The Opposite of Fascism
Last week Lee Siegel of the The New Republic wrote a widely-mocked series of posts accusing left-leaning bloggers of being, literally, fascists. It's hard to understate just how profoundly stupid such an accusation is, and for that reason, I don't want to give it any more attention than it is due.
But his post has value as a conversation starter, if nothing else. Particularly his assertion that liberal bloggers exhibit a disdain for the "processes of politics". I happen to think the exact opposite is true. Left-leaning bloggers are all over the place on policy issues; the inability to reach a consensus is a trademark of the left. But if there is one thing nearly all left-leaning bloggers do share, it is genuine belief in the importance of process.
For example, the primary object of Siegel's scorn, Markos Moulitsas, is concerned with process and little else. His book (which is surprisingly good, by the way) is devoted solely to an extended discussion of process-related issues. His stated goal is to empower people by freeing our political process of the influence of special interests and the unhealthy dominance of the D.C.-based party establishment. And the Daily Kos itself is not so much a blog as it is a forum, a platform for people to create and share their own blogs. Kos's goal is not so much to persuade people directly, but to give people a voice and a platform from which to persuade others. You can disagree with Kos--I often do--but to accuse him of harboring a disdain for process is completely ass backwards.
Even the more traditional liberal blogs invariably have lively comment sections where readers interact with the author and with each other. Contrast that with the typical conservative blog where comments are not allowed and readers are merely passive recipients of the blogger's "wisdom."
It's hard to think of a process more fundamental to liberal democracy than the open exchange of ideas, and, at least by that metric, the liberal blogosphere truly excels.
But I think this belief in the importance of democratic processes can be seen elsewhere as well. Consider, for example, the prevailing liberal critique of the media. Left-leaning blogs are often highly critical of the traditional media, but what drives this criticism is a desire to see the media function as it is supposed to, as a watchdog and a check on the power of the political branches of government. Liberals don't want to undermine or co-opt the media; they want to fix it, to rid it of its bad habits and snap it out of its complacency.
Conservative media critics, on the other hand, seem more intent on emasculating the media through intimidation. At this very moment, any number of conservative bloggers (and even a member of Congress) are calling for the criminal prosecution of the New York Times. When not threatening the media, conservative critics focus on undermining its credibility or subverting its independence. The relentless cries of 'liberal bias' are intended to politicize the media and thereby cast a cloud of suspicion over all reporting. Partisan outlets like Fox News, paid propagandists like Armstrong Williams, and the government-funded fake news reports sent to local affiliates all represent attempts to co-opt the media by taking advantage of its perceived independence. And needless to say, all of these strategies show disdain for, not belief in, core democratic processes.
I think the differing value placed on process expresses itself in an even more fundamental way, however, in the rhetorical tactics and methods of persuasion utilized by conservatives and liberals. Let me preface what I'm about to say by acknowledging that I'm speaking in generalities, and that there are plenty of individual conservatives and liberals who defy this characterization.
Generally, however, I think left-leaning bloggers/commentators/politicians attempt to persuade others of the correctness of their policies by presenting them with the arguments they personally find the most persuasive, the arguments that convinced them. Liberals genuinely believe they are right and are convinced that if they can just explain their reasoning clearly, others will be persuaded as well. As a result, liberals tend to frown upon the use of what I'll call, for lack of a better term, 'proxy arguments'. By 'proxy argument', I mean an argument you offer in lieu of the real reasons you support a particular policy. You may not personally believe the proxy argument, but you see it as useful in persuading others to support your preferred policy.
I think liberals tend to believe that resorting to such arguments is a sign of intellectual defeat, a concession that your real arguments aren't strong enough to carry the day. It is rare, I think, to see a liberal who believes that a particular policy is so important that it's worth offering disingenuous arguments in order to persuade people to support it. Ends rarely trump means. Moreover, there's a sense that if an idea isn't capable of commanding majority support on its own merits, maybe it's not such a great idea after all. Again, this stems from a belief in the intrinsic value of democratic processes.
On the right-leaning side of the political sphere, however, proxy arguments are commonplace. For instance, during the debate over social security reform, the primary argument put forth by the Bush administration was that the social security program was in imminent danger of bankruptcy and therefore had to be overhauled. This argument was, to put it mildly, total bunk. But more importantly, it wasn't the argument actually motivating the push for social security reform. Conservatives were driven instead by a deep-seated antipathy toward a program they'd long viewed as little more than naked socialism. The bankruptcy argument was just a proxy argument designed to convince others of the need for reform.
Republican tax policy is another good example. Any number of arguments have been offered over the years to justify tax cuts, from claims that tax cuts actually increase revenue to stories about the loss of small businesses and family farms. These are all proxy arguments designed for public consumption. The fact is that most conservatives just think, as a matter of principle, that capital should be not taxed and that wage/consumption taxes should be flat, not progressive.
The lead up to the invasion of Iraq provided a classic example of this phenomenon. While the administration ostensibly claimed that we needed to invade Iraq because of Saddam's WMD and his supposed links to al-Qaeda, it was always pretty clear that the architects of the war had other motivations, most notably the neoconservative fantasy of re-shaping the Middle-East and the desire to finish what they'd started in the first Gulf War.
With respect to immigration, conservatives argue for tough border enforcement polices by pointing to the risk of terrorists crossing the border. Sadly, this is all too often a proxy argument masking deeper, less politically-correct motivations.
On the issue of gay marriage, socially conservative politicians and commentators claim that we must protect and preserve the institution of marriage. But seeing as they are not trying to ban divorce, this is a rather transparent proxy argument. Their real concerns have little to do with marriage per se and everything to do with a desire not to "legitimize" homosexuality.
But all this begs the question of why? Why rely on proxy arguments instead of genuinely held ones? There are generally two reasons. The first, less objectionable reason, is that you are convinced that your real arguments are just too complex for most people to understand. This justification smacks of paternalism and elitism, but it is at least understandable in some contexts. The more common reason, however, is that you just don't think your real arguments are capable of persuading enough people; you fear that if people know the real reasons you support a particular policy, many of them won't support it. I suspect this is the rationale behind many of the proxy arguments catalogued above. I think that, at least with respect to these issues, conservatives just aren't confident that their real arguments are capable of convincing a sufficient number of Americans. So they try to convince people to support their policies for other reasons.
There's nothing inherently unethical about that. Not all proxy arguments lack merit. Often legitimate arguments are co-opted by people who have ulterior motives for seeking enactment of a particular policy. And just because your real arguments aren't capable commanding majority support doesn't mean you're not right.
The willingness to deploy proxy arguments, however, necessarily reflects a more utilitarian, ends-oriented approach to governance. You have to believe that the importance of the ends you seek justify the use of disingenuous tactics. I think the problem is that, all too often, this sort of worldview leads one to develop a disdain for process. Hallmarks of democracy--governmental transparency, public debate, a free and independent media--are too often seen as liabilities, not assets; they're viewed as obstacles to be overcome.
For whatever reason, this sort of worldview seems to be more common on the right side of the political spectrum. In fact, I can't think of any recent examples of obvious proxy arguments advanced by the Democratic party (I can think of many examples of Democrats endorsing policies, for political purposes, that they don't really believe--opposition to gay marriage, support of flag burning amendment, etc.--but that's a different phenomenon entirely).
To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that the arguments advanced by left-leaning commentators and politicians are, as a substantive matter, inherently more persuasive or correct. But I do think they are, at least on average, more likely to be genuinely-held (obviously, people can and do genuinely believe bad arguments). And I think this is explained by a belief in the importance of democratic processes.
In fact, I think this belief in the importance of process is the defining aspect of liberalism. It's why I consider myself a liberal, despite the fact that I disagree with the prevailing liberal position on a number of discreet policy issues. As I wrote in my very first blog post:
I think that the left-leaning blogosphere very much embodies this conception of liberalism (which is about as far from fascism as you can possibly get). Yes, liberal bloggers (myself included) have been known to say dumb things and to advance misguided arguments. We're human. But however misguided, the things said on the left-side of the blogosphere almost always represent genuinely held beliefs, not proxy arguments. And they are laid out in the open where anyone who feels so inclined can have at them with a pointed or derogatory comment (as I'm sure many of you will do with this post). We accept and value that exchange. How utterly fascist of us.
But his post has value as a conversation starter, if nothing else. Particularly his assertion that liberal bloggers exhibit a disdain for the "processes of politics". I happen to think the exact opposite is true. Left-leaning bloggers are all over the place on policy issues; the inability to reach a consensus is a trademark of the left. But if there is one thing nearly all left-leaning bloggers do share, it is genuine belief in the importance of process.
