Personal Responsibility Without Critical Thought
This post is designed to address the source of Republican decline. It focuses on the narrative of personal responsibility as the center of the Republican story. Then, it examines the inconsistencies and unsoundness of personal responsibility--the concept--as represented by Republican politicians and supporters. Lastly, it traces the roots of the breakdown--the lack of access to intersubjective thinking--and suggests a path towards rebuilding.
The Narrative of Personal Responsibility
The Republican Party's meta-platform is personal responsibility. All other positions are derived from that concept. Tax cuts are good because they put power into the hands of the productive. The productive are necessarily responsible people. Social programs like universal health care are bad because they reward those people who produce nothing. Those who produce nothing are not responsible people. When the government lends them a hand, the government encourages them to produce nothing. Rewarding those who produce nothing gives incentive to produce nothing. The more people produce nothing, the worse off the country. Therefore, personal responsibility is the new golden rule: do unto others as they produce.
But is that the end of the story? Is that all we have to say about personal responsibility? I mean, if personal responsibility is about doing things for yourself, then wouldn't that include thinking for yourself? In other words: doesn't critical thought play a role in personal responsibility? I can't imagine anyone denying that. Yet, not relying on the government--which is the Republican definition of personal responsibility--does not entail critical thought. A robot produced by a private company does not rely on the government, but we don't want to say that the robot is personally responsible until its batteries die. So I find it awkward for Republicans to suggest that not relying on government assistance is the only presupposition for personal responsibility.
Republican Responsibility
What, then, is personal responsibility without critical thought? Let's back up. As people, our values determine our preferences. Our preferences determine our actions. So in order to act freely, we are forced to scrutinize our values. We must insure that they are all internally consistent with one another. We must insure that they correspond to reality. And we must insure that it would be cool for everyone else to have the same values. Once we've gone through that process, we can be somewhat--though never entirely--confident in our actions. Our actions will most likely be rational and as free as we can hope.
But what do we say about actions undertaken by individuals who have not examined their values closely, or at all? In these cases, actions are not free, but instead determined by a system of belief. That does not mean that the actors are not people. They most certainly are people. But it does mean that they are programmed as if they were robots. And this brings us back to our original question: what is personal responsibility without critical thought? Answer: strict obedience to an already formed set of values--even if those values are entirely inconsistent, self-defeating, dehumanizing, or simply nonsensical.
So how, exactly, has a major party in the United States come this far without coherence? Let's back up again. A Democratic Republic is run by lawmakers who represent the majority of voters. The majority of voters are not always enlightened. So if a prevailing attitude--the most common way of being in the world--is senseless, then the party which best represents senselessness will run the show. And the party which can package the senselessness into a heroic quality--whether it actually is or isn't--will run the show for a long time. Hence, we were, and still are to some extent, preached the doctrine of personal responsibility (without critical thought).
The Party of (Covert) Non-Intersubjective Thinking
Until now, non-intersubjective thinking has been overwhelmingly dominant amongst Americans. We have believed that thinking is something that happens in our head--in a private theater to which no one else has access. Or, we move to the opposite extreme, and believe that thinking is only what happens in a completely free, open, and unrestrained marketplace. Non-intersubjective thought is the germ for all disconnection from reality. The inability to think in this way is a misperception which permeates our lives and our culture. In a story of amazing irony, even the great conservative--the founder of so-called Objectivism--fell prey to purely subjectivist thought. According to the Library of Congress, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has sold more copies than any other book in America, aside from the bible. And yet even the Objectivist attempt to push a philosophy of critical thinking has proven to be a failure.
But this, I would suggest, is the starting point for understanding today's Republican incoherence. Ayn Rand's characters--Howard Roark, Dagny Taggart, John Galt, etc.--were individually perfect portraits of personal responsibility. These are men and women who are proud to live for themselves and only for themselves. Few corporate executives have not read Rand, and few don't fantasize about their inner John Galt. Yet Rand's theory of knowledge turns man into an "alien-explorer": an entity which cannot gather trust-worthy knowledge through interpersonal interaction: the intersubjective. (Perhaps this is why many Republicans would not consider waterboarding to be torture: the sense of dying would be welcomed in such a lonely alien world. From another angle, this may be why torture is thought to be the only worth-while interrogation technique, since interpersonal interaction cannot yield trust-worthy knowledge.)
A Suggested Path to Reconstruction
These problems are not superficial. First, non-intersubjective thinking is blinding to reality--especially in the form of non-objective thinking which is masked as 'Objectivism'. Second, personal responsibility is meaningless without critical thought--especially when it forms the axiom of a Party's storyline. Until the incoherence is reconciled, the Republican Party will be a collection of hungry ghosts. If any Republican has followed the argument to this point, I would like to make a couple of suggestions. First, be honest amongst each other. Admit you don't have it all figured out. Your ideas aren't what needs to change. Your way of thinking is what needs to change. Some insights are worth keeping. We will eventually need to repay the debt. You can trumpet that cause when the time comes, but accept the reality of our current situation.
