A pair of columns in the NYT yesterday provides a jumping
off point for a discussion of political civility and argument. I first read this
piece by Arthur Brooks entitled “The
Thrill of Political Hating” that decries political hatred. Brooks intends
to make his argument even-handed, implying that both those on the right and on
the left can get into political hating. This is true, but only in a limited
sense. In the U.S. today, to claim an equal weight of political invective and
hatred between right and left doesn’t match reality. At one time, perhaps, in
the late 19th century and the early 20th century, but
today, with few exceptions, vitriol on the left is largely missing. In fact,
much of popular conservatism, I’m talking ordinary Joe and Jane Doe (well, I’d
wager John much more than Jane) who might post anonymously and those who feed
upon their fears (Fox “News”) and its offspring, hatred. (I’m
not referring to most intellectual conservatives, like Arthur or David Brooks,
Ross Douthat, David Frum, etc.) The most frightful and disturbing phenomena in
much of popular politics today is the fear-driven, angry aspect of so much of
popular conservatism. (I think that the phenomenon is much better described as
“reactionary” than “conservative”, but I’ll defer to the popular nomenclature
for the moment.) I understand those who favor lower-taxes (always), less
government (always), and favor the use of violence as a first resort. I don’t
agree with these lock-step approaches to running a government, but I understand
self-interest. But the frightening and difficult thing about much of popular conservatism
stems from its irrational nature, the “what’s the matter with Kansas?”
phenomenon. We’re talking about mostly white, blue-collar, marginally employed workers.
Their understandable frustration and anger sends them careening into the arms
of those who will most likely harm their collective interests. The Koch
Brothers and the Koch Brother’s U.S. Congress® aren’t the friends of Americans
on the economic margins.
While I agree that hate is not the answer, what do we do
with those who cynically exploit those driven by fear? To borrow a stock but
relevant example, should we have hated a Hitler? What of those who cynically
exploit the less sophisticated to augment their own power and desires? At some
point, the messenger is the message. I’m not talking about garden-variety
ambition that is the mark of any high-ranking politician. (I was recently
shocked that someone like Russ Roberts could object to Hillary Clinton because
of her ambition? Really? And what about every person who’s ever held the office
of president or wanted to do so?) I’m talking about those for whom all moorings
to the public good as an independent goal have loosened, and only private gain,
power, and glory drive the office-holder.
Let me hasten to point out that this essay is not entitled
“In Defense of Hatred”. In fact, I yearn for the (sort of) good ol’ days when
there was dialogue across the aisle. Ronald Reagan provides an example of one
who could speak radically (right) and act (relatively) pragmatically. (Reagan,
like Clinton, wanted to be liked.) I don’t find personal vitriol useful. Even
those with whom I disagree, I hope I can reason with and establish some common
ground. For instance, I’ve voted against Charles Grassley every opportunity
that I’ve had (100% unsuccessfully) since 1974, but I’m sure I could enjoy a
chat with the Senator. I’ve seen him at the airport and at girls' volleyball
tournaments by himself, no entourage, and he appears to be modest, unassuming,
and pleasant. On the other hand, his attitudes have moved from H.R. Gross
conservatism to Tea Party nuttiness. While he’s probably a swell guy, his
politics are antediluvian. (The fact that Iowa could elect him and Tom Harkin
all of those years shows how “swell guy” counts for more than any particular
political stance.)
And what should we make of Brooks’s comments about mockery,
citing the work of psychologist John Gottman? I assume that he’s aiming at Jon
Stewart and (the late) Stephen Colbert. Sometimes they’ve walked the edge with
their mockery, but most of the time their satire and parody have seemed the
only appropriate response to some of the inanity that attempts to pass for
legitimate political and cultural discourse. A medieval court fool was probably
more likely to lose his head than to influence the king’s policy, but in a
democratic society, we should cherish the “fools” who mock the pretenses of the
powerful. It can edge toward cynicism, but only for the truly cynical at heart.
I believe that Jon Stewart and (the late) Stephen Colbert, for all of their
mocking and satirical humor, probably are better citizens and persons than many
of those whom they mocked.
And for those who post anonymously? Almost always an act of
unjustified cowardice and often indicative of the traits that Brooks lists: “sadism,
psychopathy and Machiavellianism”. (N.B. “Machiavellianism” is not
representative of Machiavelli’s project as a whole.)
Paul Krugman’s column, “Fighting the Derp”, provides a
fitting bookend to the Brooks piece. In it, Krugman defines “derp” (courtesy
of “South Park”) as “people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much
evidence accumulates that it’s completely wrong”. (Query: is “derp” the people
who keep promoting the same disproven contentions or the disproven contentions
themselves?) In any event, Krugman’s piece raises a couple of important points:
How can we distinguish derp from honest policy disagreements based on limited
knowledge? And how should we fight derp? As to the first point, Krugman
suggests the policy prescriptions and descriptions of reality that don’t vary
with changing evidence and circumstances is a strong sign of derp. And we must
be on guard within ourselves to avoid derp, primarily by remaining vary cautious
about ideas, reports, and recommendations that fit with our preconceptions (the
confirmation bias, in Kahneman terms). By the way, Krugman filed a follow-up piece entitled "I Do Not Think That Derp Means What You Think It Means", further defining and distinguishing the issues.
Thus I think that I’m resolved to hate derp (the phenomena)
and love (as best I can can) the derper (my word of the person conveying the
derp), a variant on the Christian injunction to hate the sin but to love the
sinner. But I must say, I reserve a sense of caution about a serial derper, about
this person’s intelligence and, more importantly, about this person’s ethics. I’m
loath the trust a serial derper.
And as to public debate and intellectual battle—let it fly!
Let me end with this quote from C.S. Lewis, no stranger to intellectual combat:
Do not misunderstand. I
am not in the least deprecating your insults; I have enjoyed these twenty years l’honneur d’etre une cible and am
now pachydermatous. I am not even rebuking your bad manners; I am not Mr.
Turveydrop and “gentlemanly deportment” is not a subject I am paid to teach.
What shocks me is that students, academics, men of letters, should display what
I had thought was an essentially uneducated inability to differentiate between
a disputation and a quarrel. The real objection to this sort of thing is that
it is all a distraction from the issue. You waste on calling me liar and
hypocrite time you ought to have spent on refuting my position.
Zaleski, Philip; Zaleski, Carol
(2015-06-02). The Fellowship: The
Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield,
Charles Williams (p. 472). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
To this I say, "Amen".
