The beginning of a new year is often a time to look forward and look back. The way the future looks, I prefer to look back — and depend on my advanced age to spare me from having to deal with too much of the future.Near the end he asks us to consider what the country would look like if we'd had Judge Bork on the Supreme Court all these years, instead of Justice Kennedy. Of course one doesn't know for sure, but it's hard to imagine that the substitution would have been harmful.
Thomas Sowell Against Republicans
It's an interesting piece that begins with a cheerful invocation of the nearness of death, but I suppose I can understand the sentiment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Kevin D. Williams has an interesting alternate take on this. It focuses on understanding the left and using that to defeat them. I think it's a useful article.
Maybe the problem is that conservatives keep waiting for a hero on a white horse to ride in and save the American people from themselves?
It amuses me endlessly to see so many pundits who have never run for office maintain that it's so simple and easy that they could do it.
So, why don't they?
*crickets*
Sowell's more than a pundit, of course. His life's work has been explaining these bedrock principles. It must be very depressing to see that the Republican leadership either cannot or will not make the principled case that he has laid out for them.
It's not his fault, of course. He did a very good job. It's just that nobody cares.
I think that's kind of unfair, Grim. It's a cheap shot. Lots of people care. I care. You care.
I think Romney really cared.
Despite all the calumny heaped upon him on no real evidence, from everything I've read, Romney didn't want to run again for the presidency, but was persuaded by his family to give it another try.
So clearly he believed in this country enough to do something he didn't particularly want to do. And he did better (i.e., got more votes, which is what you need if you want to be president) than pretty much any of the GOP congressional candidates.
He did better (i.e., got more votes) than any of the other GOP candidates.
I'm pretty disappointed in Sowell on this one. It's one thing simply to disagree with someone, but he didn't make much of a case here except to express a completely unsupported opinion. If Sowell has done such a wonderful job of articulating a compelling case that should succeed on the merits, why isn't he the #1 pundit in America?
As you say, he does a good job of articulating the case. And the case (to hear Sowell tell it) is so powerful that merely articulating it well should win the day.
Except it isn't beating out the progressive arguments, is it? Even in the arena of pure opinion.
That's a problem.
Bill Whittle made a similar argument about Romney to Sowell's -- although he was somewhat more gracious in his terms. He said that he thought the problem was that Republicans don't actually believe in their own philosophy. He finds them to be ashamed of what they believe, and unwilling to stand up for it in public.
Would it win if it were actually articulated? I don't know. I do know that when I hear the President say 'we can't cut our way to prosperity,' I can't believe what I'm hearing. Yet I don't see anyone making a coherent response.
I don't know if it's because they think it's such patent nonsense that everyone will see through it -- regarding which, see Sowell's point about Bork -- or if Whittle is right and the Republican leadership doesn't really believe in the philosophy it purports to support.
He said that he thought the problem was that Republicans don't actually believe in their own philosophy. He finds them to be ashamed of what they believe, and unwilling to stand up for it in public.
That's certainly an emotionally seductive argument. Does Whittle have any actual evidence to back it up, or are we to presume guilt until the accused can prove their innocence?
What person in their right mind wants to represent people who think like this?
I'm really losing patience with the Internet standard of discourse. If you don't agree with someone, no need to make your case on the merits. No need to actually throw your hat in the ring and try to *do* the things you claim "ought" to be so very easy.
No need for any actual knowledge or experience of what you're talking about (in this case, running for President). You've got a keyboard! And ten fingers! Presto - you're a pundit!
Everything's easy when you're firing from the cheap seats. When you're the one actually in the ring, not so much.
Yeah, that's what Roosevelt said too -- the good one. There's a truth to it, to be sure.
Still, it does seem to be a problem to me. I don't know whether Sowell or Whittle is right about the reason why the leadership can't make the case, or even if making the case would actually change anything if it were done wonderfully well. I do have an idea of what a good case would sound like, though; and I don't see it being made. Not at the Federal level, in any case. There do seem to be some good leaders at the state level, which is encouraging.
I think it's probably a mistake to assume that a case that is convincing to one person or one group will be convincing to all persons/groups. The problem is that people's values and priorities vary so much.
If you're trying to convince the kind of person who genuinely believes progressive dogma, then they are starting from the position that the rich *should* - as a matter of morality - pay more/bear a heavier burden/whatever. They believe the rich have misappropriated assets and profited wrongly from the efforts of others. And the truth is that government *does* subsidize some business (Solyndra/crony capitalism, anyone?) and that absolutely does make some folks wealthier than they'd be if they had to compete without the benefit of tax subsidies. So their viewpoint, while I ultimately disagree with their conclusions, is hardly without merit.
If you're trying to convince someone who genuinely believes the solution to income inequality is redistribution, you have to present clear and convincing evidence that redistribution NEVER works. And conservatives can't present that evidence b/c it doesn't exist. A lot of these folks are of the "if it helps just *ONE* person..." persuasion. So Sowell's arguments and Whittle's (and mine, and yours) will mostly fall on deaf ears because they appeal to values these folks don't share.
The persuadables are in the middle - those folks who are moderates. And moderates are rarely persuaded by dogmatic or simplistic arguments.
Truth be told, I find most "true conservative" dogma totally unpersuasive because it ignores circumstances and pretends that doing X will have the same effect across the board all the time. But it won't.
Lowering taxes is, I believe, generally a good thing. But if you lower them too far, the infrastructure commerce depends upon (roads, bridges, laws that enlightenment thinkers like Bastiat point out are needed, etc) become too weak to support robust markets. At that point, instability is just as much a tax on free enterprise as excessive regulation.
There is some equilibrium point where you have the right amount of government and it is not constant or independent of circumstance.
On the other hand, too much taxation or regulation strangles commerce. The question of "how much is enough" is neither easy nor simple, and every time I hear a conservative pretending it is or that they alone know the answer, I want to scream (and not in a good way).
Do I believe we have too much taxation and regulation now? Yes. Do I know with certainly where the line should be drawn?
No. And neither does anyone pontificating out there. Many want to go back to the past as a guide (disregarding that we don't live in that world anymore). That's unpersuasive.
I think it's probably a mistake to assume that a case that is convincing to one person or one group will be convincing to all persons/groups.
I think it's probably a mistake to assume either that that's my goal, or that it needs to be. Moreover, I don't think anyone is making such an argument. Certainly, I'm not seeing it here.
If you're trying to convince someone who genuinely believes the solution to income inequality is redistribution, you have to present clear and convincing evidence that redistribution NEVER works.
No I don't. This is of a piece with the above. And it's a straw man. For one thing, income redistribution works very well--it's what we do when we satisfy our obligation to help the least of us. It's what we do in a free market. And both address income inequality; the former by by taking some of one man's superior income and passing it, or the produce of it, to another; and the latter by making all participants richer--and since it's an equal trade, the one with the lesser income is proportionately more enriched. Aside from that, I don't have to convince all of any group, nor do I have to demonstrate perfection--only that there are other ways (and here's one) that work better when it's the government that's involved in the redistribution.
Demanding a perfect case is both setting an impossible standard and unnecessary.
moderates are rarely persuaded by dogmatic or simplistic arguments. -- So: Do [you] have any actual evidence to back it up[?]
Next, I find most "true conservative" dogma totally unpersuasive
I've asked before, but I've never found anyone willing to define this mythical "true conservative."
Do I know with certainly where the line should be drawn? No.
Do you have any idea of how to go about answering the question, or what an answer might look like? Or is it sufficient to decry those who essay the attempt?
Eric Hines
I think it's probably a mistake to assume either that that's my goal, or that it needs to be. Moreover, I don't think anyone is making such an argument.
Did you read the Sowell op-ed?
Have you yet heard House Speaker John Boehner take the time to spell out why Barack Obama’s argument for taxing “millionaires and billionaires” is wrong? It is not a complicated argument. Moreover, it is an argument that has been articulated many times in plain English by conservative talk-show hosts and by others in print. It has nothing to do with being worried about the fate of millionaires or billionaires, who can undoubtedly take care of themselves. What we all should be worried about are high tax rates driving American investments overseas, when there are millions of Americans who could use the jobs that those investments would create at home.
One argument. That's what my comments are addressing. I said absolutely nothing about what you are arguing.
Aside from that, I don't have to convince all of any group, nor do I have to demonstrate perfection--only that there are other ways (and here's one) that work better when it's the government that's involved in the redistribution.
Once again, you are conflating what would convince you, or what you think a good argument would be, with "what it takes to convince people who don't think the way you do or share your values.
Do you have any idea of how to go about answering the question, or what an answer might look like? Or is it sufficient to decry those who essay the attempt?
