Conflict Humor: On Contradictions in the Conservative Line


Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Disbelief as Belief: Peter Radford

There is a brilliant analysis from Peter Radford in Real World Economics, I post in full because of its importance:

Are we at a point of true reflection on the right in politics?

Here in the US we have the extraordinary spectacle of a bevy of outsiders of various political stripes leading in the polls not long before the election process gets into its more concrete moments. Decisions are looming very closely.

A few months back we were all amused at the sight of people like Donald Trump and Ben Carson ahead of the ‘establishment’ candidates. We all reassured each other that the closer we approached decision time the more likely its was that these oddballs would fall away and leave the field to the ‘sensible’ candidates – those with experience  or gravitas in the political arena.

But that isn’t happening.

Not even after four televised debates. And those debates were very well watched. We cannot argue no one knows what’s going on any more – the viewership figures belie that idea. People know very well what’s going on.

And here we are. Trump and Carson vying for top dog.

Carson thinks the pyramids were grain storage silos, and that evolution is a lie. Trump wants to build a wall along the border with Mexico and deport about eight million people forcibly.

These people are not serious. They are awful representatives of the Republican party as it once was, but maybe they are perfect representatives of what the Republican party has become.

We have to confront this possibility.

Perhaps the average Republican voter really does believe that building a wall along the Mexican border is a practical policy. Or that forcibly deporting millions of people is a practical objective. After all no one in the Republican hierarchy stepped up and argued for a more considered immigration policy until it was too late. They have all sought to garner strength by pandering to the far right voters who might easily think in such drastic terms.

Here’s a quote from an article in, the article was about the apparent disconnect between economic reality and what voters perceive as reality:

The Federal Reserve is devaluing the dollar, Diercks said. Too many Americans are on food stamps or other benefits. Government regulation is stifling small businesses (she bore particular animus toward the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the federal workplace safety regulator). Inflation is too high. Taxes are too high. Government spending is too high. Statistics showing improvement in the economy are misleading if not outright lies.

“We don’t know where they’re coming out with those numbers,” Diercks said. “The unemployment rate isn’t down. No one wants to talk about the truth, and I hate it.”

This is a mish-mash of typical right wing opinion and flat out disbelief in fact. It ends with a shocking expression of distrust: “The unemployment rate isn’t down. No one wants to talk about the truth, and I hate it.”

But, yes, the unemployment rate is down. Well down. So who is it that is missing reality?

I cannot criticism the interviewee, the mass misinformation in our public discussion is at an extraordinary high. This is partly – possibly mainly – due to the excessive partisan nature of our media. We see and hear daily that the current administration is manipulating the numbers to hide the ‘reality’ of its failure.

This misinformation is necessary because the facts contradict the ideological message so important to many voters. If Obamacare, for instance, is actually working – which it palpably is – then how come we are so violently opposed to it? Ought we not accept it and move on? Or improve it? It becomes irrational to oppose something that is succeeding, especially if there is no coherent alternative being proposed.

I think the malaise felt on the right is built on two planks:

One is the huge frustration of right wing voters who think they have won a number of elections – at the state level and in the mid term votes – and have seen no major result. This frustration leads them into a cynicism and a desire for radical action outside of the establishment party.

The second, and which contributes to the first, is the excessive promises made by Republican politicians. The entire premiss of recent Republican policy has been to oppose. It has not been to promote alternatives. It has been to tap into, and also foster, anger at the rate of change in American society. It has been to delve into the darker corners of the American soul and stir up racial sentiment. It has been, in particular, to set up a straw man figure of ‘the other’ as a source of all that ails the nation. It must be, they have argued, someone’s fault that America is in decline and that the middle class is festering. How convenient was it that Obama is clearly an ‘other’?

It is an undeniable fact that middle America is in crisis. Inequality rages. Incomes stagnate. Costs of key services rise faster than general prices. American power abroad is challenged. Education seems to be in decay. Health care is either expensive of inaccessible. Our roads and bridges need repair. Many public survives are practically defunct. We are poorly served and overcharged by our biggest businesses. Work is unrewarding and vulnerable to layoff. We fear we cannot afford retirement. And no matter how hard most people work they cannot get ahead. Perhaps most spectacularly: the American white population is facing a mortality crisis. The American Dream is, in short, broken.

We can argue at other times whether that dream was a reality, the key is that most Americans wanted it to be real. And now it isn’t.

So who is to blame?

The Republicans have pursued an elitist economic and social policy for four decades. It has been relentlessly pro-business and pro-wealthy throughout that time. Its popular appeal depended on a mix of hyper-nationalism and the illusion that lower taxes would feed through to higher investment and thus economic activity. Republican economics has ben a dismal failure for the average American since 1980.

Rather than modify and develop new conservative policies it sticks with the older failed ones. This is because its paymasters are amongst the few who have benefited from this policies. It cannot change, it is locked in. So to win elections it resorts to alternative action: it stirs up social arguments to resist that perceived change. Hence the curious defense of Christmas from the imaginary ‘War on Christmas’. This despite we are barraged with Christmas for two months of the year.

Then, when the facts won’t cooperate with its worldview, it has to create alternative facts. It sells an alternative reality. It steeps its supporters with misinformation. It stokes cynicism. It lives apart from anything that might contradict its core beliefs.

So disbelief becomes belief.

Great conservative politicians of the past – throughout the world – have avoided this trap. They have succeeded in selling conservative ideas without at the same time denigrating the truth. They have built visions of society that appeal across the entire spectrum of voters. They have not sought to divide society, but to unite it behind their ideals.

The tide, of course, since Industrialization, has been progressive. So conservatism is more an effort to slow change rather than to deny it. Democracy is the progressive extension of citizenship and inclusion to all. Conservatives have resisted this tide at their peril. Their greatest leaders have sought instead to channel it and to adopt the progressive tide to support some traditions as well.

The current Republicans have abandoned that strategy. They have attempted to roll back democracy and to undo some its great achievements. They have allowed themselves to become radical rather than conservative.

And radicalization produces leaders like Trump or Carson. Populists rather than conservatives. That scares true conservatives, but their voices are drowned by the shrill horde they themselves unleashed. So they need to haul their party back to reality.

Are we at a point of true reflection on the right in politics?

I don’t think so. There needs to be an election humiliation sufficient to cause that reflection. And we haven’t experienced that yet.

So I expect this show to go on. It will produce an extraordinary year. Let’s hope it ends well.

Posted in Conflict Processes, Economic Conflict, US Political Conflict | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

We Are All Doomed: Not

In response to a “we are all doomed” history is all war, conquest, slavery, power etc. hysterical on line posting I posted:

History has largely been about trade. War is unsustainable and usually doesn’t last long, and the sustainable relations have usually been about trade, but as history like the media covers men bite dogs, aka wars, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Now trade is about power and yes there have been wars over it largely by people who don’t understand the difference between a positive sum game and a zero sum game. All the major wars of the 20th century were lost by the powers that started them.

And there is little sign that conquest works any more. Look at the British Empire and the French, Portuguese etc: gave it all away as not worth the effort. Slavery was abolished by the Brits against their material interests.

What we are currently dealing with and you are suffering from is media induced hysteria. As an American you should be far more worried about your local gun nuts or dangerous drivers on the roads or fumes from coal fired power stations all of which kill 30,000 plus Americans every year or the equivalent of the Paris slaughter every day and a half. Base rates matter not media hysteria. So please stop your “Nobody’s safe” nonsense. Yes we will die one day, but 8 jihadis in Paris do not an apocalypse make. And compared with the Cold War I grew up with when 200-1000 million people could die in three hours this is chicken shit.

Posted in Conflict History, Conflict Processes, US Political Conflict, Ways to handle conflict | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Button Pushing


Image | Posted on by | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Republicans and Post-Modernism

Since I first read about it, I have always disliked Post-Modernism, which seems to me to be a late adolescent reaction to the failure of really radical politics, and its replacement by a “one narrative is as good as any other pseudo-radical relativism” if not bloody solipsism.

Unfortunately, Post-Modernism was unconsciously inhaled by conservatives, giving us our first Post-Modernist President: George W Bush, as illustrated by the awful Karl Rove’s famous Post-Modernist credo: “The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Now this Post Modernist credo as a sort of any-narrative-is-as-good-as-any-other is now central to the Republican Party, to its deafness to criticism (“oh that’s just the liberal narrative pay no attention”), to its delusional narratives, to its anti-science (just another narrative as per PM orthodoxy), to its hatred of rationality and so on. So thanks Post-Modernism: like most skepticism it has tipped over into gullibility, in this case the monster of conservative know nothingism.

Our first Post Modernist President, no doubt with his own narrative, as good as any other:



Posted in Conflict Humor, Conflict Processes, Philosophy of Conflict, US Political Conflict, Ways to handle conflict | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

War and Peace: Calvin and Hobbes

calvina (2).jpg part 1

calvinb.jpg part 2

Posted in Conflict History, Conflict Humor, Conflict Processes, US Political Conflict, Ways to handle conflict | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Super-forecasters by Philip Tetlock

I have just finished Philip Tetlock’s fine book about forecasting the future in an intelligent way “Superforecasting: the Art and Science of Prediction”. His keen insights on this subject in his previous book “Expert Political Judgment” suggested that most political pundits we see in the media are no better at making precise, time bounded predictions about the future than a pack of chimps throwing darts at a dart board to generate choices.

But he has also found there is a group of people who are very good at forecasting, and his latest project realated in his new book has been to harness their skills in a forecasting tournament for the US intelligence community to make literally thousands of precise, time bounded predictions with precise estimates of likelihood to the nearest percentage point and then figure out who is great at this over endless iterations and how they do it.

Key to the super-forecasters is that they are Foxes not Hedgehogs as per Isaiah Berlin’s saying from the Greeks: “The fox knows many things, the hedgehog just one.” His foxes do not have one over-arching view of how the world is, but many and they use multiple perspectives and are evidence based, and avoid thinking anything is inevitable. They also learn from their mistakes because they are precise not vague in their forecasts. And they revise their forecasts appropriately in the light of new data as it emerges. They are highly curious, eager to learn and willing to get into the detail and understand causal forces. And they avoid what the media audiences love: confidence and certainty in commentaries unsupported by evidence or real thought and completely without accountability when their forecasts fail aka punditry.

At the end of this book he adds some rules his superforecasters used:

  1. Focus on prediction questions where the hard work is likely to pay off aka triage
  2. Break down seemingly intractable problems into tractable sub-problems
  3. Strike the right balance between inside (the precise situation involved) and outside views (similar situations in the past).
  4. Strike a balance between under and over reacting to new data
  5. Look for the clashing causal forces in each problem
  6. Strive to distinguish as many degrees of doubt as the problem permits, but no more
  7. Strike the right balance between under and over confidence, between prudence and decisiveness
  8. Look for the erros behind your mistakes but beware of rearview mirror hindsight biases
  9. Bring out the best in others and let others bring out the best in you
  10. Master the error-balancing bicycle
  11. Don’t treat these commandments as commandments

Philip’s sites:




Posted in Conflict Book Reviews, Conflict Processes, PERSONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION: CREATIVE STRATEGIES, Philosophy of Conflict, Ways to handle conflict | Tagged , , | Leave a comment