How I think about the Trump voter and America

A few days ago I listed about 25 reasons that Donald Trump should not be President. Any one of them is sufficient by itself.

There are lots of lists like that. Every science and reality oriented publication in America had its own list. All opposed Trump. All recognized that beyond his venality and incompetence democracy was also at stake.

And yet ...  he almost won reelection. The GOP held the Senate. Dems lost some House seats. The polls were wrong again (I blame the iPhone for the polls - ask me why).

So what do I think about America in general and the Trump voter in particular?

America is what it has always been. Some decades it does better, some worse, but in general it's a rough neighborhood. We were born from slavery and genocide, we fight lots of wars, we don't have universal healthcare, we tolerate mass shootings of children, we have large majorities that support torture of prisoners, we fund public education with local taxation and college through massive debt, we tolerate systemic anti-Black racism, we allow suppression of Black voting, we reelected GWB despite his torture program and the misdirected conquest of Iraq. We did well with higher education and science for a while, but the GOP attacks on science have done grave damage.

We aren't the worst of nations. China, Russia, North Korea, Germany in the early 21st century ... there are lots worse than us. We aren't the best of nations. Canada, the Nordics, South Korea, most of Europe, Japan are all better. Among post-industrial nations we are probably somewhere in the bottom third, but I could maybe argue for being average. Which makes sense -- we are made of humans and we're big and diverse enough to have a representative sample. Our Presidential system and electoral college and our history drive us down a notch or two.

That's America. What about the Trump voter?

I divide the Trump voters into slices. The biggest and most important are the "White* Left Behind". They are a diverse group, but in general they do not have the cognitive traits to be a "knowledge worker". They did not attend college and college would have been a poor use of their time and money. They don't read newspapers, they don't reason out their vote, they vote based on tribe and emotion. They are more or less anti-Black racist but they don't think they are being unfair. They are desperate to work but there are few good jobs for them. Living in an increasingly high tech and complex world they are every day reminded that they can't keep up. They live on the edge.

Trump's genius was exploiting the WLB while showing them that they have real political power. I don't blame the WLB for voting Trump. They are as much victim as they are aggressor.

The religious fundamentalist is another slice. A complicated slice. For some religion is a shallow facade they may assume or discard as needed. Others have a deep conviction that to me shades into delusion -- but I respect delusion. The universe is a vast and terrible place dominated by violence and entropy -- we all need some delusion. If you believe that every terminated ovum is a murder, and you know Trump will suppress abortion, then that outweighs all his other crimes. You might even decide to worship him. 

I don't much blame the religious fundamentalist for voting Trump. They may be rationally choosing based on their fixed belief.

That leaves those who are not dominated by religious belief and who won enough of the cognitive lottery to be able to read newspapers, to remember what happened weeks or months or even years ago, and to make an informed decision.  They may feel that democracy is hopeless, that authoritarian rule is inevitable, and they want to be on the side of the winner. They may care only about their wealth and privilege and feel Trump will best defend them. They may be fully racist -- generally anti-Black racist rather than pan-racist. (Anti-Black racism is far from a White-only thing.) They may enjoy living in an authoritarian society where they are commanded by superiors and able to command the inferior.

They are the elite Trump voter. I blame them. They have chosen a wrong path. They can redeem themselves in future, but for now I cannot be their friend.

* As of 2020 American "White" may include Latino/Hispanic. That boundary has long been fluid.

Bostromism rediscovered

While recently rereading Banks’ marvelous book The Algebraist I decide I ought to write a post about “The Truth”, which is basically Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis made theology.

An initial topic search lead me to a 2013 pinboard post, where I learned I’d started to write that post 5 years ago - in 2013. I didn’t finish then, because at that time a topic search uncovered a post from 5 years before that. In 2008, 10 years ago now.

My 2008 post includes an excerpt from The Algebraist — it’s worth a read. Banks begins with the consensus response to the simulation hypothesis — “a difference that made no difference wasn’t a difference to be much bothered about, and one might as well get on with (what appeared to be) life.”  I’m not sure the hypothesis is totally irrelevant though; it is one answer to the Fermi Paradox.

Now I’m looking forward to doing this again in 2023.

PS. deGrasse in 2016.

PPS. I’ve been lately thinking about the other odd aspects of Oldness. Such as realizing I’m supposed to be the sober and silent sage in meetings whose primary duty is to do introductions and conclude with expressions of appreciation. Most unfairly, for someone who never missed a nap during meetings and classes, I’m not allowed to fall asleep any more.

Are Trump-era Evangelicals closer to ancient Judaism than to Christianity?

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to worship both Christ and Trump. But if you demote Christ and elevate Trump, both can have similar Prophet status. Prophets of a Chosen people can disagree and refine one another; they don’t have to be omniscient.

Culturally and theologically, the Trumpian Evangelical seems closer to ancient Judaism than to historic Christianity — but with an added emphasis on the ancient theology that wealth is a sign of divine approval and thus of virtue.

I wrote these in 2004 …

Georgia Takes on ’Evolution’ - The Decline and Fall of American Education

… If the evangelicals continued their steady victories, there will eventually be a public evangelical educational system and a private secular/other system. The private secular system would attract the educated elite, and they in turn would attract parents seeking social networks. The evangelical school system of 2010 could become a stigmatized backwater of ever growing ignorance (ok, so it might produce an incompetent President or two ...). 

The evangelical right can indeed win this war, but they may not like what they get. Perhaps they should reconsider ...

and (from an email to Nicholas Kristof back when we did things like that)…

Nicholas Kristof (NYT): The God Gulf - comment - The Yahwites and the Jesites

… I think you’ve skirted, however, a second great schism, between the "Yahwites" and the "Jesites". Both call themselves Christian, but they are as different as the Old and New Testaments -- and equally irreconcilable.

The Yahwites worship Yahweh, and draw their theology from the Old Testament -- a quintessentially Republican document. The Jesites follow a blend of the teachings of Paul and Christ, a doctrine that is more comfortably Democrat or even secular humanist. Mainstream Prostestant and Catholic churches, now in decline, lean towards Jesism; the evangelicals tend to Yahwism.

