Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 51:42 — 47.4MB)
How does studying philosophy help you to make sense of the political landscape? Wes, Mark, Dylan, and Seth play pundit and express their angst over this new era. We reflect on political rhetoric, elitism, and much more.
There is no text for this episode, though we've got Aristotle, Burke, and Tocqueville firmly in mind, and Wes brings up this article from the Guardian, "Welcome to the Age of Anger," by Pankaj Mishra.
This discussion is continued on part 2. You can alternately get the ad-free, unbroken Citizen Edition.
I thought this was a really great discussion, guys. I think you all represented all of what I feel right now. Each of you represented me on a different day. I really found myself agreeing with each one of you even though I know you all said different things. That’s what is most confusing right now – this mix of feelings we all have. Having had zero philosophy up until about a year and a half ago, immersing myself in your podcast, and a few philosophers specifically has allowed me to understand what is happening in a way that I absolutely could not have a couple of years ago. The disillusionment would have eaten me alive and I would have gone completely into a state of denial and repression. It isn’t that a particular piece of philosophy has allowed me to understand what is going on, rather the act of philosophy – philosophizing – has allowed me to see what happened as the general population isn’t really up to the task of uncovering blind spots and subjecting their own opinions to interrogation right now. But what you are doing with this podcast is a step in that direction. Keep doing what you are doing. And again, I most appreciate the varied perspectives of each one of you. You each, at one point or another, say and question the thing I most wanted said and answered during each podcast. You have lightening in a bottle here.
The political philosopher John N. Gray anticipated the irrationalism Pankaj Mishra identifies in his 1995 work Enlightenment’s Wake. I believe that Gray has been the most prophetic political philosopher of the last 20 years. It would be interesting to hear a podcast on his work.
http://www.breakingviews.com/features/review-a-prophet-for-the-age-of-endarkenment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray_(philosopher)
https://www.facebook.com/john.n.gray/
https://www.routledge.com/Enlightenments-Wake-Politics-and-Culture-at-the-Close-of-the-Modern-Age/Gray/p/book/9780415424042
Seconded, though I’m not sure he would be a crowd pleaser here (is he anywhere?).
He’s probably my favorite contemporary philosopher, but these days he seldom gets down into the nitty gritty of rigorous, thoroughly backed up arguments – his writing tends to be more observational or suggestive. This is why I often enjoy reading his books so much more than those of other contemporary philosophers, but I don’t know how that would play in a format devoted to explaining difficult arguments.
Thank you for your response Daniel.
From the interviews I have seen on YouTube it appears that Gray draws crowds. Writers such as Will Self, James Lovelock and the late J.G. Ballard are/were fans and Straw Dogs was a top seller.
As for the theoretical content of Gray’s arguments, a discussion could cover Gray’s value pluralism and agonistic liberalism. I would be interested to know if others consider him a moral nihilist (Gray denies it). A good place to get a basic understanding of his position would be The Political Theory of John Gray.
https://www.routledge.com/The-Political-Theory-of-John-Gray/Horton-Newey/p/book/9780415463669
Sure, and I’d imagine he has more of a following in the UK than on this side of the pond. I’d certainly love to hear an episode on him in any case
In addition to Gray, there some other political philosophers working in the UK whose work is relevant and deserves a broader readership: for example, Raymond Geuss and John Dunn.
I agree with you on Geuss. Which one of his works do you consider the most important? I am not familiar with the work of Dunn, although I am aware of his influence on Geuss.
A place to start with Geuss would be Philosophy and Real Politics.
Just got a chance to listen to this one this morning, and I wanted to share my appreciation for all of your viewpoints. They always expand my horizons. I’d bet that a great many of us have had some version of this conversation in our various circles, probably more than once, but I for one enjoy you guys stopping to give us your take on things like this from time to time. Like Mark, I find these philosophical questions intrinsically interesting, but I think they have an intrinsic relationship with the practical domain as well, which is how I was drawn to philosophy in the first place.
I notice that the more I try to refine and inform my political views, the more that process of specification diminishes the group of people with whom I can agree about everything, sort of like the way the friends I had at 12 were the greatest because that was the last time I was uncomplicated enough of a person to be wholly compatible with someone else. Anyway, that’s my segue into saying that I entirely agree with Wes that engaging and trying to understand and communicate is the only way forward that might not lead to violence, at least that I can see. History shows us uglier pictures than ours; pictures our situation may yet come to resemble.
