Last time the sides were laid out. This time the difference is identified.
It seems that just about everyone thinks of political problems in terms of a dichotomy. Whether it's Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, freedom/security, me/we, or whatever paradigm you choose, there are rarely more than two sides to an issue (ones with less than two aren't issues).
I'm no exception. I think that at the heart of political debate, there is one single either-or, and every point of contention is a function of it. It is a matter of ethics. I phrase it here as a question:
When a decision is to be made, who should make it: A) the person or group most likely to make the right choice, or at least the best choice, or B) the person or group most likely to realize the consequences of the decision?
I'm fully on the side of B. I think a person's life is his own, and that people have the right to assemble into groups and include and exclude whomever they choose and make decisions within the group, whether it be for economic purposes, personal purposes, or political purposes.
But while I reject A, it's important to understand that it's not an illogical, absurd, or unreasonable position. Expertise is a good thing, and often when the less expert defer to those more so, the whole system functions better and even the lesser person winds up the better for it.
There are far too many among my sort of thinker—the "tabled" I described last column—who would insist that it's a false question because the person who realizes the consequences is the person most likely to make the right choice. This is the mentality that says that the farmer who actually tills the land and milks the chickens (I don't farm) knows more about the nation's food economy than the economist who specializes in studying it. That's absurd on its face.
Unfortunately, equally absurd is the proposition that that economist knows what to grow and how to grow it on that farmer's piece of land, knows how to market it, and can manipulate that market for the better. It's this view that brought us the farm subsidy, the famous "money to not farm" to avoid a glut on the market. Recipients of these subsidies include "farmers" like Ted Turner, Scottie Pippen, the late Kenneth Lay, numerous U.S. Senators and Representatives, and big conglomerates like Archer Daniels Midland and Georgia Pacific.
So if we accept the question above as the dichotomy seperating the sides in the world today, what are the implications?
First, that the debate gets obfuscated by experimentation. It's a constant contention by both sides that were their ideas to be put in play, that everyone would be better off, or at least everyone who deserves to be. But they're never put into play fully, only as much as anyone can. The New Deal of FDR was A-side mentality all the way, and I think it was the wrong thing to do. But I can't say it helped no one. Certainly the people who got income from the CCC and the WPA did better in the short run than without them, and some of them might not have had a long run otherwise. On the other hand, the results of pure capitalism haven't really been shown either. Maybe we should stop debating what works, and start debating what's right.
Second, that we're not all on the same side, merely mired in minutae. The political rift is fundamental. The other side is unreachable, because we differ in our ethics, our values, and possibly even our epistemology and metaphysics. This is why I disdain moderates. The idea that the far-right and the far-left, the libertarian and the statist, the capitalist and the communist are the same at heart with some irrelevant differences causing some slight friction is false to fact, and the idea that there's a right answer to be found by throwing away the logical consistency of the extremes to the miasma of pragmatism in the middle makes no sense. (Which I suppose is no argument against it. When someone says in essence, "logic is useless," all the syllogisms in the world can't help you win the argument. It's best to just withdraw and not deal with him.) It's also why I'm amused at the outrage over the "Tea Party" protests by the same people championing anti-Iraq-war protests, or vice versa. In the absence of a true forum for national debate, instead of an election between sides dedicated first and foremost to the political class instead of an ideal, both sides marching in the street and carrying signs with slogans on them is the best we can do.
"Maybe we should stop debating what works, and start debating what's right."
I'd say the exact opposite is true. Right now, we are debating what is "right," especially where taxes are concerned. Who deserves it? Which system is more fair?
When you turn it into a moral issue like that, the result is that both extremes entrench themselves and work backwards to find facts to back up their pre-conceived ideals.
I would suggest just the opposite - to look at the facts in a given situation and decide on a course of action based on that situation.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on April 19, 2009 at 02:10 PM
I understand the dichotomy you're talking about, but I think you've oversimplifying its application.
For example, the Republican party applies side A of the dichotomy when it comes to ethics. The consult what they feel is the relevent expert set (generally Christian preacher types) and favor enforcing that on the population - see their positions on gay marriage and abortion, for example. That is, for the most part, what differentiates them from Liberarians. And why the people that get pissed of at Enrique alternate from D's to R's from article to article, based on whether he's talking about economic or personal liberty.
