A Political Example

Modern campaigns often rely upon sound bites, mind bites, eye candy and mind candy to sell candidates, whether they be running on the left or the right. Much campaigning is done with 15 and 30 second campaign ads that compress complicated issues into simple one line solutions.

It seems that few citizens have the time or the inclination to visit the candidates' Web sites where they would usually find lengthy white papers outlining the candidates' positions on the issues of the day. The thirst for simple, brief answers to complicated problems is met by simplistic solutions that often make little sense. Combined with voters' general dislike of pain and sacrifice, the policy options offered by hopeful candidates rarely involve either.

The current issue of high gas prices is a good example. Voters see this as a crucial issue in most countries, but politicians have a difficult time selling conservation as a viable policy option. In the USA presidential election, both major party candidates who previously opposed offshore drilling have shifted their stances as polls have shown citizens want more oil now and want more drilling now, even though most experts have testified that it might take 6-8 years or longer before any of this new drilling would bring more oil to market and even though the oil involved might be a "drop in the bucket."

"Suppose the US produced all its oil domestically," said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. "Do you think oil companies would sell oil to US consumers for one cent less than they could get from French consumers? No. Where oil comes from has no effect on price." Source: "New offshore drilling not a quick fix, analysts say." June 20, 2008 in the Boston Globe, by Lisa Wangsness.

According to the experts quoted in the above article, "about 86 billion barrels of additional oil may lie offshore, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration. Of that amount, about 18 billion barrels are subject to the moratorium. Much of the rest lies in areas that are too expensive to exploit or that oil companies have not yet tapped for technical reasons, fueling the industry's desire for fresh territory."

Furthermore, the article claims, "It would take at least a decade for oil companies to obtain permits, procure equipment, and do the exploration necessary to get the oil out of the ground, most industry analysts say."

Both Obama and McCain now have energy policies that seek independence from foreign sources over the next decade, trusting to new alternatives but suggesting little in the way of conservation or sacrifice. It is interesting to compare their comments about energy in their acceptance speeches:

Senator Obama's Comments about Energy

Senator McCain's Comments about Energy

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. (APPLAUSE) We will do this. Washington -- Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years. And, by the way, John McCain has been there for 26 of them. (LAUGHTER) And in that time, he has said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil than we had on the day that Senator McCain took office. Now is the time to end this addiction and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution, not even close. (APPLAUSE) As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. OBAMA: And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.

My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It’s an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It’s time for us to show the world again how Americans lead. This great national cause will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.

When their ideas are placed side by side, it is difficult to distinguish between them, in part because their positions are thin on specifics, another version of the "evidence gap" that is the focus of this article. What is missing from their words are clear facts about their track records, other than the attacks made by their opponents.

Obama attacks McCain for his lack of support for higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, investments in renewable energy, and renewable fuels.

McCain attacks Obama for his lack of support for offshore drilling.

Numbers Do Not Lie, But Some People Lie with Numbers

Obama promises to spend "$150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy," but the number, while impressive, is abstract and difficult to grasp. McCain counters with talk about an ambitious project that will, among many other things, ". . . increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles." He not does explain how these things will happen. He does not provide specifics or details, but neither does Obama.

To be fair to both candidates, an acceptance speech is expected to be inspirational - a dramatic and moving piece of oratory that cannot be weighted down with too much in the way of specifics or evidence without endangering the opportunity to "rally the base." Appeals to emotion seem strategically wise, while sharp edged specifics would seem risky.

Simple ideas, neatly packaged, have great appeal in such speeches. Thus we heard avid party loyalists chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill!" as the McCain outlined his position.

Big numbers like Obama's promise of a $150 billion investment in alternative energy sources are impressive but unnerving. They resonate. They impress. But they also inspire skepticism. Where will he find this money? If we go to his campaign Web site looking for specifics, we do not find them, even if we download the full text of "NEW ENERGY FOR AMERICA" at http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy It is a big number, for sure, but there is no place in the four page document that clarifies how it will be spent or how it will be funded. There seems to be an evidence gap.

McCain also threw around some big numbers, promising that his plan would help us, "stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much." Astute commentators quickly pointed out that the number he used is the total trade deficit, not the trade deficit for oil, and that much of the number was spent on goods produced by so-called friends.

There seems to be an evidence gap.

CBS News reported on September 11, 2008 that, "The big rise in oil prices, with the average barrel of imported crude jumping to a record $124.66, pushed overall imports up by 3.9 percent to a record $230.3 billion." "U.S. Trade Deficit Soars; Oil Imports Rise." "Countries that don’t like us very much," is a clever and emotionally appealing sentiment, but it clouds over the facts. Much of the oil we import comes from Canada and friends, as explained by the U.S. Government Web site, The Energy Information Administration.

About Half of U.S. Petroleum Imports Come from the Western Hemisphere

Some may be surprised to learn that almost 50% of U.S. crude oil and petroleum products imports came from the Western Hemisphere (North, South, and Central America and the Caribbean including U.S. territories) during 2006. We imported only 16% of our crude oil and petroleum products from the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. During 2007, our five biggest suppliers of crude oil and petroleum products were:

* Canada (18.2%)
* Mexico (11.4%)
* Saudi Arabia (11.0%)
* Venezuela (10.1%)
* Nigeria (8.4%)

It turns out that the biggest problem is our dependence on oil, not our dependence on oil from "countries that don’t like us very much." Once we close the "evidence gap," a very different picture emerges than the one McCain hoped to evoke.

Truthiness

When politicians throw around large numbers or purport to believe in things they have never acted upon, when they wish to be seen green when they are really gray, or when they hope to be seen as well informed when they are really ignorant, they are flirting with what Stephen Colbert has called "truthiness."

Stephen Colbert defines truthiness as "The quality by which one purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or intellectual examination".

When students and citizens learn to poke below the surface claims and demand evidence to substantiate claims and positions, truthiness melts away like the wicked witch (image) in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Closing the evidence gap is like throwing water on the witch.