For example, the primary object of Siegel's scorn, Markos Moulitsas, is concerned with process and little else. His book (which is surprisingly good, by the way) is devoted solely to an extended discussion of process-related issues. His stated goal is to empower people by freeing our political process of the influence of special interests and the unhealthy dominance of the D.C.-based party establishment. And the Daily Kos itself is not so much a blog as it is a forum, a platform for people to create and share their own blogs. Kos's goal is not so much to persuade people directly, but to give people a voice and a platform from which to persuade others. You can disagree with Kos--I often do--but to accuse him of harboring a disdain for process is completely ass backwards.
Even the more traditional liberal blogs invariably have lively comment sections where readers interact with the author and with each other. Contrast that with the typical conservative blog where comments are not allowed and readers are merely passive recipients of the blogger's "wisdom."
It's hard to think of a process more fundamental to liberal democracy than the open exchange of ideas, and, at least by that metric, the liberal blogosphere truly excels.
But I think this belief in the importance of democratic processes can be seen elsewhere as well. Consider, for example, the prevailing liberal critique of the media. Left-leaning blogs are often highly critical of the traditional media, but what drives this criticism is a desire to see the media function as it is supposed to, as a watchdog and a check on the power of the political branches of government. Liberals don't want to undermine or co-opt the media; they want to fix it, to rid it of its bad habits and snap it out of its complacency.
Conservative media critics, on the other hand, seem more intent on emasculating the media through intimidation. At this very moment, any number of conservative bloggers (and even a member of Congress) are calling for the criminal prosecution of the New York Times. When not threatening the media, conservative critics focus on undermining its credibility or subverting its independence. The relentless cries of 'liberal bias' are intended to politicize the media and thereby cast a cloud of suspicion over all reporting. Partisan outlets like Fox News, paid propagandists like Armstrong Williams, and the government-funded fake news reports sent to local affiliates all represent attempts to co-opt the media by taking advantage of its perceived independence. And needless to say, all of these strategies show disdain for, not belief in, core democratic processes.
I think the differing value placed on process expresses itself in an even more fundamental way, however, in the rhetorical tactics and methods of persuasion utilized by conservatives and liberals. Let me preface what I'm about to say by acknowledging that I'm speaking in generalities, and that there are plenty of individual conservatives and liberals who defy this characterization.
Generally, however, I think left-leaning bloggers/commentators/politicians attempt to persuade others of the correctness of their policies by presenting them with the arguments they personally find the most persuasive, the arguments that convinced them. Liberals genuinely believe they are right and are convinced that if they can just explain their reasoning clearly, others will be persuaded as well. As a result, liberals tend to frown upon the use of what I'll call, for lack of a better term, 'proxy arguments'. By 'proxy argument', I mean an argument you offer in lieu of the real reasons you support a particular policy. You may not personally believe the proxy argument, but you see it as useful in persuading others to support your preferred policy.
I think liberals tend to believe that resorting to such arguments is a sign of intellectual defeat, a concession that your real arguments aren't strong enough to carry the day. It is rare, I think, to see a liberal who believes that a particular policy is so important that it's worth offering disingenuous arguments in order to persuade people to support it. Ends rarely trump means. Moreover, there's a sense that if an idea isn't capable of commanding majority support on its own merits, maybe it's not such a great idea after all. Again, this stems from a belief in the intrinsic value of democratic processes.
On the right-leaning side of the political sphere, however, proxy arguments are commonplace. For instance, during the debate over social security reform, the primary argument put forth by the Bush administration was that the social security program was in imminent danger of bankruptcy and therefore had to be overhauled. This argument was, to put it mildly, total bunk. But more importantly, it wasn't the argument actually motivating the push for social security reform. Conservatives were driven instead by a deep-seated antipathy toward a program they'd long viewed as little more than naked socialism. The bankruptcy argument was just a proxy argument designed to convince others of the need for reform.
Republican tax policy is another good example. Any number of arguments have been offered over the years to justify tax cuts, from claims that tax cuts actually increase revenue to stories about the loss of small businesses and family farms. These are all proxy arguments designed for public consumption. The fact is that most conservatives just think, as a matter of principle, that capital should be not taxed and that wage/consumption taxes should be flat, not progressive.