I think its also a mistake to ignore the fact that the government also often has a role as protector of one group against another. Where you weigh on in Corporations vs. the Public might involve a belief in how important consultation with experts is (i.e. how effective government regulation or intervention would be) but just as important is the cost/benefit analysis of how much you're weighing down business (the lifeblood of our economy) vs. how much the consumer (the point of our economy)needs to be defended against corporate greed. Similarly, in labor relations both Unions and Corporations claim to be the experts, and who do you choose? Its worth nothing that neither Republicans nor Democrats really are in favor of a hands off approach when a large strike shuts down an auto manufacturer or the railroads or airlines (see Reagan, Ronald for an example of A style intervention here).
I also agree with Mr. Dunn here when it comes to pragmatics vs. ethics. We don't have "right-o-meters" to tell us what is right, which is why we're all pissily arguing about such things. At least with pragmatics we can measure results and argue about clearly discernable facts.
That's also why I'm a liberal and not a conservative. I think there *are* experts when it comes to measurable things like the economy and we'd be fools not to consult them. And I think there aren't experts when it comes to unmeasurable things like ethics, and we'd be fools to listen to the blowhards claiming that they are.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 19, 2009 at 03:37 PM
Pat,
If you think that companies and business operations are linked to ethics than you are a fool
Enron, the current economic mess, the bank bailouts, etc. Is all tied to poor business ethics.
I will argue that the media has become ethically corrupt in terms of journalism. There is not one major news organization that is fair or balanced.
There are valid ethics and morals that are commonly accepted. This idea that something has to be tangible to be "real" is bullshit.
The "golden rule" alone, is noted in every major religion and culture and dates back before any current religion formed.
Isn't the "golden rule" an ethical standard?
The largest growing field of study in education, particularly in business is ethics.Leaders are noticing that being good in business is not really good for business if your ethics and morals are fucked.
Ethics are not "unmeasurable", and the current state of the economy can be fixed by fixing our ethics and morals as a society.
What good is an expert economist that has no values or character?
I've always said that Liberals have no values and you are that shining example- you even admit it.
Posted By: the spook (Guest) on April 19, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Pat,
If you think that companies and business operations are linked to ethics than you are a fool
Enron, the current economic mess, the bank bailouts, etc. Is all tied to poor business ethics.
I will argue that the media has become ethically corrupt in terms of journalism. There is not one major news organization that is fair or balanced.
There are valid ethics and morals that are commonly accepted. This idea that something has to be tangible to be "real" is bullshit.
The "golden rule" alone, is noted in every major religion and culture and dates back before any current religion formed.
Isn't the "golden rule" an ethical standard?
The largest growing field of study in education, particularly in business is ethics.Leaders are noticing that being good in business is not really good for business if your ethics and morals are fucked.
Ethics are not "unmeasurable", and the current state of the economy can be fixed by fixing our ethics and morals as a society.
What good is an expert economist that has no values or character?
I've always said that Liberals have no values and you are that shining example- you even admit it.
Posted By: the spook (Guest) on April 19, 2009 at 04:18 PM
"I've always said that Liberals have no values and you are that shining example- you even admit it."
But you can measure the success and failure of a society without ethics.
You just proved it with your example. Enron had a lack of ethics, therefore, they crumbled. Measurable pragmatism at its finest.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on April 19, 2009 at 04:27 PM
Oh and the first line of previous post should read "a fool to think that business operations are not linked to ethics"
And no spellcheck due to blackberry
Posted By: the spook (Guest) on April 19, 2009 at 04:30 PM
Dunn I dont know if you are agreeing me or not- I'm saying that enron collasped due to lack of ethics and horrible morals by thier employees- namely the execs and traders.
Stupid Pat says that there are no experts on ethics and that they cant be measured is retarded.
Aristotle spoke of ethics and their importance and he taught Alexander the Great.
Plato taught Aristotle, and he spoke of the cardinal virtues- these are not absract thoughts, they are very specific.
Ethics is the study of ethos- which is tied to character.
But all of these are defined and ethics and morals can be measured.
You dipshits are ignoring any recent studies on ethics- and hundreds have been published since this latest economic meltdown.
But you're also idiots and have never studied any of the founding fathers of ethos or virtues.
Read The Republic, or Epictetus before you make a claim that ethics don't matter to the economy or government.
Look at the cardinal virtues of Plato and those of the church founded a thosand years later and you will see they are identical.
Liberals rewrite history to make your arguments fit and hate looking at concepts such as ethos, ethics, values, virtues, character, etc.