The Yahwites are in ascendance. In their doctrine God rewards virtue with wealth, and punishes his enemies with brutal power -- sowing salt upon the fields of the dead. The Jesites, always a minority, are in retreat. In particular the teachings of Jesus are so peculiar and demanding as to be almost unattainable for most humans. Jesites are always falling short of their ideal. Frustrating and not so marketable as Yahwism.

There is only a small theological gap between the Yahwites and the Wahaabi, so it is ironic that fundamentalist Islam should see Bush as their virulent enemy. Not the first irony in history.

American Evangelicism has been in free fall for years. One positive feature of Trumpism is that Evangelicals don’t talk about “family values” any longer. The laughter is deafening.

A shot in the dark - Am I my brother's keeper?

Roger Ebert wrote a column on gun control and received 650 comments.

He read them all.

Then he responded, with one of his best columns ever. Some of the lines are so well said I've excerpted them below. I've written about this many times, but, of course, not with his eloquence.

A shot in the dark - Roger Ebert's Journal

Catie and Caleb Medley went to the doomed midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises." It was a movie they'd been looking forward to for a year, her father said. Gunfire rang out. The bullets missed Catie, who was pregnant. Caleb was shot in the eye. On Tuesday, their son Hugo was born. Caleb is listed in critical condition, and the cost of emergency treatment for his head wound has already reached $2 million. The Medleys were uninsured.

... Many of the comments were about health care, and one of the arguments frequently heard was: "I don't want the federal government taxing me to pay for the medical costs of people who don't care enough to provide for their own costs."...

... In our imagination it's always other people who get sick. I have a reader who tells me he's never been sick a day in his life. I tell him that's interesting from an autobiographical point of view, but otherwise not relevant. I can assure him that unless he's killed in an accident, sooner or later he will most surely get sick, and sooner or later he will most surely die.

Are we our brothers' keepers? Many people who resort to scripture are under the impression that we are not. They forget that it was Cain who said he was not his brother's keeper, after murdering Abel. In a similar sense, if our fellow citizens die because they have no access to competent medical care, they argue that we are not their keepers...

... I quote from the Bible for a particular reason. Many of the opponents of Universal Health Care identify themselves as Christians, yet when you get to the bottom of their arguments, you'll find them based not on Christianity but on Ayn Rand capitalism...

Ebert is talking about prosperity theology (wikipedia, see also Prosperity Theology | Christian Bible Studies [1]), a belief that wealth is a sign of god's approval, and poverty of god's disapproval. Since sin earns god's disapproval, the poor are sinners.

Although American Christians have brought prosperity theology to new heights, it's not unique to Christianity or to Mormonism. Hinduism's justification of caste maps well to the idea that poverty goes with sin, and wealth with grace.

In 2012 the fundamental difference between the right and the liberal is how we answer the question: "Am I my brother's keeper". Ironically, avowed Christians often give the answer of Cain and Ayn, while secular humanists often give the answer of Abel.

Cain and Abel. Romney and Obama. Some things never change ...

[1] Probably the only time I've ever linked to Christian Bible site.

I said Romney could never win the GOP primary ...

Five years Romney was running for President. Back then I wrote:

Gordon's Notes: Romney: not possible

In order to win the GOP primaries Mitt Romney has to convince Christian conservatives that he's reversed many of his longstanding opinions. He also, incidentally, has to publicly renounce his religion and be born again as a Baptist ....

I wrote my post around Kenneth Woodward's 2007 NYT OpEd.  Woodward walked through the theological gulf between Christian fundamentalisms and Mormonism -- and he didn't even touch on the more exotic portions of traditional Mormon belief. I didn't believe a former Mormon bishop could win the GOP primary. Perhaps he could win the presidential election -- but not the GOP primary.

It took five years, but it seems I was not exactly right.

I'd like to know how he did it, and how evangelicals crossed that divide. In the meantime, I think some credit goes to GOP voters. Maybe quite a bit of credit -- depending on what they were thinking.

So how exceptional is Romney's religion? Is Mormonism technically Christian? I tried two sources, both were a bit evasive ...

Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science

... In its Christian primitivism and antinomianism, it was akin to many other "restorationist" movements, such as the Campbellites, which emerged at about the same time in the "burned over district" ...

... in the 1840s, Joseph Smith and his successor prophets began to promulgate a series of new revelations and doctrines that moved Mormonism in a sharply heterodox direction relative to the Protestant heritage from which it had emerged. Since then, mainstream Protestantism, especially the more evangelical and fundamentalist varieties, has generally been unwilling to consider Mormons as part of the Christian family, despite the continuing Mormon claims to being the one, true, authentic church of Jesus Christ, restored to usher in a new dispensation of the fullness of the Gospel.... 

and

Mormon (religion) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Mormon beliefs are in some ways similar to those of orthodox Christian churches but also diverge markedly...

.. Mormons regard Christian churches as apostate for lacking revelation and an authoritative priesthood, although they are thought to be positive institutions in other respects. Smith, they believe, came to restore the institutions of the early Christian church. Although calling people to repent, Smith’s creed reflected contemporary American optimism in its emphasis on humanity’s inherent goodness and limitless potential for progress.

Perhaps it's a bit of a sensitive question. I'd go with technically Christian-related but not Protestant; probably closer to Christianity than Unitarianism or Judaism. Obviously there's a bit of irony if the Obama-is-a-muslim slice of the GOP ends up electing an arguably non-Christian President. (Maybe that's why Romney encourages Trump; it keeps the Birther whackos busy. Left alone they might go in another direction.)

If Romney does win he'll be expanding the religious range of the American presidency ...

Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unitarian

• John Adams
• John Quincy Adams
• Millard Fillmore
• William Howard Taft

No denominational affiliation

• Thomas Jefferson
• Abraham Lincoln
• Andrew Johnson
• Ulysses Grant
• Rutherford Hayes
• Barack Obama (previously United Church of Christ)

However, since the list includes four Unitarians (we go there - they evidently take agnostics) the historical record already stretches a good bit beyond "mainstream" Christianity. So President Romney would be unusual, but, theologically speaking, not entirely unprecedented.

Americans Elect - another try at GOP 2.0

Unsurprisingly, given the current state of the GOP presidential primary, people who'd prefer to vote GOP are advocating third party equivalents. This endorsement is from a Marketarian venture capitalist ...

A VC: Americans Elect (Fred Wilson)

Yesterday my partner Albert and I sat down with the people behind Americans Elect. For those that don't know, Americans Elect is an online third party movement. In their words, "Pick A President, Not A Party."...

Fred and  his kin assert the usual 'false equivalence' claim that both parties are equally dysfunctional. Sorry, that's not true. Team Obama is a good representative of a reason (data + logic, including evaluation of political realities) based implementation of social compact ("Branch I") values for a multicultural nation. The 2012 Dems are about as healthy as political parties get in an era where voters tolerate widespread corruption.

The problem, of course, is with the GOP. It has fallen into a political death-spiral where its survival depends on tribes that lack a common framework for interpreting reality. Some cleave to particular religious doctrines, others to secular tribal beliefs. The modern GOP is the party of unreason.

Obviously, this is bad. It's bad because the GOP has quite a good chance of taking full control of government. It's bad because a weak GOP will lead the Dems to destroy themsevles - and we'll have no government at all.

We all need need GOP 2.0, a reason based representation of Branch II values, a party that speaks for the powerful, the incorporated, the status quo, the authoritarian impulse and all those wary of change and disruption. Americans Elect is a part of the process of finding GOP 2.0. I wish them luck; we need this process to succeed.

A GOP blog I can read

It hurts me to read blogs or editorials written by 2012 Republicans. Oddly enough people like Santorum don't bother me as much as the Romneys and Douthats and Friedmans [1].

Santorum doesn't cause me intellectual pain because he's logically consistent. His God has told him that Man should have Dominion over the earth, so environmental objections are the work of Satan and most Christians are thus Satan's pawns. Since his God promised no more Floods, Global Warming can't happen. He's an internally consistent Capitalochristian fundamentalist. Yes, he's crazy, but that alone doesn't bother me. Besides, he makes Romney mad, so he serves a social purpose.

Nothing here I haven't said before of course -- except recently a I found a Republican blog I can read.

Well, at least the author ran on the GOP ticket when I voted for him in 1994 (first and last time I voted that ticket). Now, however, Arne Carlson's blogger profile doesn't mention the R or G words. He probably voted for Obama last time. (The state GOP hated him in 1994 and hates him even more now.)

So maybe he's not much of a Republican by post-Reagan standards. Go back to President Ford though, and he'd have been northern GOP [2]. If America is to have a health democracy with a  reality-based GOP 2.0, he might be mainstream GOP again.

For now Arne is my token GOP voice - whatever they may call him

[1] Friedman isn't technically a Republican - yet. Given the flavor of his reasoning though, he's more than half-way there.
[2] Excepting sociosexual issues. Progress is funny. In the 1970s even Romney's current reactionary statements on Gay and Civil Rights would be unspeakably progressive, and Romney would be almost a mainstream feminist.

See also:

• Greece, America and GOP 2.0 11/2011
• Roots of the irrational in American politics: pre-dementia and religion 7/2011
• GOP 2.0: What rational climate change politics might look like 12/2011
• UnReason: The Republican War on Reason 2/2011
• Why it hurts to read the right 9/2010

GOP 2.0: What rational climate change politics might look like

"With great power comes great responsibility." Gingrich's inner geek smiled at that one. Certainly they had the power. The Democrats had been crushed by the 2012 elections. President Romney now controlled the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court -- and the filibuster had been eliminated in early 2013.

Gingrich was philosophical about the Vice Presidency; Cheney had taught him what could be done. Romney was happy enough to hand off the big one to him.

Not health care of course. That had been a trivial problem; it took only a few months to tweak ObamaCare, throw in some vouchers and a few distractions, and launch RomneyCare. The GOP base was fine with rebranding, and the dispirited remnant of the Democrats saw little real change.

No, the big one was climate change. Romney and Gingrich had never truly doubted that human CO2 emissions were driving global climate change, but pivoting the base took a bit of work. They'd begun with ritual purges; Hansen was quickly exiled to the lecture circuit. Then came the American Commission on Truth in Science. There wasn't even much tormenting of old enemies; the size of the GOP victory had taken the fun out of that. In short order the "weak mindedness" of the Democrats was exposed and the "honest and rigorous" examination of the Romney administration was completed. It was time, Murdoch's empire declared, for strong minded Americans to face hard (but not inconvenient) facts.

The hardest challenge came from a contingent that felt global warming was a good thing, even God's plan. American drought was weakening that group, but they were a constant headache.

Now though it was time for policy, and Gingrich couldn't be happier. He'd been meeting with Bill Clinton of course; the two rogues loved the evening debates. Clinton's engagement wasn't just for fun, despite the GOP's dominance there was still room for politics. America's wealthy had been irrationally terrified of Obama, but they were also afraid of runaway warming -- and they had considerable power. Trillions of dollars were at stake in any real attack on global warming, and every corporation in America was at the door. The Military was pushing for aggressive management. Lastly, Gingrich knew that power can shift. He'd seen it before.

He wrote out the options, and labeled them by their natural political base ...

• Climate engineering: solar radiation reduction, massive sequestration projects (R)
• CO2 pricing (by hook or crook) (R/D - political debate is how revenues are used)
• Subsidies for public transit (D)
• Urban planning measures (D)
• Military strategy to manage anticipated collapse of African nations (R)
• Military strategy to manage anticipated climate engineering conflicts with China (climate wars) (R)
• Tariff's on Chinese imports to charge China for their CO2 emissions (R/D - but probably tied to American CO2 pricing)
• Massive investments in solar power and conservation technologies (D)
• Massive investments in fusion power (R)

The Climate Wars were particularly troublesome. There were simple things China could do, like pump massive amounts of sulfuric acid, that would alleviate the disaster their scientists had predicted. These measures, however, would be disastrous for the US. On the other hand, war with China was unthinkable.

Gingrich new he had to put a price on Carbon and he had to get China to avoid the most dangerous (for the US) forms of climate engineering. The rest was in play. This was what Great Men were made for ...

See also:

Gordon's Notes

• Why is the modern GOP crazy? 7/2011
• Denialists in favor of a warmer earth 6/2011: This is a common GOP position now - Climate change is not due to humans, it's a good thing, and God approves.
• Global warming: Doonesbury and China 9/11 - another GOP position variant, warming is relatively bad for China, relatively good for the US. This is probably true.
• Global Warming: We're scr***d. 8/2006 - it's too late anyway. Another GOP position, also partly true.
• The rational basis for climate change denialism 20/2010 - God made the earth for us, so the climate is His.
• Greece, America and GOP 2.0 12/2011
• Global climate change: it's time to think radical 9/2006 - climate engineering is coming.
• UnReason: The Republican War on Reason 2/2011
• We're crazy now. We were crazier forty years ago - 9/2010 by historic standards, we're not as crazy as we fear
• Birthers, Deathers and Truthers - the reason behind the madness 9/2009 - maybe the GOP is now in recovery?
• America 2011: exploring the boundaries of democracy and capitalism 1/2011: Democracy is not robust
• Keystone XL, carbon sequestration, and the tax in the closet 11/2011
• A taxonomy of American politics 2/2011 - where values differ, how democracy would work if the GOP recovers
• Climate Change and the Black Plague 5/2007 - disease changes will be disruptive
• Climate Change 2010: Plan B 11/2010 - a Carbon Tariff on China
• Why you should vote for the Tea Party’s coven in the century of the fruitbat 10/2010 - maybe only the GOP can tackle climate issues
• Separated at birth: alternative medicine and climate change denial 5/2011 - Old discussions resurface.
• Thai floods - microcosm of global climate change 11/2011 - the early and biggest impacts are outside of the US and Canada
• Science, the media and the Himalayan glacier. What's wrong? 11/2011 - scientists are cowed
• Tornados and global warming - how do we judge predictions? 5/2011 - Bayes and climate. Evidence is always probabilistic.

Others

• Shibboleths — Crooked Timber 2/2011
• The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney - 2011 book
• Existential threats - Charlie's Diary 6/2011 - fun Stross post on existential threats. Climate change is fairly low in this ranking.
• Some things are just really hard to believe: more on choosing your facts. « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science - 8/2010 - Why some things are hard to believe (roots of denialism)
• Weather as a weapon: The troubling history of geoengineering. - Slate Magazine 9/2010

The "War on Chrismas" is not entirely delusional

The American "War on Christmas" movement seems thoroughly silly ....

Reminder: Tis the Season Not to Be an Ass – Whatever

...it’s about as silly as it ever was, considering that Christmas has conquered December, occupied November and metastasized into late October. To suggest that the holiday is under serious threat from politically correct non-Christians is like suggesting an earthworm is a serious threat to a Humvee. This is obvious enough to anyone with sense that I use The War on Christmas as an emergency diagnostic, which is to say, if you genuinely believe there’s a War on Christmas, you may want to see a doctor, since you might have a tumor pressing on your frontal lobes.

Seems silly, is silly.

And yet, I agree with TNC that Rick Perry is not completely delusional ...

Rick Perry and the Politics of Resentment - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Politics - The Atlantic

... What strikes me is the sense of being under siege, a constant theme in conservative politics. It is as if time itself is against them. And they know it. The line "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian" stands out. Who is ashamed of this? This is a predominantly Christian country, and one of the most religious in the West. People don't "admit" their Christianity here. They proclaim it -- as the president has done repeatedly.

But what if there's something else? What if the conservatives are more perceptive and honest than the moderate liberals? I love Grant and Lincoln, but they were dead wrong in claiming that emancipation did not promote "social equality." Meanwhile the bigots who asserted that emancipation meant that Sambo would be "marryin yer daughters" were right. I wouldn't be shocked if Grant and Lincoln knew this, but also knew that to admit as much would be suicidal...

Yes, to most of the world the US seems to border on theocracy. But I was born into a true western theocracy, and it fell apart in less than 10 years ...

Quiet Revolution - Quebec History

The Quiet Revolution is the name given to a period of Quebec history extending from 1960 to 1966...

... The first major change that took place during the Quiet Revolution was the large-scale rejection of past values. Chief among these are those that Michel Brunet called “les trois dominantes de la pensée canadienne-française: l’agriculturisme, le messianisme et l’anti-étatisme” [the three main components of French Canadian thought: agriculturalism, anti-statism and messianism]. In this respect, Quebec entered resolutely into a phase of modernisation: its outlook became more secular (as opposed to religious), much of the traditionalism that characterised the past was replaced by increasingly liberal attitudes; long standing demographic tendencies, associated with a traditional rural way of life (high marriage, birth and fertility rates), were rapidly reversed ...

Quebec seemed stuck in the past -- until it lurched into the future. Societies can change very quickly.

Consider the case of the 2012 Presidential campaign. The GOP's presidential candidate will be theologically non-Christian (though culturally mainstream Protestant). The Dems candidate will be mainstream Protestant but raised partly in Islamic Indonesia.

That seems different, even if the current candidates aren't as theologically extreme as Jefferson, Adams or Madison. I would not be surprised if the religious attitudes of 2020 America were similar to those of 2000 Britain.

The religious right is right to be afraid, but wrong to think there's a conspiracy they can fight. Their foe is history, and it's hard to fight history. Just ask al Qaeda.

The nine heroes

This is purest idiocy ...

Why affirm ‘In God we trust’? - - The Washington Post

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives spent a good bit of time debating a resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the official national motto. (Are you surprised that the vote was 396-9 in favor of the motto?)...

So who were the 9 heroes?

They are:

Nay	NY-5	Ackerman, Gary [D]
Nay	MI-3	Amash, Justin [R]
Nay	CA-32	Chu, Judy [D]
Nay	MO-5	Cleaver, Emanuel [D]
Nay	CA-15	Honda, Michael [D]
Nay	GA-4	Johnson, Henry [D]
Nay	NY-8	Nadler, Jerrold [D]
Nay	VA-3	Scott, Robert [D]
Nay	CA-13	Stark, Fortney [D]

In addition 2 other representatives are, if not heroes, at least not cowards ...

Present	MN-5	Ellison, Keith [D]
Present	NC-12	Watt, Melvin [D]

Ellison is local - he's the only Muslim representative in the House. Come to think of it, given his religion, just abstaining is heroic.

The biggest surprise is Justin Amash, the Republican. I really didn't think there were any left of his caliber.

Sadly, my own representative, Betty McCollum, caved.

Credit to the base: The Mormon, the Minority and the Maroon

The GOP is morally and intellectually bankrupt -- and they're likely to get another chance to finish off America.

This is, of course, the fault of the GOP voter. They deserve blame for that. History will not be kind to them.

History should give them some credit though, maybe even let them out of purgatory a bit early.

I mean, look at the leaders.

A black man is leading in the (vote free) polling. This isn't the same getting real votes but it's something. I wouldn't have predicted older white male GOP voters would give the man an audience. Sure he's balm for their guilt -- but the mere fact that they feel guilt is impressive.

Meanwhile, the man pundits favor to win isn't a Christian [1]. Goldberg said it well - Romney is culturally Christian, theologically not. Yes, GOP voters are having trouble with this, and with his total lack of credibility, but even so Romney is always close to the lead. I didn't think GOP voters would tolerate a heretical President.

Then there's the maroon. Perry is what I expected, a dimmer version of George Bush. I think he'll be the nominee; in the end Romney won't be theologically acceptable.

I might be wrong though. The GOP base is surprising me. They have abysmal judgment, but in a strange way their bad choices are a good sign.

[1] To me Mormonism seems as good (or bad) as most religions. I think people should be more worried that Romney is a fan of Battlefield Earth.

The M word

We commies have a problem.

We are dependent on the money of corporations and the votes of the masses. It's not our only problem. We have to hold together a coalition across tribe and culture.

Since they're dedicated to the end of civilization, it's a good thing the GOP has problems too. Gopers have to sign up for a set of mandatory untruths on science, history and economics for example. This makes it hard for the GOP to retain non-sociopathic rationals, much less secular humanists.

That's not their big problem though. Their big problem is theological. A party famous for intolerance has to pretend two quite different religions, Mormonism and Christianity, are the same. (Trust me, I'm an atheist. These religions have more in common than Islam and Judaism -- but not much more.)

This is a lot to pretend, but it doesn't seem as hard as, for example, worshipping both Christ and Mammon. It would be doable -- except for the Hell problem. Many GOP Christians believe in Hell, and they believe consorting with heretics is one way to get there. Mormonism is heresy; no doubt there. An eternity in Hell is a high price to pay for winning an election.

Maybe the GOP will patch this up -- but I think they're going to have to choose. They'll either have to offend Mormons and Romney supporters or offend their entire Christian Base.

Despite his current dominance, I don't think Romney will be the GOP candidate. If he is, he'll have a hard time harnessing the base.

If Perry is the alternative, expect Obama to ask if he'd have been welcome at Perry's *head ranch.

Considering the horrible odds against Obama's reelection he'll need more of this Irish luck.

Rick Perry's magic stem cell transfusion

Rick Perry is running for president. In case you hadn't noticed. This is telling ....

Perry's Surgery Included Experimental Stem Cell Therapy — Rick Perry | The Texas Tribune:

,,, The possible presidential contender didn’t reveal that he’d undergone an experimental injection of his own stem cells, a therapy that isn’t FDA approved, has mixed evidence of success and can cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.

The governor’s procedure did not involve embryonic stem cells, which he and many other conservatives ardently oppose using for medical research on both religious and moral grounds. His treatment involved removing his own adult stem cells from healthy tissue and injecting them back into his body at the time of surgery, with the belief that the cells would assist tissue regeneration and speed recovery.

In a statement on Wednesday, Perry spokesman Mark Miner called the procedure “successful” and confirmed that it included “the innovative use of his own adult stem cells.”...

The Texas Tribune has more coverage.

Perry used his personal political power to get a Korean treatment pushed by a Perry friend and orthopedic surgeon. Enthusiasts claim miraculous regenerative powers. (If true, incidentally, I'd expect to see malignancies too.)

Autologous stem cell infusion is a long way from proof of safety and efficacy; sadly, orthopedic surgeons have a history of enthusiasm for alternative therapies that burn money and harm patients. This fits with the GOP's antipathy to science and enthusiasm for alternative medicine.

Roots of the irrational in American politics: pre-dementia and religion

I've written recently about the role of religion in the reasoning of the GOP base. This is an elephant in the room; pundits will discuss the role of American's exceptional fundamentalism in the context of abortion politics, but not in the context of debt politics. The mainstream media is missing an important ingredient in our political paralysis.

There's another elephant out there, and it will grow over the next ten years. The average American voter will become increasingly demented. Demented people rarely vote of course, but most dementia is the end stage of a very long process. Before a voter is disabled, they will lose the ability to process information, recall all but the most recent events, and adjust their beliefs based on evidence. They will, in other words, become less rational.

How big a factor is this?

We can make some estimates by starting with the end-stage state of clinical demential ...

Prevalence of Dementia in the United States: The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study

... The prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 71 and older was 13.9%, comprising about 3.4 million individuals in the USA in 2002. The corresponding values for AD were 9.7% and 2.4 million individuals. Dementia prevalence increased with age, from 5.0% of those aged 71–79 years to 37.4% of those aged 90 and older...

... The elderly population (those aged 65 years or older) in the USA is expected to double from approximately 35 million today to more than 70 million by 2030...

Of course these numbers are only a start. What we really want are numbers expressed in percentages of voters, and we want the average disease duration from judgment impairment to disability. Personally I suspect that's about 20 years, but the best data I could find was on a relatively rare and aggressive form of early dementia ...

Pre-dementia clinical stages in presenilin 1 E280A... [Lancet Neurol. 2011] - PubMed result

... Pre-dementia cognitive impairment was defined by a score 2 SD away from normal values in objective cognitive tests, and was subdivided as follows: asymptomatic pre-MCI was defined by an absence of memory complaints and no effect on activities of daily living; symptomatic pre-MCI was defined by a score on the subjective memory complaints checklist higher than the mean and no effect on activities of daily living; and MCI was defined by a score on the subjective memory complaints checklist higher than the mean, with no effect on basic activities of daily living and little or no effect on complex daily activities. De

... Median age at onset was 35 years (95% CI 30-36) for asymptomatic pre-MCI, 38 years (37-40) for symptomatic pre-MCI, 44 years (43-45) for MCI, and 49 years (49-50) for dementia. The median age at death was 59 years (95% CI 58-61). The median time of progression from asymptomatic to symptomatic pre-MCI was 4 years (95% CI 2-8), from symptomatic pre-MCI to MCI was 6 years (4-7), from MCI to dementia was 5 years (4-6), and from dementia to death was 10 years (9-12). The cognitive profile was predominantly amnestic and was associated with multiple domains. Affected domains showed variability in initial stages, with some transient recovery in symptomatic pre-MCI followed by continuous decline.

