by evaluating and selecting the most logical approach or answers. 

To be clear, this is not the same as being a "moderate" versus being "extreme." 

Rather, there is a fundamental difference between a Blind Believer and Rational Skeptic akin to the difference between religious belief and the scientific method. Skepticism is a process for analyzing a belief. Skeptics attempt to use an objective thought process when evaluating public policy. Blind believers borrow a set of ideas from someone else and defend those beliefs with great fervor regardless of the evidence.

To be sure, we all do some things motivated by our unquestioned beliefs, while some of our actions are carefully considered. It is an internal spectrum as much as it distinguishes those within different political groups.

In this election cycle, the Left's blind believers rallied behind Bernie Sanders, an enigmatic and energetic idealist who promised free healthcare, free college and efforts to "save the planet." 

But the Left's rational skeptics supported Hillary Clinton, whose views and actions suggest she better understands that politics is not religion, but the difficult art of reconciling conflicting public interests.

On the Right, you have no trouble finding the blind believers, strongly represented by the entire Republican Party and its multitude of Presidential candidates. 

Donald Trump may not believe (or even understand) traditional conservative political philosophy, but he resides firmly in the "believer" quadrant because he blindly believes in his own abilities and intellect. He does not let rational coherence interfere with his proclamations.

Rational skepticism arrives in conservative political philosophy under the guise of the "Libertarian." My conservative friends who have long declared they are "Republicans" now succumb to my arguments with, "well, I'm not so much a Republican anymore as I am a 'Libertarian." And this may be the long awaited Third Party that finally gains traction.... 

At least it appears that Gary Johnson, the "Libertarian" candidate, fits better in the conservative rational skeptic category than any other current Presidential candidate. He's willing to look at the evidence against the "War on Drugs," for example, and come to the conclusion it is a failure. But he does appear to reside firmly in the magical effects of budget cutting camp.  His website suggests we can go from a $503 billion deficit to a balanced budget basically overnight without reeking economic havoc. He has other questionable ideas too. But he and the Libertarians appear to arrive at their policy views through a rational process. This is rational skeptic conservatism. There is hope.

But there are few rational skeptic politicians. Most reside in the blind believer category, which should not be surprising because blind believers always have a better answer. Many will claim to lead by their "gut" or divulge they seek guidance from a "higher power." Trump, of course, loudly boasts that he's going to do better than Clinton because, well, just "trust me...." 

Blind believers are easy to spot because they frame complex issues in overly-simplistic terms, especially when pointing out perceived threats. 

Trump: "Trump is calling for the total and complete shut down of all Muslims entering the United States." 

Sanders: "The greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation." 

By not dwelling upon potentially contrary facts or nuance, blind believers feed off their own certainty, believing in their absolute righteousness and their opponents' absolute evil. There's no room for middle ground and the onus is on "them," and not ever ourselves. 

The blind believers on both the Left and Right present a huge threat to society and their danger is compounded during times of unrest or uncertainty. It is in these times that, at best, bad public policy is formulated, or, at worst, brutal dictators emerge. History is replete with blind believers who convinced us they could make us all great again, but only if we follow their rules....

But the good news is that skeptics on both the Left and Right share more in common than they know: Rationalism may diverge at moments, but it converges over time. In other words, smart people can disagree on the correct public policy, but given enough time, the correct policies prove themselves and no one analyzing the evidence can disagree. Rational skepticism is a process that eventually reveals truth. 

Inserting the notion of rational skepticism into the political discussion may offer some hope to suppress the appeal of the blind believer's promises.  

We voters should look toward politicians who acknowledge their own limitations and who are willing to compromise, regardless of their political party. This is a sign of wisdom, the essence of rational skepticism. 

We need to fight our own internal blind belief that sometimes wants us to vote for the super confident macho guy. Once upon a time the biggest ape among us was usually the best choice for leader. But we live in a different world today. We need to look out for our own 21st Century self-interests and seek out competent rational skeptics to lead us through these challenging times.
  

Smart-Stupid Ben Carson

Presidential candidate Ben Carson epitomizes the "smart-stupid" person, a term I first heard used by Bill Maher to describe people who are extremely knowledgeable about something or very skilled at a specific task, but who are otherwise morons. And no one should be surprised that brilliant neurosurgeon Ben Carson is ignorant about public policy and is ill-equipped to speak on most political topics. In an extensive interview given in 2010, Ben Carson said that he was "always interested in medicine" and it was the "only thing" that interested him in his youth. He became the youngest ever chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins at 33. At one point, Ben Carson was performing over 500 surgeries a year. This was, according to him, "too much" and he had no time for "outside activities." At the time of the interview in 2010, he had slowed down to a mere "300 to 315" a year. He just officially retired in 2013, exactly 36 years after he began at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Carson's career alone explains his ignorance about all things he would be expected to know as President. He had no time by his own admission to do anything other than operate on brains.

The belief among Carson supporters must be that, being a super smart brain surgeon, he will just study hard and quickly catch up. But the evidence indicates otherwise. He's sounding as uncertain and uninformed now as he was in 2010. Maybe Ben Carson's brain is only programmed for being a brain surgeon. Maybe his brain is just not wired to be an expressive politician or a policy wonk. Maybe we should ask Ben... Oh that's right, he's a surgeon and this question belongs to an entirely different subfield of neuroscience. It would be malpractice for him to answer questions on topics outside his field of expertise.... 

