In a 1949 address at the University of California, Berkeley, Robert Oppenheimer highlighted the importance of openness and questioned the merits of aggressive foreign policies. He suggested these principles could be the cornerstone for a more rational and practical political system.
Delivered during the Cold War, a period of intense U.S.-Soviet tension, Oppenheimer’s emphasis on openness and collaboration was notably ahead of its time.
He also pointed out that openness alone cannot tackle the world’s complexities. Oppenheimer observed, “Navigating the subtle, the complex, and the unknown is not solely a political issue; it’s a challenge in science, everyday life, and even in art. The key often lies in ‘style.’ Style harmonizes assertiveness with restraint and humility, allowing for effective action rather than absolute dictates. In foreign policy, style enables us to reconcile our primary objectives with differing perspectives.”
As a scientist advocating for open dialogue, Oppenheimer raised concerns about the perils of exercising power without due consideration. He encouraged people to ponder, ‘How many nuclear weapons are necessary for our security?’ Even raising such a question was taboo and outside public discussion during that period. When dialogue is stifled, groupthink and confirmation bias can quickly take hold, especially in political or governmental settings where an ‘us versus them’ attitude is typical. The focus often shifts from addressing the other side’s concerns to simply defeating them.
The answer could be a political party systematically evaluating pros and cons, ensuring that opposing viewpoints are always considered in decision-making.
Oppenheimer faced challenges due to his youthful liberal interests and Jewish background; his emphasis on openness was at odds with those who adopted McCarthyism doctrine, which favored secrecy and ideological conformity. He criticized the culture of secrecy, stating that “secrecy robs the government of the collective wisdom of the community.”
What if we could build a new political party committed to open debate, Oppenheimer’s open society, and collective wisdom? I propose a party that supports candidates who make decisions based on comprehensive cost-benefit analyses and open debates. This party would use a transparent platform open to contributions from anyone, like Wikipedia, to evaluate policy options by identifying them and then ranking their likelihood and the strength of pro/con arguments and evidence.
From a technical standpoint, I propose using the Google PageRank algorithm, whose copywrite has expired, to rate the strength of arguments by their relationship to each other and by the collective strength of their pro/con subarguments. These arguments would be separated into separate debates to determine if each argument is free from logical fallacy, has been sufficiently verified, is essential, or would result in significant costs, benefits, or risks of adoption. Additional algorithms are available, but I fear I cannot explain them without losing your interest.
Such an approach could have averted past mistakes. Oppenheimer wisely noted, “Coercion won’t achieve our foreign policy goals.” Our history is filled with failed partnerships with leaders who claimed to be anti-communist but were anti-democratic and oppressive. Poorly informed decisions led us into expensive conflicts like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oppenheimer’s wisdom can guide us toward a better future. He reminded us that politics and science were once closely linked, and we should aim to reconnect them by making evidence-based decisions.
Let’s create an “Oppenheimer Party” that uses a disciplined approach to guide power through reason. This approach would structure arguments for and against, assess them with humility and take action within our confidence levels while continually improving the system.
The movie “Oppenheimer” is based on the book “American Prometheus,” which explores the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the key figure behind the development of the atomic bomb[1]. As a Jewish physicist, Oppenheimer was deeply moved by the Nazi persecution of Jews and felt that creating the bomb was essential to counter this threat[1][2]. However, he had reservations about deploying the bomb against Japan, a nation already on the verge of collapse[https://jpost.com/diaspora/article-750317].
After the war, Oppenheimer’s relationship with the U.S. government soured. He advocated for discussions on nuclear proliferation and sought collaboration with the Soviet Union to de-escalate the arms race[https://jpost.com/diaspora/article-750317]. Unfortunately, believing that no other country could develop nuclear capabilities, the government dismissed his concerns[1]. Oppenheimer also strongly opposed the creation of the hydrogen bomb and wanted to address this issue publicly to help rein in the arms race[1].
