Recent political events have driven me to either reject the citizens of my country as a bunch of morons or find it within me to empathize with them in some way, so in the spirit of Kierkegaard's pseudonyms which he used to explore other viewpoints and with a tip of the hat to Schopenhauer the pessimist (whom we'll be reading after K.), I'm driven here to imagine what kind of conservative I might be, were I (politically) a conservative, which I am most profoundly not. So, enter Rightius Maximus, who neither longs for the good old days nor judges everything through a religious or Southern and/or redneck haze:
First of all, ideology is claptrap. Anyone who just looks at a problem and shouts a pre-determined mantra like "small government!" is an idiot. For any problem, describe a proposed solution to me and I'll listen. The problem is that large-scale government solutions tend to necessarily involve a tone-deaf approach to local situations. They bring in middle men (bureaucracy) that don't understand the spirit and intent of the law or program, who inevitably muck it up. A private organization, on the other hand, if well run (and this is key), can be managed to avoid these problems, and though the market is far from perfect in weeding out the inept, it tends to accomplish this on the whole and in the long run, whereas no comparable mechanism exists in the folds of bureaucracy, election of higher officials being a blunt instrument that does not adequately address this problem for a variety of reasons.
Now, being a rightie, that doesn't mean I advocate empty suits like George W. Bush, and I recognize that a lot of the God-talk and flag waving is just a matter of sucking up to the electorate, but that's OK, because the role of an elected government is to provide management so, e.g. the power grid stays on, technology keeps moving forward, the economy keeps humming, our communications keep flowing, criminals are not running around screwing things up, etc. We need efficient civil service, not overlords trying to remake the world a la Plato's Republic, Communism, the Reich, or any other grand scheme. A healthy philosophical skepticism should prevent people from being so sure about their social goals that they want to spray them all over the rest of us.Pretty much all the great things that have happened to our society that have raised us above the level of cave people have been a matter of technological advance, and the role of government in this should be to give innovators room to do this, which can happen in a variety of ways, but in this particular historical situation, it mostly means staying away. Yes, government grants for basic research are a necessary component here, as industry can be too short sighted to attend to this enough, but in this case government should just be providing the funds, while private organizations set up on scientific merit, not patronage to a political party, do the work.
What about social justice, as in discrimination? That's a matter of social movement, and it can't be forced by government action. Yes, go out and argue about the equality of various groups, but progress is only made as people see with their own eyes that minorities aren't threatening. In many cases, realistically, you just have to wait for old generations with their hardened ways to die off.
What about protests a la the 60s? Largely ineffectual. Go do real things instead of complaining about it. So you think a business is discriminating? Go start a rival business across the street with better products and services that doesn't discriminate and drive 'em out of business!
What about helping those less fortunate? Private charities are in general going to do a much better job than government programs, and family ties are going to do a much better job than either. Be responsible and give freely; look after where your money is going and direct it so it'll work best. Even though with government action we're supposed to have an indirect way of doing this, i.e. voting for people who will provide the oversight to ensure that our tax dollars are well spent, this seldom works in practice. Government should be looking for specific gaps that due to the nature of the marketplace aren't being addressed by private industry, but in general and on the whole should be helping out by, e.g. information gathering re. these needs and providing grants to businesses and individuals who want to address them. For needs like emergency management and the military that private businesses and individuals can't realistically manage, sure, use government as a tool, but the point here is being able to respond to urgent needs, not looking for additional ways for government to "help out."
So, in conclusion, though I the rightie have no love for Republican party chuckleheads, at least they keep horrific damage to the economy in check and so are preferable to the alternative.
Now, I can think of plenty of counters to the above position, like pointing out the recent recession and blaming it on lack of regulation, or countering that it's unrealistic that we can change discriminatory or otherwise deleterious attitudes strictly through competition and working within the system. We could also point out specific successful government programs and try to draw Mr. Maximus into a discussion of, e.g. social security or public schools. Still, I think I've provided a foundation here for a view through which many specific issues can be reinterpreted; he surely has axes to grind about these supposedly successful enterprises and still thinks that the lazy government is in most cases better than the alternative. I wouldn't say he has no hope, but his hope does not lie with government solutions. Ironically, this means he would by no means serve in government or think it worth his time to rail against it overlong: no tea party activist or libertarian web site scrawler is he! He would give government only so much energy as is required to minimize its damage and focus on smaller things over which he could actually exert control: his own duties, career, artistic pursuits, maybe some charity work or the like. So no, I don't think I've just reinvented the Randian asshole here; this is not a character that I agree with, but it's one I could sustain as the protagonist of some novel I will someday write, probably involving Mr. Maximus as an intergalactic cheese salesman with an only recently expired license to kill.
