How to debate public policy

Jim Manzi recently did what all policy analysts and political economists are required to periodically do: he wrote about Negative Income Tax (NIT). NIT goes by numerous aliases, including Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI), Basic Income Guarantee (BIG), and Guaranteed Living Income (GLI), and is a streamlined welfare system that, in the words of the Basic Income Earth Network, involves "an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.”

Manzi does a fine job showing the system's flaws, which is not surprising; Manzi's good at what he does. What's most interesting to me is a general point about public policy debates that he makes in passing.   Regarding the apparent simplicity/'tidiness' advantage NIT/GLI has over the red-tape laden bureaucratic status quo, he notes:

it is the difference between an academic idea that has not yet been subjected to lobbying and legislation, on one hand, and real laws that are the product of a democratic process, on the other. ...[T]here is nothing inherent about an NIT that will prevent Congress from creating thousands of pages of special rules, exemptions, tax expenditures and so on, that are collectively just as convoluted as the current welfare system. After all, “tax each person a given fraction of income” is a pretty simple idea too, but look at the 2011 federal income tax code.

That's exactly correct. Being serious about policy requires us to be at least half serious about the political process and the people involved in it. What could this look like here? is a better question than what could this look like in starting-government-from-scratch-with-a-perfect-citizenry-and-perfect-politicians-ville? 

The key to Loughner’s politics might be an internet film

A popular internet conspiracy documentary called Zeitgeist, not talk-show rhetoric or his bookshelf, might be the key to understanding Jared Lee Loughner’s eclectic and twisted politics. The parts of his worldview that can be pieced together from his YouTube videos, internet chat logs and his classmates’ and former friends’ comments, suggest he accepts the semicoherent ideology of a particular meta-conspiracy theory based fringe. Zeitgeist represents, and drives, its current manifestation.

Loughner’s political and social views, as best as we can piece together, revolve around four seemingly unrelated planks: a) religions are false and evil; b) non-gold backed currency is illegitimate; c) 9/11 was an inside job used as a pretext for two illegal wars; and, d) government and media are out to control thoughts.

Many people have noticed Loughner’s attraction to conspiracies. What suggests Zeitgeist might be a key to his beliefs is its uniqueness among the many other conspiracy theory documentaries circulating the internet. Zeitgeist stands out for its willingness to tie the thesis of the “Truther” movement – that the attacks were an ‘inside job’ - to a number of other conspiracy theories, some traditionally associated with the political left, some with the political right. The result is a semi-coherent meta-theory.

Zeitgeist was created by Peter Joseph. It was ‘officially’ released in 2007, although early permutations had already circulated. It’s been subsequently recut and given a strange pseudo-religious sequel. Zeitgeist’s thesis can be summarized as this: a) all the world’s religions share a common set of beliefs and are used by the rich and powerful to manipulate and control people’s minds; b) contemporary currency policy, most importantly central banking, is unconstitutional and is structured for the enrichment of these same nefarious elites; c) 9/11 was an ‘inside job’, perpetuated by these same actors; d) the media cannot be trusted to report these truths because it is also under their control.

These correspond very well with the picture we now have of Loughner’s political fixations, listed above.

The film’s theses a), b), and d), are, of course, generations old. In many respects, Zeitgeist is just the Protocols of the Elders of Zion updated for the 21st century, and without the explicit ‘blame Jews’ angle. It should be noted that Loughner’s target, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish. It takes few steps to reinsert the anti-Semitic angle into the Zeitgeist narrative.

Of course, no movie, and no conspiracy theory, is the singular cause of an unspeakable act of political violence. Early indications are that Loughner may have suffered from a delusional mental illness. John Hinckley Jr, who shot President Reagan, and James J. Lee, who stormed the Discovery Channel building last fall, were mentally ill. Both also had an obsession, one with a celebrity, one with a pet cause. Loughner may be like them, with political obsessions strikingly similar to those pushed in Zeitgiest . He could also be like Dan White, Harvey Milk's killer. With White, illness and an obsessive idea are like the proverbial chicken and the egg.

Most of the millions who’ve viewed Zeitgeist, including most of those who believe it, continue to function normally in society. They hold the beliefs in a ‘symbolic manner’ – where their ‘special knowledge’ is somehow walled off from their behaviours. The belief functions as a placeholder for general discontent, and has little consequence in how the person lives. This, according to Julian Sanchez, is what allows for a significant number of Democrats to believe that the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of, or even planned, the 9/11 attacks, and for a large minority of Republicans to believe that Obama’s a secret Muslim “Manchurian Candidate”, without having to devote themselves to the drastic measures those beliefs would logically entail. There is, however, a fringe of the fringe, most often adult males with some history of mental illness, whose twisted beliefs turn into horrific actions.

Zeitgeist’s devotees claim, with some credibility, that the film is among the most downloaded in the Internet’s history. It appears, from his anti-religious, pseudo-libertarian, gold and banking obsessed electronic trail, that Loughner was one of those who took it seriously.

Update I: Between the time I wrote this and the time I posted it, this AP article appeared.  In it, the parents of a friend of Loughner provide this insight into his movie viewing: "Loughner's favorites included little-known conspiracy theory documentaries such as 'Zeitgeist' and 'Loose Change'."

Update II: That friend has now spoken to the press. This ABC news story quotes him as saying "I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in."

It looks like I had it right.

Update III: Now The Daily Beast is all over this angle. This story looks at Zeitgeist specifically, while this looks at the his crazy views more generally.