In this disorder asymptomatic pre-MCI started at age 35, and disability (dementia) at age 50. So the aggressive form has a 15 year course. I would expect less aggressive forms have a longer course, so I'll go with 20 years.

So by these very rough guesstimates about 15% of 50 year old voters will be impacted by "asymptomatic pre-MCI", an early form of cognitive disorder that will impact their judgment. That prevalence will go up with age. Since GOP voters are much older than Dem voters, this, like religious fundamentalism, will be concentrated in the GOP base and it will strongly impact GOP politics.

If you don't understand the two factors of religious fundamentalism and pre-dementia cognitive impairment you will have a hard time understanding the future of the GOP.

God's Will and the debt limit

Theocratic states are, by definition, not rational. Stalinist Russia, Fascist Germany, Mao's China, Kim's Korea, Revolutionary Iran -- they all believed God or History would preserve them against all odds.

Israel and America aren't theocratic states, but both nations have a strong strain of theocracy. In the US that strain is concentrated in the GOP. A belief that God is on your side can lead to some otherwise inexplicable and irrationally self-destructive behaviors.

I don't think the US will default - but we are rather close to the edge. We need to understand not only how the GOP got to crazy, but why. Why does a significant portion of the GOP believe that America should do this?

For many Republicans it's their version of Mao, Marx and Mohamed. They are American Marketarians, believers in a peculiar 21st century American fusion of Christian fundamentalism, evangelical capitalism, and calvinism. They believe they are doing God's will, that progressive taxation is the greatest sin -- opposing God's will and justice. They believe that God will save America -- if America follows the true course. Even if they don't personally believe that Obama is the anti-christ, they know he is not a Believer.

They can't make a deal, because they'd be denying God.

That's why we're in trouble.

A taxonomy of American politics

The weak are inescapable. Live long enough? Probably weak. Child? Weak. Wrong genes? Not so strong. Blacksmith post-horses? Tribe out of power? Parents not wealthy? Don't own a Senator? Organic in the machine age? Ok, so you get it.

In America weakness and poverty trend together. and, to a first approximation, American political tribes can be classified by their attitudes to the weak...

Branch I The strong should help the weak because ...

• I need help -> Weak person, not in denial
• My religious tradition tells me I will be rewarded for compassion -> Theist
• Seeing suffering makes me feel bad -> Normal human
• I choose to assume this obligation because ...
  • I am perverse [3] ->  liberal secular humanist
  • Some of those I love are weak -> Social interest
  • I may be weak some day -> Rational self-interest
  • I favor civilization and prosperity -> Rational social interest
  • My tribe is defined by its service -> Noblesse obliges

Branch II The strong should not help the the weak because ...

• I am strong because I am of the strong tribe, non-tribe is non-person -> Weak person, in denial
• Misfortune is the will of God/The Market which I must support -> neo-Calvinist [1], Marketarian
• I am strong, and the weak serve me -> Authoritarian
• I don't care about the suffering of others -> Sociopath
• I like seeing others suffer -> Psychopath
• Obligation is an infringement on my liberty ->  Libertarian
• The health of the tribe requires the sacrifice of the weak -> Social Darwinist [2]
• Charity makes people weak, for weak must win or fall on their own -> Tough Lover

I guesstimate that about 70% of Americans belong in Branch I and 70%of them vote Democrat. Of the 30% of Americans in Branch II about 95% of them vote GOP. Branch II defines the heart of the GOP, though Branch II alone can't win elections.

Of all the twigs of this tree there are three that are in play during elections.

• non-Calvinist theists can vote Democrat or Republican. They are why we can have a Black President, but never an atheist President.
• GOP voters who are weak,  but yearn to be of the strong tribe. They may realize they are dupes, that they are sheep funding wolves. They can then change sides. (Today many of these are Beckians.)
• The Tough Lovers

The last are the most interesting. From my secular humanist perspective, they have a point.

Sure, some TLs are just sociopaths in denial, but most of us are capable of more than we, or others, imagine. Sometimes hunger or homelessness helps someone overcome a social phobia and accept an unpleasant public facing job. Sometimes loss of child care benefits leads to rational choices about contraception. Parents in particular know that children love to win by their own ends against the odds (although we rig the game in the child's favor).

Tough love has its limits though. Sometimes people break. They become homeless. Their dependents suffer. This is why Food Stamps are usually a very good thing. Even the core GOP voters of Branch II often support some sort of publicly funded education, thought they want it to be locally funded and thus favor the strong [5].

The trick for those of us who want to help the weak be stronger, but also recognize that humans are not not rational actors, is to fake "Tough Love". We need systems and solutions that allow the weak to seem "win on their own" , perhaps by rigging the game in a way that seems 'fair'. So instead of doing affirmative action on the basis of ethnicity, we achieve similar ends to by providing affirmative action on the basis of poverty. Instead of directly subsidizing employment, we make it easier to create a viable startup company.

Political systems are good at finding solutions like these, which is why politics is the worse form of governance save for all the alternatives. We'll need to get very good at this form of kindness, because the 21st century will soon be seen as the age of mass disability, when fewer skills are needed, and more skills are as redundant as blacksmithing in the age of the automobile ...

[1] Calvinism is the best "Christian" example I know of, but this is common to many traditions. It is perhaps the only rational answer to the "problem of evil" in a religious tradition.
[2] Apologies to Darwin, who was a remarkably compassionate human being.
[3] It's a "worker Bee thing". Some are programmed this way. It isn't perverse if you think as humans as bipedal naked mole rats.
[4] It's been a long time since I'd given this much thought. I'm indebted to a substantially younger person for refreshing topics I'd internally settled long ago. 
[5] Note to foreigners. Americans typically fund education through local property taxes. Shocking, isn't it? The most shocking thing is that Americans think of this as a good idea.

