The graphic images above are an attempt to convey several different ideas at once. In the first place, the US flag in the center emphasizes that the US is in a sense a central experiment among world governments each of which can be seen as carrying out its own governmental experiment. The left-right dimension, symbolized by the the Democrats' donkey and the Republicans' elephant, represent the time honored liberal-conservative dimension. At the top the Libertarian symbol, the Statue of Liberty, represents the anarchist end of a dimension which at its other extreme is totalitarian, symbolized by the Fascist fasces logo. But this picture, worth well more than a thousand words, doesn't tell the whole story either. There are other dimensions in political space. One is paternalism-individualism, and another is religious-secular. And still another is democracy-oligarchy. To summarize, here are the proposed political dimensions in a convenient list:

liberal - conservative
anarchist - totalitarian
paternalistic - individualistic
religious - secular
democratic - oligarchic

      Now The Truth Tree is going to attempt what may be the impossible: to present a rational political position. One approach among many is to use a well known heuristic problem solving device: the analysis of extreme cases. Many problems can be solved by the use of this method. Even though the graphics at the top of this page represent only two dimensions, this essay will consider the five mentioned above. A common trap in political debates is to accuse your opponent of an extreme position and then attack this "straw man". By declaring against the extreme positions at the outset the present effort will defeat those arguments, and much valuable time will be saved. Then a tentative position on these five dimensions can be suggested and some implications for rational voting will be made.

Extreme Economic Liberalism (Socialism): The Tree rejects the theory of government represented by extreme liberalism that takes the position that the way to have economic health is to impose governmental control on every business transaction and to inspect every business practice and every industrial practice. This position grows out of good intentions, of course, as do all the other political extremes. But it leads inevitably to a structure which collapses of its own weight. It is simply not feasible to have watchers who must be watched by watchers of watchers who in turn must be watched by... The infinite regress is obvious.

Extreme Laissez Faire Capitalism:       The Tree rejects the theory of government that says that the way to have economic health is to leave free enterprise absolutely unfettered. Such a philosophy admires rapacious captains of industry who ride rough shod over innocent widows with small children, the sick, the lame, and the not-so-intelligent. Business cycles bring on recurring economic disasters, called depressions, because the system has no negative feedback loops to prevent wild oscillations. This is the "boom and bust" scenario.

      On this dimension (economic liberalism-conservatism) we have recently moved in the conservative direction. The takeover of the House of Representatives by the Republicans has resulted in an astounding growth of the disparity between rich and poor. (I don't mean to imply that this take-over has been the only causal factor.) There are citizens of the United States whose wealth exceeds that of many whole nations, while millions of other Americans must choose between health care and food. This disparity occurs at a dangerous time because of the simultaneous increase in the so-called "hate groups" who wish to promote racial, ethnic, or religious hostilities. A stated aim, for example, of the atrocity in Texas in which an African-American was dragged behind a truck was to precipitate a race war. A continued increase in the disparity between rich and poor could bring disastrous results. Even extreme libertarians recognize that government is needed to maintain security. The kind of economic imbalance we are experiencing will not automatically correct itself and is a clear threat to security. Theorists in the past have advocated laissez-faire policies. The Great Depression resulted, to our great sorrow. Strong measures are needed to bring some relief to those suffering from economic hardship. There are many different kinds of measures government can take to help bring this about. The conservatives have correctly pointed out the dubious advantage of what they like to call "hand-outs". Perhaps the kinds of proposals most likely to help will involve some changes in the way corporations subordinate all considerations to the one over-riding goal of profit. "The bottom line" has become the cruel and unenlightened motto of so many of our industrial and entrepreneurial giants. I recall an interview with an official of an electric and gas corporation. The question was, "What do you see as the main goal of the Corporation?" The official said without the least hesitation, "Making money for our stockholders." No mention was made of providing energy to the customers. There may be little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, as some have said, but it is clear that the Republican policies will make our economic imbalance worse and that a worsening of economic conditions will lead to severe social problems. It is plain that a Democratic congress and a democratic president will be much more likely to restore the balance than would a Republican president and congress. The Republicans stand to lose if voter turnout is high. I suspect that they therefore have encouraged those who advise that we don't need to vote because there's no difference between the parties. There is a difference. It may be small in some ways, but it is clear that the difference is crucial. Every qualified voter should most certainly get out and vote!

Extreme Paternalism:       The Tree rejects the theory that being born into the national family entitles every citizen to tender loving care from the cradle to the grave. One occasionally sees this theory put into practice within a human family. The children in such a family, unless they have enough native grit and gumption to extricate themselves from the cloying cotton wool their parents are attempting to smother them with, grow up (if we can use that term) not fully human. They are more like house cats than human beings.

Extreme Individualism:       The Tree rejects the Scrooge principle that if a man is poor or homeless or mentally ill he deserves to die and rid society of its "surplus population." A well balanced government will not permit abject poverty among those whose best efforts have not solved their financial plight, neglect of disadvantaged members of the society who through no fault of their own are without a place to lay their heads, or allowing to go untreated citizens who are made helpless by some kind of illness.

      Most rhetoric one hears nowadays looks at this issue as if it were an all-or-nothing question. People who want to take care of other people are derided as "bleeding hearts". But this is not an all-or- nothing issue. The balance between individual responsibility and dependence on others is one that occurs in every person's life from birth to death. Parents don't simply throw young children into swimming pools so they will either learn to swim or sink and drown. Freiderich Nietzsche's aphorism, "Was mich nicht töten macht mich stärker!" ("What doesn't kill me makes me stronger!") is not always true. There are plenty of things that don't kill that weaken. (Interestingly this phrase was spoken by G. Gordon Liddy during the difficulty over the Iran contra affair.) A popular idea among conservatives is that citizens must sink or swim and that which of these outcomes happens is not properly any concern of government. Of course, over-protection can have its disadvantages. It is possible to harm those you are trying to help by training them to become dependent. But benevolent neglect can certainly be taken too far. One dimension within this debate is centralization vs. decentralization. One frequently hears that "bureaucrats in Washington" don't know how to handle a problem but that local people do. This ignores the fact that most of the programs so severely criticized by the conservatives were developed precisely because the local people failed to handle the problem. Do large far-flung corporations "decentralize" authority? Or do they form their policies at board meetings? And volunteerism is often suggested as the proper remedy for people who have failed to establish their independence. It is often suggested that "faith based" institutions will handle the problems. When volunteerism whether faith based or not does take place it is a very fine thing and should certainly be encouraged, but can we realistically expect that the problem of homelessness, for example, is going to be completely solved by these measures? We don't need "compassionate conservatism"; we need "realistic compassion". And the "new" Democrats are the ones who can give it to us.

      This dimension brings up the whole matter of our theory of the human person, how he develops, and how he may best be nurtured. People who engage in political debate seldom discuss these very basic underlying ideas, but they are present nonetheless and have an important effect on political positions. Every candidate should be able to answer searching questions regarding his beliefs regarding the fundamental nature of humankind, and his policies should then reflect those beliefs. More importantly, his beliefs should be consistent with what is known about the nature of the human being, his development, and his socialization. One stance often taken is an attempt to sweep the whole problem under the rug by jeering at people who make a serious effort to approach these vital problems. Hilary Clinton is well known for having brought into the public consciousness an old African proverb: "It takes a village to raise a child." The attacks on her for bringing up this idea can reveal much about the motives and prejudices of the attackers. Another way of avoiding a serious discussion of these kinds of problems is to imply or actually to assume that religion has already solved all these problems and that the proper way to handle them is to leave them in the hands of "faith based" organizations. This issue will be taken up in a later discussion of theocracy vs. secularism. One model of human development and behavior which was popular among the helping professions during the first half of the twentieth century was that when a person misbehaves it is frequently because his parents (or society in general) failed to bring him up properly or because he had been subjected to "traumatic experiences" or some form of abuse. Psychotherapy, then, often wrongly centered attention on external causation of the patient's problems. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association should launch an educational program to combat this misperception. Most psychotherapists today practice what are called "the responsibility therapies" which say essentially, "Well, so you've had problems in the past. Too bad. Now what are you going to do about it?" Many programs of much potential benefit are scorned by conservatives who mistakenly believe that mental health workers will coddle their clients and will encourage them to become whiners incapable of taking responsibility for their own behavior. Beware of this rhetoric! It is just plain wrong (at best) when based on ignorance and just plain dishonest (at worst) when uttered by those who know better!

Anarchism (espoused apparently by some Libertarians):       The Tree rejects the position that all government is bad and that if we do away with government altogether that the natural course of events will inevitably lead to prosperity and happiness for all. The appeal of the anarchist position is strengthened by the increasing evidence that humans are to some extent autopoietic, or self defining. This seems to be a characteristic of human beings that really sets them apart from the other conscious organisms on our planet.

Fascism (Totalitarianism):       The Tree likewise rejects the position that government should be looking over everyone's shoulder and controlling everything, as depicted in this painting by Hans Christiansen entitled "The Burden of the Common Man." Was it Churchill who characterized this way of looking at things as "Whatever is not forbidden is compulsory"? Totalitarianism appears to assume that the vast majority of humankind is stupid and dangerous and must be kept locked up like a pack of dangerous animals. Their philosophy is somewhat self fulfilling, because if you treat people as if they are not to be trusted, they may start acting in highly untrustworthy ways. (My apologies to any animals who may be offended by these remarks. No slur against animals is intended here.)

     Those who complain about "big government" are using simpler language to refer to this dimension. Most political discussion treats variables as all-or-nothing things. Either you're for "big government" or you're not. "Big government" means that "bureaucrats in Washington make the decisions and tax and spend" or some similar kind of statement. This logical structure is to be found in eighth-grade social studies essays. The simple assumption is that there's some evil thing called "big government" and you are either for it (which is bad) or you are against it (which is good). The idea that government can exist in measured amounts and that there might be an ideal amount of government overall, or that the amount of government varies with different categories of government each of which may have its ideal size, is much too complex for the eighth-grader. Jefferson's famous saying, "Government that governs best governs least", if taken literally, means that the ideal government is anarchy. Perhaps he really meant to say that an optimal amount of government exists such that either less than that amount or more than that amount is less desirable. A responsible citizen, therefore, must look at the various parts of government and ask whether the current size of each part is too small or too large. The IRS is too large because of the overly complex tax laws. The military may be about right, taking into consideration current international conditions. The executive branch of government was considered by Clinton to be too large and was dramatically reduced in size during his administration. This brings up another falsehood that is promoted by the simple-minded conservative propagandists that says Democrats always make government programs bigger while Republicans always make them smaller. This is just plain false. Related to the criticism of "big government" is the idea that government comes from Washington. This is considered bad because the people in Washington don't know what local conditions are like and therefore take inappropriate actions. This is actually an obvious absurdity. Most of the "people in Washington" came from various parts of the country to begin with for one thing. And for another, the idea that people living in any particular place can't know about another particular place is laughable in light of the information revolution. Local schoolboards are supposed to be the best qualified to govern education. Is this true? I know of a local schoolboard that does not allow the teachers to mention labor unions. And in Kansas the State Board of Education decided, in its wisdom, that no official tests in the state could mention evolution. These decisions are egregiously and execrably idiotic when evaluated against any informed concept of good educational practice. Such pronouncements would just be funny if they weren't so tragic. But this is what the conservatives say they want. They don't want qualified people to make the decisions. They appear to think there's something about being local that qualifies a decision maker. No corporation, however, operates under this assumption! It is inconsistent for conservatives to admire corporations and their ways but to advocate policies for government that are inconsistent with good business practice. When evaluating a political candidate, his plans to either increase or decrease funding for a branch of government should be evaluated against an assessment of whether that branch of government needs to be expanded or downsized.

Theocracy:       The Tree rejects theocracy, a form of government in which policy is dictated by religious dogma. Perhaps a good example of this is provided by the Israelites. And look what happened to them! "Social conservatives," sometimes called the "religious right," push for laws and other changes designed to gradually erode the separation of Church and State. They think that government and religion should be just about indistinguishable.

Enforced Secularism:       The Tree also rejects the extreme position in which government attempts to prevent citizens from having their own world views. A good government will not attempt to force everyone into the same constricting mold, whether it be a religious or a secular one. This does not mean of course that a religious or secular view which threatens the security of the nation or of a group of people within the nation will go unchecked. The Communists of the Soviet Union attempted to abolish Christianity. This is perhaps the best known example of enforced secularism.

     Such advocates of "the religious right" as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Buchanan want us to believe that America was founded on Christianity. One part of their argument is that many of the first settlers in the New World were trying to establish religious communities and to avoid religious persecution. This is true, as far as it goes. But it doesn't really go very far. The United States was "founded" on philosophies of government that had nothing whatever to do with the Christian or any other religion. Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, and other contributors to the Constitution succeeded in writing a very successful document. Surely it has been the most successful document of its kind in history. What accounts for its success? Religious principles? No. Not at all. The ideas of Locke and Montesquieu were far more influential, and the history of the British Empire and its relations with the colonies was another very significant influence. (See this summary for more information.) Isaiah Berlin has summarized Montesquieu's input as follows:

"Montesquieu advocated constitutionalism, the preservation of civil liberties, the abolition of slavery, gradualism, moderation, peace, internationalism, social and economic justice with due respect to national and local tradition. He believed in justice and the rule of law; detested all forms of extremism and fanaticism; put his faith in the balance of power and the division of authority as a weapon against despotic rule by individuals or groups or majorities; and approved of social equality, but not to the point that it might threaten individual liberty; and of liberty, but not to the point where it threatened to disrupt orderly government."

And here is still further condensation of his thought, also perhaps from Isaiah Berlin: "Montesquieu loved knowledge, science, law, toleration; he hated armies, conquests, tyrants, priests." It is perfectly clear that any political party that wants to move us closer to dogmatic religious philosophies is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. And this is not "bashing religion". See The Truth Tree's position statement on religion. Religious ideas, like poetry, can be very beautiful. But basing a government on religious ideas would be like consulting Aristotle on how to launch a satellite. There is no doubt that the Puritans and other religious groups had a marked influence on early American culture. De Tocqueville famously marveled at the number of churches in America and the extent to which Americans took religion seriously. And we can be thankful that at the time he wrote, religion was indeed a stronger force than it is today. Today science has made such progress that the fundamentalists' insistence on literal belief in fairytales has become ludicrous to almost everyone.

Pure Primitive Democracy:       The Tree rejects absolute primitive democracy. In the first place, there are many problems which government faces which are never going to be fully understood by very many of the citizens, at least until the average intelligence has been permanently increased through eugenics, which we favor. A representative democracy provides a needed buffer between the raw enthusiasms of the people and the prudent wisdom of the experts in international affairs, economic theory and conditions, and technology to mention a few areas in which special expertise is needed to make rational decisions.

Oligarchy and Dictatorship:       The Tree, finally, rejects placing the reins of government in the hands of an elite few. History provides ample evidence for the folly of this course and reminds us of Lord Acton's dictum that says, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Today, much power is exercised through the mass media.

     If one looks at the formal structure of the government of the United States, it may seem inconceivable that with all the built-in checks and balances that the system could ever get out of balance on the oligarchy-democracy dimension. But there is a way, and we are perilously close to a serious imbalance. What has happened is that the power that money brings, instead of being sealed off from influencing the political machinery, has bled over into spheres of influence where it can do a great deal of mischief. Money is not an evil in itself. But as Proverbs tells us, the love of it is the root of all evil. I would say that when the amassing of great wealth becomes an end in itself that the stage is set for terrible consequences. Signs that this is happening are very much in evidence. There was a time when the CEO of a soap company knew a lot about soap. Nowadays he may know nothing whatever about soap but is a real expert on international law, antitrust law, public relations, political action committees, and the predelections of dozens of congressmen. Conservatives are complaining that people who make a lot of money are being "punished" for their success by the inheritance tax or the graduated income tax. What they are seeing is the operation of the very necessary checks and balances which we have had to build into our system of government and economics in order to prevent gross unfairness and unstable economic conditions.

Political rhetoric

     Rush Limbaugh and his followers (particularly some radio talk show hosts) have adopted some contemptible tactics in criticizing their opponents. If Bill Clinton is known to have lied, then he is a liar. If Gore and Clinton are part of the current administration, then Gore the candidate is not Gore, but Clinton-Gore. I shall now depart from my ordinary methods of rational argument in order to illustrate the absurdity of those rhetorical devices. I note that George Bush, Senior, is known to have regurgitated. I will therefore refer to him as a regurgitator. He is in the same family with George W. Bush. I will therefore refer to the latter as the son of a regurgitator. In fact, since the father's regurgitation was in public, I will refer to him as the son of a public regurgitator. Would it be st(retching) a metaphor to say that I don't relish electing the son of a public regurgitator to the White House? We must be careful to maintain the dignity of the presidency and of the White House! And in case anyone thinks we should just ignore the regurgitation, let me point out that it occurred during a diplomatic mission and that one of the foreign officials present was on the receiving end. Surely this is a low point in the history of diplomacy! But here I am using the same methods popularized by Wrush the Wrong. Wash my mouth out with ipecac! And now that I've mentioned Wrush the Wrong, let me remind everyone that he was wrong about global warming. When a point of view leads to serious mistakes of this kind we should take note and ask what other of Limbaugh's beliefs are similarly flawed.

