Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

What I learned about politics and good governance from reading 1 Samuel

As we are in full political swing right now - I thought I would share a post I wrote about what the bible can teach us about - politics. Humanist Bible Study

I have been - off and on - reading the Bible and posting my thoughts about it - at my Humanist Bible Study blog - http://humanistbible.blogspot.com/  I stopped after my father died - but am planning to get back into it when time allows.  I do have enough to publish a Humanist Bible Study of the Pentateuch though. 

This post is from 2014. And it's about - the book 1 Samuel. 

As I keep reading, I get more and more and more into the stories.  This one is one of my favorites so far. Partially because it's political.  I'm a Humanist - so the moral politics and what the moral lessons for politics intrigue me. Especially since the lessons weren't what I thought they would be given what political Christianity looks like and advocates for in the United States.

Anyway - here are the political lessons I took away from 1 Samuel:

  • Fair and impartial judges are essential to peace among people. (1 Samuel 7)
  • Monarchy’s are against the will of God. (1 Samuel 8)
  • Don’t suppress dissent with violence (1 Samuel 11:13)
  • If you want peace, don’t appoint a man of war to rule over you. (1 Samuel 14) 
  • You get the government you deserve (1 Samuel 12:12)
  • God does not support preemptive attacks. (1 Samuel 13) 
  • Sometimes you win by not fighting. (1 Samuel 26)
  • Violence begets violence (1 Samuel 30)
  • Plotting to overthrow a government? Even if you have god on your side, you still need to be a bit sneaky. (1 Samuel 16)

The entire story is one of corruption vs. honesty in governance.  The people want a king. God warns them that kings are bad. They demand a king. God chooses one for them, this is Saul. Turns out - Saul doesn't obey God in quite the right anal retentive way God wants him to and so God starts to plot against Saul by choosing and mentoring David through lots of political maneuvering and fighting. Saul becomes increasingly corrupt in his quest to maintain power and it is this corruption that serves as the moral heart of the story.

What surprised me was that god is pro-judges and basically anti organized government. Not sure how you have judges without a way to pay them, but I guess since at the time the priestly class were the judges, they got paid as part of their priestly duties to the people. That's why they got to keep a portion of all the sacrifices.

Regardless, the preference is clearly for a type of theocratic based self rule.  I'd call it libertarian, except that it's clearly theocratic. Rule by priests/judges - when you need them.  But, there were lots of priests and judges and people were free to follow whichever one they thought most "godly" with individuals really only standing out as good from time to time.

This book also makes the case against nepotism and biological succession. Because whenever someone was godly/goodly - his sons were inevitably not.

The final thing that really shocked me about this story is the homosexual love story between Saul's son Jonathon and David - the king in training. Whatever political Christians try to say about what god thinks about gays - is wrong. They just haven't read this book. 



No Conspiracies Needed

I've been meaning to write this for a while.  I teach how to use behavioral techniques to get unwanted behavior to stop.  There has been quite a bit of behavioral conditioning that has happened in our body politic and it's impacting our ability to function and even discuss democratically - solutions to our problems.

First - I want you to read - Kurt Anderson's article in the Atlantic - about how America lost it's mind: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/


I come at this behaviorally. I teach the science of how to cause unlearning, otherwise known as how to extinguish unwanted behaviors using operant conditioning techniques. I focus mainly on how this knowledge is or should be applied to the problem of bullying/harassment/discrimination and retaliation (which is predicted to occur during behavioral extinction).

One of the things that has happened to facilitate the fantasy beliefs is that we have had 30 plus years of intentional behavioral conditioning (which can also be considered brainwashing) by the right and republicans to reward certain behaviors and ignore others. At this point there are some very obvious conditioned responses that people on the right have when confronted with certain types of … cognitively dissonant knowledge.   

Getting masses of people to act irrationally takes a concerted effort and we have been experiencing a perfect storm of that – involving various actors all acting out of self interest and not necessarily colluding – as that isn’t necessary for the outcome we saw.  The Russia “hack” piggy backed onto the groundwork that was laid by the republican party decades before which is why we see more of this on the right and the left version of this is still mostly on the fringe but edging in towards the center.

No Conspiracy is needed:


While it is comforting to think that there is some grand conspiracy causing this. there probably isn't. It's just a perfect political storm of independent actors who for their own motivations - contribute and support these fantasy beliefs.

It's not so much of a grand conspiracy as a perfect storm of groups advocating for different but related things in a way that encouraged cult like thinking that was easily co-opted by bad actors. And it just kind of climaxed at our present moment. Like, what Russia did wouldn't have been possible if we had not had 50 years of The Fellowship's co-option of the religious right into a political force, 40 years of Republicans pushing ever more partisan/tribal rhetoric (us good, them bad - always), Greedy people creating a brain washing tv channel just to make money, headed by Republican who co-opted it into a propaganda outlet (Fox), Exploitative capitalists co-opting the republican party and their hyper partisan and increasingly brainwashed base to push for anti-capitalist/pro-oligarchy reforms and the Republican party leadership being ok with that as it meant more power to the party. And finally - Russia coming in and co-opting the entire thing for their own ends. All of these things overlap but are separate and led to the perfect storm that is what we are experiencing now.

What is the fix?

That - I am really rather pessimistic about. 

I really do feel that in order to help get America back on track – we need to understand what conditioned responses were trained into segments of our populace (like the knee jerk – what about the democrats/liberals – that occurs whenever a republican is caught behaving badly).  We need to educate ourselves on how exactly those responses are reinforced and how exactly to remove that reward and what exactly happens when we do that – since it isn’t pretty and involves something called an extinction burst (or a blow out) in behavioral training lingo.

It would require a massive coordinated effort by many segments of society simultaneously.

First – the science: To extinguish an unwanted behavior – you remove the reward. Which requires understanding how the behavior is rewarded. Once you remove the reward, then the animal escalates their behavior to get their reward back. If the reward is well and truly gone – eventually the animal will blow out and the behavior will be “extinguished” but only kind of because they will periodically try to get their reward back.

So … imagine a rat trained to press a lever and it gets food. If the lever stops working, the rat keeps pressing it, trying to get it’s reward back. If it is truly broken, it will eventually stop. But before it stops it will become almost frantic trying to get it’s reward back. Pressing the lever almost continually – that is the extinction burst.   Even after extinction, the rat will occasionally will try the lever every once and again and if they get a hit – they will go right back into their old behaviors. A good way to think of this is that it’s like an addiction.   

There are things that can interrupt the extinction process. For instance, if every once in a while pressing the lever results in food – the rat will be rewarded and will have learned – I just gotta press this lever a whole lot to get food.  This is what is known as variable reinforcement and it strengthen the behavior – which is why people in abusive relationships have such a hard time leaving – they are being variably reinforced.

There are things that can make the extinction easier – like allowing the rat to get its reward in a different way- so – give them a different lever to get their food and they will abandon the old broken lever more quickly and with less fuss than if the old lever is their only option. 

This process can also cause all sorts of superstitious behavior to erupt as the animal becomes unsure of what works and what doesn’t and creates theories about what works and what what might increase its chances of the lever working. And yes, this ^ is directly related to our collectively becoming unhinged – on the left and the right.

The only way to extinguish a behavior – successfully – is to remove the reward permanently.  This is fairly easy to do with a rat – nearly impossible to do with a free ranging human because free ranging humans can find other ways to get their reward and humans can be very very very creative when it comes to trying to manipulate the system – so to speak.

Now – increase  all of this to a group level dynamic and you exponentially increase the size of the problem and the nature of it.  Cultural change, change management in organizations – all are related to this – except – it’s not changing the email system in an office, or changing a cultural norm in an office, it’s society wide! It can be done – but It’s super hard to do and super hard to control.

Once you understand how and why these dynamics play out and why the push back occurs and that the push back is a sign that you are successfully removing the reward, you can more easily understand what is happening and what needs to happen.


To answer the question – how – to engineer an extinction process at a societal level.  We have to collectively remove their rewards. Those rewards can be social validation (which they can get in their sub groups), societal approval, legal approval, etc etc. 


1.    One aspect of this will have to be done by the media – mainstream – teaching them how to effectively deny and shut down the lies that are told effectively in a way that will actually work to remove the reward telling lies has for the people who tell them and believe them.


2.    Another aspect of this has to be political. Rational republicans HAVE to push back and push back hard against this.  Democrats do too on their side – the far left is engaging in some really crazy stuff too – all originating in the same place.  And again, there are ways to do this that will remove the reward, the problem is that the push back on this (the extinction burst/escalation) will be so severe that very few are willing to do it at all because it would probably be political suicide at this point.


3.    Rank and file republicans who hate this have to stop rewarding the party for doing this stuff. If enough stop rewarding the party it will have an impact.


4.    We have to figure out how to respect free speech while using counter speech more effectively to marginalize crazy beliefs.  My guess is part of this is related to advertising revenue since part of the misinformation is just opportunists selling click bait.


5.    The courts – can’t under-estimate that – The crazies now have the ability to populate the courts with people who will legally validate the crazy stuff they believe and that will have decades long impact on our ability to push back and deny the rewards for behavior based on crazy beliefs.  The only thing really protecting us from full fledge descent into this is the courts. 

If I were to design a push back – 


My first task would be to mobilize and convince rational republicans to NOT allow any justices to be seated by this president or by Pence.  Failure to do that means nothing else being done will matter as they will be receiving legal validation/reward. Pretty much the only thing stopping them right now is the legal system. That defense against insanity – must not be breached.  

But this comes to the 2nd thing I would do. Rational republicans need to be positively rewarded for breaking with their party. Not sure how to do this but if we don’t give them rewards elsewhere – they will continue to seek rewards from their party – no matter how broken.

I would also work on training journalists on techniques to remove the reward people get from spreading propaganda on television.

Finally – I would use the extinction burst against these people to help move public opinion. For instance, Trump is easy to manipulate. He’s responses are so conditioned they are super easy to trigger. When he feels threatened he fights back and that fighting back makes him look like the unhinged person he is. That triggering can be done intentionally because whenever he is unhinged, he loses support. It raises the cost of his behavior and his enablers get that cost too. The strategic change that should be made is to not let off on the pressure. He is currently experiencing this sort of pressure variable. And so far – he’s been able to reclaim control, but if he is intentionally triggered over and over and over again – he will remain off balance. Consistency is what extinguishes behavior, variability – strengthens it.

Now – ramp up that idea to an entire political party – or media or whatever.

Sorry to ramble, but there is no easy solution to this and because the behaviors are being rewarding in a bunch of different ways – there are a bunch of different things that have to be done to shut it down. And there is no way to do what has to be done without triggering extinction bursts and it isn’t’ going to be pretty and people on the right are threatening violence (which is consistent with extinction bursts). The only way to succeed is to understand what technically has to be done in order to engineer it in society what it will entail and mitigating the risks and the level of push back/violence that will occur when it is done. And that will take several people together working on the various aspects of this to create a strategy that would actually have a good chance of succeeding.






Now is the time

 I am handing over this blog post to my grandfather who used to be a columnist for The Deposit Courier. This was written in February 1938. Caution, I'm told by my father he didn't like anyone.


Keep in mind - my grandpa was a republican- complaining about the republican leadership. Also, my grandfather had been employed by the WPA to write children's stories and so benefited directly from New Deal programs. 

"NOW IS THE TIME" 

 A political party is, or should be, the result of a mass pressure for the purpose of achieving certain political, social or humanitarian objectives.

When a political party loses these objectives, and deteriorates into just a party of opposition it loses its hold on its followers. This, it seems to me, is what has happened to the Republican Party. From an instrument of planning for the good of the whole country it has become the expression of a few leaders who have failed to plumb the needs of the mass. It has played "politics" when it should have been thinking of how to achieve the best for the most people. In other words, it has lost the honest purpose for which it flourished and from which it grew.

The leaders of the party have fallen from the plane of men with great unselfish ideals proposed for the betterment of all the people, of either political faith, to those who see the party in the light of preferment to themselves. In that light it has become the party of selfish aims. To regain its past greatness, it must obtain a leader who will express the wants and desires of a majority of the people. A man honest in his convictions, honest in his presentation of his ideals and the presentation of honest ideals.

This leader will say "if we as a party fail to present to the voters a plan or a policy," and the plan or policy don't have to embrace all the problems that devil us, "then let us join with minority party or parties who have a plan or a policy that will find favor with the great masses because of its honest and practical truth."

From whence will come this leader? I don't know. But I do know from where he won’t come. He won't be a spoiled rich boy who has visioned himself as the savior of the country but the saving must be his way or it won't be saved. Not a political experimenter who will not be taught by his mistakes. Not a man of an oriental cast of thinking whose prime thought is to save face and who has not the honesty of ego to say 'I have been wrong when I wanted to be right. God let the voice of the people tell which is right and I will so do."

 What a terrible thing it is when a politician turns from that which, if continued would make him a statesman, to the devious and easier way of policy; whose political convictions are as a rubber hose that will bend around the rough spots and not an honest iron rod that will drive through to the right straight and true. This leader must come from the heart of the mass and not be a privileged product of a class.

But Lord God of the Hosts let him come soon for America needs him as never before to save us from the lunatic fringe that are now trying to shape our destinies.

 There must be an Esau crying somewhere in this wilderness of loose and un-economic thought that there is a way out; a plain and honest way" to decent living for the great majority of the people of this country.

"This was planned, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise." A very little more planning of this sort and we are undone.

Jed F. Shaw
Feb 17 1938
Published in The Deposit Courier

Humanism and Politics

Oh yes – I am going there!


The United States Presidential Election is just a couple of weeks away. I am sure that all my readers are probably pretty opinionated about it. I am not planning to use this space to tell you who I think you should vote for. I respect you too much for that. Instead, I wanted to visit the idea of what political humanism might look like and why.

One of my friends, who is Portuguese living in America, shared this with me. http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/humanist%20articles/Beyond%20Left%20and%20Right.htm  It is an article titled “Beyond Right and Left: A Humanist Approach to Politics.” It was published in 1995 in the Humanists in Canada winter edition. The gist of the essay is this: “It is time we buried both libertarianism and socialism as world views, and sought an approach to politics more compatible with the premises of modern scientific humanism. Let us show the rest of society that we can do better!”

This resonates with me because I dislike both libertarianism and socialism even though I agree with the principles underlying each approach.  I am apparently not alone in feeling this way. As Pat Duffy Hutcheon, the author of the essay, points out, Socialism and libertarianism are both flawed because their underlying assumptions about what and who humans are – isn’t scientifically correct.

He argues that Humanists should push us beyond these fundamentally flawed approaches to politics and instead encourage a better understanding of humans as socially embedded autonomous individuals.
Which brings me to the next thing I want to link you too - https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/rsa-comment/2010/08/rsa-animate---21st-century-enlightenment-/

The RSA is the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. They are a Humanist organization (founded in 1754) pushing for a 21st century enlightenment grounded on the concept of humans as socially embedded autonomous individuals.  

How does this concept of the human as a socially embedded autonomous individual change how we think about social policy?  Yes – autonomy is good. But social connection and responsibility is good too. What we come up with is that it’s not either/or that works, but both together are necessary for human flourishing.

But enough about what I think. What do you think?

The Right to Live Humane Lives

We live in a society that is not compassionate. Maybe we should change that.


We humans have a right to a humane life. Humane is defined as branch of learning intended to civilize people. It’s also defined as having or showing compassion and/or benevolence.

When I say we all have a right to live humane lives, I am stating an ideal. We humans would thrive if we lived in a society that treated us compassionately – or humanely.

Life is hard enough. We have to find food, shelter and clothing and hopefully find a tribe to hang with and protect us from the elements and things that want to eat us or harm us.  Among those that want to harm us should not be our fellow humans.

And yet here we are, in America, enduring our 355th shooting of the year. We humans prey on our fellow humans. We have institutionalized violence against minorities in our country. The death rate arising from this violence is staggering.

And that doesn’t even include the non-death suffering we inflict on each other in the name of fear and profits. We live in a society that isn’t compassionate. Maybe we should change that.

All this death and suffering is avoidable because it is death and suffering we are inflicting on ourselves.  If instead of responding to our fellow humans with fear we could try responding to them with compassion. Maybe there would be fewer accidental shootings that way.

Maybe kids that are being ostracized for being different wouldn’t be. Maybe their classmates would embrace them and their weirdness and maybe one less kid would commit suicide.


I’m not a Pollyanna who thinks compassion can solve all the problems in the world. But I do think we do better when we are compassionate and humane with one another.

We live in a hostile world. We form tribes to help protect us from that hostile world.  Who are we if we don’t use that impulse to protect to actually protect, not just ourselves, but our fellow humans. We have the ability to feed the hungry. We have the ability to house the homeless. We have the ability to provide medical care for those in need. And yet, we don’t.

We live in a society that isn’t compassionate. Maybe we should change that.

Leading with Respect


Who would you rather vote for?
In order to get people to agree to follow you, you need to treat them with respect. People choose who they will follow and who they won’t. So even if you disagree with a subordinate, you need to at least treat them with respect and dignity despite the disagreement. Let me tell you a true story about two politicians to help you understand why this matters.

I am one of those citizens who write letters to my elected officials when I am concerned about a matter of public policy.  One time, I wrote my congresswoman a letter about a law I wanted to pass. She ended up voting against it, which is fine. The bill passed without her vote anyway. No harm no foul. But it is what she did next that I have not forgotten decades later! Two months after her no vote I finally received a letter from her explaining how she agreed with me that this legislation was important and needed to pass. Again, she had voted against it 2 months prior. This is a REALLY long time to not respond to your constituent. As far as I am concerned she committed three errors. 1) She also assumed I was stupid enough to not realize that she was lying about her voting record. 2) She did not respect me enough to tell me the truth and 3) she took WAY too long to get back to me. It honestly would have been better had she not written me at all. Anyway, I never voted for her again and I consider her to be one of the more corrupt and worthless members of congress to this day.

Another time, another state and another congressional representative and this time I wrote a letter opposing a piece of legislation. My congresswoman wrote back immediately and told me that while she understood why I opposed this legislation and she agreed with me in principle, she was going to vote for this legislation anyway. She spent the rest of her letter explaining why she was going to vote the way she was. It was a well thought out letter. She didn't convince me she was right, but I absolutely voted for her again. Why? Because she respected me enough to be honest and forthright with me and she was prompt in her correspondence. 

The key to being a good leader is to think about how you want your leaders to act towards you. Then be the sort of leader you would respect.  In other words, treat the people you lead as if they are real live humans and not just stepping stones you need to advance your career. 

(Image: "Hand Dropping The Vote Paper" by taoty FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

There but for fortune

Phil Ochs: There But For Fortune

I woke up with this song in my head this morning. It’s my fault. I was watching a Phil Ochs documentary last night. And if you don’t know who he was, you owe it to yourself to find out and acquaint yourself with his music.

He was a folk singer in the traditional sense, meaning, his music was about politics and about people and about suffering with a call to fix what ails us. He was a true believer and his music reflects that.

This song in particular is not just haunting and beautifully sung (and covered by Joan Baez), but it’s also a song that reminds us to be compassionate. We are called to be compassionate not just for the guy sitting in jail, not just for the hobo, and not just for the drunk stumbling out the door, but for the countries currently at war. Always remember, there but for fortune, goes you or I.



A Delicate Balance

I have been helping a friend of mine from Bahrain edit an essay about Humanism. I am loving the essay. It continues to astonish me how people from all over the world manage to reach the same conclusions about life. Anyway, he said I could share some of it with you and the bit I want to share has to do with balancing the competing aspects of the Humanist philosophy. As I agree whole-heartedly I am sharing it here.

He quotes Barry Seidman who is a writer, producer and Humanist who wrote in an essay titled Imagine All the People the following statement.


If we cling to atheism as the basis for our behavior in society, then we may become what I call, "atheist avengers," putting our energies in debunking God while leaving social justice issues behind. If we only focus on science and skepticism we risk the twin evils of elitism and arrogance, finding more strength in attacking religionists or debunking the masses, than in making the world a better place to live. And if we focus only on social justice issues and ignore the problems of supernaturalism and the tool of science, we can find ourselves trapped in the labyrinth of postmodernism, and wind up building our societies on the fallacy that humans have free will. - Barry Seidman
My friend, A.R.M. of Bahrain, sums up the various aspects of Humanism thusly “So humanistic thoughts mostly concentrate on living a peaceful life, doing good, research, critical thinking, social justice, making the world better place to live, free will, and democracy.” Now that’s what I call balance.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...