The film and the book highlight the era’s challenges, where anti-communist sentiment suppressed nuanced discussions and open debates[https://jpost.com/diaspora/article-750317]. Abroad and domestically, the U.S. often allied with authoritarian regimes due to its fear of communism, despite these regimes not aligning with American values[https://jpost.com/diaspora/article-750317]. The film suggests that U.S. military and political leaders should have been more open to democracy and differing opinions, even when faced with the threat of communism[https://jpost.com/diaspora/article-750317].
Looking back, Oppenheimer’s position appears justified. Russia eventually focused on downsizing its military and maintaining its police state rather than invading Western Europe or aligning with China for global communist dominance. Russia also had no plans to attack America.
In Vietnam, U.S. military and civilian leaders aligned with groups similar to America—Christian and anti-communist. Regrettably, these groups were authoritarian, corrupt, and persecuted in the Buddhist community. Their flawed approach not only wasted American lives and resources but also led to the sidelining and dismissal of Oppenheimer. This one-dimensional, black-and-white worldview, which equates listening to opposing views with treason rather than applying scientific skepticism, has resulted in the pointless loss of trillions of dollars and millions of lives and continues to jeopardize our future.
We should have prioritized promoting democracy, enhancing transparency, and fighting corruption rather than opposing communism. As history has demonstrated, communism was self-defeating and eventually collapsed under its weight [source](https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/12/79607/). If communism had been a viable system, collaborating rather than confronting would have been more pragmatic. For example, free K-12 education, a government-funded initiative, has been widely accepted without being labeled as communist. Similarly, government-funded police forces are far from a system where individuals are solely responsible for their own protection.
The real issue isn’t about being pro or anti-communist; it’s about structuring government programs to encourage competition, spur innovation, and boost efficiency [source 1](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2023/10/12/investing-in-america-to-create-fair-and-competitive-markets/), [source 2](https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/catalyst-energy-innovation-prize), [source 3](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/competition-innovation/). These intricate questions demand scientific inquiry and thoughtful deliberation, not just catchy slogans or polarizing language. They call for nuanced discussions that transcend a binary us-versus-them mindset [source 4](https://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Democracy), [source 5](https://blog.ipleaders.in/communism-vs-democracy).
Looking back, our focus should have been on upholding democratic values, fostering transparency, and combating corruption. These are the cornerstones of a robust, functioning society and are more effective in advancing social and economic progress than ideological opposition to communism. The downfall of communism wasn’t the result of external pressures but stemmed from its internal inconsistencies and flaws [source](https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/12/79607/), [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism).
It’s crucial to acknowledge that government programs can be designed to stimulate competition, incentivize innovation, and improve efficiency [source 1](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2023/10/12/investing-in-america-to-create-fair-and-competitive-markets/), [source 2](https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/catalyst-energy-innovation-prize). This necessitates a nuanced grasp of economic and social dynamics and a dedication to evidence-based policy-making. The goal isn’t to be pro or anti-communist but to build a fair, inclusive, and prosperous society.
In summary, we need to move past reductive and divisive language and engage in thoughtful, nuanced dialogues about the kind of society we aim to establish. This involves a commitment to democratic principles, transparency, and evidence-based decision-making. It also means acknowledging the inherent shortcomings of communism and focusing on shaping a society that fosters competition, rewards innovation, and enhances efficiency.
Frank Oppenheimer once articulated his aspiration to “make it possible for people to feel they can understand the world around them. If they give up understanding the physical world, they might also give up on understanding the social and political world” [5][9]. He envisioned a world where “human understanding ceases to be an instrument of power for the benefit of a few and instead becomes a source of empowerment and pleasure to all “[5][9].
However, the advent of the internet has not necessarily facilitated this understanding. Often, information is shared as propaganda and without context, which can hinder our comprehension of the world around us[2][6][13]. The lack of effort to group similar expressions of the same idea, organize pro and con arguments for each belief, and evaluate them based on the performance of their sub-arguments contributes to the confusion[7][11].