Bayes and the infinite universe

I used to teach Bayesian reasoning to informatics students. I couldn't justify to them why such simple math felt both spooky and profound. I still can't, but this story fits.

Cosmologists tell us that, comparing a subset of models to available data using Bayesian methods, the 14 billion year old universe is somewhere between 3,500,000,000,000 and an infinite number of light years across (emphases mine) ....

Cosmos At Least 250x Bigger Than Visible Universe - Technology Review

... the photons in the cosmic microwave background have travelled ... 45 billion light years to get here. That makes the visible universe some 90 billion light years across.

... one line of thinking is that if the universe expanded at the speed of light during inflation, then it ought to be 10^23 times bigger than the visible universe... .... Other estimates depend on a number factors and in particular on the curvature of the Universe: whether it is closed, like a sphere, flat or open. In the latter two cases, the Universe must be infinite.

... in recent years, astronomers have various ingenious ways of measuring the curvature of the Universe. One is to search for a distant object of known size and measure how big it looks. If it's bigger than it ought to be, the Universe is closed; if it's the right size, the universe is flat and if it's smaller, the Universe is open.

Astronomers know of one type of object that fits the bill: waves in the early universe that became frozen in the cosmic microwave background. They can measure the size of these waves, called baryonic acoustic oscillations, using space observatories such as WMAP.

There are also other indicators, such as the luminosity of type 1A supernovas in distant galaxies.

But when cosmologists examine all this data, different models of the Universe give different answers to the question of its curvature and size. Which to choose?

The breakthrough that Vardanyan and pals have made is to find a way to average the results of all the data in the simplest possible way. The technique they use is called Bayesian model averaging ...

... Instead of asking how well the model fits the data, its asks a different question: given the data, how likely is the model to be correct. This approach is automatically biased against complex models--it's a kind of statistical Occam's razor.

In applying it to various cosmological models of the universe, Vardanyan and co are able to place important constraints on the curvature and size of the Universe. In fact, it turns out that their constraints are much stricter than is possible with other approaches.

They say that the curvature of the Universe is tightly constrained around 0. In other words, the most likely model is that the Universe is flat. A flat Universe would also be infinite and their calculations are consistent with this too. These show that the Universe is at least 250 times bigger than the Hubble volume. (The Hubble volume is similar to the size of the observable universe.) ...

This is Occam's razor statistics - "... we should tend towards simpler theories .... until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power".

Given the available information, the universe is most likely infinite, but it could be as "small" as 3,500,000,000,000 light years across. Big enough for one human like civilization for every human that has ever lived.

Probably though, much bigger than that.

It is a bit much. Surely, there is a simpler, less extravagant explanation. I'd like to see the authors rerun their analysis with a broader range of explanatory models. I think I know what the answer would be [1] ...

See also (Gordon's Notes unless otherwise noted)

• Earth: the measure of all things (3/2007): Back then we thought the universe might be "only" 140 light years across. So Earth was midway between the Planck length (quantum foam scale) and the universe.
• Bayes theorem: binding reasoning to the physical universe (5/2007)
• Boltzmann's brain hits the big Times (1/2008): We are the dreams of a desperate god in a terrible universe. It is the simplest explanation ...
• Reality, perception, Hume, the red pill - and John Tierney (8/2007): If you're going to be crazy like me, it helps to have David Humen for company.
• CV is hurting my head again: The anthropic principle and our peculiar relation to the arrow of time ... (8/2007): Too many coincidences
• The Algebraist and the religion of the eternal simulation (1/2008): Iain Banks is a fabulous writer.
• Ten cosmologies and Theory 10 (8/2006): The original page is gone. You can guess what theory 10 is.
• SETI, the Fermi Paradox and The Singularity: Why our search for extraterrestial intelligence has failed (footnote 9) (@2003) Before I did blogging, I stuck these things in web pages. "... Vernor Vinge wrote a very short story for one of the millenial year issues of either Nature or Science where he explores exactly this premise ... It's interesting to think about how one would "detect" a simulation ... Vinge explored this in a 2004? short story about a woman who realizes she's been trapped in a simulation ... the simulation would be imperfect, that it would generate "artifacts" in the same sense that JPEG lossy compression of a stripped image will product artifacts. One might, for example, look for physical phenomena consistent with techniques that would reduce the computational demands of the simulation. Or one might attempt to expose flaws (bugs) in the simulation -- or even "crash" it (risky!) ... identify physical phenomena that are inexplicable except in the context of a "simulation" (such as "connectedness" in theoretically disconnected parts of the universe).
• Gordon's Notes: Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? (11/04 - one of my earliest posts in this particular thread)

- fn --

[1] An omniscient universe-creating deity is equivalent to the "Boltzmann's Brain" explanation, so creationists are in good company. Alas, this "deity" is not the one they're looking for.

Apologetics: God and the Fermi Paradox

As a Catholic schoolboy in 1930s Quebec my father practiced a form of polemics known as Apologetics [1]. He argued through reason for the the existence of God.

Dad tells me he was good at Apologetics. As best I can tell he's an atheist, which probably helped his rhetoric.

I think I share the same gift. So I've long been surprised that theists don't use the Fermi paradox in their arguments. I suggested they pursue this back in 2003 ...

SETI, the Fermi Paradox and The Singularity: Why our search for extraterrestial intelligence has failed

... The universe we live in was designed so that we would be alone. There are a few variants on this idea, but they're fundamentally very similar. I list three here. In some ways the Fermi Paradox may be an even stronger "existence of God" argument that the usual "balance of physical parameters" argument.

1. Some non-omnipotent entity created our universe (there are allegedly serious physicists who speculate about how one might create a universe) and deliberately tweaked certain parameters so that sentience would occur on average about once per galaxy. Maybe they lived in a crowded galaxy and thought an alternative would be interesting.
2. God created the world in 7 days, and He made it for man's Dominion. He didn't want anyone else in our galaxy, maybe in the entire universe.
3. Nick Bostrom makes a credible argument^[9] that there's a reasonable likelihood that we exist in a simulation. If so, then perhaps the existence of an non-human civilizations does not suit the purposes of the simulation. (This could be considered a special case of "God created the world...")

Today, for the first time, a Google news search filter of mine found a Kevin Roeten post making an Apologetic argument ...

Atheists Beware--A Bona Fide Reason for God

... Assuming 10 billion years for the age of the Milky Way galaxy, there was at least 2000 chances for all additional civilizations (#16, p.48, Show Me God) to settle the entire galaxy. Italian physicist Enrico Fermi asks, "Where are they?" Hence, Fermi's Paradox...

...  For civilizations 15 light years away, they should be receiving signals from TV shows transmitted by earth, such as "I Love Lucy". Their signal to earth should be arriving back about now. We've received nothing...

I doubt this is really the first time anyone but me has made a connection between the Fermi Paradox and apologetics, but it's the first one my filters have caught. Congratulations Kevin.

This is why, though I'm functionally an atheist, I'm technically agnostic [2]. Personally I assign a non-zero probability that we're living in a simulation, which is just about the same as saying there somewhen existed one or more all powerful creators. Of course this says nothing about their attitudes towards us. Given the nature of reality I rather hope we're unnoticed mice in the walls, but I fear they're sadists.

Of course I assign a higher probability to the Fermi paradox answer that a "great filter" eliminates all biological civilizations. Still, I'm glad to see theists picking up on an interesting argument.

[1] The word "apologetics" is all but forgotten. It deserves a resurrection.

[2] It's impossible to truly disprove the existence of the supernatural, at best we can only prove it's not necessary to model what we measure. So, really, there are no rational atheists, there are only functional atheists. Incidentally, I'm very sympathetic to the religious inclination. Reality is overrated.

The rational basis for climate change denialism

I consider this a respectable and rational basis for denying that the earth's climate is being significantly altered by human greenhouse gas emissions ...

Global Warning Skepticism in Tea Party - NYTimes.com

...A rain of boos showered Mr. Hill, including a hearty growl from Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party.

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”...

I like this response. It's much less painful than reading right wing pseudo-science.

Mr. Dennison holds a set of religious beliefs. That belief set includes the understanding that God gave Man a planet to use as Man wishes, and He designed the planet so Man could not damage it. Therefore the scientific consensus on climate change is a fraud.

His reasoning is absolutely internally consistent. His conclusions follow directly from his premises. There is no response save to criticize his religious beliefs -- which is a rather sensitive topic.

I wish more Denialists were as honest as Mr. Dennison. I'm not being sarcastic. I think, at the core, this is what most Denialists believe but refuse to say.

Why you should vote for the Tea Party’s coven in the century of the fruitbat

Christine O’Donnell. Linda McMahon. Sharron Angle.

Names to conjure with! The Tea Party’s fruitbat coven strikes fear into the hearts of rationalists. Together with Minnesota’s Michelle Bachman and President Sarah Palin they …

Oh, excuse me. I’ve got to shut the window. Susan’s grave spinning can be kind of distracting.

Ok, where was I? Got it. Looks grim. Doomed we are. True, Minnesota survived Ventura [1], and this group can’t be as bad as Cheney/Bush, but America is in a grim place. Shouldn’t rationalists be buying gardens in the countryside?

Well, yes, we probably should. But I will make a case for why rationalists should vote fruitbat, even though I lack the convictional courage to do it myself.

Let’s consider just five of the wee challenges that face America in the next thirty years, and think about how Vulcans (my people – Team Obama) would do compared to fruitbats.

First, there’s the relative decline of America as a world power and the growth of American poverty. Obviously the fruitbats will speed this along. But relative decline is going to happen anyway. There’s nothing magical about America. Our post-WW II preeminence was largely a matter of circumstance. Since then we’ve done some things right, and, especially in the Cheney/Bush era, many, many things wrong. We Vulcans managed to avert, for now, Great Depression II, but we couldn’t finish the game. Advantage Vulcan, but only by degree.

Secondly, global climate change. Two words – Nixon. China. We tried, we failed. The fruitbats can’t do worse, and only they can talk to the denialists. Advantage fruitbat.

Thirdly, the end of participatory democracy – China and America converge. Enlightenment thinkers couldn’t anticipate the positive feeback loops that make American law and regulation ever more favorable to large corporate entities (and billionaires, though they are less predictable). We Vulcans have failed on this front. Advantage fruitbat.

Fourth – the reason-resistant bomb. Iran is only the best current example. Mutual Assured Destruction worked [2] because the enemies feared death. Russia, China and the EU are all secular states, and American leadership religion is mostly skin deep (until Bush II [4]). If true believers have control of nuclear delivery systems, and if they believe their deity will either protect them or give them paradise, then we’re in a new world of hurt. It’s hard to see how Vulcans can help here. Maybe fruitbats can talk to them. Maybe religious logicians [3] will stop worrying about a fruitbat led declining America. Advantage fruitbat, albeit a small one.

Lastly, there’s the Big One. AI, better described as AS (artificial sentience). Skynet – the smarter than you think [3] machines. We don’t survive this one. Vulcan leadership, by sustaining American science, will move this day forward. Fruitbats, by accelerating the decline of America, may slow it down by five to ten years. That might move the end time out of my lifespan, though, alas, probably not out of my children’s lifespan. Advantage fruitbat.

If we add it all up, Vulcans only clearly win on one of the five big challenges. Yes, the fruitbats do accelerate the decline of America – but that might also slow AS work.

I can’t force myself to vote fruitbat. I’m not that rational; I’ll continue to campaign for Vulcan rule. In the near term it is clearly the better choice. If the fruitbats win, however, there is some (slightly) longer term consolation.

- footnotes

[1] Yes, Minnesota is whackier than California. We don’t get the credit we deserve.

[2] To my amazement. The long post-fusion survival of civilization is a strong argument for divine (or other) intervention.

[3] I’m impressed and disturbed that the NYT put this series together, even though it’s annoying that the last article managed to miss the historic Cyc and active Wolfram Alpha AI projects.

[3] They’re not whackos. Given his stated beliefs and values Ahmadinejad is more rational (for a certain definition of rational), and thus more scary but less annoying, than the fruitbats.

[4] Carter was very religious, but in a peculiarly rational way. He’s a true anomaly.