Not too long ago, I responded to a article in (I think) the Huffington Post. In my response, I wrote:
The good doctor writing this article assumes that political discourse is (or even can be) rational discourse. Don't misunderstand me. It is probably a good thing that the doctor makes this mistake. Rational discourse begins with an assumption or hypothesis that can be supported or falsfied by verifiable evidence. Falsification is by far the most important. If the evidence does not support an assumption or hypothesis, that same assumption or hypothesis must be modified or in extreme cases abandoned. Rational discourse searches for truth, and it's probably a good thing that our medical practices are based on a search for truth. Political discourse too begins with an assumption or hypothesis, but unlike rational discourse, it cannot ALLOW itself to be falsified. Evidence that would falsify the claim MUST be dismissed or suppressed. Political discourse searches for advantage and power, not truth, and so it shouldn't surprise anyone that evidence is distorted, ignored, or suppressed -- Clinton's email, Trump's taxes.
The latter, however, takes political discourse to a new extreme, and the very sad thing is this: his supporters don't seem to care and don't seem to see the danger in it. Democracy depends upon an infusion of rational discourse as a check and balance on poltical discourse. The press, even a biased press, has traditionally served in this role -- fact checking the opposition so to speak -- and HuffPost does a reasonably good job of it. Hence this article. Trump, however, has been called out time and again, and again, and again, ad nauseum. I frankly do not feel his appeal, but he clearly enough appeals to enough of the American populace that he is where he is and he is clearly enough immune to fact checking. He is a super bug and the antibiotics are no longer working. He may well be elected, but his tweet storms have shown him, despite his immunity, to be adverse to pressure and criticism, almost pathologically so for a politician in a decmocracy, who really should expect as much. He has attacked critics and reporters, threatened new libel laws for the press, et cetera, and so he has clearly enough demonstrated the thin-skinned willingness to take the first step of every potentially dictatorial demagogue once in power, crack down on and elminate the free press. The second, third, and fourth steps should be clear enough, but what would it mean to a free society to vest CEO like power in the president, which his followers seem more than willing to do?
The precise nature of the article didn't much matter. The same applies to discussions of climate change, the Zika virus, just about anything where one more or less expects those in power to make informed, data driven decisions for the good of the people as a whole, but what one gets is continued political discourse, the real motivations for which are often obscure and vigorously denied when they are held up to the light of day.
Within our day to day lives, we abjure "lying," not categorically, but "selectively." We do differentiate between those "lies" which are primarily designed to protect others from a "truth" that might be injurious to them, and those "lies" which are primarily designed to protect our own interests. Consider, for example, the moral dilemma of a person who has had an affair. The person is confessing the affair to a friend, asking "should I or should I not tell my spouse." The answer often hinges on whether the person intends to continue or has discontinued the affair. If the former, the "moral" answer becomes "yes, you should tell." Hiding the information would protect the spouse from emotional trauma, but the primary motivation is clearly enough to protect one's own interests. If the latter, the "moral" answer becomes "no, what good would it do to tell?" Revealing the affair might, perhaps, release one from the obligation to keep a secret, but it would cause emotional trauma that has now become unnecessary.
I give this example merely to illustrate that the sorts of categorical biblical injunctions against lying -- e.g. thou shalt not lie -- are parsed within our day to day lives. I give it also as a way of illustrating a difference between rational discourse and political discourse. Let me take just one example, climate change. Rational discourse would search for the "truth of the matter." There are more or less supportable answers to the principle questions: "Is human activity contributing to climate change?" and the follow on, "if yes, what then is the best course of action?" The process of arriving at an answer can, of course, be "adversarial," not unlike a jury trial, where competing points of view present evidence, which is in turn deliberated and a provisional "truth" determined. I say "provisional," of course, because additional evidence might well over-turn an original determination -- e.g. the use of DNA to demonstrate the innocence of the falsely convicted. The process of arriving at a scientific proof is likewise "adversarial." Competing theories are tested against the evidence, which is in turn "juried" or "peer reviewed" and a provisional theory determined. Again, I say provisional because additional evidence might well cause reconsideration and modification of an existing theory. At the moment, the jury has returned on the first question, and the answer is "yes, guilty, human activity is contributing to climate change." New evidence might relieve us of our responsibility, but at the moment new evidence seems to all point toward the answer "yes, guilty, human activity is contributing to climate change."
We could apply the standards of rational discourse to the answer to the follow on question, "what is the best course of action?" In answering this question, however, we are confronted right up front with a particularly onerous difficulty in the form of definitional and value questions -- e.g. "what counts as best?" and/or "best for whom?" There is no avoiding these questions. To suggest, at one extreme, that we do nothing, that we continue on the present course, assumes that it is better to preserve the economic status quo, for the current generation, and leave future generations to their own devices. To suggest, at the other extreme, that we do everything, that we ban all green house gas production, assumes that it is better to preserve the current ecological status quo, for the benefit of future generations, and disrupt the lives of the current generation. The two answers, it would seem, are mutually exclusive. Preserving the economic status quo will destroy the ecological status quo. Conversely, preserving the ecological status quo will destroy the economic status quo. Were I discussing this in class, one student would inevitably make a pseudo hegelian point that "surely there is a course of action that preserves BOTH the economic and ecologic status quo," but that does not seem to be possible insofar as the current economic status quo is heavily dependent upon fossil fuel production and consumption. The two extremes represent mutually exclusive and competing values, but a decision between the values must be reached before any course of action or inaction can be taken. It is this decision that throws us into the realm of political discourse.
Before I go on, however, the discussion in the previous paragraph assumes that all "agree" on the provisional verdict, "yes, guilty, human activity is contributing to climate change." The evidence continues to mount in its favor. One could, however, simply step outside the realm of rational discourse entirely and throw out the verdict itself. One way of doing this is to discredit rational discourse itself. The verdicts of rational discourse are always adversarial, always provisional, always subject to falsification by additional evidence (and there is always SOME evidence that points in another direction). Consequently, we can discount the whole enterprise of arriving at a verdict because it has not delivered unassailable truth, and go on with our lives. There are, however, difficulties with discrediting and rejecting rational discourse itself, not least that such rejections are always very selective. We ACCEPT the results of rational discourse when it cures our cancer, REJECT it when it requires us to give up our SUV. It seems at best an ironic hypocrisy, at worst a self-motivated lie -- that is, they actually believe in the validity of the verdict, but it is in their interests to pretend otherwise and convince others of their pretense.
Basically, this is the stance of the republican party today, and it is morally indefensible. When confronted with hypocrisy, the "moral" response is to resolve the disparity. One cannot accept the results of rational discourse in one domain, reject it in another, just because the mounting evidence for a position proves inconvenient. One cannot subsist in a known hypocrisy without engaging in a morally indefensible lie -- a lie designed, not to protect others, but to benefit oneself at the expense of others. Along the same line, in rejecting the results of rational discourse in just this particular domain, they are in effect making a value decision. They are, in effect, answering the question, "what is the best course of action?" with "do nothing." If we were to ask the follow on value questions, "best for whom?" the answer seems to be the conservation of the power and economic structures implicit in the current status quo. This too is morally indefensible. If we "know" that a particular course of action is likely to have catastrophic effects on the next generation, then it would seem, within the normal course of human morality, to be indefensible. We must "do something," even if the something is compromised or incremental, and there are plenty of compromised or incremental steps that can be taken between the to extremes of "do nothing" and "do everything." The republican party, however, cannot "so something" without, to one degree or another, disrupting the power and economic structures of the current status quo, and those who benefit most directly from the current status quo are likely to object and the objections throw us into the realm of political discourse.
Within political discourse, truth does not count as the final arbiter. Consequently, neither revelation of hypocrisy or the revelation of more blatant, morally indefensible lies count for much. What does count is "persuasion." Plato would have banned the sophists from his republic because the sophists were concerned solely with persuasion, with "rhetoric" understood as Aristotle understood as "the best available means of persuasion." Of course, the "truth" can be persuasive, and for some only the "truth" is ultimately persuasive. I would like to count myself a member of that party, but I alone can't be the final arbiter of my allegiance to "truth." If I alone could be the final arbiter of "truth," then we must accept a solipsistic and morally relativistic universe -- one, that is, where "truth" for me may not be "truth" for you, and there is no point of arbitration outside of me or you to determine which of us holds a better, more defensible "truth." If we cannot accept a solipsistic and morally relativistic universe, if there are standards of right and wrong that transcend my own or another's particular set of beliefs, then we must accept a point of arbitration outside of me or you to determine which of us holds a better, more defensible "truth." There are a number of ways that we can create a "point of arbitration," and I will talk about a couple. Here, let me just say here that political discourse, at fundament, accepts a solipsistic and morally relativistic universe -- one where there is no "point of arbitration," where there is no real possibility of "truth," where persuasion in the form of "branding" is the only means available to bridge the differences between thee and me.
It is interesting to see the Washington Post headline that reads, "Donald Trump's dangerous, nonsensical energy plan." The Post assumes that one would want to "make sense," but that also assumes that we are engaging in rational discourse, but Trump has simply set aside rational discourse. There are, perhaps, two "points of arbitration" for rational discourse that have had world significance. The first, and most enduring, but least relevant to climate and energy, is religion. If one accepts the premise that religious revelation provides a standard against which to judge truth or falsity, then one has a point of arbitration that transcends the solipsistic. The early rejection of Trump by religious conservatives, including the likes of Ted Cruz, and Mitt Romney, is telling. Although he gives lip service to christianity, there is little in his past or his present behavior that would suggest a traditional christian orientation, quite the opposite. His peccadilloes with women would likely make Bill Clinton blush, or envious, and he certainly does not demonstrate christian humility at all. He has never, to the best of my knowledge, given god credit for his good fortune. He has, rather, taken it all upon himself.
