Any predictions on the short and/or long-term effects of an Obama presidency, now that it’s actually here? If so, my buddy Stever set up a time capsule of sorts—a place for you to record your predictions and come back to later.
Gloom and doom? Perpetual sunshine? Take a public stand at ObamaPredictions.wordpress.com! I did 
—Matt—
One thing motivating my desire to transform American political discourse is what political philosopher John Rawls called the “fact of reasonable pluralism”. In regular terms, this just means that free people, left to explore ideas and think for themselves, will endorse different world views. A doctrine may dominate an area for a while, but over time people will naturally drift towards different religious beliefs, have different takes on moral problems, develop different outlooks on the ultimate meaning of life, etc.
Wrapped up in our own world views as convicted Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, Mormons, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and the like, sometimes we forget that the next guy is just as convinced that he’s right as we are. Confident in our monopoly on capital-T Truth, and sheltered by like-minded friends and family, we scorn, look down on, pity, scoff at, and generally think less of those who don’t think like us.
It’s worth reminding everyone that very, very little is certain. As far as I can tell, the only thing anyone can be absolutely certain of is that activity occurs. That’s it. There’s no reliable way to know for sure that we’re not prisoners of the Matrix. And not even Descartes’ famous philosophical quip, “I think, therfore I am” survives extreme skepticism, since what I experience as the thought of a distinct individual could very well be the confused dream of many (or at least not the thought of “I”). What I can’t question, however, is that something happens—there’s no doubt that something’s going on—therefore we can all be certain that activity occurs. Not much to hang your hat on, I know!
But we don’t have to be radical skeptics or solipsists (people who question whether anyone exists but themselves—maybe I’m asleep and everyone is just a character in my ginormous dream) to admit that our world views are far from certain. We want to believe our faiths rest on the solid rock, but in the end, they’re called “faiths” for a reason. And don’t you secular reasoners feel all high and mighty either. In virtually every area of philosophy, earnest, intelligent people put forth equally compelling but incompatible answers to life’s big questions. We could conclude that everyone is wrong but us, but I think it’s more likely that the limits of human knowledge simply prevent us from knowing much of anything for sure, at least when it comes to the really important questions about where we’re from, where we’re going, and what we should be doing while we’re here.
Some say humility is a mark of intellectual maturity. Maybe so, but at any rate, I think it’s a virtue of a good democratic citizen. Until we can admit to ourselves that our world views might be wrong, we can’t take seriously the views, desires and interests of nonbelievers.
So take a moment to entertain a little doubt—it’ll be good for you. Really, it’s got to be intellectually healthier than continuing to kid yourself into a false sense of certainty. And there’s nothing to be afraid of—there’s no need to go all the way and completely denounce your most cherished beliefs, those that comfort you when you think about death or when your loved ones are ill. Just recognize that the beliefs we have faith in are by definition a little uncertain.
And keep that in mind the next time someone of a different faith or world view has something to say in the public forum (or anywhere, really). The fact of reasonable pluralism is a fact for a reason. If we can muster the courage to admit it, and if we can remember to be humble, we’re bound to be a little healthier upstairs, and a little better as a nation.
—Matt Deaton—
UPDATE Jan 10: Gavin at the Baker Center turned me onto these guys—National Issues Forums. Looks like they’re doing something really close to what I’m after already, so I’m looking into working with them, rather than starting a program from scratch. Will keep you posted!
—Matt—
How serious am I about this project? Serious enough to make a video.
from Matt Deaton on Vimeo.
Ok, so I was looking for “philosophy video blog” sites for ideas on incorporating video on SocratesVotes, and I came across this “experimental philosophy” vid.
Here’s the gist of it. Two almost idential scenarios are presented, then you’re asked two questions.
Questions: In the first scenario, did the manager intentionally harm the environment? In the second scenario, did he intentionally benefit the environment?
Apparently a majority of respondents said yes to the first question but no to the second. I’m not sure why. It seems to me that in both cases the manager knowingly brings about some effect on the environment (good or bad), but in neither case does he intentionally bring about that effect. Now, just because the effects were unintentional doesn’t mean he doesn’t bear some responsibility—he’s still worthy of praise or blame, depending on the effect. But it seems pretty clear that environmental effects didn’t factor into his decision—he’s all about the Benjamins. (I’m assuming that the doctrine of double effect makes sense.)
Any ideas on how can we explain the people who thought intent depended on effect? Any of you have that reaction? And if that judgment is widespread, what are the implications for public opinion?
—Matt Deaton—
I’m proud of the open, intelligent discourse at SocratesVotes. Really. Everyone that’s chimed in has really stepped up to the plate (except Charlie on the Sarah Palin turkey speech… geesh.) But one website can only do so much good. It’s time to branch out and get ‘em while they’re young, so I’m looking to develop a 1-hour workshop with the Baker Center for Public Policy that will encourage high school students to reason through controversial social issues like us—respectfully, intelligently, with an open mind, etc.
Below’s the curriculum I’ve worked out so far. How can I make it better? Should I target jr. high or elementary kids instead? (I remember just hassling all my guest speakers in high school—at least I pretended to care what they had to say when I was in jr. high.) What might be a good issue to cover in step V—not too bland but not too controversial? Is a workshop the best forum, given my goals? I’m counting on your feedback! Here’s what I’ve got so far:
How can I teach these guys to reason in the public forum?
I. Establish that the current model is broken: illustrate that there’s nothing especially ethically authoritative about democratic decisions, so just voting your gut or with some pompous pundit isn’t enough. Just because 50% + 1 think an issue should go one way doesn’t mean it’s necessarily morally right. A majority could vote to enslave a minority, but that wouldn’t legitimate slavery, and constitutional democracies don’t escape this problem either, since a majority could alter their constitution to make slavery constitutionally consistent. Or a constitution could implicitly endorse slavery from the get-go by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes… The point is, if democratic decisions are to have any real legitimacy, they require an engaged electorate. (Main obstacle—the very institution I’m using to reach them has been indoctrinating them from kindergarten to believe American democracy is perfect, and probably hasn’t said much about responsible voting to avoid pissing off parents.)
II. Redeem democracy by revealing what it can be, when practiced the right way: explain that the decisions of reflective, engaged, respectful citizens do have some moral authority because a) reasoning together, they’re more likely to settle on the moral truth than if they were bickering together or reasoning alone, b) genuine reflection and communication publicly affirms mutual respect, which should console those on the losing side of a vote and encourage them to stay engaged, and c) their conclusions truly would represent the general will, not just the aggregate of a bunch of minimally informed knee jerk reactions. (Main obstacle—they’re probably not used to hearing these sorts of justifications. Will they buy it?)
III. How do we get there? Explain the virtues of the ideal democratic citizen: open-minded, genuinely respectful of fellow citizens, able and willing to engage in two-way communication, willing in principle to change one’s mind if presented with good enough reason (perhaps contrast these with the vices of the corrupt democratic citizen). (Main obstacle—the model I’m promoting isn’t practiced by hardly anyone, and especially not by the sound bite left/right constant rhetoric talking points leaders they see on tv. Will it seem too idealistic?)
IV. Test case: run through a test issue, perhaps something fictional to disarm the students. Reason through it from the perspectives of an ideal citizen and a corrupt citizen (might use a more neutral term than “corrupt”), reiterating why we should all strive to emulate the former. (Main obstacle—inventing an issue foreign enough to get everyone’s emotions out of the way [I'm thinking of something Martians are struggling with], but concrete enough to hammer the method home.)
V. Application: have students work through some issues, moderating to promote the virtues and point out the vices when they arise. (Choosing an issue that’s just right—not too bland but not too spicy. Definitely not abortion!)
VI. Debrief: recap superiority of this approach, do a Q & A, solicit student feedback (what they thought of the program, whether it will change the way they approach controversial issues, etc). (Main obstacle—cleaning up the blood after step V.)
So there you go—that’s what I have so far. It may be just a little impractical since most issues are decided by representatives, not referendums. But candidate selection would require a whole nother exercise—I’m just trying to get them to think through the issues for themselves. Then again, maybe I could supplement the debrief with a few words on choosing candidates (ranking and weighing the importance of particular issues, and adding up the net value of competing candidates), influencing their policy positions, and encouraging them to practice the above within government. Or I could make that part of the core… somehow.
I’ve got high hopes. I’ll refine this model after a few trial runs, streamline the curriculum, export it to all 50 states, start training instructors, and respectful intelligent issue analysis will finally become the norm! But first, any ideas?
—Matt Deaton—
Remember that fist political philosopher exercise? Here’s a quick video (2:25) that illustrates the main lines of disagreement between Rawls and libertarian Friedrich Hayek quite well. If you found that discussion interesting but a little too abstract, this should help it sink in.
—Matt—
In case you missed it, the notorious “domestic terrorist” finally defended himself Friday in an op-ed piece in the NY Times. For your convenience, here’s a stripped-down version of that confession/explanation, set in the format of an imaginary interview.
So, how many people did you kill, terrorist? “I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.
Oh… so you weren’t a terrorist, technically? “Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.”
Well, whatever you were, have you renounced your evil ways? “I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.”
What was your connection to Mr. Obama? “President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.”
If you really aren’t a terrorist, and if you and Mr. Obama really weren’t that close, how did his enemies whip everyone into a frenzy? ”The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.”
So why the heck didn’t you speak out earlier?! “With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.”
—Matt Deaton—
The Big Three CEOs are back on Capitol Hill, begging for money. My question is this: since a loan is inevitable (this second appearance before Congress wouldn’t be happening if a loan weren’t forthcoming—its purpose is just to get the American people on board… <cough>propaganda<cough>), should we demand the industry cut emissions, double fuel mileage, make vehicles safer, etc, or just treat it like any other loan—set the interest and payment terms, and let it go?
This time they left their private jets at home, but it’s otherwise the same story—if we don’t get a loan, we’ll fail—if we fail, America fails. Apart from the foolishness of setting the precedent that certain industries can’t be allowed to fail (and thus removing much of their incentive to perform), they’re probably right—a dead auto industry would rock our already beleaguered economy. The labor side of the equation has been out in force too, promising to cut worker’s benefits to make the industry more viable, and maybe a loan more likely. A loan is going to happen, good idea or not, but since this is such a huge favor at our collective risk, shouldn’t we demand some collective benefits?
For what it’s worth, I say yes. Since we’re not even pretending to run a free market anymore, if we’re going to selectively help industries, let’s capitalize on the opportunity and achieve some universally recognized good. Everybody wants greenhouse emissions reduced (though some ostriches deny there’s a problem), everybody wants cars with better fuel efficiency (except OPEC, the oil companies, and their minions), and everybody wants safer vehicles. Here’s our opportunity to achieve all three, and with American companies. Goodness knows Detroit isn’t going to do it on their own!
While we’re at it, how about limiting the salaries of CEOs and top management? It’s typically argued that their exorbanant compensation packages are necessary to recruit and retain the best talent. But given the incompetence of a group who has continued to produce inefficient vehicles, despite intimate knowledge of petroleum’s looming death (don’t let these temporary low prices fool you), the CEO salary market seems wildly and artificially inflated.
And how about leaving those auto workers’ benefits alone too? Or at least building in some sort of guarantee that, once the economy’s up and running again, any temporarily forfeited health insurance or layoff payments are returned in full? Rather than letting the fat cats scrape those millions off the top, let’s see to it that the backbone of the auto industry is taken care of first.
So that’s my take. If the loan goes through, lots of strings—lots of thick strings—should be tied to that money. What do you think?
—Matt Deaton—
So you’ve been indoctrinated from birth to think democracy is all that and a bag of chips. But have you ever stopped to ask what’s so magical about 50% + 1? Today you will! Thus, the theme of our second installment in our ongoing amateur political philosopher series: What’s so special about democracy, anyway?
In honor of our contributor to the north, Liam, a Canadian legislative building
[Note: Below I prime your brain a bit, but the root question is whether a law or decision or policy is ethical simply because a majority endorses it—what seems to be the core of the democratic ideal. If you say yes, then you have to explain a bunch of terribly counter-intuitive policies. If you say no, well, you're just un-American and you're not allowed to visit SocratesVotes anymore (kidding!). The trick is to come up with some brilliant, nuanced version of democracy that can accommodate the complaints, or explain why they're not a real worry. If you can't do all that by yourself, you're in luck—lots of smart people are here to help. So think aloud on the screen, and maybe we can redeem our precious democracy together!]
First, it’s common to dismiss democracy in its most simple form. We can all imagine a majority abusing a minority with brute force, we can imagine the same majority accomplishing the same abuse via legal means, and we can see that there’s little difference between the two. Nobody thinks direct democracy is defensible. The problem, as we’ll see, is that there may not be a meaningful difference between this and the more accepted forms.
So how about representative democracy? We elect our best and brightest, then they use their superior judgement to promote our interests. But if your representative is simply promoting your biases, how is that significantly different from direct democracy? Couldn’t the same mob achieve the same abuse via a representative? By itself, that doesn’t sound like a satisfying solution.
“But ah,” you say—“constitutional democracy is where it’s at. We put a barrier between the mob and the law with elected legislators, then bind them with a constitution—a meta-law that regulates the sorts of regular laws we’ll allow. And for good measure, we’ll erect some quasi-external authority to ensure the legislature doesn’t do anything unconstitutional.”
That’s better, but theoretically a constitution could deny freedom of speech, religion, assembly—you name it. Every horrible thing that was possible under direct democracy is theoretically possible under constitutional democracy—just build it into your constitution. And if you’re suspicious of arguments based in hypotheticals, how about a federal constitution that implicitly endorses slavery (by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representative purposes) or a state constitution that excludes a minority from enjoying certain civil liberties (prop 8, anyone?). Is the mere fact that a law is constitutionally consistent enough enough to make it right?
Lots to think about, huh? As always, don’t be shy. Surely democracy can be redeemed. Make your jr. high civics teacher proud! I’m not sure if mine would smile or cry if she visited SocratesVotes… At least I’m trying, Mrs. Thomas!
—Matt Deaton—
For your viewing pleasure, an interview with Governor Palin, complete with some weirdo slaughtering a turkey in the background. Yeah.
Happy Thanksgiving!
—Matt—