Is it Time for a Third (or Forth) Party?

David:
In the Republican ranks, there is now talk of a third party candidate rising, to supposedly save the day. That would likely hand the keys to the White House back to the Clinton's, but the question I pose to you today is this: Is it time for more than just the two-party system we currently have?

Doug:
There are lots of different ways to organize political parties. I'm not sure that just adding another party would do what you want. Wouldn't a Libertarian party split the Republican party in two?

But anything that helps bring compromise to the current congress, I'd be in favor of. That might include lots of variations on the current dominate political platforms.

David:
It's more than just organizing, but that's part of it. Many folks I know are Libertarians, but there is also the Constitution Party and the Green Party, which are well established. For many, the assumption has been that to vote for one of these alternate party candidates is to "waste" a vote on someone who can't win. Ralph Nader was the standard bearer for the Green Party, was was a poor candidate. But the time may be right for a strong, well-spoken candidate from a third party to gain some momentum.

As to Libertarians taking votes from one party or another, they generally are fiscally conservative and support limited government, but socially agnostic (based on the idea government should not be involved with social issues), so depending on what issues are at the forefront of the debate, they would gain support from both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Doug:
That is exactly what I like about Libertarians... they don't find themselves agreeing with everything in a party's platform. Actually, that is what I like about Democrats, too. The Democratic Party really is a big tent.

David:
Not big enough. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about third or forth parties filling in gaps.

Doug:
(Where the Libertarians go off the rails is when they abandon support for social services, such as sewer and water systems. Also, the idea that social justice can be solved by economic pressure has been shown to not work.)

David:
I think my Libertarian friends might disagree with you.

Doug:
I'm sure they do think that they stay on the rails.

David:
"Libertarianism" is a bit of an umbrella term that covers a lot of various degrees of their over riding theme: Liberty. The one idea that holds them together is freedom from government, and freedom of choice and determination. Bigger government invariably infringes on personal liberty.

Fifteen years ago, a Yale graduate student got fed up with the politics of the day, and started the "free-state project":

https://freestateproject.org

This project is designed to get 20,000 Libertarians to all move to New Hampshire, and then to elect candidates  to essentially create their own enclave of government, a "free" state. They are approaching the 20,000 mark, and have already elected their own to numerous local and state positions. In a way, this is very similar to the Mormons of Utah.

Doug:
I completely agree that we need more organized forces in politics, and that the dual, monolithic party's days are over. But that doesn't mean that we can't have our two-party system. It just means that we need to break up the stranglehold that the two establishments have in running the parties. Perhaps this is the one (and only) good thing to come out of Trump's candidacy: he has shaken up the establishment.

David:
Speaking of stranglehold, yesterday the Democratic Party was asking Sanders to bow out, in the name of party unity.  The argument is that he cannot get enough delegates to win the race. But the reality is that Sanders has won as many popular votes as Clinton has. If the system were not rigged with "super delegates", that are all bought and paid for by the Clinton elites, Sanders would be tied, or even leading Clinton.

Doug:
Our election system is designed in a similar way---by the founding fathers, no less. We still have the electoral college, for example, that works in an almost identical way. Are you claiming that the founding fathers had this all wrong?

David:
The delegate system for determining the party candidates was not developed by the founders, silly boy. The Constitution says nothing about political parties. The delegates, how they're selected, and how they vote (and how they may change their votes on subsequent  ballots), are all determined by their respective state parties.

So, for example, the Democrats have set up a system of super-delegates (party insiders) who have no allegiance to the popular vote at all. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have a system where the popular vote dictates the voting of the delegates to the nominating convention, at least for the first round of voting. The possible lack of a decisive winner in the delegate race will lead to a convention where the candidates and party bosses will try to sway delegates to their side, to decide who will carry the banner.

Doug:
That will only be true if Trump doesn't win outright.

David:
Right. If that scenario plays out, then in both cases (Democrat and Republican), the popular vote will have minimal impact on who will eventually be the party nominee. This is worse on the Democratic side, where half of the delegates have no loyalty to the voter's will right from the start, but has not had much coverage by the media, who likely want to hide a divided party from view.

Doug:
If this is true, than you'd have to admit that the popular vote has minimal impact on who will be president, right? In fact, this has happened in the 2000 election. Are you arguing that Al Gore should have been president?

David:
Heavens no! You're talking about an entirely different system here, the electoral college. I'm talking about the selection of party delegates to the nominating conventions.

Doug:
So you are saying that it is ok to win the popular vote and not win the presidency, but that same standard should not be used in the primaries?

David:
The electoral college, as you mentioned, is defined by the constitution. The rules governing that process are much different. The 2000 election court case was about how to determine the counting of ballots (and introduced the words "hanging chad" to the lexicon).  But we can blog about that when the candidates are finally selected. The electoral college process is greatly misunderstood by many folks.

Doug:
The Democratic party is a divided party by definition! Try to find two democrats that agree on anything. And why would "the media" be conspirators in this great plan to hide that obvious fact?

David:
Please. The media is overwhelmingly controlled by Democratic members and supporters. Here's a study done at our Alma Mater, Indiana University, that found only 7% of journalists align as Republicans.

http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

Doug:
I would think that most journalists don't let their party affiliation cloud their ethics, let alone dictate that they should conspire to hide the fact that the Democratic party is fairly diverse group of people. Besides, only 28% of journalists identify as Democratic.

David:
As it has become obvious that most reporters are Democrats, the trend over the past few years has been for journalists to declare themselves "independent".

Doug:
I'm sure you can obviously tell a reporter is secretly a Democrat. I've heard of gay-dar, but not demo-dar.

David:
However, data indicates they still donate their cash to Democrats, whether they admit they're Democrat or not.  Another blog idea?

Doug:
Again, I suspect that most journalists have ethics---rules prohibiting contributions.

David:
You would suspect wrongly. Tell that to George Stephanopoulos.

But as you mentioned, both parties have a variety of opinions within them, on a wide variety of issues. The tea party caucus has shown that a group of elected officials can direct the discussion. And the Libertarians of New Hampshire have shown you can make changes to government by electing like-minded individuals in local races. There certainly seems to be room, and some momentum, for splinter groups and new party alliances to develop.

March Madness and Title IX

David:
As we enjoy the thrill of the NCAA college basketball tourney, I thought we might reflect on how Title IX, which was designed to increase opportunities for women in higher education, has been misused to eliminate some men's athletic programs, and now is leading to the expulsion of young men across the country from college without due process.

Doug:
March madness... that's basketball, right? I don't really know very much about Title IX, or any Titles for that matter. How has it been misused?

David:
Wow.

Of course, you do work at an all-girls school, so the impacts of Title IX have less of an impact for you, so I'll give you a slight pass. However....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Title IX was introduced in the Senate in 1972 by Indiana's then-senator Birch Bayh. The intention was to eliminate discrimination against women in higher education. But the wording in the bill has allowed the Department of Education to extend the original intent to encompass a great many things that were unintended. (No surprise  there. A government bill that is poorly written, that depends on a government agency to regulate the bill, that then has unintended consequences. And history repeats itself....)

Doug:
I work at an "all-women's college." How do you know what was intended when the bill was written? Perhaps this was the intention. I haven't read any bills, so I have no idea what a poorly written one would look like.

David:
I'd describe an all-male school as "all-boys", so, no slight is intended unless you're looking to be offended.

Doug:
That isn't how offending slights work, but do continue.

David:
I know what was intended because Congress had many committee meetings and conferences delineating exactly what they intended. College sports was one concern that was addressed. However, once the bill was passed, the Department of Education decided sports should be included anyway. The language of the bill was not specific enough to reign in the regulations, so that is why I say the bill was poorly written. This is what it actually says:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

The language sounds simple enough, but was used by the Department of Education (DoE) to extend it's reach into areas that were specifically to be off-limits in the bill.

Doug:
There goes those inanimate government agencies "reaching" again... They do a lot of that in your imagination. How does one know what is "off-limits in the bill"?

David:
When a bill is "open-ended" like this one, it can be hard to tell. That's why the trend during the last few decades of allowing employees at various agencies to create regulations, instead of writing specific language into legislation, is lazy legislation, and can lead to many unintended consequences. These agencies are not "inanimate". They are made up of many people, some with agendas, and almost all un-elected and unaccountable.

Doug: 
Is that "agencies are people, too, my friend." ? Channeling Mitt?


David:
College athletics, which was supposed to be excused from Title IX, was the first victim of Title IX.

Doug:
Victim? Wow, I really should know about this! Victims! Wait... college athletics is another inanimate agency.

David:
Because of the wording of the regulations, there needs to be equity of access to sports for women and men. Because you can't make women get in involved in sports if they don't want to be involved, this parity rule ended up causing colleges and universities to cancel men's programs. Men's soccer, track and field, cross-country, and gymnastics have all been eliminated at schools across the country. Women do have more opportunities for sports than before, but some of it has been at the expense of men's programs.

Doug:
Ok, that all sounds great. What is the problem?

David:
Let's say that schools need to have the same percentage of women in science courses as they do men. As many women do not choose to major in these sciences, the correlation to our discussion would be for schools to limit how many men can enroll in these classes. That isn't right. The goal is to eliminate barriers for women, not to punish men. But that is how the Left works: Don't focus on opportunity, but make sure the outcomes are equal.

Doug: 
That would be great to require that all schools have the same percentages of men and women in all classrooms across the board. That would go a long way to making things fair.

David:
I'm surprised you have not heard of the hundreds of investigations that are now ongoing across the US of sexual assaults on campus. This is the new territory the DoE is expanding into, under a new interpretation of Title IX.

Doug:
I have heard much about sexual assaults on campuses.

David:
Young men are accused of sexual assault, and then expelled from colleges and universities without trial, or without evidence of wrongdoing. This is being done due to pressure from the federal government. Perhaps you just were unaware that all of this is based on the Department of Education's directives under the guise of Title IX?

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/education-department-power-grabs-criticized-congress

Doug:
I think you meant to say "boys" to be parallel with "girls"... unless there is some implicit bias going on. Whoa... that is some mighty opinionated writing! You do realize that that is commentary, not a news story right? And the links in it are to other commentary from right-wing writers?

David:
You can find articles explaining the "Dear Colleague..." letters that were sent out by the DoE all over the internet.

Doug:
I can only find cat videos all over the internet.

David:
These letters mandate that colleges have to act as courts, or lose funding and face fines. Perhaps left-wingers celebrate skipping the courts (and all of that mumbo-jumbo about evidence or proof), and just go straight to a verdict of "guilty", which is what is now happening.

Here is a very nice post that explains how the new "rules" impacted  the University of North Carolina:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/24/ocr-dear-colleague-letter-prompts-big-change-sexual-assault-hearings-unc

The schools are also at risk when they act, as these  expulsions of exclusively male students are now being successfully challenged in courts, with big financial penalties being paid out by the schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/28/court-rules-u-kansas-cant-expel-students-over-remarks-twitter-made-campus

Doug:
I'm trying to understand what you are upset about. Is it that people should always be able to defend themselves before being found guilty? That sounds like a fine principle to defend. Sexual assault is a terrible crime, and should be prosecuted by the law, not handled by colleges. However, proving sexual assault in a court of law may be difficult. Colleges and universities may be in a tough place between protecting people from sexual assault, and protecting the innocent from false accusations.

David:
That is exactly my point. The Department of Education's mandates have now put colleges in a position where they must act as a court, jury, and judge, but they are not allowed to function in the manner of a court. Sexual assault is a crime, and should be handled by the legal system, not the educational system. Using Title IX to try to force colleges to perform in this way is wrong.

Doug:
Sexual assault is a sensitive issue. If you want to work with me to find better ways of making college campuses less dangerous for women, count me in!

Regarding the "mean tweets"... I would kick any student out of my school if they were saying mean things about another student. At Bryn Mawr College, we have an honor code, and I suspect that such actions would be grounds for expulsion.

David:
Right. And who gets to decide what is "mean"? If I say your argument is "ridiculous", could I get expelled? If I say your argument is "moronic", could I get expelled for being too mean? There is the First Amendment, which protects all speech, not just flowery compliments.

Doug:
You don't have a first amendment right to go to college, unfortunately. At Bryn Mawr College, a student would turn herself in for such a violation. In any event, I don't see that Title IX has much to do with this, except for generating the motivation for helping solve the problem of sexual assaults. That is good, right?

David:
Once again, you prove my point. Title IX should not have anything to do with any of this. If the Department of Education wants to highlight sexual assaults in higher education, they should do that through educational programs. Using fines or loss of funding to force schools to act as a court of law is placing schools in a "tough place" for sure. Using it to eliminate opportunities in sports for men is also wrong.

Doug:
You mean "boys." Those poor boys. They already have far more opportunities than the girls, but they want all of the opportunities.

David:
But when Congressmen and women leave decision making up to government agencies, instead of taking responsibility for the language of the bills themselves, unintended consequences follow.

Understanding Trump

Doug:

I've been trying to understand Trump's appeal. Here is an article that is very interesting, and very long (but worth the read):

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

It argues that there is a strong correlation with those that have authoritarian tendencies ("a desire for order and a fear of outsiders") and support for Trump:

David:

It is a fairly long article, but has quite a few interesting assertions. And, it may help to explain why individuals like Donald Trump periodically rise to national prominence using essentially the same messages.

Doug:

Yes, I agree. There is a segment of the population that finds that Trump's message resonates with their values. Although it doesn't have much to do with "conservatism" these people have found a home in the Republican party.

David:

This study does provide evidence that those who have a strong sense of tradition and traditional values find themselves innately drawn to Republicans, rather than Democrats. Perhaps in a similar way that atheists are drawn to the Democratic Party like bugs to a bug zapper.

I do find fault in this article with what I see as an inherent bias in the writing. The authors continue throughout to claim that people with authoritarian tendencies have some “fear” of immigrants, or people that are not like them. I think the authors would like to believe that anyone who supports Trump is a bigot and a racist. I did not find any evidence to support that idea. There is nothing in the questions they posed to test subjects that would lead me to think there was “fear” expressed in the answers. The folks with authoritarian tendencies do appear to prefer the status quo, and to desire order and lawfulness.

Doug:

Perhaps "fear" is not quite the right word, especially for those that would not want their strength questioned. They do have "suspicion" and "apprehension" of outsiders. "Fear" does capture some of that feeling. Whatever word one chooses, it seems the meaning is clear.

David:

But there is no evidence for those words either. The study indicates that those who ascribe to the trends being studied simply have a preference for tradition and a strong support for the law.

Doug:

Fine, we'll use "preference for people like themselves" rather than "fear of outsiders."

David:

Even the term “authoritarian” has some negative connotations. The authors admit this, but choose to leave that moniker in place. It makes me look much closer at their findings, because these two naming issues suggest an agenda that the authors were hoping to prove. After all, words do have meaning, especially in “scientific” studies.

Doug:

One should always look close at findings, regardless of the terminology. Try to look beyond the specific terms used, and try not to imagine what the authors think---look at the data. It does seem to explain Trump's support. It does evoke a certain analogy with Germany in the early 20th century (see Hitler's rise to power).

David:

Ah. Now I see where we’re heading. It wouldn’t be a good discussion about people who connect with the Republican Party without somehow invoking Hitler. That now seems to be the train that all of the left-leaning media has hitched a ride on. A late-night talk show even had a comedienne appear in full Hitler regalia last week, with the imitation Hitler complaining that Trump was giving him a bad name, even though the two of them were basically on the same page ideologically.

Doug:

Funny that we have been discussing the Republican Party for many months, and we haven't ever invoked similarities with Hitler before. Maybe we just haven't had a "good discussion" until now? I don't think you have to be "left-leaning" to see similarities between Trump's supporters and German nationals in the early 20th century. But I disagree that Trump gives Hitler a bad name. On the contrary, I think it shows that a nationalistic, authoritarian government can spread quickly from general apprehension of outsiders, not from some inherent "evil".

David:

It goes without saying that Hillary and Bernie are both much more aligned with Hitler’s Socialist Party ideals than Donald Trump, but who’s going to point that out? Not the media that currently controls the majority of the airwaves.

Doug:

I'm not sure you understand what "goes without saying" means. But now that you say it, I totally see that Bernie (a Jew) is aligned with Hitler's ideals. And there is a conspiracy of the media to hide that fact. No, I think it is pretty clear that such a claim is "inaccurate and ridiculous." Nationalism is the key word that makes a direct analogy between Trump and Hitler.

David:

Socialism is the key word that makes a direct analogy between Sanders and Hitler. Hitler was a National Socialist (which was Socialism based on race, rather than class). Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were both “nationalists”. My point being that you should be very careful when you invoke the name of Hitler into the discussion. The Nazi Party ideology borrowed heavily from several ideological sources to suit their brand of National Socialism. When you start comparing someone to Hitler, that alone changes the entire dynamics of the conversation, and causes anyone listening (or reading, as the case may be) to turn you off. The article we are discussing makes some very valid and interesting points. Don’t derail it by bringing in Hitler.

Doug:

What is Hitler known for? His healthcare system? No, his nationalistic pride that caused a world war. I don't bring up the analogy to Hitler lightly. There are many people who don't want to see our country become Germany 1930. Tune out of the apt analogy at your own peril.

David:

Hitler’s nationalistic pride would not have amounted to a hill of beans, if not for the facts Germany had just lost WWI (The war to end all wars…), and the terms of surrender were too harsh for the German people. The worldwide Great Depression had a bit to do with it as well. Hitler used a great deal of Socialist language, and his initial appeal to the destitute Germans was as a Socialist. That’s called history.

Doug:

That's called inaccurate and ridiculous by historians.

What scares me is: what comes next? There is a fairly good sized segment of the population (perhaps 25%)  that believe in these ideas independent of Trump's candidacy. They believe that diplomacy is for the weak. They want to crush the "enemy" (whoever that might be today). They cheer when Trump advocates war crimes, like torture and saying things like "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.” That type of rhetoric has no place in a civilized society.

What is going to finally quell this primitive, animalistic anti-politics?

David:

Primitive and animalistic? I don’t recall reading those words in the article. First,Trump is Hitler, and now he is a primitive animal. Wow. That type of rhetoric has no place in a civilized discussion.

Doug:

I'm not running for President of the United States of America claiming that we should ban people of certain religions from entering the country, claiming that most people coming from other countries are rapists, and claiming that we need to kill the families of terrorists. Pointing out that that kind of thinking is nationalistic, criminal, chest-thumping should be part of the discussion. Are you defending Trump? Do you really think he is conservative?

David:

Not at all. We both know he says crazy things that would derail a typical campaign. But don’t read more into what he says than what he says. I’m sure the majority of folks following him would strongly disagree with your interpretation, but then again, I’m not sure exactly how they can so easily overlook those statements.

Doug:

You advise not to read into Trump's statements more than what he says, but you lament that people overlook what he does say. That sounds like picking and choosing to me. Listen to everything that he says, and attempt to understand what he means. That is a challenge.

David:

Donald Trump is something completely new. His celebrity can be compared to Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan, but reality TV has brought celebrity to a whole new, (and apparently Teflon-coated) unprecedented level. Donald Trump doesn’t follow any specific ideology, and that makes him unpredictable, to both his critics and his followers. You and I examine all of his statements, and look for ways to make sense of them, but his followers appear to give him a pass when he says things that are not politically expedient. It’s part of his “charm”.

Perhaps the folks who are following Trump are worried about their children’s future. Perhaps they see a dismal future job market, and a current administration that appears to have sold the farm and the cow for a few magic beans. They see in Donald Trump a character that promises to bring back a degree of pride they once felt in our country, that now seems a distant memory due to squandering our position of power. There is no evidence they want to bail out on diplomacy, but instead want to have leaders negotiate “better” deals.

Doug:

That sounds like you align with the authoritarian world view. Do you too find diplomacy weak? You value "pride of country" over peaceful negotiation? When was that time to go "back [to] a degree of pride"? Do you value "power" over peaceful existence?

David:

“Make a deal at any cost” is not diplomacy. So yes, I do find the diplomacy of President Obama to be weak. The diplomacy of Neville Chamberlain was weak, and arguably allowed Hitler’s rise. (Since you want to bring Hitler into the conversation, I’ll try to at least make it relevant.) Reagan used a position of superior military spending to break up the Soviet Union, which arguably made the world a much safer place for the past few decades.

Having pride in your country does not make you a war-monger. You seem to believe that one equates with the other. It does not.

Doug:

You do realize that the worst terrorist attack on US soil happened during this time that you claim was "much safer"? I don't think you understand what diplomacy is. And you are claiming that Chamberlain’s  weakness allowed Hitler's "rise"? Then we should really be concerned about Trump's "rise" and not stopping him is a weakness.

David:

The USSR did not attack us. And yes, we are safer without the USSR striving for world dominance. ISIS is another story, and one that will not be negotiated away.

Chamberlain and Hitler were enemies, and Chamberlain had the ability to stop his incursions into other countries but chose not to. Donald Trump and the Republican Party are not your enemies. Nor, are they enemies of the United States, despite what Hillary says.

Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, have enabled Vladimir Putin to begin to piece the USSR back together, or at least have allowed the Russians to invade and take over an independent country. Diplomacy has it’s place, but it needs to have a big stick behind it, or it becomes worthless babble. (Like a red line drawn in the sand…..)

But back to the article, when discussing the ignorant, jingoistic, ridiculous, blabbering things Donald Trump says, I’m not sure if his supporters support it all, or if they’re just willing to give him a pass on those sputterings because they support the rest of the image. The article supports that understanding.

Doug:

How do you separate the ridiculous from the reasonable? How would someone in Germany in 1920 separate what Hitler said that sounded reasonable, and those comments that sounded like he was headed for attempting world domination?

David:

Hitler again? Trump isn’t Hitler. However, he may be Herbert Hoover. His economic stances are eerily similar to the stances that many feel triggered the Great Depression, and coming at a time that mirrors the world-wide economic situation that preceded the depression.

Doug:

Hitler wasn't "a Hitler", until he was. That is, he could have headed in a different direction. But he took the world down an ugly path. Trump seems to have all of the traits to do the same.

David:

“The Art of the Deal” is not “Mein Kampf”. And Trump is not set on conquering the world, or exterminating a race or religion.

Doug:

Remember that Trump says that in order to stop terrorists you have to "kill their families." Where does one's family stop? Cousins? Second cousins? It is sickening to think that we should be asking a US presidential candidate on exactly which innocent people he would be killing if he were elected.

David:

I don’t recall many Democrats asking how President Obama could kill American citizens with drone strikes, without trial. Remember when Obama had his “Kill List”? Interesting that you can now extrapolate from Trump’s outrageous comment that he now wants to eliminate the entire Muslim race. Oh, I get it now. That’s how you connect the dots to say he’s Hitler, right?

Doug:

There are many people angry about the drone program, and the killing of any people. But one doesn't have to extrapolate from Trump's comment to compare him to Hitler. Advocating killing a single innocent family is enough.


David:
So let’s move on.

World dominion is not what sets Hitler apart from other leaders through history. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great; They all wanted to conquer the world. Hitler set out to exterminate the Jewish race, with starvation, poison gas, and furnaces. Hitler is in a class of his own (although he might share it with Pol Pot), which is why comparisons to him change the discussion. No one running for president this year, from either party, should have to be compared to Hitler.

Doug:

I'm not moving on. Authoritarian governments are dangerous, and I'll continue to examine those aspects of Trump's nationalistic demagoguery. If Trump doesn't want to be compared to Hitler, then he should change his rhetoric.

David:

So, in your mind, any candidate that holds a single similar ideological stance, or says something that resembles what Hitler said or did, then they must explain why they are not Hitler? That’s your position? Because that’s crazy talk.

Doug:

Any candidate that advocates such authoritarian views, such as killing a terrorist's innocent family, is comparable to Hitler. Pretty straightforward in my mind.


David:
And your argument is faulty at it’s core, anyway. Your premise is that authoritarian governments are dangerous. However, the US does not have an authoritarian government, nor could the election of an authoritarian individual make it so. (After all, President Obama has acted as an authoritarian by executive fiat numerous times, and is now facing numerous court challenges. So far, he’s lost every case.) You also surmise that nationalistic rhetoric leads to someone being equal to Hitler. As I pointed out earlier, there have been numerous former presidents who have used stronger nationalists rhetoric, including Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and LBJ. I don’t hear you calling them Hitler.

I guess I’d say I’m not really scared of what comes next, but I’m intensely confused and curious to see how all of this unfolds. Here’s another interesting article about understanding the Trump bandwagon:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3647612-155/sunstein-theres-a-better-way-to

Doug:

"Confused and curious" sounds like you are hedging your bets. As to that article, I completely agree that that is a great way to battle authoritarianism: find someone that is a "surprising validator" to speak up and make him look ridiculous. You could be one of those people. But derailing Trump is a bandaid on the bandwagon. I'm more scared of the band of people in that wagon. Where do they try to take us next?

David:

Admitting I have no idea where this will all end up is just an honest reflection of the facts. No one knows where we’re heading. There have been similar personalities in history, but all of the pundits have so far been wrong as to the Trump (and Sanders) phenomenon. Unlike some others in history, however, Trump does not seem to have an underlying ideology to explain his statements (which are all over the board). The article (although I believe it may be biased)  does explain some of his magnetism, but does not make any predictions as to how he will act.

Doug:

"I believe [the article] may be biased." That is a scathing rebuttal. But we have found some agreement: no one ever knows where we're heading. Although it always seems the "other side" can predict where "one's own candidate" is going. But if you vote for your authoritarian candidate, don't be surprised by his authoritarian actions.

David:

He’s not the Republican nominee yet. And it appears I am no “surprising validator”, although I am surprised. I find it ironic that, as a founder of the tea party in Indianapolis, Trump supporters now consider me “establishment” because Trump isn’t my preference. Go figure.

Faith in Science

David:

Here's a link to a nice article by Matt Emerson from the Wall Street Journal, describing the parallels that we sometimes find between religion and science, to explain the world around us:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/64054/

Gravitational waves that were predicted by Einstein's theory remained elusive for 100 years, but that didn't quell the faith of physicists that they were present.

Doug:

The article (requiring you either give WSJ money, or trade all of your info on your friends in order to read it) attempts to align "faith and reason" in science and religion. One doesn't need to read the article; it is really just an appeal to believe that there is really "faith" in science, and "reason" in religion.

David:

Sorry. I could not find any versions of the article posted in a free format. Of course, you shouldn’t blame a media outlet for recouping their costs. The WSJ has fewer pop-up ads than most sites I visit.

Doug:

Not your fault… I searched too. The article only exists behind this paywall. I don't blame businesses for trying to making money, but their options for doing so are too limited: subscribe or give them information on people you know.

David:

I find your initial comment curiously condescending. First, you are certain that you need not even read the article. You have faith that the appeal will not sway you, without even knowing what the appeal is. And, you deny that there is any faith in science, and there is no reason to be found in religion.

Doug:

Well, it is a short article. It is largely a misunderstanding about what "faith" and "reason" are. Let's look at "faith" in science. The author uses the decades-long quest to find evidence of gravitational waves (that we talked about three weeks ago) to show that scientists must have faith:

The scientists who made the gravitational-wave discovery... were pursuing a “dream based on faith in reason: that the logical deductions of Einstein and his mathematics would be reliable.” - WSJ

The author's idea is that the scientists had "faith"---working for many years with only their beliefs guiding them. I'm willing to call this faith, but only if we use the word consistently when applied to religion. In order to do that, we have to look at what the scientists were actually doing, and what the impact would have on the science.

First, the scientists were attempting to show a specific effect of the implications of Einstein's theory. They knew going into the experiment that they would have to create new techniques in order to be able to measure such infinitesimally small perturbances. They were not sure that they could do it. And of course, it could turn out that Einstein’s theory was wrong.

The biggest difference between "faith" in science and faith in religion: what would happen if the scientists didn't find the evidence they were looking for? There were four possibilities:

1. Einstein was wrong.
2. Their equipment was not sensitive enough.
3. Their equipment was faulty.
4. The waves were rare and they just haven't seen them yet.

Possibilities 2, 3, and 4 were real, but were ruled out through time and testing. In fact, before success, the scientists did science along the way: every negative result was a data point that lead to a deeper understanding. They did not fail until they succeeded---they were collecting data all of the while.

But what if after many decades, they still had not found what they were looking for? After all other options would be exhausted, then only option 1 would be left: Einstein could have been wrong. This is what makes faith in science different: being wrong is always a viable option.

If "faith" in religion can allow you to find yourself to say: "oh, I must have been wrong" then I have no trouble using the same word in science. But if faith requires you never abandon your beliefs, then we should use a different word to describe that belief that scientists have when doing their work.

David:

I let you ramble on for a bit there, without interruption, because I had faith that eventually you would disprove your own points. Thanks for not disappointing me.

As to your 4 points, there are really only 2. Einstein was wrong or Einstein is right, but we have not yet achieved a means to prove him right. But at what point do you admit to possibility number one?  Apparently never. You see, you yourself admit they worked for one hundred years to prove him right. Scientists were never going to stop the search, because they had faith that they would eventually find their answers.

You claim that after all options had been exhausted, science moves on. But that is not true. If scientists hold a belief that something should be true, they never stop to say, “no, we’re all wrong”. They continue the search.

Doug:

No, that is incorrect on multiple levels. First, science is made up of individuals doing individual research. Not everyone is working on the same problem. There are lots of researchers attempting to show that Einstein was wrong. In fact, even Einstein believed that he must have been wrong about some of the implications of his work. But his feelings didn't matter. The evidence speaks for itself and points to a better understanding.

David:

No one was working to prove him wrong. How can you prove you will never find something that no one has ever found?

Doug:

You could show something that his theory would not predict. It is incorrect to say that they have been trying to prove him right for 100 years. The technology to test the hypothesis was created during this research. By the way, they are still tweaking the machine that does the detection. If they didn't detect the waves yet, they could still go with finer measurements. But they found the waves almost the instant that they turned on the machine.

David:

Exactly my point (again). If they didn’t detect the waves with this particular experiment, they would not have said “Oh well, I guess we’ve reached the end of the road. Einstein was wrong. Let’s all go home.” No. They would continue the search indefinitely, because of their faith in something they knew would eventually be found.

Doug:

If they never found waves, then this would be a giant enigma in science. Hypotheses would be created to attempt to explain the lack of readings. This is the difference between science that leads to results, and that work on perpetual motion machines.

David:

Hebrews 11:1 notes that “Faith is being sure of what is hoped for, and being certain of what you cannot see.”

Doug:

It is that "certainty" that makes all of the difference. That is why a negative result in science is still a result. Scientists work towards an understanding, not a particular theory.

David:

If mathematics and physics requires a “fudge factor” to make the math work, science will develop a theory to fill in the gap.

Doug:

That is how science works. That gap is then filled, or a new model without a gap is created.

David:

Not so fast, he who talks from both sides of his mouth. You say that if the science fails, a new theory will be created, but the reality is scientist searched for 100 years, and would have searched for 100 more, or 200, or 300 if needed, to find what they were certain existed, although they had not yet seen it. In other words, they were driven by the certainty of their faith.

Doug:

I don't think you'd be able to get more funding if this team had failed. Unless you designed new equipment, or had a good explanation of their negative results. Remember, science is that endeavor done by the community. So, even if you had some "certainty of faith," you still have to convince your peers to give you money to do the science. That just wouldn't happen.

David:

Not true. The National Science Foundation spent more than one billion (with a “B”) dollars over just the last 40 years. As the National Science Foundation distributes government funding to science projects, it seems very unlikely they would have stopped at this point. Again, this was an important feature of Einstein’s theory, and inconceivable that after a century of effort, science would give up this quest. This is a perfect example of faith being an important part of science.

Doug:

Inconceivable? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

David:

Another example is “dark matter”. “Dark matter” is the unseen, unknowable matter that science, through faith, has declared makes up “most” of the cosmos. Because dark matter is needed for the mathematical equations of the universe to work, scientists will never give up the search for it. They are certain in what they hope for, and they are certain it will be found at the end of the rainbow. If it takes a thousand years, they will continue to seek for it. The assumption by you, of course, is that because this is science, scientists will eventually find the data and evidence they need. And yet, for some reason harder to find than dark matter, you refuse to acknowledge that there is an element of faith involved in the search.

Doug:

Hold on there. Why would you describe this as "unknowable" or that it has anything to do with "faith"? Oh, I see: you would have said the same about gravitational waves four weeks ago.

David:

Yes, I would have said the same thing four weeks ago. The “evidence” is only evidence now that it has been found. But four weeks ago, it was still only the same theory that required a century-long search. If scientists had not discovered gravitational waves when they did, you yourself said they would have continued the search. And I continue to say they would have continued the search by an unrelenting faith in the unproven science. Now, it has some data, but four weeks ago, it did not. That is how science works. You don’t have to bend over backwards to deny an act of faith.

Doug:

But scientists don't make up concepts out of thin air. They make them up to fit within an existing model, that is itself built on top of tested theories. Then we look for evidence. If we don't find the evidence, then we go back and look at the theory.

David:

Einstein created a whole new way to see the world. He created a new model. He created a new theory. He did make it up out of thin air, and that’s why he’s one of the deepest thinkers of modern times. And, he didn’t disbelieve in faith, or in a higher power.

Doug:

No, Einstein built on the science of the day. If he had not done this work, someone would have.

David:

Perhaps. But Einstein was a unique individual, and his way of looking at the universe and it’s workings was revolutionary.

As a Christian, I also believe that the evidence I need to support my beliefs exists, all around me, everyday. And, I would argue, there is much data to suggests that the things Jesus said are true. After all, there have been numerous studies looking at religious beliefs and personal well-being, and how believers function in the world they live in. Many reasoned people will back me up.

Doug:

That's great, but that kind of argument would not sway any minds in science. Science works by evidence, not by invoking many reasoned friends backing up one's claims. I'm not dismissing your faith, but I think you can see that science does not need faith. In fact, it needs to be able to stand on its own without it.

David:

Your complete inability to reflect on your own words makes me smile a bit. Science works by evidence, unless it doesn’t have any evidence. Then, it works by seeking evidence. It may take a century or more. It may fail numerous times. But, it will continue to seek what is hoped for, and what is certain of what, up to this point, has not yet been seen. This is the very definition of faith.

Doug:

Who is doing the seeking? Who has this faith? It isn't any one scientist, I guess, unless you are talking about someone living hundreds of years. And you are not talking about a single person during their lifetime, because sometimes a scientist can't fathom the implications of their own theory. So it must be that science itself has the faith.

It makes sense that you would see science itself as having faith, because it looks like that from the outside. But, I can assure you that science as an endeavor does not have faith.

David:

But I am not looking at it from the outside, brother. I’m an insider, like you. I just call it like I see it.

A scientist knows proof must be there, even though it hasn't been found yet. So, by faith, the scientist plods onward in the belief that the results will eventually be found, and the theory proven. In the case of gravitational waves, the search labored on for more than the scientists own lifetimes. It is how science works. We both agree on that point. I just find it amusing that you can’t use the word “faith” to describe what is clearly “faith”. I assume they will  kick you out of the atheist club if you did something so heretical?

Doug:

What you don't acknowledge is that there are lots of people that give up on a particular idea, and others pick up the trail. No one scientist has any faith of certainty…. every scientist believes in their heart that tomorrow they could find evidence that will send them in a different direction. And they would follow the evidence wherever it leads. That is very different from faith in religion.

David:

It is the very essence of faith in religion. In every reading of the Bible, a Christian finds new meaning, and new direction in every verse, and in the inter-relational aspect of different verses. That is why you fail to find the similarities between religion and science, because you have only experienced one of the two. Perhaps I might recommend you read the Bible, or perhaps start with the New Testament. This brings us back to your original statement: You don’t feel you need to read it to understand it or to see the appeal. I pray it takes less time for you to find that understanding than it did for science to find gravitational waves.

Doug:

I absolutely believe that in order to make some breakthroughs in science, one needs to step away from the lab or computer, read some poetry, watch a movie, read a book. But I do not believe that praying for different outcomes in a science experiment will have any effect. Nor do I believe that Einstein is right because we have faith in him. Einstein could have been wrong (could still be wrong), and we will discover that through experiments. Willing to head in a different direction means that one is willing to abandon everything connected to a theory if it is shown to be wrong. Are you willing to abandon all of your beliefs if they don't have evidence to support them? I am. And that is why "faith" is the wrong word to use in science.