Thomas Jefferson gives Republicans their true name

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all. --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

Sam Harris and math

The issue that got Sam Harris into so much trouble was his assertion that decent, reasonable moderates were as much a part of the problem as the crazed religious zealots.

I think he's right. And I just read a fascinating passage in Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature that helps explain why.

Pinker is discussing the Prisoner's Dilemma, and how the simple strategy Tit-for-Tat is generally the best algorithm for repeated iterations. You start out cooperating, and then you just do whatever other guy did last time. This not only accords with our natural moral senses, but it's also mathematically optimal (which of course is not a coincidence).

Not only does it work best for the individual, but it works for the community; over time, the Cheaters are weeded out, and soon you have nothing but rational players.

But, here's the thing. Suppose there are a group of Samaritans in with your population. They always cooperate, no matter what. Sounds noble, right? And for the Tit-for-Taters, it's fine; they'll always cooperate back. Everything's great.

Except it isn't. The presence of the Samaritans keeps the Cheaters alive. Because there is a population for the Cheaters to exploit, they stay in the game, cheating everyone else and forcing them to cheat, and in general ruining it for everyone.

Yes, the Cheaters are the bad guys; but the system would purge itself of them if it weren't for the Samaritans.

And this is (mathematically) how nice, reasonable, perfectly decent, respectable, admirable, honorable people... contribute to religious zealotry.

It's a little bit like how a perfectly decent pothead's habit contributes to South American police states. Or the weekend wine drinker makes alcoholism possible. At some point you have to draw a balance between your private indulgences and social harm. Frankly, I don't have a problem with weekend drinkers or potheads (the harm they cause should be solved by other means, like regulation and legalization). And I'd like to not have a problem with nice, moderate religious types... but religion has caused so much harm that I can't. Alcohol destroys lives; religion destroys societies.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe once we get the fire under control, weekend mysticism will be fine. Maybe I'm over-reacting. I dunno; all I have is my hunches and prejudices.

And, oh ya, math.

We're winning!

In 1965, at the end of the Council, there were 58,000 priests. Now there are 41,000. By 2020, if present trends continue (and there is no sign of a dramatic upsurge in vocations), there will be only 31,000 priests

State of the US Catholic Church

Albeit slowly... but not as slowly as it would appear. Presumably the decline of priests follows the same power law as everything else. Right now the decline is gradual, but as the average age inches up, the drop-off rate will increase sharply, and the renewal rate will presumably go down as there are less priests to create converts.

On the other hand, the Catholic priesthood has such a bad reputation, maybe getting rid of them will help the Catholic faith.

The unbearable incoherency of being Republican

Over at Investor's Business Daily, there's an editorial that can only be described as deranged:

Is Obama 'Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism'?

But even better are the comments, the best of which is this one:

Michael Totten · Top Commenter · Proprietor at RED DOG ARMS

read this now and act...or read the headlines when the Congress and the Supreme Court are dissolved! I do believe we need a small committee running the country for two years...two years during which a true citizen government would be formed...as in 1789.....then regular pres. elections would be held with single term limits and congress would be elected by their peers for one year terms....

Mikey is so afraid that Obama will dissolve the institutions of government and throw away the Constitution that he wants to... dissolve the institutions of government and throw away the Constitution. 

Perhaps he'll name his "small committee" something like the Central Committee. Or perhaps Reich Committee would roll off the tongue a little easier.

This is open sedition. Fair enough; Mikey is free to argue for the elimination of democracy and his right to argue. Certainly the hippies and the Wobblies wanted to undo the foundation of the State. But even in their most drug-addled state, the hippies understood that they were preaching revolution; that they sought to undo the social contract. They were not patriots; they did not preach "my country right or wrong."

But Mikey probably has a hat with that blazoned on it. One can just hear him explaining, "it was necessary to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."

Obama's eager to ge the conversation started

"We are going to have a big and important debate in this country, and I cannot wait."

Obama eager for campaign

A national conversation

Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee, and just as I predicted, this means the election will be a referendum on Reaganomics. Mitt's wealth (or rather, how he got that wealth) made that inevitable. Last week Obama got the ball rolling with his speech, and here's evidence that the conversation is being had:

Today’s speech had less historical sweep than the past two and focused more narrowly on the point that has separated the two parties: the primacy of low taxes for the rich. Obama made a fairly simple argument. The Republican theory that low taxes (especially for high earners) is the essential ingredient in economic growth has been tested thoroughly over the last two decades. First Republicans insisted that Bill Clinton’s tax hikes on the rich would destroy growth and then that the George W. Bush tax cuts would create a boom. Both predictions utterly failed. (Obama did not mention that the Bush tax cuts remain in effect right now, and so that to whatever degree we blame policy for the meager growth since he took office, tax cuts ought to share the blame.) And yet, he noted, Republicans have shown not the slightest trace of intellectual humility, no inkling whatsoever that they ought to rethink supply-side economics.

Obama frames the economic choice

I was kind of hoping for Rick Santorum, because that would have lead to a conversation over the role of religion in politics. But as I have recently been reminded, every conversation with a conservative these days ends up in religion.

The reason is simple: by the numbers, Reaganomics has failed. Therefore the only defense left to it is ideological; if we just double-down, hold the line, have faith, then our earnest dedication will be rewarded and it will work! Also, it will work twice as good as we said! Except for all the naysayers, doomsayers, critics, skeptics, traitors, and liberals: it won't work for them, because they don't deserve it.

If this coming national conversation sticks to facts and figures, Reaganomics (and all that goes with it, such as an unfettered faith in unfettered free markets) may finally be retired. Note that Mittens already gave a speech in which he suggested that unregulated free markets don't always yield the optimal solution.

Nothing would be better for the world than the destruction of this selfish, farcical economic fantasy. Because as America goes, so goes the world.

It's all Reagan's fault

Chris Mooney asserts that the Republican distrust of science started with Reagan.

Conservatives vs Science

More specifically, he demonstrates that there was only really a decline in public trust in science among conservatives in the period from 1974 to 2010 (and among those with high church attendance, but these two things are obviously tightly interrelated).

In the interests of balance, I of course would welcome a contrasting viewpoint about Liberalism.

But here's the thing. Everybody (even conservatives) agrees the last 30 years, things have gotten worse. But the last 30 years have had more conservative politics, not less. And despite all that conservating, social attitudes have continued to shift leftwards. Gay marriage is just one example of a social position that has shown dramatic change over the last ten years.

The current conservative response seems to be to assert the conservative policies we have adopted via Reagan and both Bushes were not conservative enough, and we need even more conservatism. But the amount of conservatism being proposed is far more than even Reagan dreamed of.

At some point you have to ask: if you are in a hole, and it keeps getting darker, are you sure you're digging in the right direction?