Yesterday I watched Will Wilkinson and Ezra Klein on Blogging Heads. Will, as many of you will know, is a pragmatic libertarian (oh, they exist), while Ezra is a liberal. I was struck by (somewhat appalled in fact) by Ezra's irritation and contempt for the philosophical nerdiness of many libertarians. Ezra's emphasis on the empirical and the proximate, on a narrow sui generis fixation on a sequence of finite policies was set against a more expansive and theoretically scaffolded conception of the Good Life which Will seemed to be promoting (even a question of the nature of the Good Life). While Ezra held that what is Good and True is self-evidently Good and True, Will seemed to believe that meta-analysis, taking a step back and intellectually decomposing the presuppositions which feed one's policy positions, is both edifying and may smoke out deeper distinctions and commonalities. As the dialogue continued I was struck by the thought that Ezra Klein was more a man of Burke and Kirk than Locke or Mill!. In other words, Ezra's aversion to abstract analysis of political positions in a larger context, the deep philosophical structures in which they might be embedded in, to focus singularly on the nitty-gritty of specific issues which loom large contemporaneously, struck me as fundamentally a conservative sensibility.
The rejection of abstract thinking in favor of a more pragmatic orientation is certainly not alien to the populist Left, but Klein's veritable sneering at the intellectual game which Will attempted to introduce into the discussion struck me as peculiar insofar as this pose is one often taken on the Right against "pointy headed" liberals. Libertarians, who are generally on the Right, have always been conscious of the fact that their system building and axiomatic or utilitarian way of arriving at policy decisions is fundamentally at odds with the more ad hoc or culturally rooted predispositions of the conservative Right. Will's appeal to John Rawls was, I think, an attempt to point to this common ground in modality of thought, for Rawls is the Left liberal philosopher par excellence.
Do ideas have consequences? Over the short term I am skeptical, and even over the long term I am not convinced that deep seated historical forces which emerge from the cultural Zeitgeist are not more powerful than elucidated political philosophical systems. Lockean liberalism may simply have been a post facto justifications for the Rights of the English which developed organically out of British history. Nevertheless, I believe intellectuals do have a role to play in politics, and ideas do matter. Those on the Left have seen exactly where anti-intellectualism and a narrow proximate set of priorities have take us in regards to foreign policy. Brink Lindsey's "liberaltarian" play might be unconvincing (I am not convinced myself), but that is no reason to discard philosophy and a striving to deeper thought. Though philosophy might not be the engine which drives politics, intellectuals can play an important justifying rule, both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan gave a nod to F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom as influencing their view of the world and political sensibilities. Political philosophy is like theology, I do not believe that it exhibits the sense of mathematics or can offer the substance of science, but if you are a believer it does play a role in securing the faith. Klein shouldn't reject philosophy if what Will & company offer is not to his liking, he should go look for other court philosophers. Hate the sinner, not the sin.
- Log in to post comments
Erza's lack of concern for philosophy may be a self-referential validation of what he's saying: that abstract models of thought may not be as important in politics as those issues which are pragmatically contiguous. He's supposed to be a liberal, but such an attitude is usually associated with conservatism. So the modes of thought developed over centuries of analytic philosophy face a stunning empirical failure. I'm reminded of Mike Huben, a critic of libertarianism who exhibits an almost Nietzchean exuberance in denying that we need to consider abstract notions like "rights".
I think critics of philosophy make a mistake in thinking that it should be subject to the conjecture/refutation process of empirical fields like science. Scientific and mathematical theory is, at least ideally, isomorphic to reality. The reason we consider ideas in philosophy is because we think such things should be isomorphic to reality. The latter has obvious limitations, but I don't think it's value to a liberal society can be denied.
I think critics of philosophy make a mistake in thinking that it should be subject to the conjecture/refutation process of empirical fields like science.
my analogy with theology was conscious. to a sophisticated religious believer theology is relevant, and the religions with theology always seem to "win" in a world historical scale as opposed to those without theology (or metaphysics). this, despite the fact that i think cognitively "high" and "low" religions are pretty much the same at the level of the laity. i don't believe in god so theology is irrelevant to me, but i did have strong political views at one point so at that time a systematic exposition and justification of that viewpoint was important, and aided in my discourse with those whom i disagreed with. this isn't implying everyone has to be interested in political philosophy, nor does it even entail that ezra klein should be interested, but, klein's attitude of irritation and dismissal seems to suggest that he believes a theoretical auxiliary is unnecessary and irrelevant. i'm not so sure.
minor note: i do think that one result of exploring the philosophical underpinnings of political belief can be a better understanding of the whole topography. after all, not all libertarians believe in 'rights,' many are pretty intense utilitarians. and many mix rights and utilitarianism in a rawlsian manner, as i believe will does. i think his point was his ends are fundamentally no different than that of a liberal, but the details and emphases to get to those ends differs.