-Mark Linsenmayer
You might find this piece by Sci-Fi libertarian David Brin of interest as it challenges the two dimensional left-right view.
I am more of a classical liberal verging on libertarian but am glad to see you posted something half sensible from the conservative side of the ledger as opposed to the routine ‘they must all be rednecks’.
On your quip about regulation, you do realise that the banks, FNMA, Freddie, Sallie Mae etc are all heavily regulated and the unregulated part of the sector, hedge funds, didn’t require a single bailout? As someone persuaded by the Austrian economists (who seem to be the only economic school who’s theory is left standing) continually point out, the crisis was not of left or right. Bush was ‘right’, but look at Europe… mostly ‘left’.. the crisis has a deeper source and that is money itself.
You might want to read Rothbard’s ‘What has government done to our money’.
http://reformthelp.org/reformthelp/marketing/positioning/models.php
Sorry, forgot the David Brin link
I’m wondering here whether James’s essay “the Will to Believe” might not be relevant here, but in a goofy, obscuritanist sense.
…Meaning that (as James states) in religious matters, you could be a comfortable Kantian and follow James’s line: scientific matters can motivate my belief, but religious matters are beyond the empirical enough such that my belief is not coerced in either direction, leaving other factors to determine my religious leanings. Similarly, the analysis of any given complex empirical phenomenon like the economy involves enough unknowns that I can with some intellectual rigor read it in line with my prior ideological dispositions, and it would at least take quite a lot of research to run against something to actually make me change my mind and abandon the narrative that I went with based on reasonable-sounding-but-less-than-conclusive speculation.
…and that’s some thoughtful stuff from Brin as usual, per my post on him: http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/09/17/geekson-david-brin-modern-intellectual-philosopher/
Russ Roberts at the excellent econtalk.org regularly asks what empirical test or evidence has been produced that has clearly converted anyone from a strong political or economic viewpoint. So far, he has not had any evidence of such conversions based on evidence.
In economics though, I would say we could all use some old fashioned and entertaining reading of Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html as there are clear logical fallacies at play in most of what passes for consensus economic thinking.
To stir the pot, perhaps we can assess accusations that the contemporary right is driven by ressentiment: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/11/04/patriotism-as-status-socialism-or-america-fk-yeah/ (and see: http://trueslant.com/juliansanchez/2009/12/16/the-politics-of-ressentiment/).
I tend to think that politics has less to do with policy and party identification and more to do with identity in general. Hence many in the tea party are simply not aware that Obama lowered their taxes. But that’s not the point of their anger about taxes. Their objection is the notion of a shared good in general, and the idea that lazy people will take advantage of it (where lazy people often = minorities, or the Other — those who are not like me and do not share my values). And then millions of not-wealthy Americans favor tax cuts for the rich and for corporations not because they would benefit but because at affirms a certain ideal (with which they identify and to which they often aspire).
So I think these things come down fundamentally to values, not policy. (Policy is a means to ends). And there’s very little use in having disputes about the values themselves within political discourse: these are axioms. Rather, one does rhetorical battle simply by trying to penetrate the hypocrisy of the opponent: to expose the actual principle that underlies some more palatable disguise. Or to expose inconsistencies, via a sort of dialectic: reveal the real axioms and show their inconsistency with other axioms or theorems. Interestingly, this is closer to what Socrates starts out doing in dialogues: he begins political and ethical debates and tries to expose the common wisdom of upper class Athenians as the inconsistent mess it really is. Doing this sort of thing within political discourse means being a good rhetorician (in the classical sense–the art of persuasion blended with reasoning).
So I think it’s very noble minded to try to inhabit the shoes and reasoning of one’s political opponents, but I’m not sure that it’s called for: it assumes what psychoanalysts would call “manifest content”–including in this case policy–is really what’s at stake, when these things are really symbols connected to people’s identities: how they want to be seen, and consequently what kinds of communities there are to see them in this way — their values, etc.. So the question is not about policy. It’s: who do you want to be? Are you with the party of the mother or the party of the father?
Wow! This is a great post! I identify with a lot of your caricature and was most impressed with this analysis:
“He would give government only so much energy as is required to minimize its damage and focus on smaller things over which he could actually exert control: his own duties, career, artistic pursuits, maybe some charity work or the like.”
You have made me a new fan of this site, and though I may disagree with you politically, I appreciate the exercise. I look forward to reading more.
Hi Guys
Love your podcast even if I think your outlook on politics is emotion driven. Living in Australia leaves me at a bit of a loss when it comes to US politics. However I see myself as a Libertarian. Listening to your podcasts leads me to two conclusions, 1 – You are all extremely well read, educated, intelligent people. 2 – You all seem to lack a basic knowledge of economics. I don’t mean this in a disparaging way, I have been on the left of politics most of my life. I have always been somewhat discombobulated by the way many of those on the left (and right) seem to ignore the results of their policies. I have been moving towards the rights of the individual more and more, the left and the right seem to have no interest in this. I just wanted to know how the world works. Jonathon has already given a pointer towards Russ Roberts and Econtalk, I really think you should consider his point of view. Roberts does not claim to have answers, in fact he seems somewhat riven by doubt however his thesis on the origins of the recent financial crisis has traction with me…..Moral Hazard. Consider this podcast http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/05/roberts_on_the_2.html and then let me know what you think if you have the time. I know you guys have limited time like all of us and that PEL is a labour of love (much appreciated). I really think there is a disconnect between philosophy and economics, perhaps you could be the people to put the two together.
Thanks for PEL
Steve Williams
Melbourne Australia
Steve–
I took Jonathon’s advice and have listened so far to the following episodes:
* Milton Friedman on Money
* Friedman on Capitalism and Freedom
* Munger on Price Gouging
* Bruce Bueno de Mesquita on Democracies and Dictatorships
* Caplan on the Myth of the Rational Voter
* Romer on Growth
I think it’s a bit dismissive to say that our (collective) view on politics is emotionally driven. First, it suggests that we are of one mind, like the Stygian witches, which I think is probably not accurate. Second, I don’t think we have discussed politics enough to be judged as being ’emotionally driven’ in our political views. Third, you seem to be assuming a definition of what it means to have an “emotional” view of politics which is unclear. Fourth, you are assuming a direct correlation between said view and economic naivete which needs to be demonstrated.
I took Jonathon’s suggestion seriously and as it happens, mentioned to the other guys last night while recording on Kierkegaard that economics might be an interesting turn after we cover the philosophers we have lined up for the foreseeable future.
I will post on my experiences with the EconTalk after I get more under my belt, but let me suggest you check out the Caplan episode, where he explicit discusses the relationship between public policy and economic outcomes in democracies.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/06/caplan_on_the_m.html
His main point is that democracies are designed to give voters what they want and what voters want isn’t rational (if you are an economist anyway). Moveover, this behavior crosses party lines, so to suggest that grasping economic realities would drive one to one political affiliation or another isn’t rational as all parties exist to serve voter and self-interests, not economic “truths”. There are a lot of open questions about whether economic theories are validated and whether economics is actually science, not to mention whether the economic view of human nature and behavior makes sense. But even if you take that all as a given, this episode at least seriously questions the political and economic relationship from within the paradigm.
–seth
Milton Friedman is a darling of the right wing. I know enough about economics to know that most economists today do not endorse his trickle down ideas (http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html) and in the United States tend to be on the left. I prefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz and follow: http://delong.typepad.com/ (the most popular economics blog on the Web).
Not to mention Krugman.
I’d like to chime with my strong support for the EconTalk podcast. Sure, Roberts is a disciple of Friedman and Hayek, but he is refreshingly upfront about those biases. More importantly, Roberts’ primary thesis is not that Keynesians are wrong, and Hayekians are correct. (Though he’s clear that’s his bias.) Rather, his thesis has been that economics methodology is inherently corrupt and subjective, and economics can no longer be considered a scientific discipline.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/roberts_and_han.html
Roberts is also smart and funny, and he is fair to guests with opposing viewpoints. A recent episode was with John Quiggin, an ideological ally of Krugman. I thought hearing those two hash out their areas of disagreement was more enlightening than anything I see or TV or hear on the radio:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/11/quiggin_on_zomb.html
also see his interview with Justin Fox:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/justin_fox
It’s another great show that isn’t afraid to “go deep,” not only with economics concepts but also tangential subjects. Just listen to his episodes with Christoper Hitchens on Orwell, or with Louis Menand on Psychiatry.
Finally, if you guys are thinking of a philosophy of economics episode, you might be curious to see how Roberts handled Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Here’s the first of a few episodes they devoted to ToMS:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/04/klein_on_the_th.html
Hi Guys
Thanks for responding to my thoughts. I’ll have to think about your responses for a while. It’s good to know that you don’t dismiss other view points out of hand.
Steve