The lead up to the invasion of Iraq provided a classic example of this phenomenon. While the administration ostensibly claimed that we needed to invade Iraq because of Saddam's WMD and his supposed links to al-Qaeda, it was always pretty clear that the architects of the war had other motivations, most notably the neoconservative fantasy of re-shaping the Middle-East and the desire to finish what they'd started in the first Gulf War.
With respect to immigration, conservatives argue for tough border enforcement polices by pointing to the risk of terrorists crossing the border. Sadly, this is all too often a proxy argument masking deeper, less politically-correct motivations.
On the issue of gay marriage, socially conservative politicians and commentators claim that we must protect and preserve the institution of marriage. But seeing as they are not trying to ban divorce, this is a rather transparent proxy argument. Their real concerns have little to do with marriage per se and everything to do with a desire not to "legitimize" homosexuality.
But all this begs the question of why? Why rely on proxy arguments instead of genuinely held ones? There are generally two reasons. The first, less objectionable reason, is that you are convinced that your real arguments are just too complex for most people to understand. This justification smacks of paternalism and elitism, but it is at least understandable in some contexts. The more common reason, however, is that you just don't think your real arguments are capable of persuading enough people; you fear that if people know the real reasons you support a particular policy, many of them won't support it. I suspect this is the rationale behind many of the proxy arguments catalogued above. I think that, at least with respect to these issues, conservatives just aren't confident that their real arguments are capable of convincing a sufficient number of Americans. So they try to convince people to support their policies for other reasons.
There's nothing inherently unethical about that. Not all proxy arguments lack merit. Often legitimate arguments are co-opted by people who have ulterior motives for seeking enactment of a particular policy. And just because your real arguments aren't capable commanding majority support doesn't mean you're not right.
The willingness to deploy proxy arguments, however, necessarily reflects a more utilitarian, ends-oriented approach to governance. You have to believe that the importance of the ends you seek justify the use of disingenuous tactics. I think the problem is that, all too often, this sort of worldview leads one to develop a disdain for process. Hallmarks of democracy--governmental transparency, public debate, a free and independent media--are too often seen as liabilities, not assets; they're viewed as obstacles to be overcome.
For whatever reason, this sort of worldview seems to be more common on the right side of the political spectrum. In fact, I can't think of any recent examples of obvious proxy arguments advanced by the Democratic party (I can think of many examples of Democrats endorsing policies, for political purposes, that they don't really believe--opposition to gay marriage, support of flag burning amendment, etc.--but that's a different phenomenon entirely).
To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that the arguments advanced by left-leaning commentators and politicians are, as a substantive matter, inherently more persuasive or correct. But I do think they are, at least on average, more likely to be genuinely-held (obviously, people can and do genuinely believe bad arguments). And I think this is explained by a belief in the importance of democratic processes.
In fact, I think this belief in the importance of process is the defining aspect of liberalism. It's why I consider myself a liberal, despite the fact that I disagree with the prevailing liberal position on a number of discreet policy issues. As I wrote in my very first blog post:
[L]iberalism, when properly understood, is not
simply a collection of positions on various issues.
Nor is it a philosophy concerning the proper role
of government in people's lives (like libertarianism
or statism). Liberalism, in its truest and most
noble form, is an epistemology; it is a way of
approaching problems through the use of
empiricism and the application of universal
principles of justice. A true liberal is defined not
by what he believes on any given issue, but by
how he arrived at his conclusions.
I think that the left-leaning blogosphere very much embodies this conception of liberalism (which is about as far from fascism as you can possibly get). Yes, liberal bloggers (myself included) have been known to say dumb things and to advance misguided arguments. We're human. But however misguided, the things said on the left-side of the blogosphere almost always represent genuinely held beliefs, not proxy arguments. And they are laid out in the open where anyone who feels so inclined can have at them with a pointed or derogatory comment (as I'm sure many of you will do with this post). We accept and value that exchange. How utterly fascist of us.
posted by A.L. at 7:00 AM
18 Comments:
Liberalism, in its truest and most
noble form, is an epistemology; it is a way of
approaching problems through the use of
empiricism and the application of universal
principles of justice. A true liberal is defined not
by what he believes on any given issue, but by
how he arrived at his conclusions.
