You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aux Armes, Citoyens!
- Thread starter MLipton
- Start date
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by MLipton:
I always find it interesting that when people trot out these accusations of government spending they always focus on social services and steadfastly ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the room: the egregious cost excesses seen in military procurement and military contractors (private industry!). I wonder why that is...
Mark Lipton
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others. There’s also no good reason why concern about climate change should correlate strongly with favoring gun control; or opposition to abortion with supporting military interventions; or demands for free-market solutions to health care with favoring the death penalty. Yet that's what seems to happen. There’s obviously some other dynamic at work besides ideology or logical consistency.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others.
Not very peculiar. It's called hypocrisy and all sides take part! It's also evidence that the large v. small government debate is not as salient as it once was. Political divides shift over time.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
There’s also no good reason why concern about climate change should correlate strongly with favoring gun control; or opposition to abortion with supporting military interventions; or demands for free-market solutions to health care with favoring the death penalty. Yet that's what seems to happen. There’s obviously some other dynamic at work besides ideology or logical consistency.
There's no universal logic for any of it in any country. The political issues and cleavages develop their own unique contextual shape, and vary across time and space.
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others.
Not very peculiar. It's called hypocrisy and all sides take part! It's also evidence that the large v. small government debate is not as salient as it once was. Political divides shift over time.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
There’s also no good reason why concern about climate change should correlate strongly with favoring gun control; or opposition to abortion with supporting military interventions; or demands for free-market solutions to health care with favoring the death penalty. Yet that's what seems to happen. There’s obviously some other dynamic at work besides ideology or logical consistency.
There's no universal logic for any of it in any country. The political issues and cleavages develop their own unique contextual shape, and vary across time and space.
What do you think of the fMRI and political positions stuff? I'm skeptical of most fMRI stuff as it is a whole lot of hand-waiving, but I must admit that it makes some sense to me based on my experience.
originally posted by VLM:
What do you think of the fMRI and political positions stuff? I'm skeptical of most fMRI stuff as it is a whole lot of hand-waiving, but I must admit that it makes some sense to me based on my experience.
It's a growing field and unfortunately most political scientists are ill-equipped to properly evaluate the research (myself included). I imagine the same goes for biologists/neuro-scientists who are ill-equipped to evaluate the social science end of the work. Which means it falls into a weird position.
But, on face value, the notion that people are biologically wired to be more open/closed seems to make sense, along with the notion that that would have ramifications for who is more likely to participate politically or adhere to a broadly-defined set of values.
Of course those values have to be defined broadly and I don't think people are hard-wired to support specific policies.
The classic example is that in post-Revolutionary France the 'leftist' progressive economic policy was to support the free market and eradicate feudal privileges. 100 years later the 'leftist' progressive economic policy outlook had changed dramatically.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Not necessarily. If you place a high priority on a particular program, it is reasonable to tolerate some inefficiency in carrying that program out. The lower priority you place on it, the less inefficiency you're likely to consider acceptable.originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others.
Not very peculiar. It's called hypocrisy and all sides take part!
Which is exactly why modern Republicans are not driven by the ideology of small government and modern Democrats are not driven by the ideology of big government. Each side has many more pressing ideological priorities that lead to a mixture of big/small government implications.
To be fair, it is no longer clear what divides the center-left and the center-right, in the US and all advanced democracies. There are often as many divides within each side as between the two sides. Some think that globalization will become the new cleavage, but too early to tell.
Either way, the lack of clarity does contribute to the dysfunction, and in turn the rise in support for populist lunatics.
Either way, the lack of clarity does contribute to the dysfunction, and in turn the rise in support for populist lunatics.
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM:
What do you think of the fMRI and political positions stuff? I'm skeptical of most fMRI stuff as it is a whole lot of hand-waiving, but I must admit that it makes some sense to me based on my experience.
It's a growing field and unfortunately most political scientists are ill-equipped to properly evaluate the research (myself included). I imagine the same goes for biologists/neuro-scientists who are ill-equipped to evaluate the social science end of the work. Which means it falls into a weird position.
But, on face value, the notion that people are biologically wired to be more open/closed seems to make sense, along with the notion that that would have ramifications for who is more likely to participate politically or adhere to a broadly-defined set of values.
Of course those values have to be defined broadly and I don't think people are hard-wired to support specific policies.