On the Abortion Issue

     On abortion, I have a theory. It has to do with the group of people the psychiatrists call antisocial personalities. These are the criminals. It has been suggested with strong supporting evidence that criminality has strong genetic etiological components. If one looks at the crime statistics for the United States one sees that there has been an apparent decline in crime rates starting around eighteen years after the Roe vs. Wade decision. Eighteen years is the age at which most criminals begin their careers. It is well known that many young females find young men with antisocial traits to be more attractive than their less dashing cohorts. Unfortunately, they all too frequently find that they have allowed themselves to be impregnated by one of these devil-may-care, dashing young blades. But if you ask them about it, they will tell you that they don't want to have a child by such a man. My theory is that a substantial portion of the abortions have been performed for women who have had precisely that experience. And if that were not enough to encourage the pro-choice attitude, consider the fairly prevalent theory that children who grow up in disordered or dysfuntional families are more prone to developing the antisocial personality than other children. Economic and social conditions very often recommend abortion, and with good reason. The pro-life position, then, may more likely be pro-crime and pro-mayhem-- good intentions notwithstanding. The abortion issue is heavily influenced by religious beliefs.

The Education Issue

      The ignorant "creation scientists" have been very busy trying to take control of school boards. They like the Republican Party because it is more favorable to the idea of "states' rights" and "local control". Giving control of education to local school boards opens a window of opportunity to the creationists to hobble American scientific education. Giving any encouragement whatever to this group would be a very serious mistake. The home schooling movement is to some extent stimulated by disaffection with the public schools for many reasons such as crowding, poor instruction, and unsafe conditions. But many parents who opt for home schooling do so to "protect" their children from "indoctrination" by evolutionists. This is a poor decision on their part. A vigorous program of education for the general public is badly needed. The "science programs" currently available are so watered down (or "dumbed down" if you prefer) that one comentator said they resembled cartoons of science more than the real thing. Lest anyone take me to task for characterizing the "creation scientists" as ignorant, let me say that most of them truly are ignorant. Some, who aren't really very ignorant and therefore should know better, are so influenced by religious beliefs that they can't accurately perceive what they do know. Allowing religious beliefs to gain control of public education would be a grave disaster. And these self appointed critics of science education have a seriously flawed concept of the purpose of education. They think that education teaches children what they ought to believe. This might be a good theory for a medieval convent school, but as a philosophy of education in the modern world it is pitifully wrong. True education stimulates children's curiosity so that they will learn what has been discovered and will be motivated to make their own contributions. Education and religious indoctrination are two quite distinct enterprises!

Gun Control

      There are two extreme positions on gun control. The first says that we should confiscate all hand guns because only by this method can the number of gun deaths be reduced. The opposite position is that we should pass no more gun laws at all, that we should do a better job of enforcing the ones already on the books, and that if hand guns are illegal only the criminals will have guns. Sometimes there is a conspiracy theory associated with this second position that says "the government" (whoever they are!) is trying to take over the country by disarming the citizens. Here are some fairly straight facts about the situation. Gun deaths are generally down in this country. The position that says we are in crisis because of the increase in deaths caused by guns is just not supportable. But there is a lot of questionable reporting of studies which purport to show what policies cause increases or decreases in the incidence of armed robbery, murder, or suicide. None of these studies gives clear cut results which can be said to establish definite cause-effect relationships. Having government take reasonable measures to protect citizens from undue risks of injury or death from guns is certainly an acceptable role for government. The question is, what is reasonable? Al Gore says "common sense gun control". Let's hope that he really means common sense. Or better still, uncommonly good sense. Establishing more agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is not likely to do anyone much good. A reform of gun laws may be more what is needed than the passage of new laws.