Essentially, you seem to be claiming that liberalism has no content, that it's constituted more by form and process. I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm a liberal, but I am happy to acknowledge that there are many, many, very principled conservatives out there who consider themselves (and correctly, I believe) empiricists. Andrew Sullivan, for example, has a whole theory about how "true" conservatism is based on skepticism and doubt and is thus always subject to empirical evidence. To suggest that liberals somehow have a monopoly on rational thought strikes me as about as arrogant and outrageous as saying that conservatives have a monopoly on patriotism.
The difference between liberals and conservatives boils down to the irreducible principles that each side starts out with. I would argue that one of the chief differences is where you come down on the conflict between liberty and equality, an issue that Tocqueville pointed to almost two hundred years ago. Those who believe that individual liberty is the chief good want minimal government influence in their lives and tend to be conservatives (often libertarians). Those who think societal equality is the ultimate goal want government intervention to promote that goal and tend to be liberals. Once one of those initial premises is accepted, it's perfectly possible to construct a rational argument, based on real-word evidence, for just about any policy you can imagine. It's all about where you start from. The really interesting question is why we choose the starting points we do. But that's just further proof that the liberal-conservative divide is about content, not form.
Dear Anonymous Liberal:
You speak well for and about yourself, but not for the collection
of people who tend to vote like you. At least as it looks to me. Liberals are full of disingenuous arguments, maybe almost as full as conservatives. How did Michael Moore's manipulative largely content-free film win awards? Why did liberals pick Kerry with his war-hero status when they personally are largely repelled by people who have killed in war? Why do liberals complain about high gas prices when higher gas prices are what is needed for most liberal ends? Why oppose the death penalty because of the probability of innocents being killed when the objection would be as strong if only the surely-guilty were executed? Why chant "right to choose!" without noting that there is a competion of rights, and the issue really is about who is and who is not a human?
I wish you were right, but in my experience liberals will take
any argument they can use. In the case of Michael Moore's film,
say, I think this lack of respect for sincere argument backfired.
May your following grow and your principles spread.
-Andy
I am confused by your use of the term "proxy argument." Suppose that I believe x and am convinced by argument y that believing x entails holding position z. Suppose further that I do not believe a but am, nevertheless, convinced by argument b that believing a also entails holding position z. I learn that you believe a but not x so I point out argument b to you in order to convince you of position z. Am I advancing a proxy argument? Is this disingenuous? If so, how?
a Very Unimportant Person
Anonymous #1:
I do think the defining characteristic of liberalism its approach to issues, not it's conclusions (hences the Betrand Russel quote at the top of the page). That said, when people approach an issue similary, they often reach the same conclusions.
As for Sullivan, he's a good example. He alternatively describes himself as a "true conservative" and a "classical liberal". I think his he's a "classical liberal." He doesn't have much in common with modern conservatism.
Anonymous #2:
You raise fair points. Like I said, I was generalizing. But I do think there are far more examples of conservatives using disingenous proxy arguments than liberals.
As for Michael Moore, I agree that he tends to employ rather weak, often cheap arguments. But, for what it's worth, I get the sense that he actually believes them (at least most of them). I don't get that sense with most conservative shills (Coutler, Hannity, etc.). I think they know they're lying.
VUP:
Not sure I follow the alegbra, but let me try to explain my point. Suppose I think X is good policy primarily for reason A, but also for reason B. The most benign form of proxy argument is when I argue for policy X based on reason B, without making it clear that I'm primarly motivated by reason A. The more sinister type of proxy argument is when I argue for policy X based on reason C, which I don't believe at all.
a.l. your explaination of "rational expression" makes no sense. I suggest you go back to simple expressions.
a.l.:
Thank you for replying. I guess my question was not as clear as I thought it was. Let me illustrate the issue with a silly example. Suppose that I believe that bananas are very yummy (x) and am conviced by the argument that if bananas are yummy banana splits contain bananas so one should buy a banana split (argument y) that we should, in fact buy a banana split (position z.) Now I am largely indifferent to icecream and if there were no bananas in a banana split, I would rather get a banana creme pie. I know that you in turn are largely indifferent to bananas but consider icecream to be supremely yummy (a) and I believe that if icecream is yummy then banana splits contain icecream so one should buy banana splits (argument b) means that if one considers icecream yummy then one should buy a banana split. I find (b) unconvincing since I am indifferent to icecream and so the premise fails for me. Is it now sinister for me to advance agument (b) to you instead (y) which is irrelevant to you since you are indifferent to bananas? Or are you thinking of something along the lines of argument e: if one likes gymnastics then splits are part of gymnastics so one should buy a banana split? I would certainly agree that advancing e would be sinister.
a Very Unimportant Person
come on, VUP, no-one is indifferent to bananas.
