Trickle Down is Toxic

Since the 1980’s, part of the Conservative creed has been the belief that greater good would arise from giving our wealthiest even more wealth. The assumption was that it would eventually “trickle down,” to everyone’s benefit. But there’s evidence that the belief was wrong and the creed was harmful.

 [Source]

The government’s long experiment with “trickle down” economic policies has had one obvious result: it has created even greater inequality of income and wealth. Does it matter? It doesn’t matter to the nation’s wealthiest corporations and individuals, the “1%.” They’ve become even more wealthy. But what’s happened to the other 99%, to the country as a whole?

In 2011, epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett published The Spirit Level, in which they examined the degree to which differences in income inequality among the wealthiest nations could be associated with various social problems. They found that greater national income inequality was significantly related to several harmful social phenomena, including
• lower levels of trust,
• higher rates of mental illness,
• greater use of illegal drugs,
• greater infant mortality,
• lower average life expectancy,
• higher rates of obesity,
• lower education scores,
• higher rates of teenage pregnancy,
• higher homicide rates,
• greater rates of imprisonment, and
• lower social mobility.

Pickett and Wilkenson suggest that nations with extreme income inequality might be able to reduce their level of income inequality by acting to "plug tax loopholes, limit 'business expenses,' increase top tax rates, and even legislate to limit maximum pay in a company." However, Pickett and Wilkinson prefer an institutional solution: encouraging the creation and spread of corporations in which employees have a share in ownership and management.

Of course, their analyses have been criticized and questioned. Their responses can be found both here and at the end of their book’s latest edition.

They have just recently published a sequel, The Inner Level, in which they present research indicating how greater inequality also harms people psychologically.

Meanwhile, British economist Stewart Lansley has been busy analyzing how gross income and wealth inequality has hurt national economies. He’s published a book titled The Cost of Inequality about this, as well as several articles (see here, here and here). Lansley supports the view that the increasing inequality of income and wealth in the U.K. and the U.S. is due to their decades-old policies of deregulation, tax cuts and union-busting. Government leaders assumed that giving corporations and wealthy individuals more freedom and more wealth would lead, ultimately, to prosperity for all. Lansley says that the increasing wealth and income inequality actually created three major economic problems:

• In reality, not enough trickled down to maintain demand. Wages didn’t rise as much as production. The effect was a dramatic increase in indebtedness.

• The increased income and wealth enjoyed by corporations and a wealthy minority was NOT used to enhance production so much as to engage in financial speculation and corporate takeovers. This quest for quick profit led to asset “bubbles,” which increased the risk of a financial crisis.

• With their increased income and wealth, corporations and a wealthy minority were also able to increase their political influence and obtain government policies which favored their interests.

What should be done? Lansley says that “the great concentrations of income and wealth need to be broken up – just as they were in the 1930’s.” More specifically, he believes that governments need to add and monitor economic indicators for ratios of pay [going to the top 1%], for the share of profit going to wages, for concentration of income, and for patterns of average tax rates within the population.* For each indicator the government would set a target historically associated with economic stability, and deviations would trigger responsive government actions [presumably like the Federal Reserve does with respect to monetary conditions]. He suggests that nations can reduce their gross income and wealth inequality by also creating “social wealth funds.” He describes these as “collectively owned pools of wealth,” or “public ownership funds,” created on the basis of public sector assets. Lansley notes that social wealth funds could used for direct economic and social investment, to strengthen public finances, to ensure that gains from economic activity are shared by all, and even to provide citizens with dividend payments. He points to the Alaska Permanent Fund as an example of what he means.

Perhaps the strongest voice against gross inequalities of income and wealth is that of Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist and author of The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. In this book, Stiglitz also identifies specific ways in which the government’s enactment of “trickle down” economic policies itself created national economic problems. As discussed earlier, the “trickle down” approach emphasized deregulation of industries and markets, as well as tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals. Our national economy has paid dearly for this experiment, he says:

• Deregulation enabled deceptive accounting, unconventional banking practices and riskier investments. These conditions enabled the rise of financial bubbles, which eventually burst, with devastating effects on the national economy. In their wake, the nation experienced deep financial losses and higher unemployment.

• Reduction of tax revenue, combined with a disdain for government spending, has led to reduced government investment in infrastructure, education and research. Stiglitz maintains that this has amounted to underinvestment in goods and services that benefit all of us.

• Reduced public investments, such as for education, have reduced economic mobility in our population. According to Stiglitz, the children of poor and middle-income families have a lower likelihood of getting a good education than children of the rich. For the nation, that means our population will not be as productive as it could be.

• A large portion of our income and wealth inequality has been due to “rent-seeking.” People and corporations have focused on ways of getting more money from ownership of something, rather than from producing something. Stiglitz says that this focus has increased the prices and fees we are charged for things like medicine, health care, credit cards and cell phone service. He notes that the rates we pay for these goods and services are higher than the rates paid in other countries for the same things.

• Studies which have analyzed economic growth in a range of countries and over long periods of time have found that higher levels of income and wealth inequality are associated with lower levels of economic growth.

• The increased income and wealth of the top 1% of the population has allowed them to get laws, regulations and government actions which benefit them. The remaining 99% of the population often pays the price for that [for example, with more pollution]. But the corporations and individuals in the top 1% will have obtained a lot of concessions to minimize the harm to them.

• The increased income and wealth of the 1% has also allowed them to control information media to their benefit. As a result, there is less trust in the information provided about the economic and political system. That’s bad for a democracy. Voters are supposed to be able to make informed decisions.

