It is easy to forget that not everyone shares similar needs and desires as you. This is a fact that is validated by contemporary public policy debates. All too often, voters and participants in the political process conflate (either inadvertently or strategically) their self-interest with the common good. Public interest or social welfare is an abstract metric open to interpretation; the terms operate as a form of persuasion than a concrete standard (p.77). For some, it is difficult to think that someone would not want free college or a single-payer healthcare system; this stems from an individual being too fixated on their values and policy preferences.
If it is likely that every political actor (including the average voter) acts in their self-interest, then why is it perceived to be immoral when a wealthy voter does versus an impoverished or middle-class voter does so? If the Republican and Democratic parties are moral equivalents, it is not outrageous to surmise that the poor person voting for “free” healthcare and the billionaire that votes for tax cuts are ethical equals. Neither individual is genuinely concerned by the potential externalities their favored policies impose on the rest of society. They only want initiatives that work in their self-interest. The concerns for the feasibility of these programs and processes are not even the equation for these people!
Admittedly, this is a heterodox position; most people would derisively dismiss it. The underlying assumption is that wealthy people do not need more money or institutional advantages. Most refutations would cite the imperative of actual need, especially if people lack necessities. There is some veracity to this argument, but the United States is not on par with the plight of a third-world country. Only 10.5 percent of households in 2020 suffered from “food insecurity”; in 2021, the United States outranked Germany in food security. Overall, impoverished people in the United States are better off than their counterparts abroad. While the wealthy may have market power and the connections to exert their political influence, the stakes for the average person in the US are often embellished.
The belief that wealth inequality is the only determining factor in assessing the morality of voters acting in their self-interest is a fallacy. This suggests that the ethical responsibility for advocating and selecting bad policies (at the referendum level) is only subject to the size of a voter’s bank account. While a single vote is inconsequential in an election, a myriad of like-minded citizens voting in unison is a formidable coalition. Should these individuals be excused for electing representatives and choosing government programs that bankrupt this country or get us tangled in another foreign war? It would be reasonable to suggest no. Ultimately, neither the billionaire nor the average citizen truly cares about what is best for the country, only what benefits their interest. In the consumer market, this is not an issue, as acting in your interest does not require a redistribution of resources. In contrast, the same cannot be said about the political marketplace.
Constitutional economics is the “..research program in economics and constitutionalism by applying tools of economics to constitutional matters. It studies the compatibility of effective economic decisions with the existing constitutional framework and the limitations or the favorable conditions created by that framework”. The canonical definition; can be simplified as studying the rule formulation process for group decision-making through an economic lens. Most people may find the term constitutional confusing and assume that this school of the political economy only explores the decision-making processes of government institutions. This inference is false. The principles of Constitutional economics apply to a wide range of informal governance structures, for example, homeowners’ associations, biker gangs, prison gangs, and even the “codes of piracy” (p.601). This validates the famous quote from Aristotle identifying people as a “political animal”. This quote is open to interpretation; civilization requires cooperation and coordination. The Calculus of Consent (1962), addresses the conflict of cooperation and coordination by defining constitutional decision-making. Constitutional rule promulgation entails any system where a set of rules (two or more) govern the decision-making process. Structurally chartered bylaws are not limited to formally codified laws; such guidelines can be only be applied to a single person [1] to be constitutional.
Given the findings of Public choice and Constitutional economics, it is not outlandish to apply the concept of political decision-making to the rule promulgation process within the Catholic church. This is salient in the sphere of regulating the validation of religious rites. Some shrewd observers may point out that the Catholic Church has similar features to formal government. There is some veracity to this claim. The Vatican does operate like a city-state. However, to what extent does papal authority have much impact have on Americans outside of the church? Virtually none. For the context of this brief essay, the Catholic church is a non-governmental institution.
The author views the rules of religious rites and ceremonies within Catholicism as being stringent. For example, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce. The conservatism of Catholicism is a matter of individual perception. Catholicism is far from being the strictest religious tradition on Earth. Like any other variant organized religion, the Catholic church has several ornate and intricate procedures guiding the officiation of religious rites (often referred to as sacraments). The complex array of rules governing the process of validating sacraments leaves open a large margin for error. This is true of individuals in leadership who opt to inflexible enforce Church directives. The most salient example in the headlines of this problem is the controversy that has emerged in the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix.
For many years, Fr. Andres Arango has officiated many religious rite ceremonies that have now been deemed invalid. The reasoning? Fr. Arango did not use the precise wording required by the Vatican to validate a Baptism. He utilized the phrasing “…we baptize you in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit..” instead of “… I baptize you..”. Purportedly, he has used this incorrect wording since he has entered the priesthood in 1995. Purists and the most devout Catholics may perceive uttering “we” instead of “I” as being a matter worthy of splitting hairs, but it also could be possible for the pope to pardon this minor transgression. The magnitude of this error in judgment is minuscule after being compared to some of the darker and more pervasive scandals, whose ugly specter has been haunting the church for decades (molestation scandals).
Unfortunately, due to this scandal Fr. Arango has since resigned, leaving one to speculate why the church could not forgive such a small mistake. However, in terms of these governance decisions, it is clear that the potential of Bootleggers and Baptists’ (1983) dynamics are present in the Baptism scandal. The undeniable dynamic of strict rule enforcement and the need to obscure more egregious scandals creates opportunity coalitions. In this case, this coalition where sub-factions are distinguished membership to various tiers within the Catholic organization. We must consider the principles of methodological individualism. Because some members of the Catholic Church are acting as Baptists while others are the Bootleggers. The prima facie impression of the careless observer would be that such a coalition would be a paradox, as they are all members of the same organization. Such an erroneous observation treats the church as a solitary unit, ignoring the preferences and incentives of various actors within the organization.
The individuals advocating for strict adherence to procedural requirements would be Baptists. The majority of the moralistic arguments are somewhat tautological, but a rule is a rule. Regardless of whether the enforceable edict is irrational or even unjust, there are consequences for violating formal decrees of institutional fiat. There is relatively little to gain from rigidly adhering to tradition for its own sake, feasibly making this a moral purity argument. From an administrative standpoint, if all priests follow standard procedures, it is easier to validate the ceremonies. The author is not well versed in the logic behind the specific wording requirement for Baptisms; any further commentary would merely be armchair speculation.
“It is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments; therefore, it is Christ who baptizes,” it said. “If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized.”
The Bootleggers in this scenario are not quite as evident as the Baptists. In terms of determining the Bootleggers; it is imperative to consider the individuals that stand to benefit from the “Baptism Scandal”. Several sub-factions comprise the beneficiary coalition, which silently allows this minor controversy to hit the headlines. Temporarily feels the relief of being out of the spotlight. It is common knowledge that the Catholic church attempted to cover up incidences of sexual abuse around the globe. High-ranking administrators at the Vatican; would welcome any distraction from this hideous fact. Although, it must be a legal and publicity nightmare navigating such treacherous waters, especially when the optics are not in your favor. A more insidious subset of this coalition, callously gaining from the inadvertent distraction campaign, priests guilty of sexual misconduct, hoping that the current controversy will delay further investigations into new allegations.
Below are the blog entries 10-20 of the Bootleggers and Baptists series. Going forward collective volumes of the series will be published for every ten blog posts composing a volume. These volumes include supplemental essays and addendums written within the timeframe of the corresponding blog posts.
The program was derided by Democrats and Republicans in Congress, some of whom called it “bizarre,” “unbelievably stupid” and “offensive.” Rumsfeld himself said he canceled the program “an hour after I read about it.” ( Wired ,July 2003)
Commonly, government programs engender partisanship and opportunism. Political actors are more successful to capitalize on such initiatives are controversial. This effect is only magnified when the program is headed by a polarizing figure. One prevalent example of this was DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) used Prediction Markets to gather intelligence on future geopolitical events. Once more contentious questions such as terrorist attacks and assassination attempts ended up being addressed, the program began to be publicly criticized.
PAM (Policy Analysis Market) implemented by the Information Awareness Office, a counter-terrorism project ran by DARPA. PAM operated like a future exchanges market for predicting the likelihood of geopolitical events. Including but not limited to terrorist attacks. At various phases of the program, participants (consultation firms, colleges, think tanks) were provided a sum of money to “wager” on the likelihood of certain political events happening (p.77). Those with accurate answers were awarded a larger sum of money.
Figure 1
E.g.) Phase I: Participants were provided $100,000 by the IAO to wager and awarded $750,000 for accurate predictions (p.77).
Mirroring the model used in both past and future prediction markets. Dating back to Robin Hanson first pioneering prediction markets while consulting on project Xanadu in the late-1980s, these markets have always been an incentive-driven phenomenon. It is one thing to claim certainty, but it is another to be willing to die on that hill. Especially when money is on the line. Effectively aligning incentives towards accuracy and rigorous research versus armchair speculation. The objective being the firm, organization, or government department hosting the market with aggregate a large cache of quality information (p.76).In the field of counter-terrorism having averaging consensus from a variety of sources is crucial to avoid engaging the wrong target. Such mistakes will incur costs much greater than monetary losses.
As groundbreaking and innovative as PAM was invariably the program garnered some criticism that eventually devolved into outright censure. Academics and bureaucrats “betting” on the aptitude of terrorist activities and political revolts transpiring may be unsettling from a prima facie standpoint. Particularly if taken at face value with no further analysis. Arguably the criticism of PAM intensified due to the IAO’s controversial director, John Poindexter. Poindexter rose to infamy from his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal of the Regan administration. Even though all of the insiders of the project acknowledged that Poindexter had little involvement in PAM (P. 6, footnote 7), most of the backlash was directed at him. The fury of pundits, media outlets, and the general public caused Poindexter to resign in the summer of 2003. Leaving the PAM project permanently defunct.
The advocacy and opposition to the implementation of PAM as a means of aggregating intelligence on sensitive matters is no doubt a complex maze of ethical and pragmatic arguments. The use of prediction markets for gathering information for defense planning is just like another government policy, the impact is not neutral. Meaning that keeping or eliminating the program will create disparate consequences. Typically favoring one subset of economic agents over another. Individuals will bear the “expected costs” (p.38) imposed by the impact of the policy. For example, a government program may create jobs for individuals that are politically connected. However, this is generally at the expense of the taxpayer. Vice versa, abolishing a program will eliminate jobs for the clerks and managers operating the department. The impact of policy always affects some individuals positively and others negatively. All political policies involve the transfer of benefits from one party to another.
Considering the non-neutral nature of policy, it would be justifiable to apply Bruce Yandle’s concept of Bootleggers and Baptists to the political pressure to abandon the PAM program. Yes, there were some ethical concerns regarding the prospect of having people “wager” on terrorist attacks. It would be naïve to believe that all the opprobrium was motivated by morality. Much how skilled consultants can profit from participating in a Prediction Market, many actors can also do so by dismantling such a program. Beneficiaries ranging from media outlets to opportunistic politicians. The political opportunism was multilayered including enemies of the Bush administration, the Republican Party, and even direct adversaries of John Poindexter. Proving an opportunity for democrats to temporarily shed their anti-patriotic veneer, to admonish these “conservatives” for making light of national security threats. Yet, the credulous public seldomly questions this moral browbeating. On the surface, these criticisms sound valid. Since when have politicians previously disinterested in national security matters are suddenly deeply invested in the integrity of defense intelligence? As Machiavelli pointed out in The Prince appearances are more important than actual principles in politics (p.42).
The Baptists
It is exceedingly difficult to designate one side of the coalition as a pure Baptist in the public outrage campaign surrounding PAM. The self-interest of the media, politicians, resident experts within the government is glaringly obvious. The potential for Dual-Role Actors (economic agents that benefit materially, but simultaneously sincerely believe the moral argument) in this coalition dynamic exists. However, is muddied by the perverse incentives to use strawman, ad hominem, and other logical fallacies to denigrate the program. The adversaries of PAM had a lot to gain through defaming the program. Not a whole lot of utility to extract from testing the validity of the results. Since the average constituent is not going to care too much about the granular details of the program. Rather be fixated on their visceral reaction to the ethical considerations of “betting” terrorist attacks.
Regardless, of whether moral advocacy is misguided or ill-informed, nevertheless, it is still a normative position. The average citizen happens to be the proverbial Baptist in this coalition dynamic. Any expression of disgust or moral indignation was sincere with little to no observable benefit from ending the program (dispersed costs, concentrated benefits). Even if the public’s concern was stoked by the slanted framing of the program, it still does not lessen make their concerns any less earnest. In the absence of further context, a group of contractors and academics participating in a gambling pool predicting terrorist attacks does sound grotesque. Since gambling is considered a form of entertainment appears to trivialize the severity of contentious situations that could result in the loss of lives. For the honest concern for these moral considerations, the average voter is our Baptist.
One great irony was that one of the academics deeply involved in the project narrowed down the reasonable ethical concerns in a peer-reviewed paper years after PAM had been dismantled. It was none other than prediction markets pioneer Robin Hanson. Hanson citing the following as prevalent concerns of the program:
“…The first concern expressed—that of replacing professionals with amateurs..” (p.82)
“…The second fear expressed was that bad guys would be willing to make losing
“..The third main fear expressed was that bad guys might be rewarded for doing bad things..” (p.83). E.g.) Al-Qaeda’s meddling with airline stocks in the 9/11 attacks.
Hanson tactfully addresses all these concerns explaining how much of these concerns are the result of misconception. Like how the media coverage of the program generated several misconceptions regarding the function and purpose of PAM.
The Bootleggers
Several various individuals and groups stand to benefit from a sensationalized portrayal of the PAM program. One of the more salient examples would be the media. Media outlets are a business much like another, the incentive is to maximize profits. Logically this premise is cogent to anyone with even a small amount of exposure to economics. This controversy emerged in the primordial era of social media (Myspace being founded in 2003). The internet did exist but did not present any true competition to televised and print news media. For media outlets to have a story as jarring as the government funding a macabre gambling bracket trivializing serious events, instant goldmine. That is the type of story that sells publications. It has all the elements of a good conspiratorial techno-thriller. One only needs to consider the success of Tom Clancy to know how stories of geopolitical/government intrigue are lucrative. It could be argued that the media is merely the messenger, if they happen to profit from the event, it is a natural consequence of the event. How the information is presented and sways public opinion. If news reports are worded in a manner that is hostile towards the program, this will influence public opinion. Creating a feedback loop, inciting the ire of the Baptists while concurrently profiting. This would be an excellent example of the Bootleggers tacitly inciting the indignation of the Baptists.
Another subset of Bootleggers would be the politicians who spoke out against PAM. A book could be written about the political motives guiding the strategy condemnation of the program by various politicians. As previously mentioned, the layers of political opposition operate on a continuum of scale. Varying from individual grudges, contention between political factions, and even opposition to the sitting president at the time (George W. Bush). Despite the complexities of various political considerations, speaking out publicly about a controversial government program fosters a positive public image. Especially for politicians who were affiliated with the Democratic party. During the Bush administration, Democrats were perceived as being soft on terrorism. At a time where terrorism was a hot-button issue, speaking out against counter-terrorism measures was tantamount to political suicide. The whole PAM debacle presented an opportunity for a clean slate. An opportunity to capitalize on a misstep made by the Bush administration and to feed into the fears of the public. Paralleling the Bootlegger –Baptist feedback mechanism generated by the media. See below for a shining example of such sanctimonious posturing:
For instance,” Mr. Wyden said, ”you may think early on that Prime Minister X is going to be assassinated. So you buy the futures contracts for 5 cents each. As more people begin to think the person’s going to be assassinated, the cost of the contract could go up, to 50 cents.
‘The payoff, if he’s assassinated, is $1 per future. So if it comes to pass, and those who bought at 5 cents make 95 cents. Those who bought at 50 cents make 50 cents.’ (Senator Ron Wyden (D), NYT July 2003).
Last month New Mexico joined Connecticut, Colorado, and New York in being the first wave of states to tackle qualified immunity. There is some debate as to whether or not the bill passed by the New Mexican state legislature entails a full relinquishment of the legal doctrine (due to the fact it is a federally recognized doctrine). However, it is still a noble attempt to places limits on an abusive legal privilege. HB 4 passed by New Mexican lawmakers overtly prohibits invoking qualified immunity as a defense in court. Providing the complaint against the offending public official is within the statute of limitations (three years).
DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.–In any claim for damages or relief under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, no public body or person acting on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority of a public body shall enjoy the defense of qualified immunity for causing the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution of New Mexico. (HB 4, P.3, Sect 4)
Regardless of whether this new law functions as an outright nullification of the immunity privilege or operates as an effective restriction, this is still a monumental reform. For any pundit advocating for civil liberties, this is unquestionable a step in the right direction and a model for other states to follow. Such reforms provide the constituency with the assurance that all public officials (not just police officers) will be held accountable.
The Hippies and The Business Man:
Despite this positive change in state policy, the question remains did any outside interest groups support the bill? The answer is yes, outside interest groups did express support for the new law placing limits on qualified immunity. One of the interest groups even urged voters to engage in political action, by encouraging them to write to their lawmakers requesting they pass HB 4. Two of the more high-profile HB 4 advocates form one of the most ironic “odd-couple” coalitions that anyone could imagine. On the left side of the aisle, there was the Vermont-based ice cream producer Ben and Jerry’s. The founders of the ice cream boutique have long publicly and unapologetically embraced a progressive ethos. The right-wing portion of this unusual coalition is the organization Americans For Prosperity a conservative/libertarian group extensively funded by the Koch brothers. This political union can be best described as crunchy granola meets big oil.
Who Is The Bootlegger And Who is The Baptist?
In his seminal 1983 paper, Bruce Yandle explains oddball political alliances through the lens of a “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition dynamic. At times, the dynamic can be more of an implicit union, where the Bootleggers ride the coattails of the Baptists through quietly supporting the initiative. In other instances, there is an actual coordinated effort towards collective action between the seemingly opposing political actors. Clearly, the bond formed between AFP and Ben & Jerry’s would be an example of the latter coalition dynamic. It is difficult to ascertain who is providing the moral argument for ending qualified immunity and which group benefits from the legal doctrine being prohibited. Leading to the speculation that this activistic relationship between the two groups could be a less common variant of the B&B coalition. Could both groups concurrently assume the role of Baptists despite their divergent interests? Could they both be Bootleggers? Is it even possible that they are both simultaneously Dual-Role Actors?
There are some salient ways in which both groups stand to benefit from advocating for ending qualified immunity. Since the death of George Floyd, public confidence in policing has hit a twenty-seven-year low. Making it popular to support policies that advocate for policing reforms. Both political actors have distinct reasons for vocally endorsing a bill that ends qualified immunity. For Ben & Jerry’s they appease their progressive peers by fulfilling the ideological obligation of fighting for social justice and racial equality. On the other hand, AFP gains social currency from promoting abolishing qualified immunity, through being consistent with their conservative/libertarian philosophy by justifying a constraint on state power. Outside of building credibility with their ideological peers, they also gain the respect of neutral parties who are currently dissatisfied with current policing practices. Fostering a positive public image can result in more business for Ben & Jerry’s and more donations and support for AFP.
These inferences regarding the potential benefits of supporting HB 4 derived from a priori reasoning are not irrefutable. However, they are probable incentives either group would possess for their public activism. Both B&J’s and AFP also provide some thought-provoking moral justifications for ending this legal privilege. It would be a fallacy to attempt to paraphrase either group’s moral arguments. Below are direct quotes from both organizations’ websites detailing the moral concerns around qualified immunity.
“….Since George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police officers in May, tens of millions of Americans have taken to the streets all across the country to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and white supremacy—and it’s having a huge impact. Statues of enslavers and racists have come down. Black Lives Matter murals have gone up. Calls for defunding the police have run out. And many people—from everyday Americans to activists, athletes, experts, and lawmakers—are demanding the end of qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity? Here’s the deal: Qualified immunity allows police officers, while in the line of duty, to do pretty much anything to anybody, without fear of punishment.
Anyone who’s seen the videos of police violence during these protests is probably thinking exactly what we’re thinking, so let’s all say it out loud: Qualified immunity has got to go.” (Per the
The moral argument for ending qualified immunity depicted on B&J’s website exemplifies the need for racial justice. Reasoning that due to institutional racism there is a dire need to nullify this legal privilege, due to the fact that it does a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities. Providing a textbook example of social justice argument for abolishing QI. Nevertheless, a moral justification.
Americans for Prosperity Senior Policy Analyst Jordan Richardson had this to say:
“Qualified immunity may have originated as a doctrine to protect good police officers working in difficult conditions, but now, four decades later, it has morphed into a doctrine that regularly protects egregious violations of constitutional rights. By damaging the trust and confidence that communities have in law enforcement, qualified immunity is harming the very police officers it was designed to protect. We are proud to sign this brief in support of defending fundamental rights and in support of restoring healthy police-community relationships.” (Per the AFP Website).
The argument presented by AFP rests on the standard base constitutionality and state power. Both points have been constant fixtures of right-wing political discourse (at least prior to Trump), making these focal points congenial to a conservative justification for ending QI. All because AFP presents an argument from the standpoint of individual liberty and B&J’s from the perspective of racial justice does not undermine the morality of either paradigm. Morality is not relative, however, it can be pluralistic. A policy can be just or unjust for multiple reasons. Therefore, AFP and B&J’s are concurrently championing moral arguments. It wouldn’t be shrewd to assign dynamic roles to either party, either could be seen as the Bootlegger or Baptist depending upon one’s political proclivities. In doing so we run the risk of veering into the territory of playing the “Red Team- Blue Team” game.
