US Elections for the Political Noob

Aetius wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd argue most people are pro-government, given the alternative. No?

As a libertarian, this is indeed one of the most frustrating aspects of modern politics. To paraphrase one of my favorite Jurassic Park quotes, people are so concerned with what they think they can accomplish wielding the power of government that they rarely stop to consider if they should - or what the "other side" will do when they attain control of the same apparatus.

I can see that, but it also makes me question why expecting better results from private corporations and businesses when the goal is profit will somehow work better. See our healthcare system, see what happened with fire services before they were made government entities, hell, see today and environmental issues... even with regulations in many countries across the world, it's likely that we've already breached a point from which there may be no returns... and carbon based energy companies continue to push for more and more deregulation of carbon in spite of overwhelming evidence that they're the problem and they will quite literally doom us all... all so they can make a few more bucks while there's still a planet to sell on and they're still alive (and pshaw for worrying about the future past their own lives).

Yes, governments will be corrupt. Frankly, the fact that we still act outraged by the idea is... somewhat baffling to me. Human history is littered with government corruption, no matter what form of government we used. But part of the point of collective buy-in government was supposed to be collectivization of watchdogging the system to make sure nothing egregious happened and punish where that was possible. Expecting corporations with no watchdogging at all to somehow do what's in everyone's best interest instead of their shareholders' interests though... I mean, we've seen what happens with plenty of companies doing that over the last 40 years in this country... and that's somehow still the alternative?

Robear wrote:

I'd argue most people are pro-government, given the alternative. No?

But the alternative is so much better.
IMAGE(http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll120/MrDeVil_909/timemachine2_zpsc1f66a5e.jpg)

Demosthenes wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd argue most people are pro-government, given the alternative. No?

As a libertarian, this is indeed one of the most frustrating aspects of modern politics. To paraphrase one of my favorite Jurassic Park quotes, people are so concerned with what they think they can accomplish wielding the power of government that they rarely stop to consider if they should - or what the "other side" will do when they attain control of the same apparatus.

I can see that, but it also makes me question why expecting better results from private corporations and businesses when the goal is profit will somehow work better. See our healthcare system, see what happened with fire services before they were made government entities, hell, see today and environmental issues... even with regulations in many countries across the world, it's likely that we've already breached a point from which there may be no returns... and carbon based energy companies continue to push for more and more deregulation of carbon in spite of overwhelming evidence that they're the problem and they will quite literally doom us all... all so they can make a few more bucks while there's still a planet to sell on and they're still alive (and pshaw for worrying about the future past their own lives).

Yes, governments will be corrupt. Frankly, the fact that we still act outraged by the idea is... somewhat baffling to me. Human history is littered with government corruption, no matter what form of government we used. But part of the point of collective buy-in government was supposed to be collectivization of watchdogging the system to make sure nothing egregious happened and punish where that was possible. Expecting corporations with no watchdogging at all to somehow do what's in everyone's best interest instead of their shareholders' interests though... I mean, we've seen what happens with plenty of companies doing that over the last 40 years in this country... and that's somehow still the alternative?

This is where I stand on Libertarianism. I understand that you don't trust government, I just trust corporations far less than something that has to be at least nominally in my interest.

NathanialG wrote:

This is where I stand on Libertarianism. I understand that you don't trust government, I just trust corporations far less than something that has to be at least nominally in my interest.

Of course, that raises the question of whether corporations are compatible with Libertarianism in the first place. Why should the government get involved in granting the legal protections of the corporate veil to anyone for some of their economic activity?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

This is where I stand on Libertarianism. I understand that you don't trust government, I just trust corporations far less than something that has to be at least nominally in my interest.

Of course, that raises the question of whether corporations are compatible with Libertarianism in the first place. Why should the government get involved in granting the legal protections of the corporate veil to anyone for some of their economic activity?

Change corporations to landowners and the complaints still stand. Libertarianism is great for those that own lots of land, since the general idea is that you're free to do whatever you want on your property and the government can't interfere, except in the most dire of circumstances. It doesn't really offer anything to non-land-owners.