Do you? Or should I simply accept your word?
Does evidence matter? Does history? Do the facts?
No I don't. This is of a piece with the above. And it's a straw man.
No, it's not. Unless of course you decide to ignore the specific case I was talking about:
If you're trying to convince someone who genuinely believes the solution to income inequality is redistribution, you have to present clear and convincing evidence that redistribution NEVER works. And conservatives can't present that evidence b/c it doesn't exist. A lot of these folks are of the "if it helps just *ONE* person..." persuasion.
The point being that even progressives don't all agree or share exactly the same values. So the idea that there's one "uncomplicated" (to use Sowell's term, which is what we're discussing here) argument that - were it only expressed clearly - would have elected that imaginary, courageous Republican... who wasn't willing to run... is a bit far fetched.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
One argument. That's what my comments are addressing. I said absolutely nothing about what you are arguing.
Yet what you said in the comment to which I was responding was I think it's probably a mistake to assume that a case that is convincing to one person or one group will be convincing to all persons/groups. No reference to anything else. In fact, that remark came in a discussion (or so it seemed) of a Whittle remark. You didn't get around to a Sowell argument until much later in that comment.
Once again, you are conflating what would convince you, or what you think a good argument would be, with "what it takes to convince people who don't think the way you do or share your values.
No, I'm only pointing out that I don't have to demonstrate perfection, as you insisted, nor do I have to convince everyone: you have to present clear and convincing evidence that redistribution NEVER works.
Do you? Or should I simply accept your word?
A red herring. Your arguments of late, or so it seems, have been that it's sufficient to decry those who essay the attempt at offering solutions. Even if they don't measure up to your standards. It was to that to which I was responding.
Does evidence matter? Does history? Do the facts?
Is this a serious argument?
And conservatives can't present that evidence b/c it doesn't exist.
Which is how I opened that part of my argument. A lot of these folks are of the...persuasion By your own argument (and elsewhere in this part), you're saying that some are pursuadable. And that was Sowell's argument, too. That enough who were not pursuaded could have been.
Sowell talked primarily about the tax argument. Is that your point of confusion? That you thought he was saying the (uncomplicated) tax argument was the only "argument" the Republicans could or should make? That certainly was never my impression of his piece.
Eric Hines
What are you two arguing about? I'm not sure I'm following the issue.
Maybe if you each gave a couple of sentences on the question, "What's to be done?" What is the way forward? Is there a way forward at all?
Cass is quite persuasive.
Let us assume temporarily, just to try it on, that the conservative case has been presented reasonably well by enough people over the past 30 years, but not enough people are persuaded. The various recognised pathologies of the left coalition - needing direct government support, needing to believe one is more moral, needing indirect government support (unions, nonprofits, some industries) - are too numerous, so that we have to persuade (and motivate to vote) something like 85% of the remainder, a very tall order.
Let us pretend that is true for the moment.
What, then, would we do? Trying to move the "persuaded" dial from 83 to 85% is very, very, difficult. What else might we try?
Grim, I'm sorry. I have been trying to find the time in my work day to participate in the excellent discussions you offer here.
I am offended by Eric's assertion that my arguments amount to little more than "decrying" anyone who offers a solution without offering a better one of my own.
Most of the problems we discuss at VC and here are ones that have plagued mankind for centuries. If we can't discuss or critique the arguments of authors you link to unless we can come up with a better solution to intractable, age old problems, then I really have nothing to offer.
I tried to make the case that neither Sowell nor Whittle has identified the reason we lost this election correctly. That was the issue as I saw it.
I have nothing more to say, except to thank AVI for understanding and clarifying what I was trying to say.
I find it helpful to look at societies that have experimented with heavy government dependency and somehow found a way out. It seems that, when the economy is sufficiently degraded, a solid core of outrage sometimes forces a change to more economic freedom and therefore prosperity. Things have to get really, really bad first, though. Security and dependence are awfully seductive, until you reach the point of serious shortages in basic necessities of life.
It helps if the people trapped in such a system can see an alternative system that creates prosperity elsewhere. In the past, that's been us. Who will be the example in the future? As long as we preserve a little federalism, the more successful American states can sometimes serve as an example to the failed ones. I'm very encouraged by the recent trend in right-to-work laws, for instance, which have forced neighboring states to think competitively.
I'm sorry I offended you.
What I was getting in what seems the presently relevant part of my remarks was this: Do you have any idea of how to go about answering the question, or what an answer might look like?
To which you responded, Do you? Or should I simply accept your word?, rather than addressing the question. Never did I intend to suggest that it's inappropriate to criticise--or decry--offered solutions without having already offered one. I plainly wasn't as clear as I should have been.
But it does help to understand, or to have some idea, of what an answer might look like, or how an approach to a development of one might look.
The fact that problems have plagued mankind for centuries doesn't make a more or less orderly approach to their solution inappropriate.
To attempt to reenter OP, I don't agree with AVI's suggested (arguendo) premise that the conservative case has been made reasonably well enough, so that's a discussion that is difficult for me to enter. Except to suggest that, jut as it took Liberals a few generations to gain control of our K-16 educational system, so it will take generations to reinject political, philosophical, ideological balance.
I argued shortly after the election some of the mechanics of making the case which Republicans, and Conservatives, have never done, and so they have not made any case reasonably well enough.
Nor do I agree that I must persuade all with a conservative argument, only enough.
Nor do I agree that folks on the left or the right are that close-minded that they cannot be persuaded. But given the time constraints of an election season/cycle, and the effort involved in persuading those who haven't decided and changing the minds of those who have, it's imperative to begin making the effort without regard to such artificial timelines and make that effort constantly.
In fine, I don't accept that people are as dumb as either side makes them out to be.
Eric Hines
This is what I said:
Do I know with certainty where the line [of 'too much taxation/regulation' should be drawn? No.
To which you replied:
Do you have any idea of how to go about answering the question, or what an answer might look like? Or is it sufficient to decry those who essay the attempt?
Once again, I didn't "decry those who essay the attempt". Saying you don't know something with certainty (or that others have not convinced you that they do, either) is NOT the same as saying they should not try to figure out where the line should be drawn or "decrying" them for trying.
I see no point in continually defending arguments I have not made and do not believe.
In the past, that's been us. Who will be the example in the future?
I don't see this as all that worrisome. Who was the example when Hobbes, Locke, and to a lesser extent Rousseau were (re)developing the concepts of consensual government and the foundations of what became 18th Century Liberalism? There always are enough clues lying around to facilitate such developments.
What chaps my a** though, in this, is the time that will be wasted in reinventing this wheel. Do we really need to suffer a sequence of Dark Ages?
I think this is a crucial point-
"If you're trying to convince someone who genuinely believes the solution to income inequality is redistribution, you have to present clear and convincing evidence that redistribution NEVER works. And conservatives can't present that evidence b/c it doesn't exist. A lot of these folks are of the "if it helps just *ONE* person..." persuasion."
What those people often will respond to is having pointed out to them how these 'feel good' policies with good intentions actually cause problems and hurt real people- and more than one of them. Worry less about convincing them of what the right path is, make them question the path they're on first. Oncethat is done, then it might be productive to start steering them towards your position, if they're then amenable.
Douglas:
I agree with you. There's a great study out there that dealt with how highly ideological voters (vs moderate voters) assess various proposals.
The study found that merely changing the way you asked them what they believed made a huge difference in how moderate or partisan the responses were.
The change was simple - ask them what they think should happen, and then ask them *why* they believe that's the right course.
When people are encouraged to walk through their underlying reasoning, they consider more factors. That's a major reason I have continued writing - it forces me to justify my knee jerk reactions and consider more aspects of an issue than I would if I were simply reacting passively to something I read.
No need to apologize, Cass, I just wasn't clear about what the argument was really about. I wondered if you weren't both misreading each other.
In any case, I don't presume to have an answer to this particular problem. I do think Sowell is on to something, because I see absurdities going unchallenged -- but I'm not sure why they do. Whether it's because of the reason he gives, or the one Whittle gives, or simply because the party leadership doesn't have an actual mechanism for responding (there's no White House press secretary, for example, and nothing approximating a real strategic communication mechanism)... well, I don't know.
I do think that the persuadable Americans may not be very good people. If the persuadable middle is persuadable based on patronage or benefits-to-be-offered, for example, conservatives have a real problem. That has proven to be the case in England, where conservatives for a generation have simply been the party of 'the same social-democratic system, on a slightly slower death march to oblivion.'
That may be what wins elections, but it won't save the nation. Of course, maybe saving the nation is not really possible.
Post a Comment