Anonymous said...
come on, VUP, no-one is indifferent to bananas.
True enough; I did say it was a silly example. Still, I guess maybe even silliness should have limits and I certainly did not mean to give offense to the very non-banana-indifferent. Unfortunately I am too lazy to make up a better example right now so you will just have to accept that no offense was meant and work extra hard at suspending disbelief.
best
a Very Unimportant Person
Anon 2:25 "To suggest that liberals somehow have a monopoly ..."
Liberals do not have a monopoly on rational thought but they do tend to let rational thought 'speak' for itself. They are concerned about being disingenuous when advancing a position, much like a scientist is concerned about the validity of a particular experiment. Caution is the order of the day as the truth is undeniable.
Conservatives can be quite rational when developing a position but then are not troubled by the path to that position. A rational position is just that.
As an aside, when using vector calculus to determine the amount of work done by moving an object between 2 points, the work done is independent of path (meaning the starting and ending points are all that matter) if and only if the vector field is CONSERVATIVE.
Another great post.
A.L., what do you think of Jon Chait's ongoing argument about the difference between liberalism and conservatism ("Conservatives venerate the free market and see smaller government as an end in itself. Liberals do not venerate government in the same way... everything works on a case-by-case basis...")? It seems fairly similar to your position at the general level, but I'd be interested in learning if you think there are any significant differences, either in substance or approach.
I'm asking because I read his most recent column today, and he extends the argument: "Any debate that takes place at the level of ideological generality, then, inherently favors the right". I think he's on to something, but I'd love to be proven wrong because I think the results are pretty grim.
Here's a slightly modified version of what I wrote about it earlier:
Reading the current edition of Cato or NR or the Weekly Standard or the WSJ ed page really isn't all that different from reading back issues. You just have to switch out a few keywords and annecdotes as the issues change. There really aren't that many different ways of applying their principles, so their arguments against taxes are the same as their arguments against social security, which are the same as their arguments against public education. Government is bad. Taxes kill the economy. Redistribution is immoral. Repeat. If facts are available, they'll be thrown in for good measure. If facts are unavailable, they'll be invented. I love the way Jeffrey Friedman put it in Critical Review (he was talking about libertarians): ideologies mean that people have a "perpetual obligation to defend" their position on every subject, even "before one has the necessary information to assess its accuracy."
The arguments don't change with circumstances. The only possible exception is when one stock argument (say, the liberty argument) is overriden by another stock argument (say, the right-to-life argument). That's the way ideology works, and that's what the conservative think-tanks have been good at.
We can't compete with these organizations on their terms. We don't want the debate to be about big government versus small government or other "big ideas." We don't have a big enough counterweight that applies across the board. If we're on the side of big government, we'll lose. We need to smother, eviscerate, and/or ridicule the right's "big ideas" (i.e. their slogans and the arguments deduced from them) before the debate can actually begin.
That's not to say we don't need principles. I just don't think that there's a shortage of those on our side, though. People should have health care, a fair start in life, reasonable compensation for their work and not be exploited by corporations, etc.
I think those ideas are appealing enough that they would catch on quickly. The problem is that they're currently getting smothered by Malkinesque shitstorms before they get a chance.
Their think tanks and policy journals and noise machines are better at spreading memes and definitions like those than ours are. And Chait is probably right that the problem results (in part) from a fundamental asymmetry between leftism and rightism. Which means we need to change the subject (specifics instead of platitudes) and/or anihilate their platitudes.
I'm not sure how to do that, though, given how self-sufficient right-wing discourse has become. The people that will read our blogs aren't the ones that need convincing. The people watching FOX are the ones we need to worry about.
Forgot the link to the Chait piece above.
VUP,
I think I can give a somewhat better example than the bananas/ice cream one, which may illustrate A.L.'s "proxy argument" idea.
*Plutocrat A wants a tax cut for the top 1% of income earners so he can buy a second mansion, but he can only get it if he convinces the middle class to vote for it.
