Filed under: Uncategorized
I’m normally a sucker for I’m-above-it-all lamenting of tribalism, but there’s something wrong with this piece. I can’t shake the feeling that it holds humanity up to an impossibly high standard: we’re all supposed to form opinions on various external, world things (Ebola, Rotherdam, climate change, etc.) with no reference whatsoever to the political realities and contexts in which all these debates occur. This seems purist but also, rather contrary to the spirit of things like democracy and political engagement.
I mean, if you reject the political context for some of these things, there is simply no reason whatsoever for 99.999% of humanity to even talk about them at all. But that can’t be right. People like to talk about stuff, and one of the things they like to talk about is other people and what they are doing, and yes they have reasons for doing so and for being interested in such things that aren’t always quite #science. Such an observation strikes me as both (a) true but also (b) unobjectionable, in itself.
Yes, debates happen and polarities are formed in a tribal way. I’ve said so too, in a similar above-it-all, yet-I-do-admit-my-faults tone (although in my case I really am above it all of course), but let’s not go overboard.
10 Comments so far
Leave a comment
He’s above the fray and never gets excited, but happens to agree with the Blue take on everything, because he’s reasonable.
Comment by texan999 October 17, 2014 @ 11:06 pmHe’s against gun control.
Comment by Anonymous October 17, 2014 @ 11:25 pmWhat a coincidence! I’m above the fray too, but I *disagree* with Team Blue on most things ;-)
Comment by Sonic Harm October 18, 2014 @ 8:25 amHe’s right about one thing: the odd tendency of some opinions that have no obvious connection to politics nevertheless to line up almost 100% with political party. For instance, I see why Rs and Ds might start with some different assumptions about the role of government in addressing a pollution issues, but I’m baffled by the credulity of practically 100% of Democrats in the face of scientifically absurd discussions of whether a solid case can be made for AGW. I’d have expected that issue to be more like anti-vaccination theories, which appeal to a certain crowd that can be found on both sides of the aisle. Politics do enter into my views on AGW, in that, once I conclude the science is iffy, I start looking for political explanations of why seemingly intelligent people would keep pushing it so uncritically. But politics don’t enter into my view of the science. On other issues of environmental alarm, I’m solidly inclined to believe scientific proof. It’s very weird.
Comment by texan999 October 18, 2014 @ 9:55 amI dunno, these party lineups don’t really seem so odd to me.
AGW-fighting as usually conceived would almost by definition be acting to restrain (and importantly, setting up bureaucratic mechanisms to restrain) ‘unrestrained capitalist’ actions, so the left is predisposed to be all for it (even if there were no such theory as AGW!), and the right against. It’s not all that mysterious.
As for why politics enter peoples’ views of the science, that too is far from mysterious, the left is more in favor of centralized decisionmaking and prominent roles for ‘experts’ (Smart People). Once one identifies the Smart People in an equation it’s the least surprising thing in the world to see the left lining up behind them ‘believing’ them, regardless and independent of actual scientific merits. In fact to a typical lefty it should almost be *more* important to ‘believe the science’ (and ridicule those who don’t) precisely in those marginal cases when ‘the science’ is most iffy – because that’s where the threat lies as far as Making Sure Everyone Automatically Believes Smart People is concerned. (There’s no such threat when it comes to believing in gravity, e.g.)
I think I also disagree that these issues have ‘no obvious political connection’. Well maybe not ‘obvious’, but usually only a moment’s thought and the political dimension becomes apparent and is no hard to explain at all.
The AGW cause is by definition about persuading others – whether for good reasons or not – to take (or be forced to take) a bunch of short-term-painful actions believed to pay off long-term. It’s difficult to envision something more political than that.
The Rotherdam scandal is about how public justice-serving institutions (police, courts, immigration controls) function, or don’t, and whether the ideas that they embody and act upon are good or bad. Again, the very definition of political.
Similar thing for whether our representative government will restrict travel, etc. when it comes to ebola.
These things are all intrinsically ‘political’, the ‘political’ dimension is just not some extraneous foreign insertion (i.e. they haven’t been ‘politicized’). The attempt to somehow disengage ‘politics’ from issues such as these and pretend that there is a purist #science answer to them is an attempted stolen-base, as I’ve said for example here:
https://rwcg.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/global-warming-is-a-political-issue/
best
Comment by Sonic Harm October 18, 2014 @ 10:15 amThe attempt to sell Team Red on AGW as defending the purity of our precious bodily fluids, er I mean atmosphere, was especially bizarre.
Alexander writes some interesting stuff, but this wasn’t one of his stronger efforts.
Comment by Skeptical Cynical October 18, 2014 @ 10:11 amYes, he was slightly delusional if he genuinely thought that spin will work, but it served his rhetorical purpose well enough in an otherwise interesting piece
Comment by Sonic Harm October 18, 2014 @ 10:17 amIt was a nice try, and might have had more impact if he’d understood the commitment some people have to the purity of the scientific method.
Comment by texan999 October 18, 2014 @ 10:26 amWhat Alexander does not see — or perhaps, does not think is important enough to mention — is that it is democracy that makes these things political. If it were not for the fact that everyone has a nanoslice of sovereign power, then as you mentioned, nobody would care whether you align “red” or “blue” on Ebola. Indeed, there would be no “red” or “blue” as such. Average people would just have opinions. And because average people would have zero power, there would be no point in turning everything into political questions that become party talking points.
Comment by Leonard October 21, 2014 @ 9:49 amAll I can really say is: BINGO
Comment by Sonic Harm October 21, 2014 @ 10:19 am