You say you had strong political views at one point. Why no longer?
i do think that one result of exploring the philosophical underpinnings of political belief can be a better understanding of the whole topography
Agree whole-heartedly. I wish people thought more abstractly more often.
In any case, as a liberal, I don't mind the existance of libertarians, and I'm happy to discuss things with them, and even on rare occasion agree with them. I've basically stopped arguing with more traditional conservatives, since libertarian = conservative - Jesus. And there's no point arguing in trying to discuss anything with those people.
Usually I find that libertarians have bad ethics and think the free market can fix anything. But at least they're not superstitious.
You say you had strong political views at one point. Why no longer?
science is more interesting and substantive. at least for me.
Usually I find that libertarians have bad ethics
can you elaborate? (some of my best friends are libertarians, and i still sort of am myself when i care to think about political issues)
science is more interesting and substantive. at least for me. Completely ignore politics and watch science be swept away by the theocracy that half this country would like to institute.
Libertarian ethics. I suppose this is a philosophical point that is really too complex for me to do much justice right now, but here's where I'd start: with the assumption of sustainability and the social nature of people. I want to know that humans will continue to evolve beyond my death, and if we all operate from individualist perspectives, it will be destroyed in short order (for example, if my company dumps toxic waste into the river but I only care about getting rich myself).
Our social nature is why we're the leading species on the planet. We have empathy; we solve problems collectively, and to pretend we're a bunch of islands is ridiculous. Imagine I'm the rich businessman libertarian again; having hundreds of times more than the average person means someone is suffering because of me. Why would I allow this? If I'm on the other end, I refuse to accept this... I organize... a government is created.
This could go on and on, but I'll leave that to start.
Completely ignore politics and watch science be swept away by the theocracy that half this country would like to institute.
so i should follow all the news and comment on politics and read political philosophy because otherwise this country will turn into a theocracy? wow, talk about simplistic. in any case, i don't like the debasement of language, christian conservatives won't create a theocracy. just a christian nation like this was until the 1960s. not that i favor that, but i find use the word 'theocracy' a bit much when there are nations like saudi arabia or iran are around.
you seem to make a tacit natural rights assertion, but a good number of libertarians are utilitarians. they would probably agree with your general conception of human nature but disagree as to the consequences of various political arrangements.
so i should follow all the news and comment on politics and read political philosophy because otherwise this country will turn into a theocracy? wow, talk about simplistic.
Got a better plan? So I should like, recycle my cans a bottles instead of throwing them away and that will save limited resources? talk about simplistic! Unless everyone does it. Or most people. Or more people. Welcome to democracy. The more we educate ourselves, the more we participate, the better it works.
christian conservatives won't create a theocracy. just a christian nation like this was until the 1960s
What?! What are you talking about? The United States never was and never has been a "Christian" nation. And even if it had been I'm awful glad it's not now. If you can't see the amazing and ironic similarities between our Christian right wing and nations that are already there like Saudi Arabia or Iran, you are blind to the obvious.
Libertarians: They would make awful utilitarians. Utilitarianism is trying to maximize some partly tangible measure (usually "happiness") as summed over the entire population. Since pure capitalism historically serves to unevenly distribute wealth, it's a bad plan, unless those 1% sitting on all the wealth while people starve are really, REALLY happy.
meh. Should have been "isn't and never has been".
But caring more about science doesn't necessitate caring less about anything else.
Does it relate to the idea that ideas aren't important? If political outcomes are not the result of philosophy, then philosophy suddenly becomes a little less interesting. At least to me anyway.
Same for you?
If you can't see the amazing and ironic similarities between our Christian right wing and nations that are already there like Saudi Arabia or Iran, you are blind to the obvious.
i was born in a muslim nation. calling the christian right similar to muslim fundamentalists is repulsive trivialization.