*Cutting taxes on the top 1% will hurt the middle class, though, because they benefit when that money is redistributed and/or will be forced to pay for A's mansion if their own taxes are raised to compensate.
*The Plutocrat convinces the middle class that lower taxes on the top 1% help the whole economy and/or covers up the fact that the tax cut will only go to the top 1%.
*The middle class then votes for the tax cut and gets screwed.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been shockingly transparent about this.
Here's another example:
*Joe thinks gay sex is icky and wants Congress to make gay people's lives worse because he hates them and/or needs to project his own problems onto them.
*Since the Supreme Court says you can't ban gay sex, Joe finds other ways to make being gay painful and convinces the public to support his policies to support "family values" and so on.
*Those policies end up hurting straight people as well as gay people.
Here's a liberal example:
*A Labor boss wants more money from union dues.
*He convinces the workers they'll get higher wages if they join the union
*He pockets the difference.
nuf said,
Your last point amused me a great deal.
To suggest that liberals somehow have a monopoly on rational thought strikes me as about as arrogant and outrageous as saying that conservatives have a monopoly on patriotism.
Two points. First, I prefaced my argument by making it clear that I was generalizing and that there are many exceptions to my catagorization.
Second, I was not claiming that liberals are more rational than conservatives. My argument was, in short, that conservatives are more willing to employ disingenous arguments in order to persuade others.
I do think that conservatives are more likely than liberals to rationalize backward from ideological positions (i.e. small government is intrinsically good). I think that sort of top-down reasoning tends to limit the realm of policy options they're willing to consider. But they still approach policy issues rationally, within that ideologically-circumscribed realm.
"I do think that conservatives are more likely than liberals to rationalize backward from ideological positions (i.e. small government is intrinsically good)."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "ideological position." When you say, for example, that liberals are guided by "the application universal principles of justice," isn't that an ideological position? Is justice really outside ideology? On tax policy, for example, a conservative would argue--and sincerely, I believe--that it is unjust to punish success by taxing it at a greater rate (that's Andrew Sullivan's position, by the way). Liberals (including myself) would say no, great inequities in income and the resulting disparities in quality of life are themselves unjust. But both of those are ideological positions--articles of faith, if you will--because neither is provable through rational means. The conservative is no more "arguing backwards" or "disingenuously" than the liberal is; it all depends on what you accept as your general premise.
The conservative is no more "arguing backwards" or "disingenuously" than the liberal is; it all depends on what you accept as your general premise.
You're right to point out that liberals operate off of basic ideological premises as well. That's unavoidable. You have to start with something. But I think that liberals tend to have fewer ideological premises that constrain their thought, and are more likely to reject a premise that proves to be inconsistent with empirical evidence.
I want to give another type of argument that I've seen Conservatives use, then discard. One particular point right wing radio used before the Newt revolution--the ideal of the citizen legislator--hence the need for term limits. But this was only useful when Republicans were in the minority. Now that they have the majority, a number of Repubs have held onto their seat beyond the time they said they would leave--and one no longer hears this argument. Another (I can't really pin this one down, though it's one I'm interested in) is the ideal of the split vote. I believe at one time Conservatives held as an ideal that one should vote for a legislator of opposite party to the administration, to keep the government from having too much freedom of action. But this may have been a point pushed when Dems were in control.
"You're right to point out that liberals operate off of basic ideological premises as well. That's unavoidable. You have to start with something. But I think that liberals tend to have fewer ideological premises that constrain their thought, and are more likely to reject a premise that proves to be inconsistent with empirical evidence."
I've enjoyed this discussion. Two final points.
1. If you concede that liberals have ideological premises, then you can't argue that liberalism is all--or even mainly--about process. The process is guided by the principles, which have a clear ideological intent. You can't separate the one from the other.
2. The kind of premises I'm talking about are not ones that can be rejected on empirical grounds, because they're really deeply held moral convictions. For example, that poverty is wrong. How can you have an argument over how to fix poverty with someone who disagrees with that premise? There's really no way to convince him. Only when two people accept the same premise can there be serious discussion over what to do about it. The reason liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye on many big issues is not because they arrive at their conclusions in different ways but because their moral compasses--the basic principles they build their arguments on--are very differently tuned. The die is already cast, so to speak, before the argument ever starts.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home