Just as it would be malpractice on behalf of the American voter to support such a glaringly unqualified candidate for such an awesome job as the U.S. Presidency. The American President must be well-versed in military, diplomatic, economic and legal affairs, at a minimum. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states...

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,...

Yes, he has help from the Senate, presumably. But otherwise the U.S. Presidency is a pretty awesome job. The U.S. President must command the military and oversee state militias, make treaties and appoint ambassadors AND judges. 

A U.S. President decides with whom we fight and with whom we make peace.  A Presidential candidate's resume is not burnished by successful separation of conjoined twins. The Presidential job descriptions specifically calls for someone Ben Carson is not. Ben Carson barely understands rudimentary conservative philosophy. We should expect more from a candidate for President, regardless of party affiliation. 

Republican Party, Meet Yourself

Republicans will soon have a chance to nominate the conservative archetype: Donald John Trump Sr. He epitomizes the conservative worldview and expresses it more effectively than any other candidate. Thanks to Trump's triumphant early campaigning, the real Republican message is now loud and clear.

Conservatives see the world as a hierarchy: God created the universe and gave Man dominion over Women, Children and Nature. The conservative ruling-class archetype is the American "Founding Father:" white, male, property owner. Conservatives believe wealthy people deserve their wealth and poor people deserve their poverty. Anything that interferes with this "proper" order is bad. Welfare programs ("redistributing wealth"), Mexicans crossing U.S. borders and uppity female debate moderators challenge the proper order of society: Rich above poor; Whites/Americans above Browns/Mexicans; Men above Women. 

Understanding the conservative worldview helps us understand why Trump is still tweeting about Megyn Kelly's cross examination. He is not upset at being questioned toughly. He is upset because she questioned him toughly. A (pretty) female should be on display at one of his pageants, not challenging his political views on national television. While it appears juvenile and petty to some of us, Trump's reaction makes perfect sense when looking through the conservative lens. Without respect for the proper order, society might crumble into chaos. Megyn Kelly should know her place.

Maybe it's our Manifest Destiny. Maybe the name "Trump" is a divine pun: he certainly blows his rhetorical trumpet more boldly than any other candidate hitherto. Beyond doubt, no one better expresses the real Republican message:

  

We are the party of peace through strength. Professing American exceptionalism—the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history—... 

Thus begins the 2012 Republican Platform section aptly titled "American Exceptionalism." Therein you find both despair and bluster, akin to the main plot line of Old Testament scripture: We are a chosen nation/people, and that entails both a heavy responsibility as well as the promise of a brighter future:

Of course, all of the Republican candidates proudly proclaim that they will make America “great again,” but Trump’s just got that direct Trump-style that no other candidate can match:

The Republican Platform 2012: "Jefferson's vision of a 'wise and frugal government' must be restored." 

Donald Trump 2015: "Get smart U.S.A.!"

It's clear to me that Trump was born to be the Republican Party standard bearer. No one better exemplifies the conservative worldview and no one better expresses it. It's about time Republicans nominate someone who refuses to be "politically correct:"

Moral Vocabulary: Hebrew Scripture versus the New Testament

Jeb Bush got my attention with a recent tweet: 

Clipped from a speech at Liberty University, follow the embedded link jeb.cm/1hi3vyN  and you find some enlightening context: 

Remarks from Jeb’s Commencement Speech at Liberty University on May 9, 2015: 

There is no more powerful or liberating influence on this earth than the Christian conscience in action.
.
How strange, in our own time, to hear Christianity spoken of as some sort of backward and oppressive force.
.
It’s a depressing fact that when some people think of Christianity and of Judeo-Christian values, they think of something static, narrow, and outdated.  We can take this as unfair criticism, as it typically is, or we can take it as further challenge to show in our lives the most dynamic, inclusive, and joyful message that ever came into the world.
.
So it is not only untrue, but it’s also a little ungrateful, to dismiss the Christian faith as some obstacle to enlightened thought, some ancient, irrelevant creed wearing out its welcome in the modern world.  Whether or not we acknowledge the source, Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament still provide the moral vocabulary we all use in America – and may it always be so.

Liberty University is a Christian school founded by Jerry Falwell, so I want to believe the audience in attendance was fully aware of the fact that the main things virtually all people find as "static, narrow and outdated," such as stoning people to death for blasphemy or adultery, can be found as God-given rules in Hebrew Scripture.  The New Testament, by contrast, directly rebukes these barbaric Old Testament rules.  "Judeo-Christian values" are not one and the same.  The moral vocabulary found in Hebrew Scripture more closely resembles that which is found in the Qur'an.  Christians diminish Christianity when they fail to distinguish their more "dynamic, joyful, and inclusive" message over the "narrow, static, and outdated" moral vocabulary found in Hebrew & Islamic Scripture.  May it not always be so. 

