Skip to main content

Policy and Pyraminds

Fascinating quote from David Brooks at the NYT.
... it's not only feuding that has been the key to conservative success - it's also what the feuding's about. When modern conservatism became aware of itself, conservatives were so far out of power it wasn't even worth thinking about policy prescriptions. They argued about the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order. Different factions looked back to different philosophers - Burke, Aquinas, Hayek, Hamilton, Jefferson - to define what a just society should look like. Conservatives fell into the habit of being acutely conscious of their intellectual forebears and had big debates about public philosophy. That turned out to be important: nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement's views about human nature and society are true. Liberals have not had a comparable public philosophy debate. A year ago I called the head of a prominent liberal think tank to ask him who his favorite philosopher was. If I'd asked about health care, he could have given me four hours of brilliant conversation, but on this subject he stumbled and said he'd call me back. He never did.
I think that there is some truth to this and that in Canada, conservatives have not really had the kind of debate that Brooks has in mind. I think we should have that debate, and that goes to the kinds of stories and authors that I post here. Perhaps some of us are familiar with this territory but my sense is that the public at large is a few steps behind. That is part of the reason they can be so easily swayed by insubstantial claims from the Liberals. There really are people out there, I think, who think that conservatives want to throw little old ladies and babies into the street. To their mind there can be no other reason for wanting to change X, when "everyone" knows X is the "only" thing keeping granny from being evicted. How to put this? .. that is incorrect. Another interesting thing Brooks points out is the American Democrats envy of the Republican machinery - think tanks, radio, etc. I saw this in the Terri Schaivo story a lot. Large numbers of the people who sided with Micheal were of the opinion that he was the victim of a "vast right wing smear machine." They gave the impression they thought the members of the public who sided with the Schindlers were dumb meat puppets caught up in the great Republican combine. This I think reveals a certain kind of mindset - a very elitist one. It holds the public in a very low regard. Any opinions the public has, it has only because a group of very clever and powerful people has planted them in their minds. People who hold this view are never, themselves, victimized in this way. Just ask them. They are always the brave, bold and misunderstood misfit, slogging away thanklessly... It's obvious that groups of people do try to influence the public this way and that way on various issues. What's much less obvious is that they have any success whatsoever. Ad campaigns can flop. Politicians who spend more money do not always win. And on it goes. Aside from the snob appeal, there is something else at play here. As Brooks points out, Conservative bickering generates a lot of ideas and it seems to me that ideas that succeed in such a vigorous exchange have to have some thing going for them. More than likely, that thing is merit. Religious mystery is also helpful because it means that one does not become wedded to every policy, and policy can therefore be revised and adapted in response to input received. Catholics are to have a 'preference for the poor,' for example. That is a goal and not a policy. If a policy is not meeting that goal, the policy can be changed. On the liberal side there is a greater tendency, I think, to confuse policy goals with the policies themselves. Hence the near hysteria when proposals are made to change the way that health and education are dealt with. Any change in the method is characterized as if it were wholesale ditching of the health and education themselves. I'm not certain of this but I wonder if the greater lack of religious belief on this side plays into this. The non religious place themselves under terrible pressure to achieve everything here and now. The policy they back is in a sense a part of their legacy, in an undesired effect of "the personal is the political" perhaps? With few kids and no afterlife, maybe it's the greater part of their legacy. It's no wonder then that altering policy in an effort to make goals better achieved is not going to assuage Tutankhamen. When you're toying with the stones on his tomb your reasons don't matter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi