Monday, June 18, 2012

False Equivalences and Philosophical Politics


Earlier tonight, several acquaintances of mine were arguing on Facebook about Senator Scott Brown, the No Labels movement, and the political climate for Democrats and Republicans. Here's my contribution:

Fiscal liberal, social liberal, less hawkish on foreign policy...you're called a fringe, "professional left", un-Serious progressive, ignored by the Democratic establishment.

Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, hawkish on foreign policy...you're called a standard, mainstream, establishment Republican.

See the problem here? Liberals are losing the war on framing every day, and there are just far more ardent conservatives than liberals in America anyway. Conservatives have a party that fights for them -- do liberals? The Democratic Party and President Obama, if anything, are both moderate overall and hardly "socialist" as the hyperbolic Republicans claim.

Democrats continue to reward Republicans for their message discipline and intransigence by refusing to solidify and reinforce their own beliefs before the eye of the public. Democrats need to grow a spine. Also, I agree that No Labels as fool's gold in this political climate. Our main problem is conservative overreach and Democratic "compromise". You can't compromise with people like Richard Mourdock. I'm from Indiana, I know! When Lugar loses his seat for being a moderate, watch out. It's not a "both sides" problem. No Labels and people who agree with them are not seeing the problem clearly.

***

When I was describing this conversation to my roommate, he told me about a documentary he watched tonight that argued against the wind industry. He was annoyed that the documentary bashed the wind industry while refusing to offer solutions to the problems of energy consumption and climate change. I share my roommate's frustrations.

While talking to my roommate, I observed that we live in a world where there are often no good alternatives to some of our most pressing global problems. Sometimes, there are numerous flaws and drawbacks to even the best of all possible policies. To have a genuinely productive discussion, a responsible person must try to consider all the positive and negative consequences of every alternative.

Politics is often extremely superficial, short-term, bottom-line, and deeply unimaginative. At those times, I'm astonishingly thankful that I also studied philosophy while I was in college.

My roommate suggested that one reason that people behind the anti-wind industry film were criticizing the wind industry is because those filmmakers may be reflexively anti-business. I am a liberal, but I'm not anti-business. I am deeply skeptical of the idea that businesses can regulate themselves. Businesses are run by human beings. The market isn't a magic elixir that fix mistakes people make. I support well-regulated business. I'm a capitalist, but I am a realistic one!

In response, my roommate replied that government is also run by human beings. True. Those people in government also make mistakes. That's no reason to arbitrarily limit or abolish government. Liberals may be skeptical of unregulated business -- but there's no overwhelming desire to produce as little business as possible, in the way conservatives desire to produce as little government as possible.

Perhaps this difference exists because government is an unfortunate necessity, while business is neutral to positive in its effect on the world -- that would be a conservative position, and perhaps the opposite view is a far-left position. Why not compare those positions, their implications, and their effects? That's a realistic, thoughtful, genuine debate.

I don't want politics to remain a series of talking points. I want a meaningful, substantive, evidence-based examination of assumptions, values, and outcomes -- because I want the best possible policies that improve the lives of everyone. Politics shouldn't be a game, a horse race, or a pissing contest.

You don't have to be a liberal or a conservative, but you should strive to test your views against your best examination of reality. That one political movement (conservatism) attempts this practice far less often than another political movement (liberalism) is one of the greatest tragedies in modern American society. That sure doesn't sound like a "both sides" problem to me.

No comments:

Post a Comment