The second, and more recent, and most relevant to climate and energy, is science. If one accepts the premise that experiment and factual observation provide a standard against which to judge truth or falsity, then one has a point of arbitration that transcends the solipsistic. Here's what Trump said about wind energy: "wind is very expensive. I mean, wind, without subsidy, wind doesn't work. You need massive subsidies for wind. There are places maybe for wind. But if you go to various places in California, wind is killing all of the eagles." The Post, again, assumes that Trump would want to "make sense," or at least his auditors would want him to "make sense" against observable, verifiable facts. They write in response, "wind power, including U.S, subsidies, became the cheapest electricity in the US for the first time last year, according to BNEF," Bloomberg reported last fall. "Solar power is a bit further behind, but the costs are dropping rapidly, especially those associated with financing a new project." Also, about those eagles, "it's true; turbines are often situated in places with good wind currents, which birds also like to use. The Audubon Society estimates that between 140,000 and 328,000 birds die each year from turbines. Some of them are eagles -- but not hundreds. One assessment published in 2013 counted 85 dead eagles over a span of 15 years." Although again he gives some lip service to the "facts," but there is little in his rambling that would suggest a fact based orientation on the world, quite the opposite. He has mastered "assertion without evidence."
Trump, however, is not about "making sense." Trump has thoroughly internalized the solipsistic and morally relativistic universe. Trump has, in effect, transcended rational discourse -- that is to say, traditional concerns with parsing the truth or falsity of a claim, and the moral implications that hinge upon telling the truth. His statements are neither true nor false, and consequently, they are not so much moral or immoral, because that implies a standard of truth that could provide a point of arbitration whether the particulars of his statements are self or other serving. Ultimately, the Post article concedes this point. Trump claims, "despite that" -- the demise of eagles -- he is "into all types of energy," but he is "into all types of energy" so he can universalize his "brand." He is for fracking and solar, coal and wind, and against nothing. No doubt he is also for clean water and air, though there's mounting evidence that one cannot be for fracking and for clean water at the same time (not to mention the earthquakes) -- that one cannot be for coal and clean air at the same time. The mounting evidence, however, means nothing, because Trump is engaged solely in selling a brand. He has mounted a hostile take-over of one brand, the "republican," and is now selling a transcendent brand, "Trump."
Let me end with an anecdote. I am a Cubs fan. Although I lived for a number of years in the Chicago metro area, there is no rational basis for being a Cubs fan. I could have as easily been a Sox fan. One cannot, however, be both a Cubs and Sox fan. When the two teams play their inter-league series, one finds oneself rooting for one over the other, despite any rational peregrinations around team stats, and for me that has been the Cubs, perhaps because they are the perennial underdog, the perennial "wait until next year" team, and perhaps because they are in the right league, the national league. Most, however, want to back a winner. The fan base for most teams expands if they are winning, contracts if they are losing. The brand Trump is selling is not unlike the brand of a sports team. There is no rational basis for being a Trump fan. He is, however, positioning himself to be the "home town team." His blather about a wall and a muslim ban, for example, are all about "america first." Having brown skin or wearing a hijab is not unlike wearing a Sox jersey to a Cubs game, and if you don't think it matters, try it out sometime. His discourse has all the gravitas of "trash talk." His followers are not choosing one rational platform over another, they are choosing a "sports team," and right now Trump is presenting the best and most entertaining team. He is a (mostly self-professed) winner. His fan base has expanded as he has won, and even if you were opposed to him in the play offs, well, he's in the republican league. Now that it's coming down to the world series, better to root for the republican league team even if they are the Mets.
The difference, of course, is this: when the Cubs win the world series this year (yes, hope springs eternal) they will all go home, they will watch football and basket ball, and wait for the next year's spring training to do it all over again. When the donald wins, he will actually have to govern. When he comes to a fork in the road, he cannot, Yogi Berra style, just take it, he will need to turn to the north or to the south. He will need to make actual decisions, and those decisions will have real consequences beyond bragging rights in the bars surrounding Wrigley. If the decisions are "bad," he cannot simply declare bankruptcy and close down the United States ala Trump University. If the decisions are damaging to a wide range of people, as they were for the people who signed up at Trump University, and there is a "class action" suit, how will he respond? With derogatory tweets to the American people? Probably, but will a demagogic ego like Trump's allow himself failure, or will he project blame on his "haters" as he did on the judge hearing the Trump University case? To what extent will he restrain himself in his retaliation? The first step will be to shut down the "haters," the second step will be ... and that is how democracy in the US ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment