December 30, 2004
Sean Carroll quotes this passage from Richard Posner (guest blogging at Leiter Reports):
[T]he sort of political discussion in which political philosophers, law professors, and other intellectuals engage is neither educative nor edifying; I also think it is largely inconsequential, and I am grateful for that fact. I think that what moves people in deciding between candidates and platforms and so on certainly includes facts (such as the collapse of communism -- a tremendous fact), as well as a variety of "nonrational" factors, such as whom you like to hang out with -- I think that's extremely important in the choice of a political party to affiliate with. When a brilliant philosopher like Rawls gets down to the policy level and talks about abortion and campaign financing and the like, you recognize a perfectly conventional liberal and you begin to wonder whether his philosophy isn't just elaborate window dressing for standard left liberalism.I don't disagree that it's a bit odd to see major philosophical figures applying themselves to mundane (!) political issues like abortion or campaign finance reform, but I'd like to hear a more conclusive argument about people's political views being determined by "nonrational" factors. It's an argument that's been made frequently over the past year, as far as I know without any evidence. It sounds reasonable enough on the first pass, but doesn't it ultimately deny a lot of the complexity (and will!) of the individual? I don't think it's surprising to find that people associated with others who have the same political views, but I can certainly think of other explanations: the most obvious is that both one's political views and social interactions are related to the same underlying set of preferences. I haven't seen an argument yet for why it should be otherwise.
that's funny, Posner says that this guy is a liberal, perhaps for some "irrational" reason, and he reverse-engineers his "rational" expanations to fit his liberal preferences/conclusions. This particular problem seems to me at least as severe for conservatives like himself. I think he's done his fair share of "window-dressing" of his own standard right conservatism. Or perhaps he thinks that if you're rational, you can't help to be a conservative?
my 2 cents
I'd generally agree with the "obvious" explanation you provide. I seem to have surrounded myself with those of a different political persuasion. However our social interactions create an atmosphere that would make a liberal more comfortable than a conservative, so there's the explanation -- I have underlying preferences which these people meet, politics for me is trumped by social interactions. Now I wonder what'll happen when I start a family, after all marriage and fertility were the biggest identifiers of Bush voters...
...I do think things like one's appearance, mannerisms, speaking voice and style (Howard Dean's "Yeaaarrrgghh!!") do influence voters quite a bit, in addition to the media's portrayal of these things. I'd speculate that the underlying preferences a voter has get "nudged" by these nonrational factors, and this is amplified by the short attention spans of the average Joe.
andrei -- maybe the ease with which people can reverse engineer their arguments to fit their philosophical perspective suggests that there's no connection between philosophy and policy/positions? Or maybe it just means philosophers are rhetorical wizards.
Scof -- I guess part of what bothers me about Posner's argument is his use of the word nonrational -- it's almost contemptuous of the way people arrive at their political decisions/affiliations. But as much as this idea has been bandied about, I've never seen any data to support it, and if we're going to be telling just-so stories, I don't see why we shouldn't tell a different one.
Also, doesn't the assumption that people come to political decisions nonrationally kind of undermine the moral force of democracy? Last time I checked, Posner wasn't a totalitarian.
Post a comment