Many people have complained of late about the lack of compromise in our elected government. It has been said that the problem in Washington is an inability to concede anything to the opposition or simply to identify common ground. But I think the problem may be language.

Some years ago I read a book about how dogs communicate. What struck me as remarkable was the fact that dog “language” is quite constant across all species of dogs. A tail wag, a raised ear, or a show of teeth always communicated the same message. A British terrier has no problem communicating with an Irish bulldog. Now, if we humans could replicate the same feat in our communication, it would be considered a real breakthrough in international relations and especially in our congressional negotiations. Elsewhere I touched upon our seeming failure to communicate in the hallowed halls of Congress in terms of the misapplication of words and analogies (ref. “Words Have Meaning”). But I think the lesson canines can teach us is different.

If a dog humps your leg, its message is clear. But, as I mentioned in a recent blog, our species can simply change the meaning of something that looks like torture by calling it “enhanced interrogation.” If a dog were capable of such duplicity, I suppose its humping would be interpreted as a desire to clean your pants leg. Of course, dogs are not capable of our dishonesty in their communication. They are quite reliable in their use of dog language. We know why they hump.

Let’s move beyond “torture,” since certain people in a past Administration refuse to use that word to describe certain heinous acts committed in our name. Instead, I want to consider what has been done to the word “compromise.” Its dictionary meaning is a “settlement of differences . . . reached by mutual concession.” Its Latin derivatives—com, “together, with”, and promittere, “to promise”—strongly imply an intent or promise to come together. Now suppose you reverse the meaning. For example, the Democrats in Oregon and the Republicans in Washington State agreed not to replace the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River after deficit hawks on the right and environmentalist on the left lobbied their representatives to do nothing. As a result salmon continue to swim unabated under a rickety old bridge that ranks as the 28th most insufficient amongst 18,984 similar bridges in the U.S.; and the states pass up $1.25 billion in federal funding for a new bridge in lieu of the $900 million it will costs the states to keep the current nearly 100 year old structure temporarily upright. The right and the left “compromised” by agreeing to do nothing. We experienced a similar “compromise” in a recent debt ceiling negotiation: the President agreed NOT to amend Obamacare and the Republicans agreed NOT to shut down the government. Currently, our government is faced with another showdown over funding for homeland security. My guess is that both sides will “compromise” on an agreement that will NOT defund or limit the Homeland Security Department and will NOT revoke the President’s executive orders affecting immigrant families. Both sides will “come together” without any concessions so that nothing will be accomplished.

The situation in Washington reminds me of the failed compromise I tried to reach with my dog. I wanted her to hold it in until I could let her out the back door. But I could not return from work early enough and she could not restrain a doggie dump on the dining room carpet. You see, we just spoke different languages—much like many of our legislators.

Torture is clearly beyond the pale, for its end is recognizably evil. Or so it might seem. However, it has been judged differently in various contexts. Generally, we consider anyone who tortures another as a pariah, feeding on another’s misfortune to fall prey to his/her power. Such a person would normally be termed morally bankrupt. A sadomasochist, on the other hand, derives pleasure from causing or experiencing pain or both. In this instant, we consider such people mentally disturbed and their actions derived more from a psychological state than from a moral deficit. But how would we characterize torture as a means to an end, specifically, an end that is good and desirable? Recently a broadcaster asked this question in the context of America’s state-sponsored torture program after 9/11, “Is not torture justified when the lives of 3,000 people might be saved?” This question presumes that the saving of many lives is a most desirable end and, as such, can outweigh the evil act of torture. Or so it might seem.

I have mentioned elsewhere how national “ethics” differ from personal ethics (ref. “The Rule of the Primate”). The issue of torture touches on the same ambivalence in the guise of situational ethics. The classic hypothetical case presented in psychology 101 involves two scenarios. The first situation has a train approaching a fork controlled by a switch. On one track are five people who would be run over by the train. On the other track there is only one person. Should the track be switched so that only one person would die rather than five? In the second situation, there is no switch, but that one person is close at hand. Should that person be shoved in front of the oncoming train in order to stop it before it hits the other five people further down the track? “Most people would throw the switch in the first instance, but refuse to push a person in front of a moving train. Even though the moral judgment is the same in either case—the saving of five people at the expense of one—the decision is made on the basis of emotions, not rational judgment. In brain scans they have found that the amygdala, our emotional center, is deeply engaged in your (sic) second scenario. Most people cannot execute the correct, moral act in this case because of the emotions triggered by physical contact with the person they must sacrifice (ref. p.95, “The Therapy Session,” in A Life Apart).” This quote, albeit taken out of context, seems to support the Bush administration’s argument that so-called “enhance interrogations” were morally correct, based upon rational judgment rather than the emotions of teary-eyed liberals. And this argument, my friends, represents the classic difference between the ethical actions that must exist between individuals and the practices of nation states. Ethics is foremost about values, like the value of a human life, and the discernment of such in given situations. Logic then must serve those values, not the reverse, thereby giving weight to that fundamental ethical construct, “the end does not justify the means.”

How torturous is the logic of those defenders of “enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT)?” Well, they never define EIT as torture. Its acronym even further obfuscates its true nature. Yet EIT is the same elephant that was adjudicated in the Nuremburg Trials, is well defined in UN Conventions as torture, and is specifically absent in the US military guidelines for combatant interrogations. Unfortunately, that elephant took up residence in our White House. When its proponents could no longer argue that the elephant did not exist, they argued that it was legal and justified. Of course, slavery was once legal and so was the exclusion of women from the electorate. Legality does not always square with morality. And the pragmatic argument seems no less torturous. Besides the fact of being irrelevant (remember “the end does not justify the means”), what usable intelligence was derived from EIT? Allegedly, one victim’s denial of knowledge was the basis for assuming he was lying and therefore an unwitting admittance of usable intelligence in locating Bin Laden. Little else has been offered as justification for EIT. In reality, the case for a pragmatic justification seems mainly based upon categorical statements that EIT preserved lives without actual proof of such. Much like the statement of former Vice President Cheney that “I would do it again in a minute,” truth must be accepted as a matter of dictate, rather than of logic and, most certainly, of ethics.

Now it is true that we live in a violent world. For that reason alone, we elect leaders who we believe will protect us by any means appropriate. But where do we draw the line; where does our moral conscience intervene? President Johnson personally authorized B52 bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail, even though those bombs violated the sovereign territory of Vietnam’s neighbors. But he never authorized torture. President Nixon had no reserve about extending the bombing to civilian population centers like Hanoi and Haiphong. But he never authorized torture. President Obama personally authorized guidelines for drone strikes, where civilian casualties, though minimalized, are still incurred. But he revoked the guidelines for EIT and condemned torture. In a perfect world, civilian casualties in war would also be condemned as immoral. There is no moral justification for the killing of innocents. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. This fact only further emphasizes the need to adhere to any ethical guidelines the international community has agreed to support. Maybe the human species isn’t developed to the level of eliminating wars. But it can agree to prohibit indiscriminate minefields—and torture. And we can awaken to the fact that fighting terrorism with state-sponsored torture only raises the stakes in savagery. Rather than President Reagan’s bright city on a hill, we become no more than the whitened sepulcher of hypocrisy.

Personally, I prefer the moral high ground. Let’s not vote for any politician that defends or supports torture. “I think it’s possible for people to change history by choosing not to become participants in its destructive tendencies (ref. p.297, “A War of Words,” in A Life Apart, or for context click here).”

The following tale is about a young social caseworker who plied his skills in Central Los Angeles shortly after the Watts riots of 1965.

The caseworker had just turned into a side street lined with overfilled garbage cans and blocked by police cars. One of the policemen approached his vehicle. The caseworker rolled down his car window and was about to ask the policeman to let him pass. He was running late on his rounds. But he had to fit Mrs. Long into his schedule. He knew she would be excited to hear his news. But before he could address the policeman, the officer blurted out, “Are you lost?” Of course, he wasn’t. Quickly, he explained who he was and that he knew the area well. The policeman eyed him with suspicion and said, “No white man is safe here, especially one in a suit and tie. I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t my job and I wasn’t carrying a gun.” The caseworker explained his job was here too. This is where his clients lived. He assured the officer they presented no danger to him. The officer shrugged his shoulders and said, “Okay, but it’s your funeral.” The caseworker steered around the police cars and smiled to himself at the thought of the petite Mrs. Long being any kind of threat to him or to anybody. Two months earlier, when he had been assigned his initial case load, he did have some misgivings about the neighborhood. His apprehension seemed justified when children threw things at his car. But the adults soon corralled them. Now the only danger he faced was the potholed streets and driving after dark. Once he had left a client shortly after sunset and found it difficult to find his way in the darkened streets. His only fear then was the potholes he might not avoid and the pedestrians he might not see. Street lamps he learned were never replaced after burn out. That fact probably explained why the local police cars were all equipped with search lights.

Pulling into Mrs. Long’s driveway, a neighbor saluted and said, “I thought you’d be coming tomorrow.” The caseworker acknowledged the greeting with a wave and replied, “I came early with good news.” The neighbor shook his head and warned, “She won’t be expecting you.” At the front door, he hesitated before knocking. Of course, he would not normally show up unannounced if Mrs. Long could afford a phone. When the door suddenly swung open, he was surprised to be confronted by a large black man. The man was glaring at the over-dressed figure before him, apparently sizing him up. At the same time, the caseworker was making his own assessment. He knew Mrs. Long was married, but her application for AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) stated that her husband had abandoned her. The man spoke first, “So, who the hell are you? You’re not carrying, so I know you’re no goddam cop. If you’re one of those insurance salesmen, we don’t want any of that bogus crap you’re selling.” Suddenly, he took a step towards the caseworker. His face hardened, but his tone was confidential as he said, “If you know what’s good for you, you’d get the hell out of here.”

The caseworker, feeling intimidated, tensed up. He reacted by assuming the air of a county official and met his perceived challenger head on. “You’re Mr. Long aren’t you? Well I’m your wife’s social worker. Do you realize I could have you arrested for failure to support your wife and child?” The large black man caved quickly. “Please sir, don’t call the cops. I’m not living off my wife’s money. I just came by to visit and see my daughter. I’d give them money if I had any . . . I’m looking for work, I am.” He was suddenly interrupted by Mrs. Long who pushed him aside. She apologized for her husband and reiterated his story. The social caseworker relaxed. He reminded her that Mr. Long would not be permitted to live with her unless he was contributing to the support of the family. There were tears in her eyes as she nodded her understanding. The social caseworker was beginning to feel guilty. Finally, he gave her the good news about her acceptance in the training program she wanted. She wiped a tear from her cheek and smiled. Now embarrassed, he suggested that Mr. Long should come to the office and ask for him. He promised to connect her husband with an employment counselor.

Later, he found himself staring at the ignition switch in his car, unable to turn the key. He was caught up in an emotion he was struggling to understand. He felt ashamed.

The End.

I call this story a “tale,” though it is not truly apocryphal. It is a composite of actual events. What it exemplifies is the many aspects of bias. At the time of this tale, there were many segregated black communities cowed by dependency on social welfare, distrustful of police, and intimidated by those who controlled their fate. The latter were also controlled by their fear of the vengeful black man and by deeply rooted misperceptions. In truth, every facet of my story exhibits telltale biases colored in white and black, framed within systems, and hung up in social structures no less bias.

I ask my readers how much of this story has changed in the last five decades and how much of it still shadows us today. Each generation has had to deal with this racial issue—from the creation of our Constitution, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s to Ferguson and the protest in our cities today. Though “the ark of change” may be long and progress has been made, how many generations after us will be still sorting out the consequences of the darkest chapters in American history? Telltale biases will persist until rooted out at their source. That source is only partially revealed in abstract self-examination. Changes in social systems and laws only address the externals, though they provide a threshold for change to pass through. It is only at the level of the heart, however, that these racial biases will finally be overcome. There is where change can touch the soul. (Ref. “Soulfulness”)

Greg Abbot, the Texas Attorney General and Governor-elect, is suing President Obama over his executive order regarding immigration. He says his suit has standing similar to the suits other states have taken against the Affordable Care Act, namely, the exorbitant costs to taxpayers. In the case of the President’s executive order deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants, these costs are allegedly incurred in social services. But he cannot deny the contribution immigrants make to the State’s economy nor can he quantify the countervailing costs incurred in their use of social services. His only supportive statement is the fact that there are immigrant children currently in Texas’ schools. And his comparison to the ACA suits is irrelevant since he is suing over an executive order whereas the ACA suits concern provisions of existing law that quantifiably affects a specific class of people. In effect, he is questioning the President’s Constitutional authority to decide how to enforce established law, specifically, his executive authority. Now this bone of contention has arisen before between the executive and legislative branches of our government and has been carefully skirted by our judges. In other words, the courts have stayed clear of the fray, leaving the dispute to the bickering participants to work out. His suit, then, has more to do with the Constitutional authority of the President than with any harm done to Texas taxpayers. Faced with this fact, he was asked what harm the President’s executive order has caused, or specifically, who has been harmed? His answer (ref “Meet the Press,” 12/7/2014) was the Constitution. He claims that when the President acts without Congress he erodes the Constitution which is the main attraction for legal immigration to America. Now if you allow me to break down this argument, Governor-elect Abbot is stating that (1) the President is violating the Constitution, (2) the Constitution is the main attraction that draws legal immigrants to our shores, and therefore (3) by violating the Constitution the President is removing that attraction and by implication is negatively affecting legal immigration. So, by this logic, the harmed party is the legal immigrant, for the Constitution can be “violated” but not harmed except by insurrection or amendment. Do you see the irony of his position? If he truly wanted to support legal immigration, why would he not support a policy that would in due course make the undocumented among us legal? Why, instead of a lawsuit, would he not engage Texas congressmen/women in comprehensive immigration reform? Simply stated, why not support the bipartisan Senate bill that maps a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? Making the illegals legal is one way to affirm the “land of opportunity” for migrants to this country and to reaffirm our Constitutional rule of law.

Executive orders affecting immigration policy have been issued by various Presidents over the last several decades, though perhaps of less scope than this recent action by President Obama. That his action has led to debate is actually a good thing, for it has brought this issue to the forefront. In fact, the President has admitted that his order was only a stop-gap measure and that he preferred Congress to act. What prompted him to defer some deportations for three years was the inhumane breaking up of families, many of whom have lived in America for most or even all of their lives. He was echoing his predecessor who, when Governor of Texas, argued that “family values do not stop at the Rio Grande.” Then Governor Bush went on to say that people come to this country to work and feed their families. He felt that “there must be a humane way to help these people attain citizenship while still securing our borders.” When Governor-elect Abbot was asked whether he agreed with his predecessor, he replied, “I understand this even more powerfully because my wife will become the first Hispanic first lady.” His “understanding” implies that he agrees with the last two Presidents on their immigration positions, though he obviously opposes the current President on his executive order. So I must repeat the question: why, instead of a lawsuit, would he not engage Texas congressmen/women in comprehensive immigration reform?

The answer to my twice repeated question should be obvious: the Governor-elect, like many Republicans in the House, would rather indulge in “double-speak” than commit to any policy that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. And yet the Republican platform supports outreach to Hispanic minorities. Many Republicans, as witnessed in the Senate, actually support comprehensive immigration reform along the lines outlined by the President. Perhaps the President’s opponents on this issue are just upset that he has forced their hand. They appear more committed to opposing him than his policy position. Is Congress actually determined to deport (or “self-deport,” as the last Republican nominee for President suggested) 11 million undocumented members of our society? I think not. Can Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation or will it just maintain the inhumane situation under which many now live? For how long will Congress dither, procrastinate, and indulge in diversions like lawsuits when the outlines of a solution are not only well known, but are actually embodied in a bipartisan piece of legislation before the House of Representatives?

Put in blunter terms: should party politics preclude actual governing.

In a democratic society, one of the political prerequisites is the dialogue required to define and eventually enact public policy. It is fair to question whether pundits, journalists, and political commentators support this brand of politics or hinder it. If the former is true, then political reporting supports the dialogue by reflecting the public will and/or the positions of duly elected/nominated representatives. If the latter is true, then political reporting can become nothing more than the management of information for the purpose of self-interest. In other words, it can become a form of propaganda (ref. Webster’s Dictionary, “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause”). Certainly, political operatives (e.g. campaign managers, press spokesmen, etc.) often excel in this form of politicking. Unfortunately, the “free” press too often provides them a megaphone for the controversial spin or allegation that might capture the public’s attention. Who can resist such coinage as “Governor Moonbeam,” “flip-flopper,” “leading from behind,” or “great communicator,” however misrepresentative these terms may be? For example, was Jerry Brown affected by the full moon when he promoted more sustainable development decades ago or was he just ahead of his time? Though it is true that Mitt Romney advocated his approach to mandated healthcare in Massachusetts for the rest of the nation, did he ever specify it should be a Federal program? Why is “leading from behind” not considered leadership? (Many NFL quarterbacks would beg to differ with the implication of this oxymoron.) And how well did President Reagan communicate his role in the Iran-Contra affair to justify his famous moniker (to paraphrase, “I don’t remember . . .”)? In this context, labels, tag lines, spin, and misnomers like “personhood” or “race baiting” are no more than self-serving propaganda. You may disagree with the terms I “labeled” as misnomers. But do your really believe there is conscious awareness in a zygote? Or do you not see a blind bigotry in any attempt to suppress dialogue on racial issues? If I’m right, then we are all being subject to the tyranny of propaganda where rhetoric subverts meaning.

In Russia, Putin has done a masterful job of controlling the press. He has cleverly used the rhetoric of nationalism as justification for his foreign invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. In order to gain some measure of international support for his policies, he has even established news organizations in America and Europe. Propaganda, after all, has always been one of the tools of tyrants, along with military power and suppression of opposition parties. In America, the news media has too often succumbed—perhaps unwittingly–to the lure of this same device. Following the example of Madisen Avenue, it has applied the mechanisms of word association, out-of-context snapshots, rhetorical hyperbole, and technical wizardry to illicit an unconscious acquiescence from a public mesmerized by presentation rather than substance. These mechanisms can be harmless, even trivial when used merely to attract readers or improve ratings. But applied to politics, they become as subversive as any propaganda waged by tyrants (ref. “Why Fable News?”). Oddly, this form of propaganda is generally anti-government because it reports “scandals” before evidence of such, policy opposition without debate, provocative statements taken out of context, and a laser-like focus on government shortfalls in lieu of subsequent remedies or successes. At times it seems the fifth estate has sold out its journalistic credentials to a kind of mindless propaganda. Although the intent may not be subversive, the result is the same: an inattentive public is lured into disgust and apathy.

Sound bites, catch phrases, and provocative insinuations may win an audience, but they do not make for substantive reporting. And the gross propagandizing of political issues does not alleviate or clarify a contentious debate. In fact, the only winner in this debate is ignorance; and the loser, democracy.

Most people would agree that America’s strength rests upon two pillars: democracy and capitalism. That first pillar is built upon a duly elected representative government that operates on a check and balance system and an independent judiciary guaranteed by our Constitution. And the second pillar is our special form of capitalism which is based upon a free enterprise system regulated by government to assure economic stability and—ideally—equal opportunity for its participants. Government’s involvement in the business cycle was advocated by James Madison in order to assure business would have a stake in preserving our democracy. Today, the Fed uses various tools at its disposal to monitor and affect two key components of our economy: inflation and unemployment. By design our economic success is an underpinning to our democracy and has always been a key issue in every election. Unfortunately, it has often been used as the main justification for excessive wealth accumulation—a contemporary myth.

President Reagan is quoted as saying that “a rising sea lifts all ships.” Few would disagree with this metaphor when applied to a free enterprise system. Unfortunately, it no longer applies to the state of our current economy. Has the accumulation of wealth in recent decades raised the economic status of a majority of our citizens? Whether you look into the fields of news and book publishing, hydrocarbon exploration and drilling, telecommunications and broadcasting, drug development and provisioning, defense industry manufacturing and contracting, or the airline industry, you find a handful of companies dominating their enterprise sector. This dominance does not serve our economy or our democracy. President Theodore Roosevelt inveighed against the oligarchs of industry and sought to eliminate monopolies not because he was against big business, but because he wanted to preserve the free enterprise system AND our democracy. The roadblock he put in place slowed the inevitable accumulation of wealth that eventually was wiped out by the Great Depression. The unequal distribution of wealth in America at the time of the Depression has recently been replicated just before the great recession of 2008. But on this occasion, it was not the large private fortunes that were wiped out, but the pensions and housing security of millions of average Americans. The big investment banks (with the exception of Lehman Brothers) have actually grown, capturing an even bigger share of the economy since the recession while income inequality continues to become more disparate. The oligarchs of business amass a disproportionate amount of wealth, much like those deep ocean canyons that swallow 40% of the ocean’s water. They are the bottomless pits that consume capital, not for the sake of business growth, but for corporate and personal gain far beyond the needs of any organization or citizen in a democratic society. They are not “job creators,” but “job stranglers,” squeezing productivity out of a workforce despairing of any share in an expanding economy and drying up start-up money for entrepreneurs, seventy six percent of whom now thrive in only three states (California, New York and Massachusetts). Wage earners and small businesses that account for increases in demand and for most new hires, respectively, suffer in this environment. The new metaphor for our era might be “a receding sea sinks many ships.”

Somehow it has become a conservative position to resist any effort to reduce economic inequality. But a conservative is somebody who wants to preserve those values that have made society robust and successful. It is not a legitimate conservative position to support inequality in the world’s oldest democracy. So why do some “conservatives” support a system of growing inequality and decry any attempt to change that system as “socialism?” In Russia, where true socialism hides under the banner of a state controlled democracy, 60% of the economy is state owned. In America, a true democracy, more than 60% of the economy is controlled by a few capitalists and the corporations that represent their interests. Socialism is not our problem; unfettered capitalism or, more specifically, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs is the problem. Their interest is not the preservation of American institutions and way of life, but of their wealth and its unrestrained accrual. How would I prove this assertion? The evidence is all around us. Corporations are more liquid than at any time in recent decades, yet wages have stagnated. There are more billionaires in America than at any time in history, far exceeding the so-called “barons of industry” from Teddy Roosevelt’s time. Campaigns are costlier than ever, because big pocket donors now dominate the playing field and the Washington agenda. Legislation in Congress can no longer be unencumbered of provisions written by special interest (i.e., predominately “moneyed interest”) lobbyists. Why do you think the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act required hundreds of pages, when it merely had to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act previously revoked by Congress and to establish the Volcker rule? If our political campaigns and legislative process are corrupted by big money, why would we not consider these facts the greatest threat to our democracy? How can we “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” when those democratic goals are subordinated to the wealth accumulation of the few?

I believe it was a famous historian of the 19th century who said that Americans were better than the government that served them. And, yes, it was Churchill who also said that democracy was the worst system of government, except for every other. The problem is not with Americans or with our system of government, but with our will and ability to elect representatives who serve our general welfare and interests. Also, the problem is not with the rich in general. There are many wealthy philanthropists who have supported programs that educate the electorate and that train the workforce for future jobs. But the initiative to learn and train is hampered by a loss of opportunity. Higher education costs are sky-rocketing. Public education is unequal in quality and, in too many cases, encumbered by high administrative costs, subverting investment in actual teaching and education resources. Our investment in infra-structure is at an all-time low at a time when it desperately needs to be rebuilt not only for the purpose of growing the future economy, but also for the benefit of our contemporary workforce denied access to the initial rungs of that economic ladder. There are legislative actions that could alter this picture. But there is also Washington gridlock abetted by power politics and supported by big money where zero-sum is the only game in town and fundraising is its leverage. Elected officials campaign on “getting things done,” “working across the aisle,” and “compromising with the opposition party.” Once elected, they are swallowed by the whale that awaits them in Washington, that is, Party Leadership. Perhaps there was some wisdom in those founding fathers who were reluctant to form political parties. They can too easily become the embodiment of special interests. In our era, they seem to represent campaign donors, lobbyists, and the powerbrokers dangling lucrative post-politic careers rather than you and me, the actual electorate. The issues that concern the general welfare go unaddressed—whether they are on immigration reform, gun control, global warming, wage fairness, education priorities, out-of-control campaign funding, a confusing and misapplied tax system, infra-structure maintenance and restoration, a system of regulatory authority that ranges from excessive to non-existent, or matters of war and peace.

It is true that it is still easier to start a business in America than in many other places in the world. But large mergers are becoming more common, while investment money for new business is becoming scarcer. The specter of a future where only big business remains is a future without free enterprise. In addition, we can easily see how big money is corrupting our democratic institutions. Fortunately, the future is still ours to create. There are reasonable politicians in Washington—the ones rarely given voice by the press because they capture less of an audience than the radicals from the left or right. When you hear talk of reforming campaign funding, investment banking, or the tax structure, give an ear to what is being said and give voice to your concerns. What is most true about America is its ability to salvage a promising future from its own pitfalls, whether it be slavery, suppression of women and minorities, the misadventures of foreign wars or, hopefully, the risks of losing our free enterprise system. The time for a voter revolution is now before that system becomes nothing more than an illusion and our democracy, a sham.

Data mining is based upon algorithms written by analysts. It is governed by the same potential for error that pervades every human endeavor. Analytic errors, however, are the least of the problems with data mining. In a typical algorithm, there are many variables that can be manipulated to attain pre-specified objectives. For example, suppose a large property leasing company wanted to increase its profit margin by raising its income. Among the many variables it might consider—cutting costs, reducing vacancy rates with longer term leases, increasing income by building new units in high costs housing regions, automating lease management procedures, etc.—it might include the universal economic element of demand. One of the byproducts of bloating the demand calculation is that it can be self-fulfilling. Market analysis of demand is behind the co- location of so many fast food vendors within a stone’s throw of each other. Interestingly, co-located fast food chains in malls do seem to increase demand because of their ready availability to shoppers. But in the case of our property leasing company, as much as a 20 to 30 percent increase in rents can be justified by simply tweaking the demand variable. Alleged market forces instead of a desire to increase corporate profits can then be credited for gouging tenants.

Now apply the same principles of analytic data mining to politics, specifically to politically based polling. Electorate data collection and interpretation can be effective in directing a political campaign to win its identified target audience. But do you see the potential problem here? The same process can be easily manipulated to influence public opinion—which explains the contradictions between polls conducted by the opposing political parties in the same political contest. In the last presidential election, for example, both parties told the voting public that their candidate polled better and would win. (One Party went so far as to actually believe their own skewed polls.) Having stated this problem, I’m not claiming that all pollsters are fudging the results. I’m sure there are reputable organizations doing their best to cull data they think helpful to politicians, as well as the electorate. But how should we the public evaluate the usefulness of this information? If a majority of polls agree with me, should I feel affirmed in my position? If they disagree with me, should I merely disavow the poll results as biased? Or should I consider the pros and cons of every campaign issue or candidate on the merits of respective policy positions? In other words, should I just ignore the polls?

My last question seems to imply the obvious answer. But the problem I’m identifying cannot be so easily ignored, for it is both pervasive and even subversive. To be succinct, we are living in an era of massive data manipulation where basic trust in institutions, industries and government is being undermined, often by these very players. The goal is not just to inform or even to influence the public. Within the realm of politics, polls can be used to obfuscate facts and positions, making the development of practical policies nearly impossible. Here are some examples:
➣ According to the polls, a majority of Americans agree that reducing deficit spending and its antithesis, taxes, are both necessary.
➣ According to the polls, Americans want to reform the safety net while neither cutting benefits nor increasing the taxes that support it.
➣ According to the polls, Americans support the Second Amendment and gun control legislation. (These positions are actually not contradictory, though they are presented as such.)
➣ According to the polls, Americans believe in global warming, but not in legislative restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons (e.g., the carbon tax) or in major government investment in alternative sources of energy. (Our government’s spending on these alternatives lags behind many European nations and China, even though Americans seem more than willing to install solar panels and drive hybrid cars.)
➣ According to the polls, Americans believe in sustainable development but not in the role of government to shape it. (It seems likely that sustainable development might not be understood in any relatable sense. It was defined a quarter of a century ago by the World Commission on Environment and Development, as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”)

This list can be extended, but it suffices to make a point. Pollsters can ask questions and manipulate variables to justify positions that are never specified. In other words, the questions answer themselves without ever dealing with actual policy. For example, how would Americans respond to actual legislative bills that would reform specific elements of the tax code, Medicare, and Social Security? Likewise, would Americans support a carbon tax, environmentally sensitive restrictions on development, and investments in alternative energy sources if the costs and benefits to our posterity were fairly presented? Rarely are we debating actual policy formulae. Instead, we seem to lose focus amidst alleged value conflicts. For example, support for the Second Amendment is used as the argument against background checks. The polls that support the right to bear arms are quoted to advance this argument. But these polls are irrelevant to the real problems we face. Recently it has been reported that 30% of the weapons used in the Northern Triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador were purchased at American retail outlets. Do the polls address this issue and its impact on young immigrants from that region trying to escape the violence? And what right of gun ownership belongs to mass executioners here or abroad? Why do we seem unable to form a gun control policy that does not in any way conflict with the Second Amendment? Perhaps we are responding to a pollster’s question that might read as follows: “Do you support background checks that infringe on your right to own a gun and violate your Second Amendment rights?” I have received poll questions with this type of construction. They elicit a desired response based upon strongly held values, but offer no actual policy formula to address the real problem.

I am not a legislator so I probably should not specify possible bills without the debate and compromise required by our system of government. But I think you can see my point: poll data can affirm public opinion as justification for a lack of actual policy. Both sides of the political spectrum can claim public support for doing nothing! Therefore, no legislative action is undertaken. Remember the so-called “grand bargain” that the President and House Speaker had nearly reached several years ago. Its failure seems to be the demarcation between any possible policy compromise and the current situation in Washington. Rhetorical flourish has replaced policy debates. Accusation substitutes for self-examination and accountability. One-upmanship parades as political virtue; and compromise is a political vice. In this surreal context, the polls are used to serve political gridlock and become nothing more than arrows in the political quiver. They justify the lack of policy proposals and the opportunity for any debate on the matter. Without these proposals and relevant debate, there is no opportunity for compromise. Without compromise, there is no policy.

We are polling for non-action. It’s like fishing for dead fish.