The classic example is that in post-Revolutionary France the 'leftist' progressive economic policy was to support the free market and eradicate feudal privileges. 100 years later the 'leftist' progressive economic policy outlook had changed dramatically.
The stuff I was thinking about specifically was the heightened amygdala response in conservatives/reactionaries and more pre-frontal cortex in liberals/academics. IME, it rings true with the irrational positions and subsequent hatred spewed by right wingers including those who are otherwise considered "smart" or "successful".
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Not necessarily. If you place a high priority on a particular program, it is reasonable to tolerate some inefficiency in carrying that program out. The lower priority you place on it, the less inefficiency you're likely to consider acceptable.originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others.
Not very peculiar. It's called hypocrisy and all sides take part!
Still hypocrisy. You can couch it in convenient policy goals but it is what it is.
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others.
Not very peculiar. It's called hypocrisy and all sides take part!
Not necessarily. If you place a high priority on a particular program, it is reasonable to tolerate some inefficiency in carrying that program out. The lower priority you place on it, the less inefficiency you're likely to consider acceptable.
That would assume that (in the example) government is per se less efficient than private industry or charity at achieving all objectives, which simply isn't true.
Re Rahsaan's point, it's true for that particular example, but the others I gave (and there are plenty where those came from) are not really hypocrisy. They are political/economic positions that should be mostly or completely disconnected and independent; not strongly correlated as they are nowadays.
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by Rahsaan:
To be fair, it is no longer clear what divides the center-left and the center-right, in the US and all advanced democracies. There are often as many divides within each side as between the two sides. Some think that globalization will become the new cleavage, but too early to tell.
Either way, the lack of clarity does contribute to the dysfunction, and in turn the rise in support for populist lunatics.
I don't think some of them are lunatics at all, they are just bad (but rational) people.
I desperately wish the media would stop calling them "populists", when many of them have the support of only a minority, and in some cases is far too benign a description anyway.
But back to my point, why "both sides", i.e. why binary as in you support the "right" or the "left"?
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM:
What do you think of the fMRI and political positions stuff? I'm skeptical of most fMRI stuff as it is a whole lot of hand-waiving, but I must admit that it makes some sense to me based on my experience.
It's a growing field and unfortunately most political scientists are ill-equipped to properly evaluate the research (myself included). I imagine the same goes for biologists/neuro-scientists who are ill-equipped to evaluate the social science end of the work. Which means it falls into a weird position.
But, on face value, the notion that people are biologically wired to be more open/closed seems to make sense, along with the notion that that would have ramifications for who is more likely to participate politically or adhere to a broadly-defined set of values.
Of course those values have to be defined broadly and I don't think people are hard-wired to support specific policies.
The classic example is that in post-Revolutionary France the 'leftist' progressive economic policy was to support the free market and eradicate feudal privileges. 100 years later the 'leftist' progressive economic policy outlook had changed dramatically.
The stuff I was thinking about specifically was the heightened amygdala response in conservatives/reactionaries and more pre-frontal cortex in liberals/academics. IME, it rings true with the irrational positions and subsequent hatred spewed by right wingers including those who are otherwise considered "smart" or "successful".
This is all very interesting, and kind of where I was headed in my original post. I haven't kept up with developments. Are there other scales or factors (wrong words, senior moment here) being researched besides "open/closed"? It's easy to see that properly controlled experiments would be very difficult.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
No, that is not hypocrisy. It is consistent application of a principle. You are fully entitled to disagree with that principle.originally posted by MarkS:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Not necessarily. If you place a high priority on a particular program, it is reasonable to tolerate some inefficiency in carrying that program out. The lower priority you place on it, the less inefficiency you're likely to consider acceptable.originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
It’s partly a symptom of the weird fossilization of our political discourse on a linear “left-right” scale. As you point out, it’s peculiar that conservative concern over inefficient government spending is evoked for some categories but not others.
Not very peculiar. It's called hypocrisy and all sides take part!
Still hypocrisy. You can couch it in convenient policy goals but it is what it is.
Keith Levenberg
Keith Levenberg
Read Jonathan Haidt.originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
This is all very interesting, and kind of where I was headed in my original post. I haven't kept up with developments. Are there other scales or factors (wrong words, senior moment here) being researched besides "open/closed"? It's easy to see that properly controlled experiments would be very difficult.
Loading…
smile.amazon.com
originally posted by VLM:
The stuff I was thinking about specifically was the heightened amygdala response in conservatives/reactionaries and more pre-frontal cortex in liberals/academics..
