Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Barone concludes: okay, that sounds like an ending.) |
(added note about irrationality at top, and appendix with list at end) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
If we're talking about the validity of Barone's post, then, we're mainly talking about the validity of Haidt's article (with emphasis on those two paragraphs) plus Barone's additional parting shot. | If we're talking about the validity of Barone's post, then, we're mainly talking about the validity of Haidt's article (with emphasis on those two paragraphs) plus Barone's additional parting shot. | ||
===Haidt: introduction=== | ===Haidt: introduction=== | ||
| + | From a rational perspective, this is a truly awful piece of writing. I count at least eight [[straw men]], two [[appeals to guilt]], three counts of [[demonizing]], four unsupported claims, and five counts of what I can only think of as "shell gaming". | ||
| + | |||
| + | As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid; the bit of science Haidt throws in as a doorstop to let his emotional pleas through is just icing on the cake. | ||
| + | |||
The first hint of trouble (i.e. anything that I can disagree with) is when Haidt says: | The first hint of trouble (i.e. anything that I can disagree with) is when Haidt says: | ||
<blockquote>People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity" – a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.</blockquote> | <blockquote>People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity" – a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 23: | ||
If anyone is rejecting the idea of learning from other ideologies, it would be conservatives. If conservatism chooses to shoot itself in the foot by insisting on an [[2009-03-07 Limbaugh defines bipartisanship|all-or-nothing, dominate-or-be-dominated]] view of the political spectrum, that is a choice made by conservatives -- not liberals. If political ideology must be a binary, all-or-nothing choice, the only sane choice is the ideology which respects and values other ideologies. This isn't a matter of liberalism "winning" on some "liberal talking point"; it's a matter of getting along peacefully. | If anyone is rejecting the idea of learning from other ideologies, it would be conservatives. If conservatism chooses to shoot itself in the foot by insisting on an [[2009-03-07 Limbaugh defines bipartisanship|all-or-nothing, dominate-or-be-dominated]] view of the political spectrum, that is a choice made by conservatives -- not liberals. If political ideology must be a binary, all-or-nothing choice, the only sane choice is the ideology which respects and values other ideologies. This isn't a matter of liberalism "winning" on some "liberal talking point"; it's a matter of getting along peacefully. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Haidt concludes this thought by continuing: | Haidt concludes this thought by continuing: | ||
| Line 152: | Line 154: | ||
In the next section, Haidt reaches the end of the science he had to present, and keeps going -- not realizing that he has run past the end of what little credibility he had. ''Republicans have become the party of the sacred,'' says he, ''and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- the material.'' | In the next section, Haidt reaches the end of the science he had to present, and keeps going -- not realizing that he has run past the end of what little credibility he had. ''Republicans have become the party of the sacred,'' says he, ''and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- the material.'' | ||
| − | I don't know if there's any point in explaining how ludicrous this is – loyal Republicans will faithfully ignore any reality I might try to interject (reality has a well-known liberal bias) – but remind me again which party it is whose members have more corruption, more sex scandals, more obsession with money and profit? | + | I don't know if there's any point in explaining how ludicrous this is – loyal Republicans will faithfully ignore any reality I might try to interject (reality has a well-known liberal bias) – but remind me again which party it is whose members have more corruption, more sex scandals, more obsession with money and profit? (...as long as we're judging "by what they do rather than by what they value"...) |
It also paints liberals as soulless automatons whose points of view may be safely ignored. If he had a rational argument underlying this claim, that would be fair play -- but he insinuates and implies it without explaining it. Such demonization is not acceptable in civil discourse. | It also paints liberals as soulless automatons whose points of view may be safely ignored. If he had a rational argument underlying this claim, that would be fair play -- but he insinuates and implies it without explaining it. Such demonization is not acceptable in civil discourse. | ||
| Line 200: | Line 202: | ||
Keeping the kids away from the heavy machinery is still the ticket here, I think. | Keeping the kids away from the heavy machinery is still the ticket here, I think. | ||
| + | ==Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities== | ||
| + | This isn't a complete list, but it catches the highlights. Some sentences are counted more than once due to multiple sins. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Straw-manning the opposition: | ||
| + | # "Diagnosis is ... righteous pleasure ... seduction wearing a halo." | ||
| + | # "...convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground..." | ||
| + | # "Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies..." | ||
| + | # "morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think)..." | ||
| + | # "Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology..." | ||
| + | # liberals believe "that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires" | ||
| + | # having described himself as a liberal going into India, he then describes that viewpoint as "my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later)" -- implying that liberals would agree with (or at least practice) this | ||
| + | # suggests a revised definition (of morality as "any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.") as if it disagrees with the liberal position, when it doesn't | ||
| + | |||
| + | Appeals to guilt: | ||
| + | # "Diagnosis is ... righteous pleasure ... seduction wearing a halo." | ||
| + | # "Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies..." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shell-gaming: | ||
| + | # the hypothetical existence of disgusted ancient lawgivers would somehow, if true, explain why morals are necessary for maintaining social institutions, but don't worry about the connection, because there is no rational explanation for morals, just take his word for it that they're necessary (disgusted ancient lawgivers clearly represent an essential social institution of some kind)... | ||
| + | # switches freely between talking about ''care for individuals'' and ''care for society'' | ||
| + | # claims that "nobody was harmed" in his hypothetical examples, yet implies (without stating it) that there would be harm to society | ||
| + | # implies heavily that support for "essential institutions" should trump caring for individuals -- but deftly palms the issue of how we decide which institutions are "essential" while carefully nudging us away from any objective means of evaluation | ||
| + | #* he later says "Might we do better with an approach that defines moral systems by what they do rather than by what they value?" -- if by "defines" he means ''evaluates'' (and by "do" he means ''accomplish''), then this is another shell-game move, because this is exactly the liberal/rational position -- presented as an opposing view | ||
| + | # holds out the three "conservative pillars" as being something of vital importance overlooked by Democrats, without ever explaining ''how they are necessary'' (regardless of how you value institutions vs. individuals), much less giving any examples | ||
| + | |||
| + | Demonizing: | ||
| + | # "Republicans have become the party of the sacred, and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- '''the material'''." | ||
| + | # "Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy." Earlier he was complaining about Dems being elitist -- you can't be both elitist and populist, so which is it? | ||
| + | # Democrats see society solely as a collection of individuals (with rights, which they want NOW!) rather than as an entity in need of tending and caring. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unsupported (and unsupportable) claims: | ||
| + | # When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." | ||
| + | # "Republicans have become the party of the sacred, and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- '''the material'''." -- only true if you're talking about ''image'', but that's not where he goes with it | ||
| + | # "A social contract can easily degenerate into a nation of shoppers." | ||
| + | # Democrats see society solely as a collection of individuals rather than as an entity in need of tending and caring (while Republicans, presumably, are the ever-nurturing responsible caregivers of social programs). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Logical fallacies: | ||
| + | # nobody in his sample can explain why they follow morals, therefore there is no rational explanation for it | ||
| + | # multiple counts of [[hidden premise]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | General anti-rationality: | ||
| + | # criticizes Democratic policy for focusing too much on explaining itself rationally; recommends focusing more on image and presentation -- a fundamentally dishonest recommendation | ||
| + | # implies heavily that religion belongs [[religion in politics|in politics]]: "Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group." (I didn't catch that one when I originally wrote this analysis; I may have to go back and comment on it...) | ||