Choosing the Right Reason

An article today in the science and health section of the Washington Post was all about the possible effects of aluminum exposure as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease – it’s likely and very common, but no one knows for sure.  Another health article was from the Consumers’ Union, warning about common myths regarding antioxidant dietary supplements.  It was all about current findings in the effectiveness of antioxidants in eliminating free radicals, about how they operate and about how to choose between them – a worthwhile article, but it  neglected the major current finding, as reported in Scientific American, that  some amounts of free radicals have been shown in lab studies to increase longevity.  So, highly effective antioxidants might actually shorten your life span.  Another continuing science issue being reported on, though not in this particular edition, is the effects of climate change, a subject of controversy for years now as the weather around us gets weirder and weirder.

Also being reported in the politics section of the Post is the raging controversy in the Republican Party over the costs and benefits of immigration reform.  Jim DeMint, head of the Heritage Foundation and a bitter foe of immigration reform, has issued a report saying the proposed reform will cost taxpayers 6.3 trillion dollars.  He summarizes his argument in a Post article.  Reform proponents are crying foul and citing the many omissions and errors in the calculations, while claiming that to the contrary, reform will boost the economy to new heights and reap a handsome profit.  One of the major errors they cite is that DeMint has included as a cost the retirement and healthcare benefits paid to immigrants after they become citizens; proponents note that they are rights available to all citizens and shouldn’t be charged as costs in the analysis.    But they would be citizens as a result of immigration reform.  As someone who’s done a number of economic analyses, I could make a case for either point of view.  Newspapers on principle print conflicting views, both in science and in politics, and it is up to the reader to work out the truths.  That is why bad science continues to flourish alongside good science, and that is why dubiously motivated political writing continues also.  The best guide for the reader is always to remain sensitive to the motivation of the writer.  Things are always written for a purpose, to clarify or to obscure, to put forward one point of view or another.  The Post has gone so far as to issue a disclaimer to its own article, but why it did so is also subject to challenge.

Science and politics share the trait that they generally progress through incremental experimentation, not by quantum leaps.  Even Newton claimed that his success was because he stood on the shoulders of giants.  And Newtonian physics was eventually replaced by Einstein.  Our nation at its founding was viewed as a great experiment, and Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, reflected the continuance of that experiment.  Reaping profits on immigration is not what the "great experiment" is all about. It is, as Lincoln noted, dedication to the proposition that all men are created equal. At any point the full truth is elusive and not fully visible. Aluminum may or may not cause Alzheimer’s, antioxidants may or may not improve health, our recent weather may or may not be the result of climate change, and immigration reform may or may not be a net economic benefit. There is large room for controversy, and it always exists. That is true both in science and politics.  The recent movie, Lincoln, is a wonderful portrayal of just how that political process worked out in Washington in the 1860’s.  What is clear to us now was the subject of strenuous disagreement among men of good conscience 150 years ago.

Machiavelli, in his advice to the Prince, remarked that for every new thing, there are many reasons it should not succeed and only one why it should, and that the Prince should choose the one.  That remains true today.  The real issue with immigration reform is choosing the right reason, and that reason has little to do with economics.  The reason for immigration reform is that it is a moral imperative in order for us to remain true to our principles as a nation.  I personally believe with the Post and other proponents that reform will provide major economic benefits, but that is secondary.  We as a nation simply cannot look at ourselves honestly while denying the very principles on which our ancestors founded us.  And we must remain honest with ourselves, or we lose our future.