Wednesday, December 22, 2004
(11:58 AM) | Anonymous:
On Belief
Sometimes I think I'm incapable of posting except in response to other's posts, and then only at twice-yearly intervals.The basic complaint of Adam's last post, it would seem, is that there's no such thing as debate anymore--there's no possibility the other party might be convinced of one's position based on the merits alone. In fact, this isn't even a goal; rather, the point of most political discussion nowadays is to end conversation altogether--my opponent is clearly too ignorant/misguided/socialist/evil for any of his views to be taken seriously.
Maybe that's not the point of Adam's post at all. But it's something that bothers me a great deal, and it's that irritation that's fueling this post.
So there's no more debate anymore--but then, how could there be? Political discourse in our country is so bound up in belief, in faith, religious or otherwise, that it's impossible for any attempt at reasoned debate not to descend into ad hominem attacks. This has even spread to economic debate, which I find stunning. My view of capitalism (and, I thought, most everyone else's) has long been that it's capable of wonderful things, capable of truly horrible things, and that it's the job of government to keep people from being crushed by its ups and downs (I suggest Sweden as an example of a place that's managed to do quite well under the consensus that letting the market do whatever it likes is -not- a viable way to run a society). But that's not how it's framed anymore--rather, capitalism is good, the market is good, and anything outside of that framework simply isn't. The assumption underlying the current attempts to "reform" Social Security is that Social Security is an intrinsically bad idea. Inevitably, the Democratic Party will end up fighting a rearguard action, having ceded the basic terms of the debate to the Republicans.
But I'm digressing. The point I'm driving at is how dangerous belief can be when it's tied to something as powerful as a national government. Discussion becomes impossible--indeed, if policy goals are tied to fervent belief, why even bother? One's core beliefs, once established, don't tend to require a lot of evidence to sustain them, while an enormous amount is necessary to shake them. This is why nationalism, for instance, so often descends into persecution and discrimination; what might have begun as a set of concrete policy goals--greater autonomy, official recognition of a language in education and government--often becomes a belief that one group is special, with interests outweighing those of any other. Nationalism is particularly pernicious because it can tie a set of beliefs to ethnicity, limiting who can share a set of beliefs by definition.
The problem in the US isn't ethnic nationalism , but I think nationalism is a good example of how political debates can be absorbed into the realm of belief, thus shutting down meaningful debate--which is precisely what's happening here. It's becoming harder and harder to have any sort of discussion about things like economic or social policy because they've been framed in terms of belief, right and wrong--an opponent isn't just incorrect, he's opposed to something intrisically good, or a supporter of something intrinsically bad. It's very difficult to have a debate about economic policy if one must first make the case that government regulation is not, by definition, morally wrong.
Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but the president has already made numerous speeches linking capitalism in its purest form with democracy itself--free markets and free speech. It's a brilliant tactic: he's managed to present his opponents not as advocates for a more equitable system, but opponents of freedom. Hard to put up much resistance to anything if that label sticks. We're not there yet, but I have no doubt that's the path we're on.
And that's very bad. Democracy breaks down if one side views politics in terms of core beliefs (increasingly all-encompassing beliefs, at that) while the others sees it as a set of points to be debated. The believers always win--rules are far easier to bend (and break) if you operate with the assumption that right (and God) are perpetually at your side.