The practice of capital punishment (colloquially known as the death penalty) brings to light a number of ethical and economic questions. Is it moral to confer the power of executing prisoners to the state? Is society better off without certain categories of violent criminals that have little hope of ever being rehabilitated? Aside from the typical normative questions encompassing the death penalty debate, there are still questions that few pundits fail to consider. Who benefits from the death penalty? Who would benefit from the abolition of the practice? Such inquires may seem peculiar to conventional sensibilities; however, these are necessary questions. Why? Because when specific actions fall under the jurisdiction of state authority any criticism or defense of the practice becomes a form of political discourse. The political process typically generates winners and losers, because generally, some form of exchange transpires in political action. While the mutually consenting parties achieve positive-sum gains from the exchange, often the dissenting group of interests tends to take on the external costs of the policy. The exchange process is exemplified in the lobbying, protests, and other policy initiatives undertaken by various organizations. Some salient examples include the ACLU’s campaign to abolish the death penalty and police unions posing stiff opposition to such efforts.
Needless to say, the death penalty debate creates fertile ground for Bootlegger and Baptist-style coalition building. Enabling the opportunity for a litany of odd couple coalitions possessing different rationales for their advocacy, but sharing a common goal. The groups devoted to ending the death penalty run the gambit. This broad tent includes (but is not limited to) religious organizations (conservative), organizations dedicated to social justice (liberal), and/or civil liberties(liberal or libertarian). It would require a comprehensive book treatment to fully exhaust each and every single potential pair of oddball coalitions in this debate. However, it may be interesting to explore several of these political partnerships, they exist at just about every graduation of the political scale (individual level- federal government).
The Odd Bedfellows of the Pro-Death penalty Camp:
Coalition A:
Baptist: Families of murder victims, because their anguish could almost sway even the most principled pro-life advocates. Their tears and sobbing cries for retribution for the loss of their loved one bring a raw and emotional moral dimension to the debate. The only conceivable way of delivering justice for their slain family member would be to settle the score.
Bootlegger: Fiscally conservative taxpayers. While the costs of operating the U.S. justice system (corrections included) are barely noticed by the majority of constituents. Substantiating the concept of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits that is prevalently noted in Public Choice Theory. Despite the actual burden of paying for the living expenses of inmates being obscured by the size of and indirect nature of the tax pool, this subset of voters still finds it unseemly to be allocating resources to supporting rapists, murders, and pedophiles. Doubling down on an appeal for fiscal responsibility, especially considering the category of people who are benefiting from their hard-earned tax dollars.
Coalition B:
Baptist: The District Attorney’s office in jurisdictions where the death penalty is permitted. The general incentive of the DA’s office is to charge an offender with the most severe penalty possible. There are two general reasons for this approach: 1.) To scare the defendant into pleading out for reduced changes. 2.) Operating as a deterrent for other prospective offenders from committing the same crime. To establish a firm case for capital punishment you have to paint the picture that the defendant is a complete monster. To successfully accomplish this the state’s attorney needs to lean heavily on psychologically gratifying moral arguments to sway the jury. While this individual may operate in the interest of the state, they often are the greatest allies of distrust families seeking justice for their loved ones.
Bootlegger: Police Officers. Harsh penalties may serve as an effective deterrent for persuading people from avoiding committing serious crimes. Although broken window policies have shown to have mixed results on crime, typically these initiatives are used against the enforcement of petty crimes. The theatrically hope being there would be trickledown effect towards serious crimes. It is difficult to argue that penalty of death isn’t a persuasive deterrent. Fewer murders = lighter caseloads for the local police department.
Coalition C:
Baptist: Criminologists that stress the recidivism of violent criminals. These researchers possess the moral high ground by arguing from the standpoint of empirical data and sincere concern of the impact of violent crime on society.
Bootlegger: Pharmaceutical Companies. The most common form of state-sanctioned execution in the United States is lethal injection. One common constituent of lethal injection solution is the barbiturate thiopental. A similar argument for the companies in the business of chemical production (another common ingredient electrolyte potassium chloride). More executions mean more sales which translate into more profits.
The Odd Bedfellows of the Anti-Death penalty Camp:
Coalition A:
Baptist: ACLU. A nonprofit legal organization that since its inception in 1920, has been dedicated to defending civil liberties in the United States. This organization has a substantial campaign to abolish capital punishment, as such a practice can be seen as a civil liberties violation. Through presenting a robust normative argument against state executions they are a solid example of Baptist.
Bootlegger: Prison Psychologists. Why? Much like any other government employee, their livelihood is contingent on earmarked funding. Fewer clients (the more mentally disturbed prisoners that are executed) the more job instability becomes an unpleasant reality. Fewer prisoners mean fewer services provided by state agencies. This means an increased probability of being laid off.
Coalition B:
Baptist: Family members of death row inmates. Their emotional appeals can be just as riveting as those shouted by the family members of the victims. These personal advocates of the convicts tend to stress the potential for rehabilitation and forgiveness as the normative justification for sparing their lives.
Bootlegger: Defense attorneys. It is uncommon for families of death row inmates to hire lawyers to appeal death penalty convictions. The monetary benefit of lawyers in this niche of the business should be quite conspicuous.
Coalition C:
Baptists: Pro-life Catholic Organizations. Just about any religious or biblical justification for a policy prescription would count as having normative incentives. No pun intended, unquestionably they would be Baptists (yes, Catholicism is distinct from the Protestant Southern Baptist Church). Pro-life is pro-life where it means refuting abortion or state-sanctioned executions.
Bootleggers: The web developers that build and maintain the organization(s’) website(s).This firm owes its livelihood to the organization’s crusade against practices that violate the sanctity of life.
Below are the first ten blog entries of the Bootleggers and Baptists series on the Inverted Logic Blog. Going forward collective volumes of the series will be published for every ten blog posts, composing a volume. These volumes include supplemental essays and addendums written within the timeframe of the corresponding blog posts.
It felt like just yesterday droves of indignant voters were decrying the Electoral College as an unjust institution. Any attempt to verify or even discuss the election results precipitously degenerated into a circus sideshow event. These calamitous episodic displays of hysteria were four years ago. Another Presidential election cycle has come and gone. It superficially appears as if the candidate with the electoral and the popular vote won their seat in the Oval office. All must be right in the world. Karma has been restored. The cosmos is back in alignment. Hopefully, the tantrums and other displays of poor deportment will subside.
The pacified consensus has been magnified by the utter silence on the front of the Electoral College debate. Many would counter this criticism by stating that the candidate with the popular vote won, why do we need continue to reevaluate this system? From a utilitarian standpoint, there is some credence to this dismal. To be fair it is something of an anomaly (having only occurred in this nation’s history five times). The irony being many who are relatively unconcerned now regarding the Electoral College were some of the most vociferous critics of the institution back in 2016, How can an individual be so passionately inclined to denounce this institution four years ago to now possessing a tepid acquiesce of its existence? It possibly the masses have changed their opinion regarding the Electoral College and its role in determining national elections? The probability of this occurring is highly unlikely. What is more probable is that those who disliked the 2016 president-elect utilized it as a point of contention to delegitimatize the conditions under which he assumed office. In other words, there was little concern regarding the Electoral College. The public outcry was nothing more than political opportunism. A feeble attempt to use this fact to mobilize the impeachment campaign. Rather than a principled stance against the voter’s voice being muted by an institutional safeguard.
An individual who fundamentally opposes such the Electoral College will do so regardless of who sits in office. Hardly anyone with strong convictions on issues ranging from gun control to abortion is going to change their position based upon slight alterations to the political climate. Why is such ideological promiscuity viewed as being consistent? This shift could be attributed to voter fickleness. However, I am more persuaded by the notion that this is a byproduct of political bias. Opponents of the populous right-wing candidate took every strategic angle they could to oust him from office. The first line of attack was to gripe about the institutions that made his victory possible. The murmurs of protest and despair were highly visceral and reactionary. Few were questioning the inner-mechanics of this electoral apparatus nor made any legal arguments against it nor provided any arguments of any technical fortitude. Resorting to vague and sweeping statements about how this system was nothing but perverted. With little in the way of facts and figures substantiating these emotionally charged claims.
Now that Joe Biden has secured victory and he has won the popular vote, all I now hear are crickets! No one seems to care. The same people exalting the position that the Electoral College is an anachronism— nothing more than a hangover from the era of powdered-wigs, are curiously silent. Odds are they are content with the elected official who will soon grace the Whitehouse. Giving the observant political spectator the impression, these individuals truly didn’t care about the Electoral College. The genuine aims of these invested interests and the duped masses were to contest the presidency of Donald Trump at all costs. Trump was far from perfect. He made grandiose promises, he was dishonest, and weaponized entitlements as a bargaining chip in his risky game of political brinksmanship. Then again, these actions are no different than those taken by any politician. If anything, this behavior could be seen as an attempt to assimilate into his new role. All of this is par for the course. What set him apart from the establishment was his lack of finesse or tact. Most politicians treat their true agenda like a high stakes poker game. Trump was dumb enough to reveal his hand. Machiavelli didn’t expound upon the strategic intricacies of “statecraft” for idle conservation. The polished statesman understands the truth-and-perception gap intimately and strategically. Blatantly ignoring these nuances of political norms made Trump a target. Making the motivation to mobilizing the average voter to create a stir top priority. Early on the most salient targets were stress the potential of Russian meddling and deride the Electoral College. Now that a “real politician” has won the election, abolishing the Electoral College has fallen off the agenda.
If someone sincerely believes that the Electoral College was a hindrance to our society they would hold this position regardless of which one of the hollow and spineless marionettes became commander-in-chief. Unfortunately, it seems as if for most of these aggressive opponents this was nothing more than an argument of convenience. Nothing more than low-hanging fruit. That they blithely used as a lazy argument to advance their agenda. Anyone with clout doesn’t care if the vote of a regular constituent carries any weight in an election. However, if you can control public perception you win the game. That’s all political process is a puerile and trivial game with no room for principles, ethics, or wise policies.
The 2020 Election season will be historically noteworthy for several reasons. One characteristic that cannot be underscored is the aggressive voting campaigns. Celebrities have been demanding we all vote. Internet advertisements have been hounding us to vote. Campaigns at the state and national level have been emphasizing the accommodations made to enable near-effortless voting. Which is perceived as being particularly important with the looming specter of COVID-19 threatening to reduce voter turnout. Historically, voting rights and “get out and vote” initiatives have been the enterprise of left-wing political interests. Not that conservatives are inherently anti-voting, but due to the fact, right-wing populism is a new phenomenon.
