Psychological experiments can reveal a lot about how we, as a species, think and act.  You only have to look at politics in the United States to see how the general populace (the majority of which can be considered educated) can condone violations of the Constitution, circumvention of the Bill of Rights and unprovoked wars based on manufactured evidence.  Even so-called “modern” views of human psychology seem to peg it as something nebulous and inexplicable and irrationally seems to reign supreme. 

I have written before about several enlightening psychological experiments that elucidate how human beings really think about situations.  Crack.com, of all sites, provides a great summary of some of the most interesting and relevant research in 5 Psychological Experiments that Prove Humanity is Doomed.  The article highlights research that shows that humans tend not to help others.  It shows how people will actually torture and murder others based only on the mere suggestion of someone in a lab coat (and who has no authority over the subject whatsoever).

My only issue with the article (other than it’s shock-based writing style), is that it assumes that we won’t learn anything from these studies.  Humanity is clearly doomed if that’s the case, and the recent transgressions in American foreign policy are but one small example.  I’d like to think that rationality will eventually prevail, and that we’ll find ways to understand and tame the human propensity for apathy and violence.  I just wonder how bad things will have to get before we start to make that move.

In recent months, even the mainstream media hasn’t been able to ignore the horrific impacts of religion on American politics.  To me, it seems clear that Bush’s Holy War in the Middle East is something that the majority of Americans agree with (or at least choose to allow).  But certainly there should be a backlash against this, right?  In most ways, McCain seems to be every bit as fueled by war-related fantasies as is Dubya.  Therefore, I think it’s important to consider the views of his supporters and influencers.

BraveNewFilms.org reports in McCain’s “Spiritual Guide” Wants America to Destroy Islam:

You may have heard of Rev. John Hagee, the McCain supporter who said God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its homosexual “sins.”   Well now meet Rev. Rod Parsley, the televangelist megachurch pastor from Ohio who hates Islam.  According to David Corn of Mother Jones, Parsley has called on Christians to wage war against Islam, which he considers to be a “false religion.”  In the past, Parsley has also railed against the separation of church and state, homosexuals, and abortion rights, comparing Planned Parenthood to Nazis. 

…

Since the media won’t question McCain about his deeply bigoted pastor, it’s up to you to call attention to this issue.  Make McCain’s pastor problem a major story by forwarding this video to your family, friends, and colleagues.

We can’t let McCain get away with aligning himself with a religious leader who’s called for an all-out war on Islam, someone who draws no distinctions between Muslims and violent Islamic extremists.  Now is the crucial time to act.

Most Americans seem to believe that Islam is a violent religion and is a threat to their own views.  Surprisingly, most of these people seem to be able to overlook the horrific acts in the Old Testament and the amount of violence in the New Testament.  Studies have shown that few Christian Americans read the Bible, and that gives hate-mongers clear reign to influence politics.  At the very least, we should be asking questions about what McCain - someone who has stated that the doesn’t think Americans would mind another 1,000 years of war in the Middle East - really thinks.

The idea of having private militaries under the employment of the United States is scary enough.  But what about the way in which these contractors are milking old-fashioned cronyism?  Mother Jones reports in Contractors Gone Wild:

Allegations of widespread mismanagement and corruption among private contractors in Iraq are nothing new; if anything, tales of cronyism, over-billing, and embezzlement have become so frequent that our national tolerance for them seems only to have increased as the Iraq War has drawn on. Even so, the testimony earlier this week of three whistleblowers before the Senate’s Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) stands out for the sheer outrageousness of their accusations—namely that U.S. private contractors looted Iraqi palaces and ministries, stole military equipment, fenced supplies destined for U.S. troops, and even operated a prostitution ring that may have contributed to the death of fellow contractor. Yet despite its focus on such salacious matters as sex and corruption, the session earned little media attention.

The article continues with some truly outrageous actions, including embezzlement and profiteering.  It sounds like the American people are OK with this - after all, war seems to have become part of our culture.  Sadly, there’s little chance that any of these criminals will be made to answer for their actions (much less receive what they really deserve).  It’s just business as usual in Bush’s America.

It seems to be difficult to continue and perpetuate lies and misleading statements.  Perhaps that’s why George Bush says so little to the American public - the less he talks, the less chance there is of another visible blunder.  Crooks and Liars reports on John McCain finally “slipping” and telling the truth in John McCain admits Iraq War was over oil.  McCain’s statement:

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

And related commentary:

Think about how amazing this is. McCain is essentially saying that our quest to “spread democracy” throughout the Middle East is a sham. It has nothing to do with freeing oppressed people, or protecting Israel, or defending ourselves against future attacks. It’s about gaining control of foreign oil. Stunning. Will this get any significant media play?

It’s unlikely that this will have any impact on the majority of voters, most of whom can’t be bothered with facts, evidence and reason.

Politics, at least in the United States, seems to be an industry that’s based on emotional, irrational thinking.  Often, the method of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is employed to confuse those voters who think with their “stomachs” rather than their heads.  Most Americans seem to have no problem with the trillions of dollars spent on attacking Iraq, but they are outraged by paying an extra dollar or two per gallon of gasoline.  We live in a nation where hysteria over a manufactured threat - terrorism - has given government free reign to curtail liberties.  We ask for no evidence related to the effectiveness of unbridled spending on war and “Homeland Security”. 

Economics will be an important part of our next Presidential election.  One of the main arguments against the Democratic party seems to be that it will raise taxes and increase spending.  But is there any statistical information to backup that claim?  R.W. Bradford argues just the opposite in The Politics of Presidential Spending.  While the article is several years old, the information is still quite valid (and if you factor in Bush’s War and his administration’s bungling of just about all aspects of American government, it would help support the results).  Here are some statistics and excerpts:

Most people believe that Democrats are big spenders and that Republicans are tight-fisted. The evidence leads to a very different conclusion.

…

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

…

• In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
• During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
• When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
• The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
• During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

The results are quite clear - not only do Republican presidents spend far more money, but they often spend it on such “necessities” as creating wars.  Sadly, the American people are extremely unlikely to let the use of any for of facts, figures, or statistics inform their decisions.  So, it looks like the Republican Party can continue with it’s campaign of FUD, and people will listen.

I have often question the value of a college degree.  While I have one (and do think I have benefited from the education), the soaring costs of four-year colleges raises questions related to the Return on Investment of making the choice to go to college.  A well-written essay, America’s Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor’s Degree provides some very interesting statistics.

I have a hard time telling such people the killer statistic: Among high-school students who graduated in the bottom 40 percent of their classes, and whose first institutions were four-year colleges, two-thirds had not earned diplomas eight and a half years later. That figure is from a study cited by Clifford Adelman, a former research analyst at the U.S. Department of Education and now a senior research associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy. Yet four-year colleges admit and take money from hundreds of thousands of such students each year!

Even worse, most of those college dropouts leave the campus having learned little of value, and with a mountain of debt and devastated self-esteem from their unsuccessful struggles. Perhaps worst of all, even those who do manage to graduate too rarely end up in careers that require a college education. So it’s not surprising that when you hop into a cab or walk into a restaurant, you’re likely to meet workers who spent years and their family’s life savings on college, only to end up with a job they could have done as a high-school dropout.

Such students are not aberrations. Today, amazingly, a majority of the students whom colleges admit are grossly underprepared. Only 23 percent of the 1.3 million high-school graduates of 2007 who took the ACT examination were ready for college-level work in the core subjects of English, math, reading, and science.

The opinion also provides some excellent recommendations for trying to make colleges more accountable.  Clearly, universities make money (and increasing amounts of it) regardless of the quality of their “product”.  With some of these suggestions, it’s hopeful that we can make a more educated decision about four-year college education and it’s potential benefits and drawbacks.

In recent years, we have seen an explosion in the amount of pay given to company leaders vs. compensation given to their employees.  In some countries, this ratio is capped.  In Bush’s America, however, the apparent disregard for maintaining equity and a middle class seems to have taken over.   Conde Nast Portfolio.com helps readers visualize the numbers in What Excessive Pay Package? 

To spare any suspense, in 1970 U.S. CEO’s were paid 28 times more than the average worker.  In 2005, it has increased to 465 times.  Personally, I wish that our society would look down on people that seem to want or need ludicrous amounts of cash.  Instead, we reward the same CEO’s that have caused the downfall of numerous companies and have led us to national crises such as the sub-prime mortgage situation.  Perhaps if we gave all of our money to CEOs, there would be nothing left for them to lose?

Update (05/04/200 : A related story from ABC News, CEOs Rake It In When Their Companies Tank, provides some more statistics of how much CEOs (even the worst ones) make in income.

Money and politics in the U.S. are almost inextricably related.  Even the most optimistic among us realizes that political decisions are bought by private interests.  There’s perhaps no better example in history than that of the Bush Administration.  Laws and policy are created to favor the few (but rich), who end up having a profound impact on the entire nation. 

We all know this, but when it comes time to look at details, they’re extremely difficult to quantify.  For example, does a particular representative really believe that we shouldn’t protect the environment, or did someone pay her/him to state that?  And how often to politicians flip-flip on issues, driven by currents of cash?  The majority of the data we need to dig up the truth is freely available (often by law), but it’s notoriously difficult to make correlations.

A new startup, MAPLight.org is hoping to change all that.  Its small group of developers provide valuable (and often shocking) insight into the effects of contributions on politicians’ voting records.  From the site:

MAPLight.org brings together campaign contributions and how legislators vote, providing an unprecedented window into the connections between money and politics. We currently cover the California Legislature and U.S. Congress.

You can find out much more about this organization in eWeek’s article, Public Interest Mashup Follows Political Money Trail.

The information is extremely insightful and should be used by every voter to help make decisions.  I could even see the evolution of an “honesty score” based on voting records vs. campaign contributions. 

There are two challenges, however, that I see with this.  First, the American people are just not accustomed to using facts and evidence to make their decisions.  They’ll vote for George Bush, knowing full well that the guy is an idiot (and even after he had sufficiently proven it in his first term).  They’ll listen to religious zealots scream and yell about minor scientific research issues.  They believe that God is the answer to our problems.  No amount of research will help resolve that issue.

The other challenge is one related to gaining support for this initiative.  In a more progressive nation, this would be a government program.  One or more politicians would decide to support transparency and even the most crooked officials would have a hard time disagreeing with it.  The total cost would be far less than what we spend on Iraq every minute of every day. 

Unfortunately, if recent history is any teacher, I wouldn’t hold out hope for an initiative like this to change the face of American politics.  We have gone too far in the wrong direction, and restoring rational thought will likely take decades (assuming that it ever happens).  Still, it’s great to see innovative groups light MAPLight.org try to address the problem.

It’s no secret that the United States is engulfed in a culture of fear.  From Amber Alerts to a resurgence of homophobia, we seem to be scared of everything.  Local news stations in small towns will go far out of their way to report on any death that might have occurred.  And it’s not uncommon for violent news to dominate the airways.  Unfortunately, this often trumps more important and relevant news, like tax cuts for the rich and scientific research.

Could this be one of the reasons for the large numbers of Americans that are in prison?  The New York Times reports on statistics in American Exception: Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. 

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

…

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America’s extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice.

We have far fewer prisoners that the entire nation of China.  A lot of this information seems consistent with statistics cited in Michael Moore’s movie, Bowling for Columbine.  That movie explored Americans’ obsession with violence.

The sad thing is that imprisoning people should be a last resort.  The cost of housing a prisoner is tremendous (not to mention the lost opportunity cost of having an individual that cannot contribute to society in any way).  So what’s the cause?  The article offers some theories, but I think the rise of religion in the United States is partly to blame.  We showed how cowardly and blinded we could be after the September 11th attacks.  We follow a leader who says that God told him to attack a nation, completely unprovoked.  We watch for Amber Alerts that state that a “Gray Volkswagen” was involved in a kidnapping (how could that help anyone?).  Christians fear that a God that supposedly loves them would torture them for all eternity if they break some arbitrary rules.  When we can identify these people, why not lock them up to keep them away from the “good” people?

Living in any society comes with risks.  Unfortunately, it looks like Americans are so terrified of crime, that we would spend amazing amounts of money on removing people from society.

HightowerLowdown.org has recently published an excellent article that provides a breakdown of the State of our Union before and after the disastrous Bush/Cheney administration.  You can read about the details in What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy.  I have been paying attention to many of these numbers over the past several years, but some of these stats are just amazing.

Other “greatest hits” on the list, include an increase in military spending of 7.5%.  That’s astronomical.  Keep in mind that the U.S. was at peace before our manufactured invasion of Iraq. 

We can sum up most of these statistics by observing that just about anything that would be considered progressive or good for the citizens of the U.S. (healthcare, reasonable wages, cost of living) have suffered tremendously.  On the other hand, we’ve got another military disaster on our hands.  Is it worth the cost?