 *    *    * 

Our moral vocabulary consists of those words we use when we discuss issues of right and wrong. Our moral vocabulary reveals our basic moral beliefs.  Hebrew and Christian moral vocabulary stand in stark opposition.

A common Hebrew Scriptural reference is the phrase "eye for an eye." A New Testament reference commonly heard is "turn the other cheek."  When we use the phrase, "eye for an eye," we are saying we believe vengeance is justified, that we have a right to seek revenge against those who have wronged us. When we use the phrase "turn the other cheek," we express the polar opposite view: we express a belief that it is God's domain to judge others and that we should eschew violence against our fellow man, even if it means we may get struck again on the other cheek. These commonly-used "moral vocabulary" words point to the fundamental differences between Hebrew and Christian morality.   

Hebrew Scripture offers a stern, uncompromising moral vocabulary.  Browse Leviticus and you'll get the idea:  
 10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The God of Hebrew Scripture often takes revenge to the point where it appears strangely sadistic, especially considering it is directed at His very own creations:
The Lord saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters.20“I will hide my face from them,” he said, “and see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children who are unfaithful. 21They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. 22For a fire will be kindled by my wrath, one that burns down to the realm of the dead below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains. 23“I will heap calamities on them and spend my arrows against them. 24I will send wasting famine against them, consuming pestilence and deadly plague; I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts, the venom of vipers that glide in the dust. 25In the street the sword will make them childless; in their homes terror will reign. The young men and young women will perish, the infants and those with gray hair. 26I said I would scatter them and erase their name from human memory, 27but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy, lest the adversary misunderstand and say, ‘Our hand has triumphed; the Lord has not done all this.’ ” (NIV)

Sometimes Hebrew Scripture speaks an oddly ritualistic moral vocabulary:

 4or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned.6As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering^a ; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. (NIV)

Whether "good or evil," the sin is violating your oath... and your absolution can be bought with a dead goat.  Of course, you can find the same or similar practices within groups who call themselves "Christian," but Christian Scripture explicitly challenges the moral vocabulary of Hebrew Scripture:  

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (KJV)

The Hebrew God demands his followers to seek vengeance.  The God of Christian Scripture implores his followers to practice forgiveness and compassion.  The Hebrew God orders man to harshly punish his fellow man for many (and sometimes minor) transgressions. The God of Christian Scripture reasons: 
 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.... (KJV)

Of course, the "New Testament" is not all love and happiness:
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (KJV)

But even this is an important departure from the moral vocabulary of Hebrew Scripture.  Jesus is not instructing us to pluck out the eye balls of adulterers, nor is he threatening that God will begin doing so imminently, as we would expect to find in Hebrew Scripture.

To be fair, Hebrew Scripture is not without positive moral messages.  Most cited are the so-called Ten Comandments:

3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbathto the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.11 For in six days the Lordmade the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Often cited as central to the formation of "Western values," this moral vocabulary was apparently an improvement over that of the surrounding  child-sacrificing polytheists.  Better to sacrifice goats than children.  But stoning blasphemers and adulterers is still so far behind the moral vocabulary of the New Testament as to almost make it hard to believe anyone can claim them to be about the same god.

American politicians are particularly prone to borrow from Hebrew and Christian "moral vocabulary." During his Presidential candidacy announcement, Jeb borrowed from both:


From the beginning, our president and his foreign-policy team have been so eager to be the history makers that they have failed to be the peacemakers.

With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling.

This supposedly risk-averse administration is also running us straight in the direction of the greatest risk of all - military inferiority. 

It will go on automatically until a president steps in to rebuild our armed forces and take care of our troops and our veterans.

They have my word – I will do it....

Bush chastises the Obama Administration for failing to heed Jesus' proclamation to be "peacemakers," a term found in the so-called "Beatitudes," one of the Christian Scriptures' most pacifistic sections.  Yet the vocabulary of the subsequent sentences could be pulled from any number of Hebrew Scriptural passages.  War and preparation for war, by and against Jews, is a major theme throughout Hebrew Scripture.  When warfare and violence is promoted by an American politician, they usually find their justification from the Hebrew God of violence and vengeance.

But we are inconsistent beings.  We often select our moral vocabulary based on the situation.  If we hate someone, we may demand an "eye for an eye" for their offenses.  'Throw the book at 'em!' But if you know and like someone, you may be more willing to "turn the other cheek" and excuse their transgressions against you. 

Jeb Bush, like many American politicians, sprinkles his speeches with moral vocabulary from both traditions, but his moral views, as seen above, appear to more closely resemble Hebrew Scripture morality than the pacifistic morality introduced in the New Testament.  So just claiming to be a Christian does not necessarily mean you hold New Testament/Christian morality. Conservative American politicians, especially those who make the most effort to publicize their faith, tend to follow a Hebrew Scripture morality. They are most likely to call for an "eye for an eye," to be the "law and order" hardliner.  The Liberal moral vocabulary, by contrast, more closely resembles that which is found in the New Testament.  Liberal American politicians often speak of helping the poor, of amnesty for citizens and for more lenient and compassionate law enforcement, for some examples.  

Now, as we move through the upcoming election cycle, we can better understand what our candidates really believe by understanding their choice of moral vocabulary.