I also sympathize with a lot of Seth’s points toward the end, namely that the way I want to contribute is through immediate service to the people in my community who’ve slipped through the cracks. I do my best to scrutinize the narratives that come at me from various media, but, at the end of the day, I’ve got no crisis of confidence about hungry people needing to eat. Perhaps it will serve me as well to start with fundamentals as I try to work my way through the complexity.
Likewise, I take very seriously the same anxiety that Seth spoke of regarding the role (and challenge) of the media in all this. That’s a problem that I don’t see going away. We’re seeing more and more that gaming the global communications networks (saying or publishing things for effect rather than as a sincere contribution to discussion) isn’t an activity exclusive to terrorists or the public relations profession, but is becoming a popular pastime for anyone with the desire to mess with the world for their own purposes. The net has crippled the practical consensus that we used to call objectivity by flooding it with a spectrum of new voices and submitting the old institutions to new forms of manipulation.
If you want to follow that rabbit, here’s a useful take:
https://points.datasociety.net/media-technology-politics-258f4cfce87c#.rprec8qhe
In social science there is a school of thought that argues in group-out group coalition is central to evolved human nature. And that ideology is a thin veneer intellectuals place on top of this identity based social grouping. So for example Scott Atran (see his book In Gods We Trust) believes religion in humans primarily about group identity and group cohesion. And theology doesn’t much matter. Similarly politics has always been about groups and identity, with political ideology an intellectual icing on the cake.
Now, of course, this “icing” is important and it forces and intellectual cohesiveness to thought and action. So it’s more of a tug of war between the two. But the Atran style argument is that when push comes to shove, people align to their group, not to intellectual rigor.
Where I’m going with this is that with the shifting fault lines of politics, where massive majorities of poor whites voted for FDR, but we now voting for Trump, we should expect a new ideological justification and alignment to the party demographics. There was also a historic shift in meritocracy winners/college degreed voters this election as well.
So maybe the goal is to put a newer (and more sane) ideological gloss on the Trump demographic. One that serves both their needs for respect and identity, as well as being good for the republic as a whole. One that is not a con game along the lines of giant walls and bringing back manufacturing jobs. I’m not sure what that exactly means, but this is the key project to bring some sanity back into american politics. We need a positive politics for people who are in a declining demographic that are not winning the meritocracy race. Or else they’ll continue to pick the worst.
I agree with your assessment here. If you want empirical evidence along these lines, a recently published book makes the case – Democracy for Realists – by Achen and Bartels.
I’m thinking about Not-Schooling it.
I’d be interested in participating in that.
I’d be interested. I’d love to see a discussion of some of Peter Turchin’s work arguing a lot of this ends up happening when there are too many elites for the resources. He has numerous books on the subject and a Nature article.
https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Turchin/e/B001IU2M2K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7200/full/454034a.html
His blog is worth reading on the whole Trump mess.
http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/
Very good episode as always… I guess we will see how resilient our system really is over the next four (eight?) years. And if we do survive this, just wait till Mark Zuckerberg runs for President. Apparently he is making maneuvers to do just that. Unlike Trump he, or someone like him, might be seen as our savior, which may end up being even worse.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/will-mark-zuckerberg-be-our-next-president/amp?client=safari
I suspect the next big figure will be less an outsider on the left with strong media/entertainment ties than an insider popular on the far left of the Democratic mainstream who already makes good use of media or already has entertainment ties. While it’s far too early to make predictions both Corey Booker and Al Franken are rising stars in this regard. Booker is more controversial on the left due to his being more of a centrist (he’s quite popular even with Republicans) and due to the way some think he gratuitously self-promotes himself. Of course in the age of Trump that’s not necessarily bad. His attempt to do that during the Sen. Sessions hearings fell pretty flat though whereas Franken looks to be the new rising star.
Interesting theory, but the problem with Franken is that he will be 69 years old next presidential election. I’m not so sure the Millenials, or Gen Xers for that matter, will want to keep looking back as opposed to forward. After Trump I think there will be clamor for a more youthful candidate… Booker might fly though. At least I think he’ll be in the mix as he certainly has the ambition and youth on his side.
I skew more towards the conservative end of the political spectrum (although I did NOT vote for Trump!), and I was pleasantly surprised by the tone of this episode. I especially appreciated Wes’s multiple attempts to view “the other side’s” point of view.
But Seth….my man….you need to lighten up: “Republicans hate women”….very charitable way of characterizing 50% of America.
Anyway…looking forward to Part II.
He Theo
Acknowledged and agreed. I feel that sentiment strongly but could have articulated it differently. Wes’s call to not demonize the other in dialogue and to see things from their point of view applies to me more than anyone. That said, my opinion is based on actions and statements, not demonizing people. (Sin not the sinner)
No worries. thanks for the reply. Btw – another book you could add to your list is Hillbilly Elegy. I read it a few weeks ago and it really got to me. It made me feel lot more sympathy towards a large swath of America that I (rather snobbishly) used to feel a bit of disdain for. We need more books like that from both sides!
Yes, it’s definitely making the rounds. My mom read it and mentioned it and then my wife bought and read it (independently). My mom is actually from Appalachia and her side of the family all lives near the West Virginia border in Ohio. I don’t have any reliable news or commentary sources to go to for education so fiction and memoirs it is.
In that case, you might have a look at The Bitter Southerner: http://bittersoutherner.com/we-are-bitter/
I have to stand in defense of Seth! While I do think the statement was quite abrupt, I could not see things from the perspective he did with regard to abortion until he spoke in the way he did about it. Of course I understand the rights of a woman and I am pro choice – but I have always struggled with the idea of when life begins. His point of – hey listen, if you cared about women even half as much as you care about unborn babies you would consider ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, really struck me.Although I think it’s ultimately not the best argument to take with conservatives. Growing up in the rural south I can attest to the kind of “in spite of the odds”, “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality that is so predominant. This does not lend itself to an argument in which we think things like “but for the grace of god go I” which is an argument used only during convenience of the moment – say, a person who reprimands a child too harshly etc. Seth is using a leftist mentality to argue against a righty way of thinking. This will cause heels to dig in more deeply. Appeal to money – how much it costs to do one thing over another and find a way to show that it is financially in our best interest to educate those who are prone to unwanted pregnancies and then you’ll get what you want. But Seth expressed so perfectly one half of my inner struggle. Wes was the other half. I really needed to hear his outrage to properly identify my own. I needed someone who is at least a little prone to reflection to unapologetically be pissed off at the right’s absolute inability to think compassionately about the position of people they do not understand. And pardon me if I mischaracterize Seth or Wes. And again – it was the contrast between Seth’s heart being on his sleeve juxtaposed to Wes’s more detached view that allowed me to see even more clearly that the left refuses to take the POV of the right just like the right refuses to take the POV…..of, well – anyone other then them. I know – I’m still biased. I’m currently taking courses in moral psychology and the fact seems to me – we need to be more detached with regard to these issues because it’s a delicate balance and we actually need each other when it comes to these things. The left needs the right and the right needs the left. Sitting with why another point of view feels so uncomfortable is absolutely necessary. But there is and should be, no shame in Seth’s honesty.
The problem with “do more to prevent abortions” is that while it makes tons of sense from a utilitarian perspective most people don’t think about politics in purely utilitarian grounds. Indeed at least since the rise of Rawls in political philosophy there’s been a pretty strong move towards more deontological conceptions of politics. While I’m skeptical of both the consequentialists and deontologists I think both have their points.
This isn’t a left/right issue either. While I’m just as critical of pro-life people who don’t focus enough on reducing abortion it makes sense for those who focus on honoring rules rather than promoting values. (The honoring/promoting distinction is a common one in contemporary political philosophy roughly corresponding to the Kantian/Utilitarian distinction) For example a Catholic opposed to both abortion and birth control one shouldn’t break one rule to achieve better results for the former. For a more utilitarian thinker such tradeoffs make more sense. However you see the same thinking on the left in many places. Indeed protests without a practical strategy of achieving results (i.e. protest tied to a practical strategy of achieving policy legislation) typically is tied to the more Kantian perspective as well as virtue signaling. You especially see this relative to violence to prevent violence. Anti-war activists on the left are far more skeptical of violence to prevent war. (Although to be far in some cases this is argued more on utilitarian grounds rather than in terms of rules like “violence is wrong.”)
Of course if one is an utilitarian then criticizing groups for not focusing on results enough makes tons of sense. The problem is that at this point in politics utilitarianism doesn’t appear as common.
might be good to have Stephen Turner on sometime to talk experts and democracy:
http://faculty.cas.usf.edu/sturner5/Papers/ExpertsPapers/paper.htm
Couple comments –
– Really enjoyed this podcast. While I think you guys should continue to keep your primary format, throwing in the occasional free from curve ball is a refreshing change of pace, and may help some people see how philosophy either directly applies to day to day issues, or if not directly applies, how the philosophical “mindset” can improve approaches to difficult and thorny problems that may or may not themselves be properly “philosophical.”
– With regard to the current political scene, after the election I was casting about for something topical to read, and a ran across “Democracy for Realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government” by Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels. Very briefly they conclude that – “group and partisan loyalties, not policy preferences or ideologies, are fundamental in democratic politics. Thus a realistic theory of democracy must be built, not on the French Enlightenment, on British liberalism, or on American Progressivism, with their devotion to human rationality and nomadic individualism, but instead on the insights of the critics of these traditions, who recognized that human life is group life.” I strongly recommend this book, as I found it very enlightening. It is empirically driven, a bit dry and fairly academic in style, but the first and last chapter bookend the content well, and can be used as guides to the other chapters. It provided substantial empirical evidence for what I have long suspected – that we are first and foremost tribal, with all other values subordinate to our group identifications. There is even evidence that the more educated one is, the more dramatic the group identification, since the resources of the intelligent and the educated are just as likely to be put in service to the group, rather than in opposition to the group. This kind of thinking can also be found in books like Joshua Green’s “Moral Tribes” but here it is very systematically treated in the context of American partisan politics. Thus in answer to the question “how can they vote against their own self interest” the book answers “they ARE voting in their own self interest – which is always interpreted as maintaining and supporting their identity group.”
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691169446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484774011&sr=8-1&keywords=Democracy+for+realists
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/why-donald-trump-will-be-the-dunning-kruger-president.html
I have to say this episode bummed me out. I thought I heard Wes acknowledge the “hall monitors of yesterday” sentiment. I wouldn’t vote for Trump, but being on a college campus in California at this time makes me sympathetic to the sentiment. I remember the scare tactics the conservatives tried to use and I feel that most of the Trump supporters were reacting to this very real authoritarianism being grabbed by the left. Seth, you’re one of my favorites since the Wittgenstein(PI) episode, but I didn’t feel that zealous precision you usually bring to the conversation.
A few years ago, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote a piece about the moral foundations of the Tea Party movement. He said that Tea Partiers were motivated by “karma” – in effect, by the notion that the laws of nature would reward good behavior and punish bad behavior – and were afraid that the government under Obama would violate those laws.
He said, “To understand the anger of the tea-party movement, just imagine how you would feel if you learned that government physicists were building a particle accelerator that might, as a side effect of its experiments, nullify the law of gravity. Everything around us would float away, and the Earth itself would break apart.”
So, in essence, the Tea Party movement was motivated by more than politics. It was motivated by an existential, almost religious fear that the presidency of Barack Obama would upend the natural order of things.
And no one in the mainstream did anything but laugh at them.
Well, eight years on, and we’ve survived Obama. His policies are debatable, but he hasn’t destroyed America or caused an apocalypse. And now the left is experiencing the same sort of existential fear that conservatives felt eight years ago. For them, the election of Donald Trump is the ultimate challenge to a fundamental religious tenet of their ideology – the notion that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
As someone (unfortunately I can’t find the quote) said, this is more than a simple electoral loss to the Left. They are reacting the same way that Christians would react if the bones of Jesus were found. The most fundamental tenets of their entire worldview have been challenged.
If you accept some sort of historical deterministic notion that the world is supposed to keep getting better and better, and more and more socialist and egalitarian, then the election of Donald Trump disproves that – or at least makes it all a lot harder to believe.
So right now the left is having the same existential crisis that the right was having eight years ago. I hope they look back and feel a little more compassion for the people they mocked (and derided as “racist”) back then.
The objection to Trump is not primarily qua Republican. One expects shifts back and forth (though it’s a bummer). It’s qua his being incompetent/ignorant/flippant to the point of dangerous, in a way that even the highly immature Bush was not. Is that honestly what conservatives thought of Obama?
when they weren’t characterizing him as a despotic sleeper-agent Jihadist they made him out to be arrogant and unwilling to learn from them, in a word elitist….
Yeah, I know it seems extremely different, but that is what they thought. People thought we were devolving into a socialist dystopia. The polarization was nowhere near as extreme, but the fear of from his foreign policy to his stimulus package not to mention his health care. When he first took office it was primarily fear of socialism becoming a reality, later on fear of the executive orders in his second term freaked people out.
I remember thinking “nothing’s going to happen” but people’, especially millenials excitement about his presidency as some beacon of progress made me just as suspicious.
If you hung out or were around with republicans at that time it was just like being around my liberal friends now. The polarization is definitely heightened this election though.
My liberal friends keep explaining that their fears are warranted and republicans fear of Obama was not, but that’s hardly helpful in analyzing the current situation.
Hi Andrew, Mark, et al.,
Listen to this analysis from two unabashed Lefties for a sane arguement for what has happened this political season:
https://www.peterbcollins.com/2016/11/18/in-depth-interview-thomas-frank-analyzes-democrats-losses-celebrates-end-of-clinton-bush-dynasties/
Good discussion although there were a few places that had me shaking my head. One was the idea that pro-life people were inherently anti-women. A little recognition of the diversity in any political movement not to mention that any party is a set of coalitions – many of which distrust the others. A bit of charity even towards those we vehemently disagree with is in order.
I was surprised that Hayek’s ideas on knowledge (episode 123) didn’t come up in your discussion regarding the treatment of expert opinion. You talked about the dismissal of “experts” by Trump supporters extensively, and Hayek’s work is the most relevant to the topic. I have seen many conservatives, especially “Austrians” using Hayek to campaign against “elite” opinion.
Wes, I wish you had given evidence that more Trump supporters had been assaulted than anti-Trump protestors, While the election saw violence from both Trumpist and anti-Trump sides, I assumed I may have missed something but I don’t see any clear evidence that one group had more incidents than the other (the arch-conservative Dailer Caller documented just nine incidents of attacks on supporters). Your use of the idea that it was “just the fact” was disheartening, Your wording sounded too much like a Spicer “PERIOD” statement. There is also a world of difference between Trump actively advocating violence against protestors at his rallies and isolated attacks against Trump supporters. There was no institutional support for violence from Trump’s opponents while we saw the unprecedented act of a presidential candidate actively egging on his supporters as they beat dissidents. It was a minor point from Wes and maybe I have made too much of it, but at best it seemed like the reflex to “false balance” that has hampered political commentary.
I listened to this twice and I’m stunned by Seths response, he has declared himself a ‘sort of Hayekian’ at times yet he was obviously distraught, as with the comment above I thought that he would be the one who had doubts about experts but I’m wrong. Normally Wes annoys me with his partisan liberal comments but he surprised me with his ability to (try) to see the other sides view of politics and events. It was a great conversation and I’m looking forward to part two.
I live in Australia and whilst I’m more on the libertarian side of politics I do have an interest in US politics. Our media is way further left than the US and British left but I’m astounded how completely in the Democrats camp is the US media. Our media particularly the government run ones criticise both sides of politics from the extreme left but yours just campaigns for one side. So many of the elites in western societies live in a bubble and are completely unaware of it I guess.
By the way I was convinced the TRump would win and had $50 on him at 10 to 1 so I guess I’ll make another donation to PEL, how’s that boys? You will be taking money from the ‘Bad’ side of politics.
Great episode as always
There was a mention though of Orwell and the idea of the true being subordinated to the good as part of the some argument that intellectual pursuits need not be solely focussed on social justice etc – while i agree, i am not sure Orwell is the best example for this as Orwell himself was no half-measures sort of guy, and he was passionately anti-fascist and one must fight them with ones full energies where possible it was very black and white for Orwell on the issue of staving off totalitarianism. That the true and what is good are connected i think there is something to this that is important to keeping in touch with being able to actualise a reality that is also reason.
The trump is hitler argument also is one that i have never heard any voice in the media every make, nor on paper- it was moreso a concoction of the mainstream right to derail the parallels people can see between what trump has said and what he has done and how he has come to power, with those of the NSDAP/Nazis/Hitler etc in the 1920’s and 1930s – i greatly recommend the work ‘The Anatomy of Fascism’ by Robert O Paxton on this topic also
It would be interesting to hear what you have to say now 🙂
This is only the second episode I’ve skipped in listening through your entire catalogue over the past year.
This was a good reminder that the study of philosophy doesn’t always translate into thoughtfulness or awareness of the world outside of the class privileged enough with leisure time to study these things. It was hard to listen to how disconnected and unaware the gang was, having listened through and enjoyed most if not all the episodes up to this point.
This episode seemed to hypocritically turn back to an obliviousness towards the ‘Other’ of the show, and belittle the struggles, frustrations and challenges they endure. It seemed to go against nearly all the moral ideas that the gang assented to in prior episodes, and honestly I had to do a lot of reflection on how and why the explication of these types of moral systems with rigor can still result in their violation as long as it fits within a class or ideological horizon.
This is especially odd when they have episodes devoted to ‘examining racial and sexed privilege.’ It seems that these violations reduce these examinations to purely formal, academic, and empty rituals like the type of puritanical religions occasionally cast as a throw away joke on the show.
…Not sure exactly what struck you the wrong way here, but luckily we continue exploring the Other after this through several different PEL eps (on policing, anti-semitism, Fanon, social construction of race, Beauvoir, Judith Butler) and for my part quite a few Pretty Much Pop eps… a project launched (in small part) to be able to deal with issues like representation without having to eternally argue with Wes. But perhaps you’re aware of all this, and we’re still not hitting the mark.