• A majority of Americans perceive their economic and political system as favoring the wealthy, and therefore unfair. That perception decreases their trust, and negatively effects their economic and political activity. People are less willing to cooperate. Their cooperation may be compelled by force or threat of force, but having to compel them will diminish their productivity, efficiency and participation. They may be more inclined to agitate outside the system.

The remedies proposed by Stiglitz are basically legislative acts and regulations designed to end the privileges and advantages enjoyed by the nation’s wealthiest corporations and individuals, as described above. It’s a rather long and detailed list. Here’s an abbreviated, partial list of his suggestions:

• in the financial sector, restrict leverage and ensure liquidity, require transparency in derivatives, and limit the interest rates on consumer loans

• there also ought to be some control over international capital flows, especially those involved in short-term speculation

• stop the revolving door between working on Wall Street and working in Federal administrations

• follow a monetary policy which focuses on growth and full employment, rather than inflation

• make bankruptcy laws more debtor-friendly [rather than lender-friendly, as now]

• close off avenues for tax evasion and tax avoidance

• end government “giveaways,” corporate welfare, and subsidies hidden in tax code exemptions

• create a progressive tax code, one which taxes speculation and inhibits the maintenance of an oligarchy [AB: a “caste of the 1%”] with estate taxes

• “tax corporations that operate in the United States on the full basis of the profits they derive from their sales in the United States, regardless of where their production occurs”

• tax pollution

• grant tax credits for private investments that save jobs and save natural resources

• use public funds to increase opportunities for education [of the 99%], especially at public and non-profit institutions

• invest public funds in those areas which historically increased economic growth – infrastructure, education and technology

• ensure that health care is available to all

• strengthen the social safety net

• stop efforts to suppress voting, and make it easier to vote

• enact real campaign finance reform laws

• support labor unions

• create a “Chapter 11”-style bankruptcy provision for homeowners

I don’t know whether these actions will reduce income and wealth inequality and remedy the social and economic harms we’ve experienced, but I think they’re worthy of consideration. I am sure of one thing: recovery begins when you recognize the problem and resolve to stop doing what got you there.


* It could be a good idea for the Department of Labor also to monitor pay and employment rates associated with education levels and minority categories.

PUT PEOPLE FIRST: Progressive Ideas for Economic Reform

The Internet is full of complaints about our current political and economic arrangements. Our current political economy has led to a reduction in the number of semi-skilled jobs, a stagnation of real wages, a loss or substantial reduction in manufacturing businesses, financial gambling and speculation, more frequent and severe recessions, and the observation that our political representatives are more responsive to corporate interests than to the needs and wants of our people. So, there is a lot to complain about! But we need to do more than complain. We need to explore remedies.

Conservatives have been offering up the same remedies for over 30 years now: tax cuts, chiefly for the wealthy; and corporate deregulation. Are we better off now? Rich people are. The rest of us, not so much. Look at Kansas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/sam-brownback-kansas-budget-override.html

**What conservatives have been saying is, “Only rich lives matter.”** The rest of us are just slugs feeding off of what trickles down from the wealthy. So you get “avoid and neglect” conservatism: avoid the problems and neglect the victims. Just make sure the rich get richer. Well, only a fool continues to do the same thing expecting different results!

So I’ve combed through books and articles by some economists I think are more progressive, or post-neoliberal, for ideas that are likely to *really* improve the economic lives of the 99% of Americans. I found answers in works by economists Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Ha-Joon Chang, and a number of others. There’s a bibliography at the end of this post, for anyone who wants to read more about these ideas and the rationales behind them.

Gathering and sifting through their ideas, the following struck me as most consequential:

1. **Increase jobs for the 99%**

• Make public investments in domestic infrastructure projects.

• Take measures to encourage growth and survival of labor-intensive industrial sectors, especially those critical to national security and independence. Such measures could include:
  • Subsidies for Research and Development;
  • Subsidized credit;
  • Direct lending by public institutions;
  • Regulation of industrial investments;
  • Export assistance; and
  • Support for needed training.

• End tax deferment on corporate profits earned abroad. Deferment discourages repatriation of earnings.
• Enact a financial transaction tax, to dampen speculation, reduce financial market volatility, and encourage longer-term investment.
  

• Take measures to further reduce corporate monopolies, trusts and cartels. For example, reduce the scope and duration of patents.

2. **Increase income for the 99%**

• Raise the minimum wage
  
  
• Raise the Earned Income Tax Credit

• Make unionizing easier and penalize anti-union actions more severely

3. **Reduce burdens on the 99%**

• Make voting easier, for example, with weekend elections and more voting stations 

• Restore student loan bankruptcy protections 
  
  
• Push for the Durbin Amenndment to the Dodd-Frank Bill, which will bring down the excessive fees that the debit card companies now impose on merchants, and which are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices
  

• Create a homeowners' Chapter 11, analogous to corporate Chapter 11

• Reduce the likelihood of forced financial industry bailouts, by
  • Increasing capital surcharges for the largest banks
  • Requiring all lending institutions to document how they plan to unwind in the event of bankruptcy
  • Establishing strict rules for bailouts and reimbursement of public funds
  • [I would add prosecution for bailouts necessitated by malpractice!] 
• Remove special protections for derivatives in corporate bankruptcies 

• Raise the top marginal income tax rate.
• Tax capital gains and dividends at the same rates as wages
• Reduce opportunities and means for tax evasion
• Eliminate costly tax breaks
• Apply value-added taxes [VATs] to luxury items

4. **Increase benefits for the 99%**

• Enact “Medicare for All,” of course.
• Subsidize pre-K childcare.
• Provide public financial support for post-secondary education.
• Enable the Postal Service to provide a public-banking option.
• Create a public option for housing finance.
• Expand Social Security by removing payroll caps, and add public options for additional retirement investing, like the Thrift Savings Program for Federal employees.