Consider, for instance, the debate around the shape of the Earth. Those educated on the topic have a wealth of information supporting the fact that the Earth is round. They understand that flat Earth arguments do not hold up to scrutiny. However, flat Earthers may not have seen their arguments disproven in a well-organized manner[8]. They form time-based arguments around others who agree with them based on their attention span and the specific details of their experiences. This lack of shared context and understanding can lead to a skewed world perception[2][8]. Therefore, human understanding only benefits those who have had the training to organize the strength of conclusions to the relative strength of the evidence and have learned the scientific method and how to interpret data while discounting confirmation bias[3][7][11]. However, this is all very complex.
The only path forward is to build forums that do this and show the strength of each pro/con sub-argument based on the strength of their sub-arguments[4][8]. We can build a website that keeps track of the relative validity of arguments and shows exactly why some arguments do or do not hold water[4]. We can separate arguments about an argument being free from logical fallacy, verification level, independence of verification, importance if assumed to be true, and each type of logical fallacy[7][11].
In the digital age, it is crucial to contextualize information and present it in a way that is accessible and understandable to all[2][4][8]. This involves linking conclusions to the supporting arguments and evidence and linking each of these to the evidence that they are or are not valid[7][11]. It involves creating a cost-benefit analysis for each plan and linking the assumed cost or benefit to the strength of the evidence that they are or are not likely[7][11]. This involves running debates through an automated conflict resolution forum that promotes the steps of conflict resolution, including identifying objective criteria that can best be used to determine the path forward for each debate, focusing on interests not positions (i.e., “winning” or “losing”), brainstorming solutions for mutual benefit, etc[4][8].
Building a forum that can effectively contextualize information and present it in a way that is accessible and understandable to all is a complex task, but it is essential if we want to promote human understanding and empowerment[4][8].
Citations:
[1] https://fsmstatistics.fm/frank-oppenheimer-quotes/
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/12/08/more-information-yields-more-learning-and-sharing/
[3] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00745
[4] https://blog.hubspot.com/service/how-to-create-a-forum-website
[5] https://quotestats.com/topic/frank-oppenheimer-quotes/
[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-internet-privacy-personal-information-priyanka-ahuja
[7] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/englishcomp1/chapter/organizing-an-argument/
[8] https://jisajournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13174-019-0120-0
[9] https://www.npr.org/2009/12/25/121908639/profiling-frank-oppenheimer
[10] https://www.nap.edu/read/6322/chapter/18
[11] https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/organizing_your_argument.html
[12] https://libquotes.com/frank-oppenheimer
[13] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.771278
[14] https://www.ideaedu.org/idea-notes-on-learning/learning-to-analyze-and-critically-evaluate-ideas-arguments-and-points-of-view/
[15] https://screenrant.com/oppenheimer-movie-best-quotes/
[16] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694565/
[17] https://www.linkedin.com/advice/3/how-do-you-ask-questions-challenge-clarify-arguments
[18] https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/308544.J_Robert_Oppenheimer
[19] https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/
[20] https://www.comm.pitt.edu/tips-listener-understanding-evaluating-reasoning
[21] https://www.exploratorium.edu/video/dr-frank-oppenheimer-random-quotes
[22] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789623/
[23] https://www.ncl.ac.uk/academic-skills-kit/study-skills/critical-thinking/using-evidence-to-support-your-argument/
[24] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/teens-have-never-known-world-without-data-sharing-it-s-ncna1254332
[25] https://www.universityofgalway.ie/academic-skills/criticalthinking/evaluatingargumentsandevidence/
Our fear of communism made us act irrationally then, and our fear of socialism often clouds our judgment today. Americans sometimes exhibit self-righteousness about not being communist or socialist. However, the true strengths of America lie in the separation of powers, traditions of peaceful transfer of power, and a commitment to accepting electoral losses.
When it comes to socialism, many aspects of it are already deeply ingrained in American society. Everyone appreciates universal K-12 education and government-funded roads, both of which have socialist elements. Similarly, overseas, countries like England, New Zealand, Canada, and the Scandinavian nations have successfully implemented single-payer healthcare systems that cost less per citizen and deliver better healthcare outcomes than the United States.
The conservative case for a single-payer system revolves around promoting competition and choice, dismantling healthcare monopolies, and separating health insurance from employment. It’s about finding an efficient system that works, not sticking with one that doesn’t. The conservative approach to healthcare emphasizes the value of preventative care over costly emergency healthcare. It’s about providing benefits that invest in the health and well-being of our citizens, rather than discretionary spending that might be wasted on poor decisions.
Let us define our values by investing in education that equips the future workforce with the necessary skills. While there might not be a conservative argument for certain academic disciplines, supporting fields like computer science and mathematics will benefit America in the long run.
Conservatives championing hard work and responsibility should also ensure everyone has an equal starting point. Medical bankruptcies, often beyond the individual’s control, do not serve anyone’s interests. If we can spend less per citizen while achieving better results, that is a fiscally responsible and conservative approach.
For Republicans, prioritizing cost-benefit analysis and seeking a return on investment should be fundamental. True conservatism hinges on financial prudence and making well-informed business decisions that benefit all citizens, regardless of labels like communism or socialism.
However, my commitment to the Republican ideology lies in valuing substance over symbolism and advocating for a system that doesn’t reward bad behavior while punishing good behavior. I believe in the free market when it functions effectively. But it’s crucial to avoid making decisions driven by emotions or self-esteem needs, defending the “market” as an ideal even when it falters. In the case of healthcare, pre-existing conditions disrupt the healthcare market’s functionality without external intervention. We should explore ways to improve it, but if we spend more than other countries for inferior results, it’s a sound business decision to cut our losses and adopt a pragmatic approach, even if it challenges our preconceived notions and simplistic summaries of our general problem-solving approach.
The connection between my thoughts and Oppenheimer may not be immediately apparent, but they are deeply intertwined with his ideas. His life reminds us that we must resist the temptation to oversimplify the world into a framework that doesn’t align with reality. It cautions against categorizing the world into neat definitions of black and white, doubting our doubts, and hiding from counterevidence [https://www.ias.edu/oppenheimer-legacy][https://www.britannica.com/biography/J-Robert-Oppenheimer].
The Spanish Civil War was a multifaceted conflict that pitted Republicans against Nationalists. The Republican faction consisted of a diverse coalition of socialist, communist, separatist, anarchist, and republican parties. On the other side, the Nationalists allied with Falangists, monarchists, conservatives, and traditionalists led by a military junta, with General Francisco Franco quickly rising to prominence.
The international political climate of the time led to varied interpretations of the war. It was viewed as a class struggle, a religious conflict, a battle between dictatorship and republican democracy, a clash of revolution and counterrevolution, and a confrontation between fascism and communism. Later, the global political landscape shifted, leading to the United States forming alliances with the Communists or Soviets against the fascists and Nazis. During this era, the Communist Party was active in the United States, and before revelations about the Gulags and the atrocities committed by Stalin’s regime, many intellectuals identified as communists and supported specific causes, such as desegregation, workers’ rights, and the democratically elected Republicans in Spain through the Communist party, including figures like Oppenheimer.
Many on the right accused FDR of socialism and Communism. Many in America still hate or love FDR. The times had been complex, but those who destroyed Oppenheimer didn’t see complexity. They started with the belief that “Communism is bad” to saying “anyone who had ever supported anything the communists supported” must be removed, no matter what unique skills they could contribute. This is wrong. Oppenheimer was a scientist, not a politician. We need experts in society, and destroying experts because they don’t accept simplistic views of the world, or fit within clean stories of us being Good and the other side being bad will only hurt ourselves. We need a professional political party that will appoint experts independent of which party they follow. We need the best and the brightest who don’t worship either political party or kneel and grovel to propagandists from both sides that want to pretend the world is more simple than it is.