Because you guys don't have any.
In ten years of military, three college degrees and countless meetings with asshole politicans- I can say that you fuckers stand for nothing.
And it does not surprise me that Pat will clearly admit that with his last line in the comment above.
His words do not surprise me. And mine should not suprise you.
No spellcheck blackberry
Posted By: the spook (Guest) on April 19, 2009 at 08:24 PM
Interesting column. I like that it's about principles and not partisan ideology, at least not directly. Side A has the obvious flaw of having to determine in some way who most likely has the right answer, while side B in effect advocates lawlessness. If those impacted by something should decide on it themselves, we should have no government, or a limited one that merely paves roads, defends our borders and leaves all other matters to the masses. In theory the purpose of our government is to make educated decisions based on investing time and effort studying complex issues which the people don't have time to address as individuals. Even the President can't possibly read the thousands of pages of every bill that hits his desk, it's too much. The issue is when those who assess themselves as experts disregard the affected group.
On matters where I can identify a clear expert advocating a sound policy, I side with A. When civil liberties are at stake, I go to side B. This is due to a cost/benefit analysis. If disregarding the affected group is allowed due to said group being in the minority, a terrible precedent is set. Not only is harming a group allowable, the only requirement is to claim a greater good is being served that outweighs their interests. I don't want decisions made that way. So I look for leaders who will act when the proper course of action is clear, and defer to individual liberty when it is not. When the right decision is murky, both sides should have input, but side B should take priority. I can think of no society which does things that hurt its own people to any benefit.
My ultimate conclusion is that government should be involved in decisions which are impractical for the people to make, such as tax levels, foreign trade policy, and diplomacy. Matters which primarily impact people's daily lives should be decided person by person.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on April 19, 2009 at 11:44 PM
I think what J.D.'s sayin, spooky, is that morality and efficacy don't have to be two different things. We could set up a debate by saying "should you care that Enron failed or that Enron was immoral" but that's a false question to propose. Enron's failure was directly tied to its lack of morality. Ergo, for something to work it would seem like being moral is an essential part of it--which is to say that even if you're judging things based on whether they work or not, you're not leaving morality out of it. In fact, just the opposite. We're not talking about expedients that are morally appalling, here.
Feeling alright? You're always out there, but you seem a little more hateful today than usual. I guess I'd just ask--why do you think anyone bothers to be liberal? Just for fun? Seems like an awful lot of work just to try to harm the pillars of society. Mass delusion, maybe.
I like how you write, Paul. It's a thoughtful and open minded presentation of ideas, clearly stating possibility of disagreement, even then providing food for thought. For my part, I agree with J.D.
Forming and maintaining government is the hardest job in the world. It can never be one thing or the other, it is founded on idealism and too often has to settle for pragmatism.
The philosophy of whatever two sides you might choose to put up do not touch, as you say, but what must be done does seem nevertheless to almost always be in the middle of them. The decision of who knows what to do with the farmer's land can't be thrown one way or the other for the reasons you stated. Technically it is right for the farmer to be in charge of what happens with his land, but he WILL be acting in his own self interest which is not always, as you say, in tune with the food production needs of the nation. Neither can Scottie Pippen, but that doesn't mean much.
Compromise is unpalatable, but believing that moral stands can always comprehend a complicated reality is not a logical idea.
Ultimately, the middle is not always a haven of people to chicken shit to be logically consistent. It's not a third column it's a practiced stand. Because it is simply true that it makes sense to try to find a way to make the farmer's work good for himself AND the country. Failures, on both sides, are inevitable but part of the process.
I am not compromising my morals. My morals tell me the best thing is for the country to be served to its best benefit by a rational analysis of the highest average good between farmer and nation. It is my brain which tells me achieving this cannot reject one side or the other.
It is only a "not with us, against us" mentality that stops pragmatism from being a philosophy fully as viable as moral-left, moral-right. That's, to me, a construction rather than reality.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on April 20, 2009 at 01:17 AM
Isn't it sort of sad that the comment defending an absolutist ethic is the one that engages in name calling rather than dialogue? C'mon, Spook, you're better than that.
Clearly there *are* unambiguous some moral standards. Don't kill, don't rape, even don't be an ass. The problem is that the unambigous moral standards are either already instantiated into law (there are laws against murder, rape, theft, etc.) or we've decided they can't or shouldn't be (lying except in particular cases, rudess).
The situations which are debated politically are *precisely* the ones where we don't have clear ethical answers that we all agree on. Is capital punishment ok? Is abortion ok? Should business have the right to fire striking (or organizing) workers?
Pointing to the golden rule is disengenous here - even if we all agree it should apply in the above cases, we won't agree on how it should. Is the fetus a person (an "other") that I have an obligation to "do unto" at all? Is killing a murderer an application of the golden rule? I probably wouldn't vote to be executed if at some future point I chose to kill somebody. Maybe I would, I'm really not sure.
Its also worth noting that the Golden Rule would have seemed pretty foreign to Aristotle and Epictetus, both of whom implicitly reject evaluative models of ethics based on the application of external rules in favor of character analysis.
(Epictetus also says that when your little girl runs to give you a hug, you should imagine her dead so that you won't be as troubled when she actually does die. Hardly the model of virtuous character I'm likely to endorse).
And why should accept Aristotle as the correct standard for moral evaluation? There are any number of competing ethical theories that cover the basics (murder, theft, rape) just fine and disagree on the contentious parts. Why not go with Mill, or Kant? Or, for that matter, Hume or a modern projectivist like Blackburn? And whichever you choose (apparently Aristotle), is the basis for your choice sufficient for the kind of absolutist pronouncements necessary to say "this is right! and that is wrong!"?
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I'm tired Andrew.
And when I'm tired I'm spiteful.
Forgive me, even though I don't the ability to do the same at times...I understand now what Dunn is saying.
Thank you.
I'm tired of 2 sides fighting...and I don't think either side will compromise or see the other side of the argument- and I am trying.
I think we should all vote all these assholes out- all of them and start over with a 3rd party or a 4th party.
Obama and Bush are just so sponsered by the lobbyist- and we fight over "right and wrong".
We should just elect people who are not sponsered by corporate sponsers.
I apologize- I am just tired- lots of travel this week.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on April 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM
The difficulty with immediately dismissing the moderate position is that it assumes one side or the other can be used all of the time. That is a gross simplification of any realistic problem.
In reference to "Liberals don't have values", there is a huge difference between lacking values and enforcing them on someone else. I like to pick on gay marriage as an issue because it is a convenient, fairly black and white example. A marriage, from a legal viewpoint, involves the transferal of certain rights from one person to another. The gender of the recipient is totally irrelevant to the transferal of the rights. As such, there is little reason why the transfer of rights via marriage should not occur between parties of the same gender. The only reasoning one could give involves a moral one, but not everyone shares the same morality. As such, you are limiting the rights of others (specifically, the transferal of specific legal status) by disallowing gay marriage as a whole. I can be as Christian as I want to be (personal values) while still supporting the rights of others with whom I have a disagreement.
Of course... I also think the government should abolish the word "marriage" from any continued legal documents and use the term "civil union" for everything. So... if you go to a Justice of the Peace, you get a civil union. If you want the word marriage, you should have to go to a church to get it... and the church has the right to turn down whoever they want to. As such, "marriage" is left to the church (which is it's realm - values) and the legal aspects are equitable across the board. "Render unto Caesar..." as it were.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on April 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM
I have a problem with the term 'pragmatic' as opposed to 'moral' or 'ethical'
To be moral or ethical is to have a set of standards as to live by. To be pragmatic is simply to only have standards that take advantage of the present situation.
For instance:
1> Moral (ethical) - illicit drugs are wrong and I won't have anything to do with their promotion or use
2> Pragmatic - sure, illicit drugs are wrong, but since there is an opportunity to make money at it, I'll support it.
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on April 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I'm with you, Spook. Take a couple days off. We'll all still be here when you get back, fightin' it away as usual...
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on April 20, 2009 at 03:12 PM
To spook hey man be careful that Janet Whatever lady might put you and I on a Terror Watch group. The libs are tired of the (Willie Ayers Communist with a small c) stuff but lets lock up Rush, Hannity, Medved, and my favotite guy of all Michael Savage for disagreeing with Obama. WOW these lib clowns talked about Bush taking away our freedoms by tapping calls to Terrorist countries, but with Obama now they domestically!!!!!!!!!! Liberals Suck!!!!!!!! ( and no I dont spell check if you cant figure out a word spelled 1 letter off than you clowns are the dummies!!!!!!!
Posted By: DanMan (Guest) on April 21, 2009 at 05:38 PM
STAY CURRENT