Libertarians: They would make awful utilitarians. Utilitarianism is trying to maximize some partly tangible measure (usually "happiness") as summed over the entire population. Since pure capitalism historically serves to unevenly distribute wealth, it's a bad plan, unless those 1% sitting on all the wealth while people starve are really, REALLY happy.
again, caricature. only anarcho-capitalists believe in "pure capitalism." even f.a. hayek was not necessarily opposed to some form of redistribution. ordo-liberalism, for example, tends to meed the social democratic/market model in the middle.
But caring more about science doesn't necessitate caring less about anything else.
time is finite.
If political outcomes are not the result of philosophy, then philosophy suddenly becomes a little less interesting.
not for me. pure science is not uninteresting just because there aren't obvious political applications. though this point's relevance is fair in regards to the kelin-wilkinson debate.
Time being finite does not necessitate that your views on politics become weak when something else captures your interest. I don't mean to beat on this, but your answer to my question seems dismissive and I don't know why. Developing other interests in no way necessitates that you change your views on politics from firmly held to less firmly held all things remaining equal. Something else has not remained equal (something has caused you to doubt your once strongly held views), but you don't seem to want to discuss it. Fine.
if political beliefs are informed by the empirical context of the present, then the amount of information you have about the present conditions how strongly one can hold given views. i don't keep track of current affairs so i don't have strong views, because i don't hold that strong to a rights based worldview where i can infer my position a priori. to make a utility calculation i need to figure out the parameters, but i don't have the time right now because i'm focused on stuff like evolutionary genetics.
It occurred to me that you may simply mean something else by "strongly held" than I assume you to mean. I thought you were implying that you once held your beliefs with a great amount of certainty and that you no longer do.
An interesting admission, one rarely heard. But this must not be what you mean. Sorry.
I see, that WAS what you meant. Thank you for the more substantiated answer.
To this non-libertarian the notion that libertarian thought is incompatible with our social nature is bunk. Perhaps a more rigorous examination of certain abstract ideas is in order.
I don't think it's "incompatible" so much as it's just not most compatible. It's true that a more rigorous examination is in order. I was just trying to see if I could summarize in one paragraph my beef with libertarians. And they certainly identify with the most unaltered capitalism of any minor or major political party in this country - and we already have problems with wealth distribution as it is.
i was born in a muslim nation. calling the christian right similar to muslim fundamentalists is repulsive trivialization.
Well, I guess I can't argue with the fact that you know better than me. But it's in the small things, you have to look a bit harder. Here, women are repressed, sex is "evil" and proper sex education isn't taught, and we can't have a real discussion about ethics without false religious "morality" entering the picture, and a we can't elect officials without talking endlessly about their religious beliefs - just for a few examples. It's all there to a lesser degree, but the basic flaws are all the same.
I think you're onto something. I view "common sense" as the time-tested, accumulated practical experience of millions of people over long periods of time.
There's nothing wrong with radical ideas, but they are kind of like wierd mutations. By serendipity, they might be useful, but most of the time they are duds or anomalies.
The problem is that affluent Americans don't have a good body of common sense for dealing with anybody in the developing world. "Modern" Anglo-American culture really is exceptional. Most people (most Europeans even) do not think about wealth, work, or individuality anything like upper/middle class Anglo-Americans do. This is why the overseas experience of observant people is so crucial (and so lacking) in guiding policy.
Insularity + Idiosyncracy + International Activism = Danger
Here, women are repressed, sex is "evil" and proper sex education isn't taught
So you think that when sex is "doubleplusgood" and everybody is educated about "all things one never wanted to know about sex", then everybody will be happy?
And re that repression of women - unless one forces me to wear a veil or, as it already happens in some more "multicultural" European cities, calls me whore because I don't wear one, I will consider religious Christians pretty mild.
I don't see the necessity of the 1984 reference, and I never claimed that such a thing would "make everybody happy". I used it as a specific example of a situation that exists because of the prevalence of Christianity in this country. Of course the situation is mild compared to countries, but it still exists, it's still wrong, it's still crappy, it's still worth fighting against, and it still takes the work of many people to keep it from getting worse. It completely blows my mind that here on scienceblogs.com I can claim that fundamentalist Christianity has too much sway in this country and have to defend myself to this degree.