In looking at the implementation of policy, I often wonder about the difference between the way things are and the way things "should be," -- that is, the distinction between facts and values. After thinking about politics seriously for a while now, I observe that the balance between facts and values have shifted too far in the value direction, which results in negative policy consequences. The reasons behind this merit mention, the increasing availability and power of the media throughout the 20th century, and by this I mean newspapers, radio, TV, and lately, in the very late 20th century, the internet. The premise behind the primacy of media rests with Marshall McLuhan who famously said, "The medium is the message." That is, the media to which I refer -- newspapers, radio, TV, internet, and even to a certain extent, literature itself -- emphasizes some types of messages and narratives over others. To the extent that these messages are over-emphasized and others are excluded, they contribute to the "big lie." 20th century politics, political science, and political philosophy are driven by three themes that, when properly weighted are fine, but when reified to the exclusion of other considerations result in problematic policies that will come to define 21st century politics, and these are (1) equality, (2) rationality, and (3) democracy.
First, equality is concept with a rich and problematic history in American political thought. The United States, as originally envisioned under the Articles of Confederation, was so equal that nobody was effectively in charge, which resulted in the Constitution that featured a more workable and hierarchical organization of the US. However, evidence that radical equality is not a natural feature of the world we see around us is a provided by two sources, one philosophical and one mathematical. The first derives from Marx and his socialist dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which shows that Marx himself recognized the inherent inequality of the world. Now Marx may have argued that this difference needed to be narrowed, but he still recognized the reality this fundamental social cleavage. The second source of fundamental inequality is more mathematical and natural, but it is the concept of fractals by Mandelbrot, which hold that the world is fundamentally "lumpy" and inequal. That is, if you look at the distribution of oil across the globe, it isn't equally distributed across the planet but is instead "clumped" with certain areas having lots of oil, such as Saudi Arabia, and other sections having not so much, like Japan. So the assumption of equality is not a natural state of the world. I always think of the sculpture Broken Symmetry at FermiLab in Batavia, Illinois to remind myself of the fundamental nature of inequality.
Second, rationality is a concept that too is assumed to be true and is, in fact, problematic. Old-school economists tended to make too much of rationality by assuming that the human brain, being an amazing piece of machinery, could take in incredible amounts of information, calculate it, and make "optimal" or "rational" decisions. Note that this is a flattering depiction of human cognition, and you can almost envision the undergraduates on college campuses being lectured to and thinking to themselves, "Yes, my cognitive capability is amazing." The problem is, evidence from the lab showed that this isn't the way people actually make decisions. Herbert Simon posited a more natural and empirically verifiable way of making decisions based on "bounded rationality," in which it is recognized that the human brain limits significantly the amount of information it can inculcate and process, and this has significant consequences for institutional design, policy, and politics.
Third, democracy generally and the democratic peace literature specifically because it assumes that democratic policies will be correct by definition when in fact, upon further review, democracy-based policies can be shown to be ineffective. The problem is that the assumption that democracy is an unquestionable good -- as well as of equality and rationality -- can be used to shut off debate and prevent a review of a policy's effectiveness, which results in the persistence of poor policy. As regards domestic politics, democratic arguments and assumptions have been used to achieve political power in both Great Britain and the US, though the policy results have been problematic. As regards foreign policy, democracy-based theory was used to inform the Afghan and Iraq wars, both of which did not end with the benefits originally envisioned. In fact, that's what an "unquestionable good," is, something that is reported to be so wonderful that it cannot be questioned. This argument, which is really more of an anti-argument, is at the root of political correctness, the idea that some ideas cannot be questioned.
The reason why democracy is problematic is a fundamental question of political philosophy that I've not seen articulated before directly in the modern context, though there are analogous arguments made through antiquity. On the sider of modernity, there is the "advertising ethic," which holds that, "truth is that which sells." Even Simon points out that democracy is just one way to make a decision, by voting on it, which in no way guarantees its correctness. Christianity, in contrast, holds that "a tree is known by its fruit," which means that a policy must be judged on its long-term consequences, not its initial popularity. A similar sentiment was expressed by Spinoza who said "sub specie aeteritatis," or "take the long-term view," because short-term views, as emphasized by today's media, can be deceiving. Finally, Plato in his Gorgias made the point, using the example of a ship's pilot, that somebody who appears to know what they're doing is not the same as somebody who actually knows what they're doing. Today's media, by emphasizing appearance, helps to promote people who are convincing rather than those with true expertise. These three "lies" of the 20th century -- equality, rationality, and democracy -- are at the foundation of 20th century social bargains that will prove unsustainable in the 21st, and their re-evaluation will form the basis of this century's political debate and activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment