Partisanship is Human Nature: Good luck changing it.

Though I have often been a member of a political party, voted more often than not (and usually for the same party) I do not consider myself to be an overly partisan person.  And I like to think that I don't often find myself just going along with the herd (okay...I know no one actually knows when he or she is simply adopting herd like practices...but hey, I'm subjective, there is nothing else I can be). As it were,  I often wonder about people who defend everything their side does but attack the very same actions when performed by other parties.  I don't want to really get into specifics right now, but you all know what I mean (all three of you)

Perhaps a big part of this is caused by the tribal part of our brain.  Actually, I'd bet that is really the biggest explanation.  Sure, there may be some systemic processes that cause parties to become ever more entrenched in their own worldviews and ideologies, but is it not the tribal part of our brain that allows those systems to occur in the first place?

Let me explain the "tribal" notion for a moment.  Some anthropologist or other started this idea, and since then it has become a rather commonly held idea.  It basically goes that our tribal nature right from our prehistoric ancestry has caused us to develop an in-group love.  Now, lots of research has recently shown that in-group love does not, by necessity equate with out-group hatred, it does cause the in-group to be favoured by the individual.

This goes further than the partly biological and instinctual goal of protecting one's own offspring as it extends beyond the immediate, or even extended family toward those in a generalized clan, syndicate or tribe.  The clan must be protected at the expense of any group which is not "one of us".   As the theory goes, this is the explanation for everything from tattoos to biker gangs, tree forts to gardening clubs, fashion statements and political behavior.

I think we don't have to look so far and wide to see that this probably is why political parties and movements seem to have so many people who all see eye-to eye on just about everything.  I really don't think it is because big bullies like Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair in Canuckistan or Nancy Pelosi in the U.S are enforcing discipline with an iron fist and ensuring that caucuses tow the party line.  Is that part of it?  Probably, but why do we allow it to happen over ourselves?  Why do we adopt party ideology wholesale?

Is it not possible to be a democratic socialist who believes in old institutions like the Monarchy or the House of Lords/  Is it so contradictory for a conservative to be pro-abortion?  Why does it get laughs when what's his face describes himself as pro-death because he is pro-choice and in favour of the death penalty?  Maher...Bill Maher...how could I have forgotten that name.

Anyway, I am not so sure that there is a solution to any of this.  If were were to try to ban political parties and run a non-affiliated system (like that which exists in municipal politics in Canada) would unofficial (but still present) affiliations not just replace them?  I also can't really see us ever getting rid of the a majority consensus...perhaps we can weaken adherence to it, increase tolerance of alter opinions, and reduce majority views to pluralities on many issues, but end it completely?  Good luck with that.

An Angry Baird in its natural habitat

Party discipline may be unusually high in Canada, higher than in the U.K or the U.S, but even in countries with relatively week political party discipline, people still seem to rally behind large generalized groupings.  That's not going to change.  Don't spend too much time worrying about it.

I think that this is simply human nature and not much should be done about it but to attempt to limit the level of partisanship.  Oh, and I do think it is a great myth that we are so much more partisan today than we were in our so called glory days.  It wasn't so long ago that Canadian elections involved armed thugs punishing those who voted the wrong way.  Sure, the government has been trying to manipulate results, but until Harper sends one of his hench-persons...(John Baird) out to physically hit you with a stick or vomit in your face, than we have not yet reached the nadir.

The Myth of Human Rationality

As Noam Chomsky recently observed in an interview with alternet.org, one purpose of advertising is to affect public decisions.  He advises us to "take a look at the first ad you see and television...and ask yourself" (is the purpose of the ad to help you to make a rational choice)?  Is the purpose of advertising not simply to convince you to make a choice which you might not rationally decide on your own?  He links this in with the PR industry in general and how political choices are made.

I wrote on this topic fairly extensively last year, but I'd just like to break it down and summarize some of the main arguments for you without getting into an overall political statement.  I recognize that I am stepping on the turf of economics, and have done so many times under the guise of politics, but it's not like the economists don't do the same thing in political science, so I don't really see a problem in that.

Anyway, so much of our contemporary economic theories are based on the idea that rational consumers exist:  Rational people will make decision which will make objective sense.  Workers will shop around for a better job with higher pay, more benefits and better conditions.  Left to their own devices, without interference, they will create a "job market".  Employers will also, without interference "shop around" for decent employees.  Without regulation, they will hire and fire after weighing the costs of training.  The basic theory is referred to as "rational choice".

The theory also is used to explain the real market place.  Consumers will create demand for items they want.  Inferior items will disappear as the market makes them obsolete.  Producers will gradually become more efficient as weaker and more expensive products are simply not purchased by the market.

Further, this theory has been applied in the political as well.  Give people a choice between health care providers, schools, prisons or whatever and they will gradually do what no government can do.  They will weed out the weaker of the lot, and cause suppliers to offer a better, and better product.

Well, the fundamental problem with this theory is that it assumes rationality where there is none and now I will explain what I mean and back it up with some evidence from a variety of fields.

I believe it was Jean Chretien who stated that voters are not motivated by reason alone, rather they are guided by an instinct.  Well, let's take that as a starting point. (the link for the sources and data I'm using is mostly available through the "academic" link above)

What exactly is instinct?  Let's look at a study (J. Cohen 2005) that showed that "the brain can absorb about eleven million pieces of information a second but can only process forty consciously".  This neurological study would suggest that so much of the brains activity remains in the subconscious mind and never reaches the conscious mind.

Furthermore, research by Crawford (2000) and Damasio (1994) show that rationalist assumptions that people make rational decisions without using emotion are flawed.  According to their research, good decisions cannot be made with an absence of emotion.  One patient they studied had suffered severe brain damage which caused him to have very little obvious emotion.  He was almost entirely unable to make appropriate decisions which seemed rational to the observer.

Benjamin Libet, a well known physiologist once wrote "the brain signals associated with movement occurred half a second before the person was conscious of deciding to move", but the individual believed that he or she made that decision consciously and could explain the decision to the researcher.

So, from these studies we see that most of what is happening in our brain is not processed consciously, is driven or affected by emotion and the conscious mind believes itself to have been in control of decision making when the signal for movement was actually sent before the individual was aware that he or she decided to move.

When it comes to voter intention, many studies have shown that people are much more likely to vote for the first name on the ballot than any other ranking.  You can randomize the ballot, but it always holds true.  And, what's more: the people who made the decision will tell you clearly and eloquently all the rational reasons why they chose that name on the ballot.

One researcher went as far as to describe this as being something like a monkey riding a tiger.  The tiger goes where it wants, but the monkey thinks itself in control.  The unconscious mind is likely doing all sorts of things which would shock you.  That's one reason why our first impressions tend to be so accurate; why we can sum up a situation so easily but then not really be able to explain how it is that we know...we know that we know, but we can't really explain how we know...we just do.  Well, that's probably because your brain has figured it all out and only told you what you need to know in order to not get eaten.

Let's move along:

Research by child psychologists recently quoted on CBC (Hamlin, Akin and Dunne, 2012) observed that babies like to give their own candy away to others.  They like when we eat their candy.  Why would they do this?  Rationally, would they not want to get as much candy as possible, or would they not want to use their candy in some sort of trick?  Clearly, people can and do act as power maximizers, but they also do all kinds of other stuff.  Not all decisions are rational...perhaps none really are.

Think about this:  is it really a rational choice that causes you to prefer pepsi over grape juice, or over coke?  Is it a rationally calculated decision that makes you choose a Benz over a Toyota?  Is there not some sort of cultural issue at play regarding your political choice?  Do you vote Conservative because of their platform?  Are you a Democrat because you genuinely weighed all the party platforms...or even the platform of the Republican candidate?

Or is it that people "like you" vote Conservative?  Could you possibly drink Coke because everyone you know also drinks Coke?  Maybe you drink a craft ale because only rednecks drink Budweiser or whatever.  Maybe you read literature because only children read comic books.  Maybe you drive a sedan because you think you'd look silly in a sports car.  Are these really rational choices?

If they are so rational, than (returning to Chomsky) what the heck is the point of advertising campaigns using sex, family values, soft voices, exciting places or appeals to emotion?

This is the fundamental flaw with economics today and also the public choice brand of politics.  There is no such thing as human rationality.  We are not rational beings.  We have these strange things called emotions and we sometime behave intuitively, emotionally or for reasons we don't even understand.

This is the direction that modern science has taken us in.  Perhaps we should actually try to apply it to our political theories.  You're not a machine, stop pretending that you are.

No Stability without Tolerance.

While I don't accept Schlesinger's Cyclical theory entirely, I do think he was at least partly correct.

His theory basically goes that a "self-generating and autonomous" cycle occurs from the people themselves rather than from leaders and that cycles of political action occur because the population becomes disenfranchised with the current system.  This disenfranchisement brings in a new political mentality and explains political shifts.

If this is true, and I think it is in the broadest strokes, than it would make a great deal of sense to be nice to the political opposition to avoid extremes in cycles, or a pendulum effect.

Just days ago, a bomb was exploded in the general area of Ramkhamhaeng university.  From what I hear, it was likely a "red shirt" versus "yellow shirt" issue.  Whether or not that is true, I think it proves the point.  Extreme partisanship only increases tension, polarizes groups thus preventing them from reaching consensus, and causes instability.

If we want a peaceful society, and this goes for all societies than we need to recognize that there is no group of people who are inherently more irrational than "us", whatever your "us" may be.  Taking strong lines against those with different political and social views and life-styles may help your side to eventually win, but it is also going to create a strong group of people who are going to fight just as hard to replace your ideology with theirs.

This can be the relatively mild political instability in the United States or Canada, or the much more vicious instability in Syria or Nigeria.  A hard line against groups you don't support may work in the short term, but in the long term it is much better to try to reach some sort of consensus and to negotiate with the understanding that you, and your views are not infallible.  But, if you can't accept that you could possibly be wrong, than at least accept that you are going to win more friends and converts by being a bit more diplomatic.

For those of us living in relatively stable political situations, we need to realize how rare those periods have been in human history.  We also have to understand that what seems normal debate now can easily become something that can rip people apart and result in violence.

I'm not saying that vigorous debate is not a good thing, but I am saying that whatever the debate is, you should still be able to get along with the opposing side.  The highest degree might be a true ability to see past differences, but even a respect for the other probably suffices.  At the very least, let others live their lives and don't assume that you are completely right and "the other" completely wrong.

Crazy? Of course we are: On why we need economic democracy

So, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has just been updated to include even more mental illnesses which we will all probably suffer at some point in our lives.  Sure, even the BBC and other mainstream media seem to think that this is just a really convenient way to sell more medications and to justify the existence of the huge psychiatric industry.  It also has spill over affects for therapists, psychologists, non-psychiatric health providers and the self-help industry.  But, what if they are right?  What if 25% of Americans are suffering from mental health problems at the moment and the majority will face mental health issues at some point in their lives?

Think this is all made up out of nothing?  Think again.  Let's look at some numbers before I tell you why I think this is happening.  You might be shocked to learn that between 1999 and 2007 the U.S suicide rate quadrupled to over 17 in 100,000 people.  This in a country that is not materially poor, where just about everyone can get a job, where social organizations exist to help people through hard times and where everyone can get at least something to eat.

17 in 100,000...think about that number for a moment.  That's four in 25,000.  That's two suicides in about 12,500.  That's every single year.  Do you know 12,500 people?  Do you know someone who has committed suicide?  Would you think that number is under or over reported?  According to a recent report in the Lancet, U.S suicides are massively unreported.  That's probably party because of investigators, family and coroners not wanting the victim to be recorded as a suicide.  Much nicer to say that he died cleaning his gun than he died with the gun in his mouth.  Three people who were very close to me committed suicide, and I know of many more.  I also know plenty of people who've attempted suicide.  Some of them more than once.  Believe me, I'm not making light of this in any way.  I'm not suggesting reasons or motivations for any one person or groups of people, but perhaps there is something seriously wrong with our society.

Let's look at some more numbers.  In 2010 there were nearly 34,000 deaths by motor vehicle accident and nearly 38,000 suicides.  You are more likely to die by your own hand than you are by a car.

Still think there isn't a mental health crisis?  How about the Boston bombing, the school shootings, the high murder rates and the violence?  How about the bar fights?  Is that really just a normal part of human existence?  Did we evolve from lone cats or from monkey's?  Are we social or territorial?  I argue that we are behaving in a way that is not natural for our species.  We are supposed to live most of our lives in peaceful coexistence for we are a social species.

But, look at how we are actually living.  Just about everyone of us spends the majority of our time trying to get enough of the proverbial pie to stay alive, keep our families alive, and to avoid social stigma.  Ever tried walking into a half decent restaurant in cheap clothes?  Ever felt like your car didn't totally project the image of yourself that you'd like to show the world?  Ever felt that you needed to upgrade your computer or camera because yours wasn't as nice as your peers?

I think the term "wage slave" might be overplaying it a bit, but how much of your life is spent in the pursuit of earning more money, spending money or thinking about money?  How many hours of sleep do you loose worrying about paying a bill, worrying about getting to work on time or worrying that your kids need a new pair of shoes and they won't wear the cheap ones?

Yes, we've always had to work hard.  But perhaps these days we are working hard and stressing even harder because we don't want to feel that sense of shame when we know we aren't keeping up; when we aren't giving our families what others are giving their families.