The notion that conservatives are motivated by fear and anxiety? I have seen that and assign some for my students. Again I'm not fully qualified to judge all the studies but my prior (even as a non-conservative) would be very very skeptical. But I haven't dug too deeply.
I see both left-right as very open/closed/anxious/hierarchical/authoritarian/etc about different things.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
I desperately wish the media would stop calling them "populists", when many of them have the support of only a minority, and in some cases is far too benign a description anyway.
I don't want to get too far into definitional madness, but populism has nothing to do with the size of the following. It's an ideology that the world is divided between good and bad, and the current elites are bad and need to be swept out in favor of the masses. Lots of wiggle room on how the masses are defined and who speaks for them, but the key is the us-them and the lack of negotiation/incrementalism.
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
I desperately wish the media would stop calling them "populists", when many of them have the support of only a minority, and in some cases is far too benign a description anyway.
I don't want to get too far into definitional madness, but populism has nothing to do with the size of the following. It's an ideology that the world is divided between good and bad, and the current elites are bad and need to be swept out in favor of the masses. Lots of wiggle room on how the masses are defined and who speaks for them, but the key is the us-them and the lack of negotiation/incrementalism.
Even worse choice of words then. What you describe sounds like Manicheanism to me. Not at all what I would think if I heard the word "populist" for the first time.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
I desperately wish the media would stop calling them "populists", when many of them have the support of only a minority, and in some cases is far too benign a description anyway.
But back to my point, why "both sides", i.e. why binary as in you support the "right" or the "left"?
The media just shy away from the more accurate but perjorative “demagogue.”
Modern political positions have drifted far from the original Liberal and Conservative stances. Most recent analyses I’ve seen rely on a two-dimensional graph and have no less than a dozen different political groupings. To lump Goldwateresque Libertarians, Evangelical Social Conservatives, Tea Party adherents and alt.right neo-Fascists into a single “Conservative” camp is just intellectually lazy. Ditto with New Deal Liberals, Socialists and Old School Marxists.
Mark Lipton
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
I desperately wish the media would stop calling them "populists", when many of them have the support of only a minority, and in some cases is far too benign a description anyway.
But back to my point, why "both sides", i.e. why binary as in you support the "right" or the "left"?
The media just shy away from the more accurate but perjorative “demagogue.”
Modern political positions have drifted far from the original Liberal and Conservative stances. Most recent analyses I’ve seen rely on a two-dimensional graph and have no less than a dozen different political groupings. To lump Goldwateresque Libertarians, Evangelical Social Conservatives, Tea Party adherents and alt.right neo-Fascists into a single “Conservative” camp is just intellectually lazy. Ditto with New Deal Liberals, Socialists and Old School Marxists.
Mark Lipton
Well, there is a common ground there: all the groups called Conservative at least give lip service to free market capitalism. All the groups labelled Liberal believe that the market ought at least to be regulated by the government if not entirely replaced by it (I'm not sure what old school Marxists believed since when they existed, there were so few of them here and those in Europe had their minds too addled by the Cold War to think clearly, but Marx really wanted markets replaced rather than regulated).
One can also make sense of two of the three congeries of beliefs that Christian points to above--"there’s also no good reason why concern about climate change should correlate strongly with favoring gun control; or opposition to abortion with supporting military interventions; or demands for free-market solutions to health care with favoring the death penalty. Yet that's what seems to happen." The middle example gets in the middle of views of foreign policy, which don't have easy left/right alignments. And, indeed, Rand Paul, for instance, opposes abortion and is also hesitant about military intervention. With regard to climate control and gun control, however, it's easy to see why liberals who think of freedom in terms of freedom to live a life according to one's values and see that freedom as dependent upon a government doing its best to create a world in which that can be done (pretty much Rawlsian liberalism) would care about regulating both gun violence, attending to climate depredation and, for that matter, trying to achieve universal health care. Equally, Conservatives, who value freedom from government regulation do value government as a form of police force to regulate the state of nature's nasty, brutish and short life and thus would not want the government to interfere in our relationships with our doctors but would value strong measurements against criminals.
Really, there is a rationality, or at least a rationale, to political beliefs. Finding ways of calling those who disagree with you either hypocritical (thought there is plenty of hypocrisy in politics as practiced) or irrationally close-minded increases tribalism rather than explaining it.