Stengah wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

This is where I stand on Libertarianism. I understand that you don't trust government, I just trust corporations far less than something that has to be at least nominally in my interest.

Of course, that raises the question of whether corporations are compatible with Libertarianism in the first place. Why should the government get involved in granting the legal protections of the corporate veil to anyone for some of their economic activity?

Change corporations to landowners and the complaints still stand. Libertarianism is great for those that own lots of land, since the general idea is that you're free to do whatever you want on your property and the government can't interfere, except in the most dire of circumstances. It doesn't really offer anything to non-land-owners.

I actually wonder if it renders both the promises of Libertarians and those complaints moot. It makes me wonder how different the world will look without corporations and instead with just landowners, and if everyone is underestimating the amount of change.

And that everyone--Libertarians and critics--would be horrified by that change!

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I actually wonder if it renders both the promises of Libertarians and those complaints moot. It makes me wonder how different the world will look without corporations and instead with just landowners, and if everyone is underestimating the amount of change.

No need to wonder, we've seen it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=feud...

Democratic or republican governments, for all their failures, exist to serve the interests of as many of their citizens as possible. Although they fail at this frequently, getting rid of them isn't the answer. Fixing them is.

Libertarianism takes power out of governmental hands and places it firmly in the hands of existing private elites, it's a return to feudalism without hiding behind divine right.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I actually wonder if it renders both the promises of Libertarians and those complaints moot. It makes me wonder how different the world will look without corporations and instead with just landowners, and if everyone is underestimating the amount of change.

No need to wonder, we've seen it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=feud...

I'll make your point a fortiori for you: whatever else it was, Feudalism was still a system for organizing society into a functioning whole. Feudalism would be an improvement!

edit:

Democratic or republican governments, for all their failures, exist to serve the interests of as many of their citizens as possible. Although they fail at this frequently, getting rid of them isn't the answer. Fixing them is.

Libertarianism takes power out of governmental hands and places it firmly in the hands of existing private elites, it's a return to feudalism without hiding behind divine right.

Although I should say (and maybe this is what you are saying, anyways) that those governments can also try and balance the liberty of the individual against the interests of as many citizens as possible. It doesn't have to be full socialism vs. total libertarianism.

Then again, this is one of those arguments that reminds me how I have a lot less in common with the people on both sides of it than I thought I did when I was younger ; D

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I actually wonder if it renders both the promises of Libertarians and those complaints moot. It makes me wonder how different the world will look without corporations and instead with just landowners, and if everyone is underestimating the amount of change.

No need to wonder, we've seen it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=feud...

I'll make your point a fortiori for you: Say what you want about the tenets of Feudalism, dude. At least it's an ethos.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I actually wonder if it renders both the promises of Libertarians and those complaints moot. It makes me wonder how different the world will look without corporations and instead with just landowners, and if everyone is underestimating the amount of change.

No need to wonder, we've seen it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=feud...

I'll make your point a fortiori for you: whatever else it was, Feudalism was still a system for organizing society into a functioning whole. Feudalism would be an improvement!

Fair point, but I suspect society would naturally shake out to be something pretty feudal, the Libertarian wonderlands of the Mad Max universe and real world Somalia demonstrate that. Or it would go full Morlock/Eloi which is why I love to use that pic any chance I get.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Democratic or republican governments, for all their failures, exist to serve the interests of as many of their citizens as possible. Although they fail at this frequently, getting rid of them isn't the answer. Fixing them is.

Libertarianism takes power out of governmental hands and places it firmly in the hands of existing private elites, it's a return to feudalism without hiding behind divine right.

Although I should say (and maybe this is what you are saying, anyways) that those governments can also try and balance the liberty of the individual against the interests of as many citizens as possible. It doesn't have to be full socialism vs. total libertarianism.

Then again, this is one of those arguments that reminds me how I have a lot less in common with the people on both sides of it than I thought I did when I was younger ; D

Yeah, I may not have been as clear as I intended, I was being flippant. Governments should try support individuals, as long as it's not at the expense of general social good.

The cost of radical change should not just include the possible benefits, but the cost of the change itself. The more sweeping the proposed change, the more carefully the consequences must be examined. It's no good saying "We'll make New York City an entirely Green city with living wages and affordable housing" if Step 1 is "First, level the city"...

And if Step 1 is actually "Well, a little Green is better than nothing", people question the ideals of the proposed remedy, since we could do that with the existing system. It often seems like hyperbole in that light, since a supposedly non-compromising ideological stance that attempts to compromise scares people (and puts off True Believers).

This is not a swipe, it's just an analogy, I've tried to put it neutrally. To me, there's a spectrum of change from non-disruptive to disruptive, and we need to make sure that what we want can't be done non-disruptively before proposing disruptive change. We also need to convince people that our cause is not going to up-end their lives any more than necessary for the result, or they will strongly resist it, thus making the change process longer and more disruptive, not less.

I see this as a problem for any system of radical change that does not subscribe to incrementalism. Radical change fails far more often than incremental change.

Robear wrote:

The cost of radical change should not just include the possible benefits, but the cost of the change itself. The more sweeping the proposed change, the more carefully the consequences must be examined. It's no good saying "We'll make New York City an entirely Green city with living wages and affordable housing" if Step 1 is "First, level the city"...

And if Step 1 is actually "Well, a little Green is better than nothing", people question the ideals of the proposed remedy, since we could do that with the existing system. It often seems like hyperbole in that light, since a supposedly non-compromising ideological stance that attempts to compromise scares people (and puts off True Believers).

This is not a swipe, it's just an analogy, I've tried to put it neutrally. To me, there's a spectrum of change from non-disruptive to disruptive, and we need to make sure that what we want can't be done non-disruptively before proposing disruptive change. We also need to convince people that our cause is not going to up-end their lives any more than necessary for the result, or they will strongly resist it, thus making the change process longer and more disruptive, not less.

I see this as a problem for any system of radical change that does not subscribe to incrementalism. Radical change fails far more often than incremental change.

The process of gradual change you describe used to be the very definition of political conservatism. Now that term basically just equated to white identity.

sigh.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

those are good links, thanks, though I think NPR is a many headed beast. I feel like I get less authoritarian perspectives from some of their podcasts, for example. I wonder if the authoritarian thing is more evident on foreign affairs.?What are the examples of pro authoritarian bias when reporting on social issues, lgbtq rights, drug legalization, etc.?

Sure. For example:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...

Half the people interviewed are or were senior government officials directly responsible for waging the War on Drugs. The writer apparently couldn't find a single person who is opposed to the War on Drugs itself; even the criticisms voiced are about improving or fixing the War on Drugs (the closest they come is when the former drug dealer explains the futility of trying to stop people from bringing drugs into the country).

In short, this article simply assumes that the War on Drugs is inevitable, when in fact it is not - it's a deliberate policy with blatantly racist roots and effects.

And there's this:
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491037...

This is what PR people call a "puff piece" - a story deliberately constructed to present the subject in a positive light. Apparently NPR is hedging their bets when it comes to the Presidential candidates.

Another good one:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...

The majority of this article is basically a White House press release. However, there's some interesting stuff. Notice how there are no "human interest" quotes from local people - none at all. Nothing about the people who live there. The entire story is dedicated to political figures visiting the flooded areas, reassurances about federal payments, and local government officials urging people to get federally subsidized flood insurance (which is a another story in and of itself - and to be fair, one covered at least a bit by Planet Money).

This is, in essence, a propaganda piece dedicated to Important People that are Doing Things about the Crisis - never mind that what they are doing is essentially disaster tourism (and making it clear that More Money is Needed).

Another one:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...

Note that even though two individuals are pictured, they aren't ever quoted - or even mentioned in the article text. The entire article is comprised of the Important Decisions made by Important People, with quotes from the Important People (and Columbia University).

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...

This article is part of a government effort to rehabilitate Head Start after the devastating DHHS report on its own program in 2010. The (literal) money quote:

That's the million-dollar question. You could say it boils down to money but it actually boils down to commitment. Money flows from commitment. We spend money on the things we care most about and I'm hopeful that these very encouraging results will reassure people that high-quality preschool is the first step in fulfilling the promise of America's education system.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...

This is more-or-less a press release. Again, there is no one quoted except the very politicians who released the report that's the subject of the article, and there are no opposing views presented.

Yet another education-related article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...

This article is a strong example of a debate / PR technique called delegitimization. The article quotes one researcher on problems with the program, and then gives a full two paragraphs to the rebuttal by the government's Important Person. The Important Person doesn't actually respond to the criticism at all, but instead casually dismisses the criticism while making empty noises about high standards and a focus on quality.

Also, note another (literal) money quote:

But, Farran argues, the federal grant program sets aside insufficient resources to evaluate the programs or spread best practices.

In fact, through all of these articles, you will not find a single realistic consideration of budget constraints. In almost every domestic article, everyone interviewed is calling for more money for whatever government program they are discussing. In fact, you would be very hard pressed to find any NPR article that suggests financial restraint in any way, no matter how bad or ineffective the program is. You'd also be hard pressed to find articles that aren't about government programs, in one way, shape, or form.

tl;dr - In context, nothing you've cited shows an actual pro-government bias at NPR.

Aetius wrote:

Sure. For example:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...

Half the people interviewed are or were senior government officials directly responsible for waging the War on Drugs. The writer apparently couldn't find a single person who is opposed to the War on Drugs itself; even the criticisms voiced are about improving or fixing the War on Drugs (the closest they come is when the former drug dealer explains the futility of trying to stop people from bringing drugs into the country).

In short, this article simply assumes that the War on Drugs is inevitable, when in fact it is not - it's a deliberate policy with blatantly racist roots and effects.

So they presented, as part of a series started in 2007 (from when the article comes), voices of 5 people involved in the War on Drugs - an ex-smuggler, a recovering addict, a mother of a dead addict, a Federal official and a former prosecutor. This is clearly an attempt to get first-person accounts of parts of the picture, not to establish one position over another. And it's part of a series, which you didn't mention, and that series includes entire pieces like "Drug Czar Blasted for Lack of Leadership", an article on how demand reduction would do better than law enforcement, another on the futility of foreign operations to shut down production for the US (and the negative effect that has on the locals), another on the ineffectiveness of spraying to kill coca plants, another about how the flow of drugs into the US has not been stemmed by the WoD. Every single piece of content other than the Timeline and the Overview contains serious and sustained criticism of the War on Drugs, but you focused on one in which 2 of 5 people are sort of not condemning it strongly enough for you. (And they are not NPR employees...).

The series is highly critical of the War of Drugs, it does not avoid that or support it as you imply. You actually had to ignore every other article in the series to find one that might have a bit of content supporting your claim.

And there's this:
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491037...

This is what PR people call a "puff piece" - a story deliberately constructed to present the subject in a positive light. Apparently NPR is hedging their bets when it comes to the Presidential candidates.

This is a puff piece for the author of a book very critical of Trump. You imply that NPR somehow favors Trump while not discussing the extremely large number of critical articles about him (as well as articles that look at his followers, their circumstances and so forth, which is part of journalistic bias). This is not an example of government bias, it's a discussion of a book about a candidate's past and character.

Another good one:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...

The majority of this article is basically a White House press release. However, there's some interesting stuff. Notice how there are no "human interest" quotes from local people - none at all. Nothing about the people who live there. The entire story is dedicated to political figures visiting the flooded areas, reassurances about federal payments, and local government officials urging people to get federally subsidized flood insurance (which is a another story in and of itself - and to be fair, one covered at least a bit by Planet Money).

This is, in essence, a propaganda piece dedicated to Important People that are Doing Things about the Crisis - never mind that what they are doing is essentially disaster tourism (and making it clear that More Money is Needed).

Yes. It's a report of an event where they didn't have anyone on the scene. It was written for their news blog, not as a featured article, so it's taken mostly from wire reports and previous on-site reporting. It's not purporting to be analysis; it's literally an article about the President's visit with a little past info to fill in the high level of what's going on.

Reporting on government actions is not pro-government bias, and The Two-Way is intended to put short articles out there, usually from wire sources, about events going on at the time.

Another one:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...

Note that even though two individuals are pictured, they aren't ever quoted - or even mentioned in the article text. The entire article is comprised of the Important Decisions made by Important People, with quotes from the Important People (and Columbia University).

Another blog post you mistook for a feature piece. They have done more in-depth pieces before the NLRB decision, and probably will do a long-form one tomorrow, but you've mistaken a blog article for in-depth analysis.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...

This article is part of a government effort to rehabilitate Head Start after the devastating DHHS report on its own program in 2010. The (literal) money quote:

That's the million-dollar question. You could say it boils down to money but it actually boils down to commitment. Money flows from commitment. We spend money on the things we care most about and I'm hopeful that these very encouraging results will reassure people that high-quality preschool is the first step in fulfilling the promise of America's education system.

The report in 2010 studied 3 and 4 year olds in Head Start, in a large, national well-conducted study that followed up at the end of 1st grade. Children in the control group mostly also received pre-school or spent a larger amount of time with their parents. The report found improved social behaviors and cognitive skills for the 3 and 4 year olds, but that the differences at the *end* of first grade were essentially non-existent, except for vocabulary and special needs children (a big focus of the program, btw).

The one you cited looks at outcomes after 8th grade in Tulsa, OK. It's based on a separate study, and basically you seem to assume that it's rigged, perhaps because you think that if there are no differences at the end of first grade, there can't be any at the end of 8th grade? At any rate, you're looking at two studies and claiming the second study is somehow the government trying to "rehabilitate" a program described by the first study.

But these are *studies*. The first is critical in the areas it covers. The second was not. The conclusion there is that there is a lot going on that we still need to understand, not that NPR is somehow pro-government by reporting one study against another six years apart.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...

This is more-or-less a press release. Again, there is no one quoted except the very politicians who released the report that's the subject of the article, and there are no opposing views presented.

This is an article about a study. It covers the study. It's not a survey of the field. It's not saying it will compare multiple views and then fails to do so. It's about one study.

Also, you don't note that the politicians and their staff worked on this for eighteen months, consulting with states, researchers, teachers, and studies. They didn't just sit around puffing cigars and writing opinions. Seems kind of misleading to leave that out. (Perhaps that's anti-government bias, though?)

Yet another education-related article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...

This article is a strong example of a debate / PR technique called delegitimization. The article quotes one researcher on problems with the program, and then gives a full two paragraphs to the rebuttal by the government's Important Person. The Important Person doesn't actually respond to the criticism at all, but instead casually dismisses the criticism while making empty noises about high standards and a focus on quality.

This is literally amazing. Earlier, you were upset about a piece that discusses Federally funded early childhood education favorably. You felt that was unfairly done. This piece strongly criticizes those programs in Tennessee. The title tells you explicitly it's about "a" (one) "harsh critique", but you're upset that it doesn't cover more points of view. And you don't even seem to realize that the content is similar to what you said was missing earlier.

Also, note another (literal) money quote:

But, Farran argues, the federal grant program sets aside insufficient resources to evaluate the programs or spread best practices.
In fact, through all of these articles, you will not find a single realistic consideration of budget constraints. In almost every domestic article, everyone interviewed is calling for more money for whatever government program they are discussing. In fact, you would be very hard pressed to find any NPR article that suggests financial restraint in any way, no matter how bad or ineffective the program is. You'd also be hard pressed to find articles that aren't about government programs, in one way, shape, or form.

Ignoring the bullsh*t last sentence, you're again missing the point. NPR does lots of articles about the Federal and State budgets, program costs, waste/fraud/abuse, economic theories that affect government and private companies... All sorts of stuff on the economics of government and non-government programs. But why would they put something about the budget in a piece about a research paper? Or an interview with a dead addict's mother? Or a theory of education?

Aetius, you're practicing Texas marksmanship here, and yet still, you can't get a group going. You've cherry-picked articles while ignoring others in the same series. You've mistaken a "breaking news" blog for in-depth reporting, and you've literally chosen contradictory pieces and attacked both, including the one that supports your opinion. You mistook a puff piece on an author's new book, critical of a candidate, for support for that candidate.

It's a real stretch to find your claimed pro-government bias just because there were NPR articles about policies and participants. But the worst part is simply leaving out the tons of counter-examples. You complain about a debate technique (inappropriately, given the intent of the article was to present one view), but you've used a few here that make your conclusions obviously suspect. You're not actually analyzing here, it's clear you yourself have not made the attempt to balance (or even support) your claims.

Chairman, does this discussion help clarify your thoughts?

Remember: Don't tell anyone who you voted for or it won't come true.

Robear wrote:

Chairman, does this discussion help clarify your thoughts?

Thanks Aetius and Robear. I think it clarifies for me that NPR is a tries to present a multitude of perspectives through a range of stories on any given subject. Sometimes it stumbles (I think the not calling torture torture is wrong, especially given that the U.S. has referred to at least one of the techniques as torture when another country did it.), but at least the people working there are thinking about how they portray the news a lot. Does Fox News or Breitbart, or Democracy Now! for that matter, have an public editor/Ombudsman?

It seems that the flaws Aetius pointed out come from an expectation that the multitude of perspectives should be included in every story, whether it's an 800 word blog post or an in-depth 10,000 word feature. While I align myself closely with your POV, Robear, the fragmented post-modernish way we consume online information today makes me wonder if NPR and other outlets should highlight their stories that cover the other perspectives from whichever piece of content we happen to land on from a Google search. I think NPR does this to some degree, including story breaks and sidebars with embedded links to other pieces on the same topic, but they could try to be more explicit about it. Would that be enough to change the minds of people like Aetius who share his critique of NPR, and if not, what would?

Or is it even necessary to address these critiques? Because if your argument is that it's fine to trust NPR as long as you understand it's pro-government, then that implies to me that you also think it's important to read news from a variety of sources to get the full picture. But then based on what Robear has shared, if I read a variety of stories from NPR on a given topic, it seems I will get a somewhat fuller picture, no?

Not drawing any conclusions, more just thinking out loud. Thanks again, you've both given me much to think about.

I subscribe to the "not just one article or source" viewpoint. But I also have a lot of experience with and expectations around logic and evidence. I don't care what the source is; if they are trying to slant a story, I have a lot of tools to find it. Conversely, I respect news sources that use old school methods. NPR is one of the few news sources that maintain foreign correspondents, for example, which gives it an edge in reporting on *events* overseas (as opposed to just having pundits opine about someone else's reports). (I think the Christian Science Monitor still has an extensive overseas presence as well, don't they?).

I discount news sources with an overt agenda heavily. So Reason is usually out for me, as is Breitbart and Daily Caller and the other sources that preach to the Right. (They also fail extensively on simple logic and consistency of argumentation in opinion pieces. At least Reason doesn't usually just make sh*t up...). MSNBC and Fox I trust to the extend that they don't tend to actually make up facts, although both of them use omission as a valid tool to slant a story. BBC is good as long as you remember it's government run. Al Jazeera is very good for getting the facts across. Guardian has really good political reporting with a leftward slant; and National Review, Weekly Standard and The Atlantic usually have solid opinion pieces from their respective biases. Long-form investigative journalism is entirely a thing of the left now, as far as I can tell, although that does not mean it's automatically biased. Major newspapers, you need to decide their bias on your own although some like LA Times, WaPo and Washington Times have well-known biases.

AP and Reuters tend to be good wire services for "just the facts" event stuff.

As a general rule, Right-biased media tends to bias more than left-bias media. That is, the farthest Left national publications have about half the bias of the farthest Right. This is worth keeping in mind in a general way. (That means that Bill Maher will be about half as likely to stretch the truth as Breitbart, as a general rule.)

But above all, if something sets off your filters, investigate it and accept what that shows. And if a source can't get basic logic or argumentation correct - it can't back up its facts, leaves stuff out, makes stuff up or can't put an unbiased comparison in place - then it's probably not something you want to consider in making up your mind. If you need to, get a book on informal logic and train yourself to recognize bad argumentation by it's structure, not just its content. That will make you a smarter news consumer and voter.