5. **Improve the quality of life for the 99%**

• Restrict political donations to *natural citizens*, and maintain low donation limits

• Tax pollution (including carbon emissions)
• Work with other nations to change the WTO’s rules, interpretations of rules, policies, goals and overall agenda so that the needs of populations are treated as more important than the desires of corporations.

• Require that international trade agreements be approved by the International Labor Organization [ILO]
• Join with other nations to create an International Finance Organization (IFO), whose chief objective would be to reduce the risk of international financial meltdowns. The IFO would be responsible for things like:
  • Establishing rules for international finance
  • Ensuring transparency and accountability in international finance
  • Monitoring and reporting developments in international finance
  • Supervising the IMF and World Bank

I’m sure that Conservatives will call these ideas “socialist,” even though ***there’s no proposal that the government should own the means of production and distribution.*** That would be the dictionary definition of Socialism.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

But Conservatives will call anything “socialist” that limits self-centered, narrow-minded behavior.

These proposals actually assume that ***there will be private property*** and that ***there will be private markets.*** **They just shouldn’t have unfettered control over the political and economic lives of the American people!** The American people, to ensure their general welfare, must have priority over ***them.***

**Alex Budarin**

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

**Ha-Joon Chang and Ilene Grabel,**

*Reclaiming Development: An Alternative Economic Policy Manual,*

Zed Books Ltd., 2004/2014

**John Eatwell and Lance Taylor,**

*“Towards an Effective Regulation of International Capital Markets,”* Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 3/99

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-1999-3/arteatwell-taylor.pdf

**Robert Reich,**

*Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future,*

Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010

**Joseph Stiglitz,**

* "The Coming Great Transformation,"* Journal  of Policy Modeling, 2017

http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/sites/jstiglitz/files/The%20Coming%20Great%20Transformation_1.pdf

**Joseph Stiglitz, Nell Abernathy, Adam Hersh, Mike Konczal, Susan Holmberg**

*“Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: an Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity,”* Roosevelt Institute, 2015

http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/report-stiglitz.pdf

Studies of Greed and Selfishness

(Originally published September 5, 2013)


I think it’s fair to say that Conservatives regard Progressives and Liberals as soft-headed fools, partly because we aren’t married to cultural traditions, but also because we don’t see the world as they do.  They see the world as a conflict between “worthies” and “unworthies,” divided by race, nationality, religion and/or economic status.  They see nothing wrong in being greedy and selfish.  In their worldview, this is reality, and we are stupid to dispute it.  But I believe their worldview is distorted.  It is as if they can see reality only in black and white, without color or even shades of grey.

It will likely have no impression upon Conservatives, but I would like to draw this community’s attention to several scientific studies which support the Progressive/Liberal worldview.

It’s possible that someone has already brought to the community’s attention the article which reported that “higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior.” Authors Paul K. Piffa, Daniel M. Stancatoa, Stéphane Côtéb, Rodolfo Mendoza-Dentona, and Dacher Keltnera, stated that “Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals... upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.”  Indeed, there is nothing in the ethics of Ayn Rand which recommends consideration of others.  Ego is absolute.

But, in the long term, that is not a successful strategy for social groups.  Authors Alexander J. Stewart and Joshua B. Plotkin note that cooperative behavior seems at odds with the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest, but is abundant in nature.  They report that “Scientists have used the Prisoner Dilemma game, in which players must choose to cooperate or defect, to study the emergence and stability of cooperation...Extortion strategies perform very well in head-to-head competitions, but they fare poorly in large, evolving populations.”  The authors concluded from mathematical tests that there was “a closely related set of generous strategies, which cooperate with others and forgive defection, that replace extortionists and dominate in large populations.” [my italics]  They concluded that their “results help to explain the evolution of cooperation.”  It arises from the fact that we are not just competing individuals; we are members of social groups, which aim to carry on over time.

Authors Andrew W. Deltona, Max M. Krasnowa, Leda Cosmidesa and John Toobya have analyzed the results of “one-shot encounters,” i.e., tests where people don’t know each other and meet only once, and found that “...generosity evolves because, at the ultimate level, it is a high-return cooperative strategy.”  They conclude that “Human generosity, far from being a thin veneer of cultural conditioning atop a Machiavellian core, may turn out to be a bedrock feature of human nature.”

Other social researchers have found that “indirect reciprocity,” the kind mediated by “gossip,” is also effective.  Authors Erez Yoeli, Moshe Hoffman, David G. Rand, and Martin A. Nowak worked with a utility company and discovered that “reputational concerns...can be harnessed to increase cooperation in a relevant, real-world public goods game.”

Conservatives will likely dismiss “reputational concerns,” based on their worldview, but they are a minority of the population.

The Conservative Worldview: Herrenvolk and Untermenschen

 (Originally published September 22, 2012)


Romney and Conservative propagandists are crying that President Obama is “divisive.”  That is sick, hypocritical and pathetic.  The conservative worldview itself is based upon the division of people into two groups, the “Herrenvolk” and the “Untermenschen.”  

“Herrenvolk” is German for a race, people, or nation considered superior to all others and therefore qualified to rule over them.   American Conservatives see themselves as the Herrenvolk, the “real Americans,” the job creators, the “haves,” the true (fundamentalist) Christians, native-born, native-English-speaking, heterosexual fetus-protectors who believe America is superior to all other countries, literally and morally.  With blind self-glorification, they assert that no one helped them achieve what they have, they did it all themselves.  This makes them superior.  A subset still maintains that being White also makes them superior.  And being male.  When the notion of a “Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck” ticket was proposed to Glenn Beck his response was, “I’m gonna take back seat to a chick?  I mean, ‘Go shoot a bear, make some stew, I’m hungry in here!’” For Conservatives like Beck, Limbaugh and Allen West, women should be subservient to men.  