Voter empowerment has always been a thinly-veiled attempt to pander to the average constituent. The aptitude of an individual vote holds little sway over the actual outcome of elections. Making the overall influence of a solitary vote is near-zero (P.603). The advocates urging the every-day citizen to vote side-step this issue through embellishing upon the impact of a single vote. One vote will not sway the overall aggregate electoral vote. That one vote is numerically inconsequential. Even on the microscopic scale of a small village of two-hundred residents, a single vote only 0.5 percent of the vote. Exemplifying the fact that the ruling power of voting comes from the aggregate voting power of various political coalitions. The collective-decision making power of organized political interest proves to be more effective than a single disorganized voter (p.54-56). The attempts to summon all eligible voters to do so serves as circuitous means of forming a like-minded voting bloc. The paradox being those who have an invested interest in promoting the institution of nominally democratic elections need to prey upon the illusion of every voting carrying weight in the polls.
Generally, the promotion of participation in the “democratic” process is purported to be for the “common good”. A profoundly ambiguous statement that could be applied in a litany of various subjective interpretations. What is advantageous for one person may be detrimental to another. Making claims of initiatives being in the name of the common good board-line spurious. There is something of a gulf between the best interest of the individual versus that of society (p.284). Without a clear and concise criterion of what constitutes public interest, political pressure groups are enabled to take the reins and divert the cause for their purposes (p.283). The utilization of powerful imagery helps the invested interests mold public perception like clay. Conjuring apocalyptic images of a world with health care, social security, and other entitlements brought forth by a tyrannical despot. Allusions to tyranny captive the imagination of the American voter quite vividly due to the context of the nascent years leading to the Revolutionary War. Most of these claims are hyperbolic and are intended to urge the viewer to vote. The foreboding catastrophe resulting from not casting your one measly vote may result in the demise of the republic. Such tactics are nothing more than providing misinformation that is tantamount to psychological manipulation.
Aside from this exaggerated claim being cartoonish, they do not consider informal checks on power. By virtue of the median voter theorem, a true contender in a political race would not dare commit the cardinal sin of outright eliminating such programs. Some may discredit this argument as our current president is somewhat unorthodox. Even if the pressure of government agencies or constituencies does not hold, the pressure of lobbying groups will. For example, the hyperbolic bombastic rhetoric of the Republican party overturns social security is laughable. Equal to political suicide. Seniors organizations such as AARP weld a significant amount of lobbying power. Could effortlessly embark upon a rapturous counter-campaign against the GOP. Potentially leading to a drastic drop in the senior vote, arguable one of the most active voter demographics in the country. The dystopian tone of these advertisements reflects a sensationalized depiction of political reality. A fabricated reality was political pressure groups have surrendered all of their political purchasing power to the voter. Which is a highly unlikely scenario. Especially when confronted with the fact that there is a plethora of perks and money to be made by lobbying. Only serving to solidify the fact that the myth of “every vote counts” is a pure illusion.
If the consequences of not voting are not as desirable as perpetuated by the media and the voter has next to no control over the result, what is the point in trying to mobilize voters? Stressing the moral imperative of arriving at the polls over hell or high water? The observant reader probably notes how it was previously mentioned that voter empowerment was an enterprise of the left. Coupled with the storied history of left-wing media bias, the motives of the “get out and vote” campaigns become much more salient (p.49). There is a tightly woven network of celebrities, musicians, actors, and media personnel who operate as the mouthpiece for the moral imperative of voting. These de facto “Baptists” help paint the grisly picture of an America where the interests of the common person have not been represented. Doing all of the heavy lifting for the true beneficiaries. Those who stand to benefit politically from such initiatives. Democratic politicians, trade associations, administrators for entitlement programs, the community organizers who host and plan voting drives, and so on. Most of these interested parties stand to benefit through career advancement, increased job security, increases in social clout, etc. All of these concentrated benefits were acquired without productively contributing to society. Textbook definition of rent-seeking. The morally suspect part of these unearned benefits is that isn’t obvious that these self-interested individuals truly haven’t contributed to society. Due to the virtuous choir of the media mouthpieces creating the smoke-screen for the beneficiaries to hide behind, we are deceived into the belief they are working for our benefit.
It can be surmised that the reason for the upsurge in a panic regarding this election is based on the motive to oust Donald Trump out of office. I disagree with his politics. After all, I am a steadfast and unwavering free trader. The magnitude of moral indignation facing the president is unjustifiable. To genuinely believe that Joe Biden is the white knight who is going to save the United States from uncertain cataclysm, is comical. Neither man ideologically represents the correct direction for this country. Then again, that may precisely be the reason both are the premier candidates for the job. Lobbyists and bureaucrats need elected officials they can bend for their purposes. Needless to say, the droves and networks of various spokespeople urging us to vote are not truly working in our interest. Despite whatever flimsy claims they make. Voting does have a valuable quality as a form of self-express, but that is about it. The odds of your vote deciding the next election is nothing more than pure fantasy.
Over the past couple of years, the issue of media bias has become a regular talking point in public discourse. Contrary to popular belief, “fake news” has existed long before the advent of the 2016 election cycle. However, some may cite the work of William Meckling and Michael Jensen and claim that left-wing media has existed since at least the late 1970s (P. 49). One only needs to read Barry Goldwater’s 1988 memoirs to see how media coverage mispresented him during his 1964 presidential campaign. Media bias is not relegated to only left-wing media outlets. Conservative publications also suffer from distorting the facts when reporting the news. Liberal media bias is just more salient since liberals dominate the media. When ideologically loaded editorials start being presented as information this is problematic. Regardless of which political proclivities of the author or correspondent. This is nothing more than clear deception. A snake oil salesman presenting opinions as information. Talk about being sold a false bill of goods!
Alexis De Tocqueville reveals to us in Democracy in America that media bias also existed in the 19th century.
“What the latter look for in newspapers are knowledge and facts; only by altering or distorting these facts a journalist can gain some influence over his views (Tocqueville, Transl. Isaac Kramnick, P. 216-217)”.
Tocqueville didn’t dwell on the biased nature of American journalism. This is because he viewed news publications as not so much as vehicles for disseminating information. Rather, as a form of networking. Individuals who share the same values will invariably read some of the same books and obtain their information from the same sources. While it tempting to blame social media companies for indirectly creating powerful echo chambers through data aggregation to maximize user engagement; this problem predates modern technology. Due to confirmation bias, it is always easier to read publications that reinforce our prior beliefs. Converse with people who already agree with our perspective. Considering this quirk of human nature it isn’t surprising that Americans of the 19th century would levitate towards certain publications. Naturally, journalists of the era would either inject their own opinions into news stories or manipulate the facts to make their article more enticing to specific demographic.
This counterintuitive observation regarding the American press bucks our conventional understanding of the intended purpose of news media. Conventional wisdom would dictate that news is purely designed to inform. Tocqueville obliterates the myth of a journalistic “golden age” in the mid-20th century. Romanticized images of smoke-filled greenrooms and hardnosed reporting epitomized in the likes of Edward R. Murrow. The notion of the news being fact-driven back in the early years of television is an illusion. Per Democracy in America, even in the 19th century, the line between fact and opinion was blurred. Making Tocqueville’s suggestion that the press represents institutions of political association more than they do sources of information a sizeable argument. Presents a hard reality check for those entranced by the tidy and staid conservatism of the 1950s. The news correspondences may have been more eloquent and professional, but were still imparting bias in their reporting.
If media organizations are nothing more than a collective association of like-minded content producers and readers, how do these coalitions form? This a profoundly difficult question to answer. Did ideology bring the members of the media outlet together? Did the political leanings of the content consumers influence what the organization produces? It is hard to say. However, there is certainly an interconnected relationship between content consumers and producers. Tocqueville expounds upon this co-dependent relationship stating:
“… a vital connection between association and newspapers; the latter creates associations which, in their turn, creates newspapers. If it is a truism that associations must multiply as social conditions become more equal, it is no less certain that the number of newspapers increases as associations proliferate. (P. 602).”
While it may be fair do disagree with Tocqueville’s assertion that political associations are the impetus for the establishment of publications, he does touch upon an important aspect of this dynamic. That is if one media outlet of a specific political disposition is established more will follow. One just needs to look at the history of network television to see this principle in action. Back when network television was first established in the 1980s the 24-hour news channels were all left-of-center. Conservative media was essentially relegated to AM/radio talk shows. Then in 1996 the Fox News Channel was launched and provided a conservative presence on network television. The proliferation of conservative media shifted from the dying platform of network cable to the wild frontier of cyberspace. Leading to the development of outlets such as Newsmax, The Blaze, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, The Drudge Report, The Daily Wire, etc. All platforms whose success was propelled by the internet. One can’t help but wonder if Fox News had never been established if these outlets would have ever achieved their present level of success. Especially when you consider The Blaze was founded by former Fox News personality Glenn Beck.
The above example details this relationship of associations and the growth of media outlets for conservative publications, this rule most likely applies to any ideology imaginable. Just think of all the political movements that have spurred by the zealous distribution of literature by pamphleteers. This ranges from movements as diverse from the American Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. What is the first thing any wide-eyed college kid at a protest does when you approach them? Offer you a pamphlet detailing the rationale for their outrage and indignation. If a movement becomes large enough eventually formal media outlets fixated on the political movement are established.
Polemics such as Thomas Paine’s Common Senseand the Cato Letters may provide the rebel-rousing fodder for revolution. What sustains these political movements and their various supporting publications? It is easy to see that ideas spread through collective association and the proliferation of related literature/media. As enthusiasm, wanes momentum starts to sink. Convictions and commitment among supporters start to dissipate. Making the role of publications much more important.
“ This association can be more or less strictly defined, more or less restricted, more or less numerous but at least the seed of such an association must exist in men’s minds to ensure the survival of the newspaper (P. 603).”
Tocqueville believes that the conviction conveyed by journalists only continues to live on if supported by the readers. From a business standpoint, this makes sense. If no one is buying your newspapers or magazines your firm will go out of business. In terms of the transmission of ideas, the intertwined nature of content publisher and consumer is much more co-dependent. Yes, the passions of the readers need to remain resolute for the publisher to keep their lights on. But, the publisher needs to keep putting out engaging content to further perpetuate the movement can keep the movement from getting stale. It may be bold to argue with a thinker as brilliant as Tocqueville, however, let’s say he is only half right on this account. Fostering strong political coalitions requires both the publisher and the reader.
Some observant readers may be wondering, how does this model apply to local newspapers? After all, they tend to be more provincial in their scope and less politicized. The less politicized part may be a false assumption, due to the fact the local paper tends to conform to the political leanings of the region. If hypothetically there was a local or regional newspaper that was completely objective it still would provide a form of collective association. The news stories and editorials would focus on local issues. Presumably, all the readers would have interests in the commentary about new ordinances and municipal taxes. Readership and the employees of the publication bound by a mutually shared self-interest in local affairs. A cohesion that sometimes breaks through partisan barriers and transcendent party affiliation. National and international publications look to sow a connecting ideology among its viewers and readers. The local media outlets unite its staff and audience with universal concerns about daily affairs.
Inverted logic 