And above all, double check claims that you agree with. It sucks to find out you accepted something that was wrong because it fits with your biases. This will lead to inconsistencies in your ideology, that's fine. No one is fully party-line. But check your assumptions and beliefs every chance you get.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Asterith wrote:

Could you give me a bit more on that as a noob? I'm assuming you're saying that the current version of a Democrat that people call liberal is still fairly conservative in comparison to many other places in the world?

Got it in one. The Democrats post Carter are pretty much center-right from a global perspective. While they do, to their credit, have a lot of Leftist policies as long as they subscribe to Neoliberal* economic policies they can't be truly 'Liberal.'

*confusingly, 'Neoliberal' isn't liberal. It's a conservative economic policy all about the liberalising/deregulating of the economy.

I wanted to clarify a bit. "Neoliberal" means putting a lot of faith in markets—actual or theoretical markets—for just about everything. At its best, it looks at problems in terms of how we can apply soft pressure to encourage better behavior (think Freakonomics). It views the world as a complex set of interacting markets and systems, but which need optimization. It trips up in a few places, because it has a hard time examining its premises. For example, it tends to assume that everything should be handled via economics, and coming from econ means it makes economists' assumptions unless its careful. Like it generally assumes Market Value as the same thing as human value, and will assume that free market = competition = better goods for lower prices. In the long run a lot of that might hold true, but neolib plans often have a few years of friction, where things don't look like they're working, and where people get hurt and displaced in the meantime.

Couple examples:
- Neoliberalism calls for single-payer/government-paid healthcare, but only because that's the most efficient way to handle health insurance. The system is complicated and inefficient now, which means gaps in coverage and wasted time/effort on paperwork.

- Historical example of the federal government sponsoring electrical and telephone lines strung out to rural areas: A neoliberal would have to claim that it's a net positive because the investment will lead to a growth in national productivity.

Robear wrote:

Note also that at the time of the Constitutional debates, and continuing afterwards, there were indeed two parties holding the majority of American politicians.

Worth repeating. Just about every Founding Father who complained about potential parties was, in fact, throwing shade at the increasing organization of another group that his group disagreed with.

Robear wrote:

And if Step 1 is actually "Well, a little Green is better than nothing", people question the ideals of the proposed remedy, since we could do that with the existing system. It often seems like hyperbole in that light, since a supposedly non-compromising ideological stance that attempts to compromise scares people (and puts off True Believers).

I've seen it rejected more strongly than that. If we let people pay an extra $0.50 for coffee to help pay coffee farmers more, then they'll feel like they've solved global poverty rather than realizing how much more needs to be done.

Honestly, I think that argument only works for fairly extreme folks. Most people need hope and accessible steps they can personally take if they aren't going to pretty much reject your claim that there's a problem.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

the fragmented post-modernish way we consume online information today

It's only postmodern if we're conscious of the way we consume based on what fits our preferred narrative, otherwise it's more like recapitulating modernism's worst mistakes.

/quibble

Haven't people always (since the invention of the printing press, at least) chosen their information sources to fit with their views, mostly consciously? Different editions of the Bible. Competing news sources in a town. Books of opinion essays circulated amongst friends. Whether you think of it as a "narrative" to which they subscribe, or simply areas of information to be filled in, isn't this a basic part of human nature? (That is, the notion of "narrative" is simply a frame within which to view human activities, not a basic part of our cognition.)

It strikes me that describing that basic human tendency as "[consuming] based on what fits our preferred narrative" is simply a post-modern way of rephrasing something that humans have done over recorded time. Our tastes in information reflect our biases, and always have.

BTW, what does post-modern theory say about a bias towards "experiencing the narratives of others"? Can that exist under the theory, or is it just binary, self/other? (Not poking here, just pretty sure I need to know more about this particular view of the world.)

Robear wrote:

It strikes me that describing that basic human tendency as "[consuming] based on what fits our preferred narrative" is simply a post-modern way of rephrasing something that humans have done over recorded time. Our tastes in information reflect our biases, and always have.

Postmodern existentialism would say that we were less conscious of that fact for various reasons (more isolated societies, less authoritative sources, less conflicting information, less emphasis on the individual, etc.). I think that's the primary point.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Because if your argument is that it's fine to trust NPR as long as you understand it's pro-government, then that implies to me that you also think it's important to read news from a variety of sources to get the full picture.

You can trust NPR ... to give you a pro-authority view of things. They do usually manage to get their basic facts right, unlike some less rigorous news organizations. Robear and I do agree on using multiple sources, because everyone has their bias and you'll learn more by reading contrasting interpretations of events.

Some things to consider when you listen to NPR:

- How many of the people interviewed in this story or on this show are government officials?
- Are the government officials able to present their view or position without comment or response from the authors or hosts?
- Is there a call by someone in this story for the government to spend more money? What about spending less money?
- When an article is critical of a government action or project, does it ever suggest that action should not be taken or that project should be outright canceled?
- Does the article break information that would be embarrassing to a government official, rather than critical?

MrDeVil909 wrote:

*confusingly, 'Neoliberal' isn't liberal. It's a conservative economic policy all about the liberalising/deregulating of the economy.

While neoliberalism is a conservative economic policy, it is most definitely not about liberalizing or deregulating the economy. If anything, it's the opposite.

wordsmythe wrote:

"Neoliberal" means putting a lot of faith in markets—actual or theoretical markets—for just about everything.

It is not. Liberalism, in the original sense of the word, is about those things. Neoliberalism is the "third way" - supposedly threading a compromise between a laissez-faire free market economy and a socialist economy under total government control. The modern implementation of neoliberalism uses the rhetoric of liberalism while actually implementing radically anti-market ideas, which as you might imagine is extremely frustrating for the ideological descendants of the economic liberals. And, as the original liberals like Hayek and Mises warned, it has degenerated into mercantilism and cronyism at historically epic levels.

Indeed, both of the examples you quoted - the dysfunctional U.S. healthcare system and rural electrification - are comprised explicitly of anti-market government programs. Consider, for example, the damage rural electrification did to the nascent renewable energy market and renewable technology development.

Also, as a reference for those who have never seen one, a simplified Nolan chart that is a reference for some of the things I'm talking about, from Wikipedia:

IMAGE(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Simplified_Nolan_chart_political_compass.png)

And a quick link to some two-axis positioning of the U.S. presidential candidates, which will help people understand where the "Democrats are actually right-leaning" stuff comes from.

Ooooh, thanks for the chart. That really helps clear up some questions I had.

Aetius, don't forget, libertarians are not the only ones to predict and decry cronyism and "mercantilism". Nor were they the "original liberals"; I assume you mean classical liberals there. They derived (like modern economic theory) from the work of Adam Smith and his compadres, but they took a different approach to Locke's work (rejecting later compromises that balance out liberties with checks to protect others from abuses), and today's interpretations of Hayek and von Mises seem distressingly stuck in a rejection of anything other than (nearly complete) laissez-faire economics.

If someone comes to you and says "There's only one way to run markets, and there will only ever *be* one efficient way to run markets", well, does that seem reasonable? We've evolved systems *beyond* straight laissez-faire that both avoid it's problems and provide long-term stability. I'm puzzled as to why going *backwards* would yield better results, since clearly, in the past, it didn't. That's my skepticism.

To me, it's reasonable to demand extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim, such as modern libertarian economic theory makes. Especially since laissez-faire economies have been tried and their failure modes are well-known.

To me, libertarianism is an ideal form of organization of tenant farmers on an English manor in the mid-17th century. But without the framework of authoritarianism to fall back on, it doesn't really work the way it's intended.

Another way to put this is that any political solution that sits on the edge of it's descriptive scale is likely to be radical and unstable in its implementation. The closer to the center it is, the more likely it is to be able to take advantage of a wide variety of solutions for different situations. Modern libertarianism seems to me to be uncompromising and, as such, I fear it is brittle.