The enemies of the Herrenvolk are the “Untermenschen,” “inferior people.”  Romney suggests that they are 47% of the U.S. population.  They are the “have nots,” freeloaders, moochers, scavengers, parasites, leeches, losers, hippies, foreigners, gays, atheists, Muslims, liberals, socialists, collectivists, communists, and anyone who lives off of taxes, which (as American Conservatives see it) is money robbed from Herrenvolk.  

The moral disgust that Conservatives feel toward Untermenschen is compounded by the belief that, aside from race and sex, Untermenchen choose to be Untermenschen.  Untermenschen could be fundamentalist Christians, but they choose not to be.  Homosexuals could choose to be heterosexual, but they refuse.  Liberals could choose to be Conservatives, but they insist on siding with Untermenschen.  Poverty is also a matter of choice.  In ConservaWorld, everyone can find or create jobs that pay well enough to provide for all of their needs, so, if they can’t provide for all of their needs, that was their choice.  If someone has a disabling medical condition which inhibits them from finding gainful employment, well, maybe their medical condition resulted from their lifestyle choices, and they don’t deserve support regardless of their need.

In the Conservative worldview, only the Herrenvolk deserve to vote, prosper and rule.  

Thus their complaints about President Obama.  He is the son of an African and he once went to a Muslim school.  Africans and Muslims are Untermenschen to American Conservatives.  President Obama may call himself a Christian now, but a prominent preacher in his church said bad things about America.  Anyone who denies the sanctity and supremacy of the United States of America is an Untermensch.  So is anyone who belongs to that preacher’s church.  Furthermore, President Obama openly advocates support for Untermenschen, and he takes money from Herrenvolk to do that.

Thus Conservative complaints about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, and welfare.  Herrenvolk wouldn’t need this support.  Anyone who does need such support is an Untermensch, and Untermenschen do not deserve such support.  So the Herrenvolk owe nothing to the Untermenschen.  But the Untermenschen owe everything to the Herrenvolk.

Thus the voter identification laws, and questions as to whether Untermensch Americans should have the right to vote.  Only Herrenvolk are worthy, but Untermenschen are so numerous that allowing them to vote is a threat to Herrenvolk.  The lazy, dependent Untermenschen will always vote to tax the Herrenvolk more and to increase their own entitlements.  So every means must be used to restrict the number of Untermenschen who are able to vote.

Thus the Conservative push for fundamentalist Christian theocracy.  American Conservatives see their religion, fundamentalist Christianity, as one factor giving them Herrenvolk superiority.  From their perspective, there is only one true religion, the one which they believe in, and it is superior to all others.  As General Boykin said, in reference to a Muslim warlord, "I knew my God was bigger than his; I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."  Anyone who rejects or impedes the authority and influence of fundamentalist Christianity is Untermensch.

Thus complaints about Obama “apologizing” to other countries and their people.  To the Conservative mind, the USA is Herrenvolk among nations, the rest are Untermenschen.

Thus the Conservative “Project for a New American Century” and its corollary policies of global threat and domination by Herrenvolk America.

That’s my Herrenvolk Hypothesis of the Conservative worldview.  Is there any scientific evidence for it?  Well, Chris Mooney, having reviewed the scientific literature concerning the Conservative brain, concluded that Conservatives are “hierarchs” and highly sensitive to in-group/out-group distinctions.  By "hierarchs" he says he means that they support various types of inequality.  I think they simply view the world in terms of superiors and inferiors, i.e., hierarchy.  When he talks about their “in-group/out-group distinctions,” he’s referring to their reflexive impulse to distinguish between Us and Them.

John Dean asserts that today’s Republican Party “is controlled by authoritarian conservatives,” and he notes that the social scientific literature has this to say about right-wing authoritarians:

They are very self-righteous. They are not self-critical. They have very little critical thinking about their own behavior. They are often nasty and mean-spirited. They are bullies. They are prejudiced. And the higher they test on these questionnaires and scales, the more conservative they are.

Remember this, the Ugly Republican, when they smile and ask you to vote them into power.  When they say, “Believe in America,” they mean a Herrenvolk America.

 

[Now it would be "Make America Herrenvolk Again."] 

 

 

America's Founders and Their Intentions

Modern Conservatives base their political creed on the assumption that our country’s Founders intended to create a nation where every family was on its own, with no public obligations beyond mere defense and personal contracts.  Conservatives refer to any deviation from this absolutist creed as “socialism” or “statism,” by which they mean “heresy.”  Because one is simply expected to adhere to this belief and follow it without question, just because someone said so.

I believe there is a fatal flaw in their premise.  When they speak of “The Founders’ Original Intent,” they are asserting that all of the Founders – without exception – had one intent, a single intent which was unchanging and without differentiation among them.  Otherwise, Conservatives would be referring to what some of the Founders intended, or speaking of the intentions of the Founders.  But they are not.  And that is an error.  

I’ll show you what I mean. Was Alexander Hamilton a Founder?  Can anyone doubt it?  Hamilton served under George Washington in the American Revolution, participated in the Constitutional Convention, and signed the Constitution.  And he argued vehemently for a strong national government.  Here is what he said in concluding remarks of the Federalist Papers, in defense of the Constitution:

The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the Union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single States, who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the Confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the States in a disunited situation; in the express guaranty of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the State governments which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals.

Note that Hamilton is specifically citing as a virtue of the Constitution its restraint on (powerful) individuals.  

He also advocated regulation of commerce by the national government, noting that

There are some, who maintain, that trade will regulate itself, and is not to be benefitted by the encouragements, or restraints of government. Such persons will imagine, that there is no need of a common directing power. This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes, which have grown into credit among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.  Contradicted by the numerous institutions and laws, that exist every where for the benefit of trade, by the pains taken to cultivate particular branches and to discourage others, by the known advantages derived from those measures, and by the palpable evils that would attend their discontinuance--it must be rejected by every man acquainted with commercial history.

But our modern conservatives have learned nothing from history.  Probably because they make it up to fit their prejudices. 

 I pointed out in a previous diary that Alexander Hamilton specifically proposed the establishment of a national bank.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed this, arguing in part that such a provision was not stipulated in the Constitution.  Hamilton replied that the powers delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution were not limited to those which were specifically expressed, but included "implied powers," i.e., powers to do things which would serve “as an instrument or means of carrying into execution any of the specified powers.”  Hamilton added that “...the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defence etc. ought to be construed liberally, in advancement of the public good.”  I call this “purposive constructionism,” a rejoinder to “strict construction” of the Constitution.  

Imagine President Obama proposing to create a government-affiliated national bank.  Modern conservatives would scream “Statist!” or “Socialist!” or “Communist!” or “Nazi!”  But this was proposed by one of the Founders, passed by a majority vote in Congress, and signed into law by George Washington.  Oh, yes, our country actually had government-affiliated national banks in its early history!  It certainly was not Hamilton’s intent to create a laissez-faire government that didn’t meddle in the market.  And obviously he was not alone.  Congress and George Washington affirmed this role for the new government.  

Parenthetically, Founder and President James Madison signed into law the charter of the Second Bank of the United States.  

Hamilton also proposed national tariffs to promote American industry.  One of Hamilton’s defenses for this was the “General Welfare” clause in the Constitution.

I noted in my previous diary that Founder John Adams, as President, signed into law the Sedition Act, which was intended to protect the Federal government from libel.  Did this Act represent the “original” intent of Founder John Adams?  Well, he didn’t sign it by accident.  He could have vetoed it.  And it only got to his desk because it was passed first by a majority of Congress in 1798.  Imagine how conservatives would howl today, if President Obama merely proposed what this Founder actually made the law of the land!

President John Adams also signed into law another Act in 1798, this one titled “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.”  This Act established a health care system for American sailors which would be managed by the Federal government (specifically the President and his appointed Marine Hospital Directors).  This government-run health care service evolved over the centuries into the Public Health Service we have today.  If this responsibility was not the intent of Founder John Adams, why would he sign it?

As previously mentioned, Founder Thomas Jefferson insisted on a “strict construction” of the Constitution.  But, as President, Jefferson was presented with an opportunity for the United States to acquire the Louisiana territory claimed by France.  There was nothing in the Constitution which specifically gave him the authority to do this, but he went ahead with the Louisiana Purchase, because it enhanced the security and size of the U.S.  Did this action reflect his “original” intent?  It certainly became his intent, when running a Federal government became more than an intellectual exercise.  For the public good, he could be pragmatic.

Second, for all of his concerns about tyranny, Thomas Jefferson also instituted an embargo prohibiting Americans from trading with England and France, supposing that this would cause England and France to respect American ships and sailors.  This would seem to be a very “Statist” action, since it certainly intended to use the Federal government to interfere with the “free market.”  But, again, he believed it was necessary for the public good.

Finally, Founder Thomas Jefferson also proposed a Bill in Virginia with the following rationale:

"Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:...”

It was a bill arguing for education at public expense.  In 1796 it became law in the State of Virginia.  The reasons Jefferson gave for public education sound remarkably like John Dewey’s:

Upon the educational side, we note first that the realization of a form of social life in which interests are mutually interpenetrating, and where progress, or readjustment, is an important consideration, makes a democratic community more interested than other communities have cause to be in deliberate and systematic education. The devotion of democracy to education is a familiar fact. The superficial explanation is that a government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated. Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education.

Having said all of the above, I want to make this clear: it is NOT my intention to suggest that the Founders were “socialists” or “statist.”  My point is rather that the Founders were not unified in their visions for America, and they were not doctrinaire, dogmatic or absolutist in pursuing their ideals.  Any political creed which asserts the contrary is based upon fallacy.

  In conclusion, our country was NOT founded upon the tenets of Christian feudalism.  It was founded upon the Enlightenment and the nascent social sciences.

(originally published August 12, 2012)

Deeper into the Psyches of Conservatives & Liberals

Why do we have different, even opposing, political orientations?

  

 Dueling demonstrations by Conservatives and Liberals on the steps of the US Supreme Court, over government-mandated contraception coverage.  March 25, 2014.  Reuters.

 After I wrote my last diary, I decided to dig deeper for answers to that question.  Different political orientations lead to different social and political expectations.  Different expectations, in turn, lead to social and political conflict.   Researching the answer led me further into the fields of psychology and neuroscience.  I am neither a psychologist nor a neuroscientist.  However, as a social scientist, I feel compelled to consider discoveries in other disciplines which could help to explain social behavior, especially our political behavior.  Chris Mooney addressed many such discoveries in his book titled "The Republican Brain," but in this diary I want to present some additional discoveries, along with ideas I derived from them.  

Political Scientist John T. Jost et al. tell us that the division of political opinions along a "left"-"right" continuum began in France in the late 1700's, "when supporters of the status quo sat on the right side of the French Assembly hall and its opponents sat on the left."  Jost et al. note that it is now common to substitute "Liberal" for "left," and "Conservative" for "right."  The underlying differences still come down to two interrelated distinctions: "Liberals" advocate social change and reject inequality; "Conservatives" resist social change and accept inequality. [1]

What could account for these distinctions?  Carney, Jost et al. answer that there  is "consistent and converging evidence" that Liberals and Conservatives have significant personality differences.  According to Jost et al., the evidence from 88 studies conducted in 12 countries ultimately supports Psychologist Glenn D. Wilson's theory, that the Conservative personality is significantly associated with a "generalized susceptibility to experiencing threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty." [2]

Political Scientist Peter K. Hatemi and his collaborators call this a "fear disposition."  I think it's more accurate to call it a "Defensive" disposition.  Glenn D. Wilson specifically asserts (p. 261) that, "conservative attitudes serve a defensive function:" in the face of uncertainty, Conservative attitudes confer security by simplifying, ordering and controlling experience.  Jost et al. conclude that Conservative  resistance to change and acceptance of inequality are ultimately rooted "in psychological attempts to manage uncertainty and fear."  Social change presents uncertainty, which creates anxiety in Conservatives.  Conservatives react by resisting  social change and defending the status quo.  Social equality presents uncertainty with regard to status.  To avoid status  anxiety, Conservatives resist egalitarianism and defend inequality.  Moreover, the status quo usually includes inequality, so defending the status quo usually includes defending inequality on that basis, as well.  

I think you can see how this Defensive disposition informs Conservative attitudes with regard to immigration, religion, race, gender, Obamacare and other contemporary political issues.  Changes to the status quo create uncertainty, uncertainty creates anxiety, and Conservatives react by reflexively defending the status quo ante.

Liberals also experience anxiety under conditions of uncertainty, but Liberals tend to respond by engaging thought processes which are said to "correct" their initial reactions.  Presumably this is the reason why Jost et al. have found Liberals to be strongly associated with Openness to Experience and traits related to it: sensation-seeking, novelty-seeking, curiosity, creativity, and rebelliousness.  It would also explain why Liberals advocate for social change and challenge inequality: through cognitive intervention, Liberals experience less uncertainty anxiety than Conservatives.  In fact, Jost et al. note evidence of Liberals becoming more Conservative under conditions which are highly threatening  or their thinking is impaired. [3][4]  Although these scholars don't use the term, all of this suggests to me that Liberals generally have a more "Open" disposition than Conservatives.  Due to their Defensive disposition, Conservatives are more "Closed" psychologically.

Neuroscience is providing insights into what lies behind these personality differences.  Attention is currently focusing on two brain structures, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex ["ACC"] and the amygdala.  The human brain has two amygdala, one on the left side and one on the right.  To avoid copyright concerns, I've made a really crude and simplified drawing of these two structures, based on several academic depictions:

 Ryota Kanai et al. conducted MRI brain scans of 90 individuals who self-reported their political attitudes (“very liberal” to “very conservative”).  They found that "increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex was significantly associated with liberalism," and that "increased gray matter volume in the right amygdala was significantly associated with conservatism."  They did a replication study with 28 more subjects and obtained similar results.  They noted that one function of the amygdala concerns the processing of fear, and people with large amygdala have been found to be more sensitive to fear.  On the other hand, one function of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty.  Kanai et al. therefore cautiously hypothesized that people with larger amygdala would be more inclined to conservative views, and people with larger ACCs, having "a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts," would "accept more liberal views."  Overall, Kanai et al. believed that these results were "consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty."


Amodio et al. conducted a similar study using electroencephalographs and found that, when presented with conflicting stimuli, "liberalism (versus conservatism) was associated with significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" in the ACC.

In The Neuroscience of Fair Play, Donald W. Pfaff provides numerous examples of how genes affect brain structure and chemistry, including those relating to fear and ability to love.  Nancy L. Segal provides further evidence of the influence of genes, based on twin studies and adoption studies, in her book, Entwined Lives.  Dr. Segal estimates (p. 70) that "Approximately 20-50% of individual differences in personality are genetically based." 
 
All of the preceding leads me to conclude that one's political orientation is significantly related to one's personality disposition, and one's personality disposition is significantly related to one's brain structure.  And one's brain structure is significantly related to one's genes.  In the context of a democracy, this means that citizens -- to a significant degree -- vote on the basis of their personality, and their personality developed to some extent on the basis of their genetic makeup.  Why do we have genetic makeups associated with different, even opposing, political orientations?  I'm guessing it's because Open, Defensive, and Ambivalent dispositions have all provided viable survival responses in human history.  I will argue, however, that current social conditions recommend a more Open disposition, due to the world's  increasing population density, economic integration and global issues.  

Having said all of that, Andrea Kuszewski reminds me that "Not everyone fits into little personality boxes."  Kuszewski complains that a model like this "...doesn’t account for moderates, nor does it take into account extreme fanatics of both wings...."  In this regard, I note that Markus Kemmelmeier set out to test this idea that people "at both ends of the political spectrum" were different from "those in the political mainstream."  His research, involving 93 German students, led him to conclude that "Need for Closure" [closed-mindedness] "increased with the right-wing orientation of the party" preferred by the subject, and the data "support the original hypothesis of Adorno et al. (1950) [The Authoritarian Personality] of a linear association between cognitive functioning and political orientation.  So we're probably talking about a linear continuum.

Another observation by Kuszewski is that "the brain is plastic."  She is referring to our "brain's ability to change and adapt" in response to new conditions, experiences and information.   Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, a contributor to Are We Born Racist?, specifically identifies ways which he says reseach has found to be effective in reducing prejudices [pp. 30 - 32].  Examples include:
   ⦁    developing cross-group relationships;
   ⦁    actions by authorities and institutions which enable cross-group contact;
   ⦁    "social events designed to bring groups into contact with each other" (under conditions where they have equal status); and even
   ⦁    teaching individuals about how the brain grows and changes. 

Of course, people who have predominantly Defensive dispositions will purposely avoid novel conditions, experiences and information, so as to control and avoid uncertainty anxiety.  But that still leaves a lot of citizens with more Open dispositions who may be able to adapt and change their minds on a host of social issues.

 The List of Caveats:
- I am a Liberal and admit to that bias.
- I have not presented all of the theories which exist on these topics.
- All findings and hypotheses are based on estimates of likelihood.
- Association is not proof of causality.
- The source and direction of causality is debatable.
- Further investigation is always required.

(originally published March 9, 2015)

A Theory of Social Groups: Evolutionary Social Exchange Theory

In the previous diary, "Evolution, Pragmatism and Progressivism,"  I offered what I saw as a foundation for a political philosophy of Progressivism.  It was based  on ideas which had been steeping in my mind for decades, after I received my M.A. in Sociology and left academia.  In today's diary I present what I see as the social science behind that diary.  If I fail in that, well, I would feel worse if I never presented it at all.

 
As I indicated at the outset of "Evolution, Pragmatism and Progressivism," this theory is grounded in Evolutionary Psychology and Social Exchange Theory.

The basic premise is that the human brain is an organ which has evolved over millennia to calculate, on both conscious and older sub-conscious levels, the potential risks, costs and rewards of various behaviors.  Association with other people has been a successful survival adaptation, but nature and social life continue to present problems, so we continue to calculate, consciously and subconsciously,  the potential risks, costs and rewards of various social behaviors.  In my view, the major premises of Social Exchange Theory are:
1.    Social interaction of any kind involves a conscious or unconscious calculation of benefits and costs, or expected benefits and costs;  
2.    The benefits and costs being calculated include the material, such as money and imprisonment, and the non-material, such as honor and dishonor; and
3.    The objective of this conscious or unconscious calculation is to manage benefits and costs so that benefits outweigh costs to the greatest extent possible.

I believe these principles apply all the way from the smallest social groups, such as families, to the largest, such as nation-states and multinational organizations.  I'm not saying that everyone behaves rationally, nor that every behavior is purely rational.  There are crazy people out there, and sometimes our emotions overrule our reasoning.  But it's my observation that most people, most of the time, behave in ways which reflect such calculations.

So my major premise is that people act in groups on the basis of benefit/cost calculations.  But what factors determine the complexity, evolution and duration of social groups?  All kinds of answers have been proposed.  Here are the factors which appear to me to be best-supported, along with the authors who proposed them.

FACTOR #1:  USABLE RESOURCES

This is the factor most emphasized by Jared Diamond, in both Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse.  It's also a factor identified by Gerhard Lenski in his book, Ecological-Evolutionary Theory.  Both Diamond and Lenski were considering fairly large social groups, so their attention was drawn to resources such as drinkable water, arable soil, climate, and available food sources.  Diamond, in particular, demonstrates how a difference in the availability of such resources allowed Polynesians on one island to continue an agrarian lifestyle, while their former relatives on another island, with fewer resources, were compelled to resume hunting and gathering.

But I believe this factor can and should be generalized to include other resources potentially available to social groups, such as capital.  There are many social groups, especially modern social groups, which do not directly engage in food production.  But they still need resources -- such as capital -- in order to survive as a group.    

The bottom line is this: if more usable resources are available to the social group, then more benefits can be available to the social group.  In historical terms, a social group which lived in an area with drinkable water, good soil, a temperate climate, and edible grains and animals was able to obtain more food than a social group which did not.  In modern terms, a group which has more capital can support itself better than a group which has less.  With more resources at hand, the group can grow larger, and eventually develop more complexity.

But the amount of usable resources -- natural or capital -- can change over time.  The climate can change drastically.  Or you might use up a resource until you have no more.  So, it is a factor which is both critical and variable.  It bears watching.  Perhaps a measure of "Gross Domestic Resources" is worth creating.

FACTOR #2:  KNOWLEDGE

This is a factor upon which Lenski places particular emphasis.  Well, he refers to it as "technology," and then defines "technology" as "information about the ways in which the resources of the environment may be used to satisfy human needs and desires."  It's a critical factor, because the more practical information a social group acquires, the more benefits that social group can generate, economic and/or social.  The group might learn how to grow more food, how to defend itself better, how to heal its sick, or how to create various arts.  This is true whether we're talking about families or empires.  Demographer Wolfgang Lutz reports that he has found "consistently positive and significant effects of educational attainment on economic growth" (p.294).

But the amount of knowledge acquired can differ from group to group, and it can also decline, as it did in Europe during its "Dark Ages."

What's the appropriate measure for this?  My suggestion would be aggregate measures of educational attainment by group members.


 FACTOR #3:  POPULATION

Another critical factor identified by Lenski and Diamond is the number of people in the  social group -- its population.  With more members, the social group can increase its ability to acquire the resources and knowledge necessary to increase economic and social benefits for its members, which in turn permits the group to evolve more complex and specialized social exchanges.  Exchanges between members of a small group are wholly personal; exchanges between members of a large group become less personal and more a function of position, class or caste.  Of course, the size of a social group can also decline, due to things like disease, war, famine, or emigration -- or separation and divorce, in the case of families.  In any case, a decline in the population will decrease the amount of social and/or economic benefits the group can generate.

Appropriate data are already collected by most countries in the form of a periodic census.

FACTOR #4:  BENEFIT EXPECTATIONS

Lenski identifies "ideology," or belief system, as critical to a social group's development, because he associates the social group's "ideology" with how its members will calculate costs and benefits.  Since these calculations involve uncertainties, I think it would be more accurate to say that a social group's "ideology," or belief system, is a factor which determines the cost and benefit expectations of its members.

The Amish give us a perfect example of this: based on their religious beliefs, members of this social group are expected to lead simple, humble lives, so they vastly restrict their purchase and use of modern amenities, such as cars, TVs and telephones.  As a group, they don't have high benefit expectations.  They are satisfied with the amount of benefits they can obtain by their traditional means.  Their non-Amish neighbors, however, have higher benefit expectations.  The non-Amish do expect to be able to enjoy the benefits of such amenities, even if they could technically survive without them.  So, I would predict that the non-Amish would be likelier to increase their amount of practical knowledge, increase their usable resources, and increase their population.  It's not because the Amish are less intelligent; it's because the Amish are satisfied with less.

Nevertheless, I prefer not to tie benefit expectations exclusively to a social group's ideology.  First, some of the expected benefits of human association are universal.  Everyone, regardless of ideology, needs food, drinkable water, and some form of shelter.  These are basic "economic" needs.  Furthermore, the vast majority of us find it necessary, for psychological and emotional reasons, to be around other people.  We are generally social animals with certain basic social needs.  Some social groups are based exclusively on such exchanges.  Consequently, people who participate in groups will have certain basic benefit expectations in common, whether social or economic (or both), regardless of the group's ideology.

Additionally, it can be the case that people who share the same social group -- even the same family -- don't share the same ideology.  The existence of different ideologies within the group can result in some different benefit expectations among its members.  That can be a source of friction within the group, which forces the group eventually either to evolve or to rupture.

My hypothesis regarding this factor is that the more benefits the members of a social group expect, the more benefits they will try to obtain.  Sociologist Peter M. Blau adds that the amount of benefits which group members are able to obtain becomes the standard for the amount of benefits which they expect (p.143-4).  When members don't get the kind or quantity of benefits they expect, they will definitely make their disappointment known!  Frustration of expectations leads to aggression.  That is a long-established principle of psychology.

I'm guessing that data on benefit expectations will have to be gathered from periodic surveys of group members.

FACTOR #5:  AVAILABLE BENEFITS, SOCIAL AND/OR ECONOMIC

The four previous factors enable a social group  and its members to secure a quantity of economic and/or social benefits.  The group's survival depends, first, on whether the quantity  of economic and/or social benefits is enough to meet the basic expectations of its members.  If it isn't, the group will collapse, partially or wholly.

But the group may be in a situation where its usable resources, knowledge, population and benefit expectations combine to yield more than enough to meet its members' basic needs.  If that is the case, the group will be able to grow in population, acquire more knowledge, and develop more usable resources.  Benefit expectations will likely increase, as well, creating a "feedback loop."

Of course, a group which has enjoyed a surplus can later experience an event which causes the group to lose resources, population and benefits.  Wars, epidemics and droughts can have that effect.
Measures of a group's pool of economic benefits might include data concerning total assets held, or GDPs for nation-states.

Measures of a group's pool of social benefits might include rates of member interaction and voluntary participation in group activities.

FACTOR #6:  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT AT SECURING SOCIAL AND/OR ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR GROUP MEMBERS

In small groups, political roles are informal.  There is no need for formal administration, since everyone has a personal relationship with everyone else, and there may not be enough of an economic surplus to permit any members to assume formal, full-time administrative roles.  

However, as groups increase in size, and in their capacity to exceed basic expectations, they do become able to support formal, full-time administrative roles.  At that point, formal political arrangements -- governments -- arise and assume responsibility for ensuring that the expected economic and/or social benefits are secured for group members.  The size and complexity of the political arrangement increases and evolves along with the group.

Of course, a group may grow in population, have specialized roles, develop a political arrangement, and then experience an  event which causes the group to lose resources, population and benefits.
My contention is that, to be effective, the leaders in the political arrangement need to:
(1) pay attention to increases and decreases of the four primary factors, as well as increases and decreases in the benefits being received by members of the group; and
(2) undertake pragmatic actions calculated to ensure that group members receive the benefits they currently expect.

As I see it, the fate of the political arrangement, and possibly the group's survival, depends on the degree to which the group meets the benefit expectations of its members.  If member expectations are NOT met, then members will be frustrated and either fight the political arrangement or flee.  The degree to which they fight or flee will depend in part on the degree to which their benefit expectations are not met, and in part on their numbers within the population.  I'm sure there are other variables, as well, and I hope to address some of them in a future diary.

Typical measures of the political arrangement's effectiveness have included things like wealth surpluses, credit ratings and membership figures.  I think measures of ineffectiveness would include the quantity, size and forcefulness of member protests directed against the political arrangement, as well as emigration.

THE TEMPLE OF ESET

As I developed a mental picture of the interaction of these factors, the facade of a greco-roman temple came to mind.  It's a temple with four pillars: "Usable Resources;" "Knowledge;" "Population," and "Benefit Expectations."  The four pillars work in combination to support the lintel, i.e., "Benefits, Social and/or Economic ."  And resting upon the lintel is the crown, i.e., the "Political Arrangement for Securing Expected Benefits." 

 If the pillars of resources, knowledge, or population increase, then the lintel of benefits also increases, and so does the crown, the political arrangement.  If the pillars of resources, knowledge, or population weaken, the lintel of benefits also weakens, and so does the political arrangement.  

Such is my current theory of social organization, subject to any change that evidence requires.  I hope it's useful for others, but I can only say it works for me.