Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity .
While some of the latter undoubtedly exists, it has to be considered alongside the feeling that if the current state of affairs is not working, then we should try something else, even if it’s not clear that the something else would be a benefit. Basically, an example of the invalid syllogism of “X is failing; we should stop doing X; Y is different from X; therefore we should do Y.” But on the other hand, it’s rarely obvious if Y is actually better or worse than X, plus it might be easier to transition from Y to some hypothetical Z than from X to Z.
This thread literally divides people into three categories: liberals who want to improve everyone’s lives; conservatives who are totally self-interested and don’t mind screwing people over as a side effect; and reactionaries who have screwing people over as a primary goal. I responded in that context.
Plus, it should be said that there’s a difference between the behavior of our politicians vs. the beliefs of the public. It’s not possible to pick and choose only the positive attributes of our politicians. They come in a bundle. Two people could have identical views but vote for different people just based on the relative importance they assign to different things.
Greetings AIvillain and welcome to the straight dope message board! That was a fine inaugural post, starting with a terrific taxonomy. I admit we have very different politics, but I thought you struck a solid balance between information and commentary.
This. If you read Dr. Strangelove you get the impression that all political groupings have the exact same vices in the exact same proportions. What a coincidence! As evidence he puts forward examples of these vices in each group, implying that an example proves both groups are the same. It’s a solid presentation of a view from nowhere.
Avoiding false equivalence is prerequisite for decent analysis.
Well, no. Obamacare was phased in over years, not decades. Increasing top individual tax rates to 40% has immediate effects, though they are difficult to track. Inequality does vary over time:
Agreed, group characteristics are in some sense an average of individual characteristics (which themselves are distributions) . So it’s not statistically surprising that the differences between groups would be more pronounced. There are short basketball players, but wow the average height of a basketball team is going to be different than the average height of a baseball team. Pointing out a tall baseball player or short basketball player says little about each group’s central tendency.
But the central tendency of each group is pretty important: the feelings of its members matter a lot less. Are all members of a Fascist party like in mid-century Italy (or Germany or Spain) psychopathic narcissists? The best answer isn’t, “No” (though it is accurate): the best answer is, “Who cares?”
ETA: Dr. Strangelove: Below you making an accurate argument about what can happen conceptually, while only implying what does happen empirically. That’s not good enough and worse it’s uninteresting: fascists were evil in important public and political ways, whatever their private treatment of their spouses, parents, or children.
No, what I am saying is that other factors that are not directly related to the group categorization are likely uncorrelated. Basketball players are taller than baseball players on average, but I doubt that their preference for vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream is any different.
But it’s just those things that complete the picture of individuals–whether they have a loving family, or are generous with their time, or are good conversationalists, or whatever. They can be true independent of their political beliefs.
Subpoint on your first paragraph: being a Republican means advocating policies that directly help the rich and screw the poor, at least in the tax code and safety net. Those factor are directly related to group characterization, as much as height is related to playing basketball. Republicans can and do prettify their arguments by calling for a larger nonprofit sector and the like, but the direct actions are undeniable.
Republicans have also claimed in the past that their policies will help the poor in the end because a rising tide lifts all boats. Conceptually this claim is highly dubious. Empirically it is vacuous. So solid analysis involves dismissing it as a bad faith argument.
Conservatives are likely to see liberals as less than full-throated supporters of capitalism, despite it being the primary engine of economic progress. It is entirely possible to support, in principle, exceptions such as UHC, while also thinking that the left goes too far in some proposals, and that this would have the side effect of harming everyone. Or that, for example, unions may be able to win short-term gains for themselves, but that in the long term they harm the competitiveness of their industry.
But regardless of the specifics, the point is that calling the opposition purely self-interested and without concern for others, while saying that your political allies have only the purest of intentions, is neither accurate nor a healthy attitude.
Like many things, this is an issue of calibration. Humans have their strengths, one being an unparalleled ability to blow smoke up their own asses. But you don’t want to bend over backwards nine times because of a misguided intent to be fair. That’s can lead to mischaracterization as well.
Surely all humans are selfish in some sense and surely this property varies among humans (though the latter is impolite). I agree that it’s generally unproductive to closely inspect the relative selfishness of Republicans and Democrats (a difficult to measure psychological property), but it’s entirely appropriate to track each group’s behaviors (a legitimate matter of public interest), plotting a course between self-flattery and false equivalence.
In the substance, plenty of center-left outlets have think pieces exploring the tradeoffs between equity and efficiency. Sometimes it even affects their policy prescriptions. Contrast with the WSJ editorial page or the National Review. It’s all reaction to the libs, all the time.
Most functional organizations, nations as well as companies, go through phases of reform and consolidation. The optimum may or may not be continuous process improvement, but in practice change happens in fits and starts. To the extent that consolidation is a requirement, conservatives have a valuable role to play.[1] Which they are performing poorly in the US, at least since Gingrich. Say what you will about Reagan, he backpedaled when his tax cuts didn’t work and he successfully passed tax reform, originally proposed by Bill Bradley (D-NJ).
Example MMMDCLXVI:
Currently the GOP is debating governmental shutdowns over calls for cuts in discretionary spending. Tax hikes, and cuts to social security or healthcare are not being actively considered. This is theatrics:
Kevin Drum:
Don’t bother talking about welfare or defense spending or any of that. Plausible cuts in those programs would have only a tiny effect. You either raise taxes or you cut Social Security and Medicare. Period.
Similar chart on discretionary spending declines over time:
[1] Yes, yes, there are examples of reform and consolidation from both parties. So what?
.