We need a political party that isn’t caught up in the past’s black-and-white battles that pretend that anything FDR did was bad or everything he did was perfect. We need a political party that ignores if a plan can be said to be “liberal” or “conservative” or supports or hurts other grand views of history and accepts what works from either the left or the right. There have been countries with left and right big and small governments that have failed, and so that can’t be all that matters. We need the rule of law and peaceful transfer of power, elections have to matter.
Interestingly, I find myself defending things that other conservatives would call socialism, not because I am a socialist, but because I am a conservative who believes in the power of the free market, doing what works, and ensuring that our meritocracy isn’t just an excuse for an aristocracy and that kids do get a fair shot. Also, I want nothing to do with conservatives who defend government or business monopolies or the conservatives who see misguided market regulation as justification for all market un-regulation or any form of mobocracy, cleptocracy, or crony capitalism.
Conservatives must learn about and deal with the corruption and evil that can arise from an unchecked free market, leading to harmful outcomes, such as including lead in our gasoline long after we knew it was detrimental to our health. Fear of communism and terrorism have brought us both good and bad outcomes. My main point is that we need to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each issue separately and not let fear blind us to the fact that issues are distinct. The larger problem arises when we attempt to take shortcuts. We were correct in identifying the flaws of communism. However, we erred in endorsing everything that opposed communism, including McCarthyism and corrupt authoritarians, simply because they professed a hatred for communism[https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/hydrogen-bomb/page-15.html][https://socialist.net/oppenheimer-communism-mccarthyism-and-the-bomb/][https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200106/history.cfm].
This is a lesson I learned from Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was caught up in this oversimplification, and his individual life or evaluation didn’t matter; we had to sacrifice him on the altar of anti-communism. Like many intellectuals of his time, when Spain had democratically elected socialists and military-backed fascists, he sided with the democrats. He supported the socialists, and his removal was a witch hunt or a purity test[https://collider.com/oppenheimer-communist-true-story/][https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/oppenheimer-communism-workers-rights-history][https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-life-of-j-robert-oppenheimer-life-before-the-manhattan-project.htm]. He should have retained his security clearance, and we should have continued to consult with and learn from him. However, those who judged him were less intelligent than him, and their decision to cut him off ultimately harmed our country and continued the tradition of simple-minded bigots defending propaganda or one-sided storytelling instead of leaving their black-and-white lie[https://www.ias.edu/oppenheimer-legacy][https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/hydrogen-bomb/page-15.html][https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200106/history.cfm].
Citations:
[1] https://www.ias.edu/oppenheimer-legacy
[2] https://collider.com/oppenheimer-communist-true-story/
[3] https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/hydrogen-bomb/page-15.html
[4] https://www.britannica.com/biography/J-Robert-Oppenheimer
[5] https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/oppenheimer-communism-workers-rights-history
[6] http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/atomic/espionage/oppenheimer
[7] https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/8-wild-stories-about-j-robert-oppenheimer-the-father-of-the-atomic-bomb
[8] https://socialist.net/oppenheimer-communism-mccarthyism-and-the-bomb/
[9] https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200106/history.cfm
[10] https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-life-of-j-robert-oppenheimer-life-before-the-manhattan-project.htm
[11] https://www.socialistalternative.org/2023/10/05/oppenheimer-and-the-a-bomb-whose-truth/
[12] https://www.marxist.com/oppenheimer-communism-mccarthyism-and-the-bomb.htm
[13] https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/People/Administrators/robert-oppenheimer.html
[14] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/was-oppenheimer-soviet-spy-roundtable-discussion
[15] https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/brau/H182/Term%20papers%20F’00/Memmott.htm
[16] https://www.privatdozent.co/p/the-eccentric-and-ingenious-father-4ea
[17] https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/oppenheimer-review-masterful-exploration-of-history-anti-communism-and-the-atomic-ages-legacy/
[18] https://issues.org/br_tenner-5/
[19] https://fortune.com/2023/07/24/oppenheimer-atomic-bomb-soviet-russia-spy-mccarthy-history-harvard-kennedy/
[20] https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/profile/j-robert-oppenheimer/
[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_security_hearing
No comments:
Post a Comment