Why do we feel this way?  Well, it would be hard not to with so much of our culture being given to us by an elite.  Think you are just watching television or visiting a website for entertainment?  You, even you visitors to my site are being marketed to.  Advertisements, since the earliest days have worked hard to convince us that we need something.  You need to spray Febreze in your house because it stinks.  You need to buy coke because that is what people drink and you do want to be a person, don't you?  You need those new shoes because they are shiny and you must have shiny feet, mustn't you?  You need a new car that reflects your status, that separates you from those beneath you.  Go ahead, spend.  It's good for the economy.  You'll feel better.  You'll be anuyoo!  You'll get that date; that promotion and you're cat will stop vomiting on the floor.  Drink Coke!  Drink it now!  Rot your teeth and buy these new porcelain veneers.

And in charge of all this are the elite untouchables.  Massive corporations who pay less tax than you enjoy trademark protection.  Try to criticize them and they might take you down.  Question what it is that they are feeding you and they might legislate away your right to bring them to court.

There is no easy solution, but any solution has to recognize that democratic values have to be part of it.  Why do we have democracy over one type of social structure (our governments) but not over another structure (the economy) which has just as much, if not more direct impact on our lives?  Why do we settle for so much liberty granted to those at the top end, but none for ourselves in the work place?

How's your pension doing?  How's your vacation?  Are you getting paid for maternity leave?  Do you get holidays off?  For too many people, those programs are just a dream.  But, they tell you that it's not affordable that we need to stay competitive while massive profits fill their bank accounts and they don't even pay their taxes.

They go after the labour movement saying that it is closed to outside scrutiny.  They claim that "big labour" is secretly controlling left-wing parties like the NDP, while their corporate decisions are not open for public debate, are closed to outside scrutiny, are able to avoid paying taxes, avoid benefits for their workers and muscle governments into doing what's in their own interests.  But, they go after the labour union which anyone can join and are made up of people who work and pay taxes.

Of course, there are lots of other things that might be driving us crazy.  The banality of so much of our popular culture, our crowded city streets, our frantic daily schedule, but so much of it comes down to the way our lives are dominated and determined by the biggest cult, the biggest lie and the biggest, most sinister instrument of control, the economy.

The economy is the word that cannot be questioned.  It is ultimate truth and ultimate fact.  If it hurts you, that's your fault.  If it helps you, that's the government's credit.

Remember this: people built the economic system.  It is not a law from God.  The instructions were never found on the face of the mountain.  GDP targets are not written on a strand of DNA.  These are social constructions which affect material reality, and as social constructions they can be changed by people.  The economy can be democratized.  I believe it is going to happen.

I will leave you with this image I saw on upworthy.com earlier.

Hunting Rob Ford

So, it's not only the Canadian media who can't get enough of the allegations that a video exists showing Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine.  Yes, the story is funny and it would also explain why he hardly schedules any public events, and yes this is the guy who has lost control over his council over pie-eyed plans to build more subway lines Toronto clearly can't afford...and yes, this is the guy lampooned internationally for walking into a camera last month, and yes this is the guy who flips out at the media, launched a highly public weight loss effort only to be seen sneaking KFC.

I'm also well aware that this is the mayor who has been caught barreling down the highway reading a newspaper (to the point where his people no longer allow him to drive), and yes he hasn't done a very good job in all the other issues that people seem to expect a mayor to take the lead in (getting federal dollars from a sympathetic Prime Minister is just one of the more recent examples).

Okay, he makes the antics of former mayor Mel Lastman look like statespersonship, but, and this is a big but...almost as big as Ford's butt...but... I do feel awfully badly for him.

Look at it this way: Either he is innocent of this charge and is simply being hunted down by a bunch of drug dealers trying to make some money off him, or he has a problem.  Either way, does that not warrant some degree of compassion?

He may very well have a drug problem, or he might simply use drugs (minus the problem) or, the video could be a fake, or even not exist...until we know, should we not reserve judgement?  If we really want to have a just society, should we not try to internalize the value of innocent until proven guilty?

And, another issue I have with this is that it seems that so many of the people who are coming down so hard on him also tend to believe that drug usage is a private matter or even should be entirely legal.  If people believe that drug use is a private or a health issue, rather than a legal issue, than what business do we have to hold this against him?

Perhaps cocaine usage has negatively impacted his performance as mayor, or perhaps it's the only thing that causes him to get anything done at all.  We just don't know.  And until we know, should we not call off the attack?