Understand that personal responsibility is meaningless without critical thought. No party has a monopoly on critical thought. So be assured that if you move past non-intersubjective thinking, critical thinking is present everywhere. It is available to the right as it is to the left. It just takes effort and the humility to accept error. The longer you put it off, the more you will consume yourself. Do what is best for you and your country. Aim to touch reality: the intersubjective kind.
Addendum
I recognize that the Republican Party is a coalition. It is composed of different groups with different belief systems. Ayn Rand's philosophy/economics are championed by only a few of the groups within that coalition. However, some beliefs must be universal--held constant by all groups within the coalition. Some of those beliefs are as a simple as: (a) 'the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party' or (b) 'Our group has reason to be in the Republican Party'. Some beliefs are more substantive: (c) 'smaller government is better than larger government' or (d) 'tax cuts are better than tax increases'.
Every group which composes the Republican Party holds these four beliefs (except, on the one hand, the "cock-tail conservatives" who would accept the first two beliefs, but would consider the second two conditionally true, and, on the other hand, neo-conservatives who like large government as long as its run by them--so it can be used as a tool to leverage power towards the private companies of their choice). I think then it's fair to say that all groups hold belief (b) because either (1) 'the Republican Party has the most faith in markets', (2) 'the Republican Party represents my social values', (3) 'I hate all the other options', and/or (4) 'my immediate family tells me I'm a loser if I'm not a Republican'.
It is clear that (b) is universal among all groups within the Republican coalition. It is hardly debatable that (b) equals (1), (2), (3), (4), and/or (5) at least something along those lines. So, if one accepts that all of (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) entail non-intersubjective thinking, then my thesis holds.
I don't think it requires a whole lot of intellectual effort to deconstruct their ideology. It's the law of the jungle.
But notice how they've saturated the TV with the philosophy. Virtually every "reality" TV show is based on the premise of throwing one after another out of the game until only one remains.
May 2, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell, that's an awesome observation! "Reality" TV assumes that the world is a zero-sum game! I never thought of it like that.
You're so right that their ideology is the law of the jungle. The reason I put forth the intellectual effort is because I want to show the modern roots of their philosophy. That way, there are less gaps between their current positions and the law of the jungle. But you are absolutely correct: the law of the jungle is the root of the roots.
May 2, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We call it the law of the jungle, in the past it was called "social Darwinism".
In the end, the Republican Party, in it's desperate desire for power after having been lost in the desert almost entirely since 1932 sold it's soul about 45 years ago. It became the party of brazen unending lies and hypocrisy. They do and say anything that will work for them right now and give them the advantage they seek.
They allied themselves with the pariahs of American social and political life: racist whites, right wing extremists and Christian fundamentalist extremists for the sole purpose of winning. For about 20 years they ignored their new allies but these people become wrestless and realized they were being taken for granted so used the political skills honed by the Republicans against them. They purged their party of nearly all the "old line" Republicans to the point where now they have driven Specter out and only the two Maine Senators and Richard Lugar represent the last vestiges of the old mainline Republicans.
As for the reponsibility theme, I always enjoy their hypocrisy on that the most. Has there ever been a political group more craven and anxious to avoid repsonsibility for their many mistakes and crimes? Not in this country!
My hope is that the Democrats will understand the importance of crushing the party of right wing politics, religion and racism. I think many in the grassroots do. I'm not convinced the DC Democrats have a clue.
May 3, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb thank you so much for your input. On the deepest level, I've come to believe that the law of the jungle/social Darwinism is nothing more than a mode of perception--by no means an objective reality.
Besides, Darwinism presupposes the principles of evolution to apply to groups with individuals as units. But the survival of groups presupposes the sustainability of groups, which presupposes cooperation amongst the units.
Competition certainly occurs on some level, but to see it as the driving force of evolution is kind-of blind to Darwin's ideas.
May 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! Republicans took the phrase "survival of the fittest" applied that to the rich and voila: social Darwinism! It's just another catch phrase that promotes their goal of having themselves (the very richest) on top.
May 3, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so true. And so disturbing.
May 3, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but Darwin is that "evolution" guy. And wouldn't accepting the ideas of Darwinism mean that on some level the principles of evolution -- primarily change to survive -- would have to be embraced?
If the core tenets of Republican philosophy reject change and the notion that evolution can be a good thing, they are doomed to extinction.
May 3, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade! Nailed 'em! Nice!
May 3, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, but logical contradiction isn't a problem hypocrites worry about. They say and believe what suits them and dismiss everything else. They hope everyone else does likewise. It is the times when everyone else does not do likewise that presents the greatest danger to these hypocritical leaches.
May 3, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, at the same time, the whole cast of the reality show is there via a careful selection process, a film crew, and for the purpose of showing it to an audience. So much for doing it alone!
May 2, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahah!!! It's like how Hayek's economic insights are misconstrued. He found that as long as an effort was well organized, it would be successful. Some people (Larry Summers for instance) think that means no one has to regulate anything. But just what exactly is meant by *organizing*? That's a form of regulation!
May 2, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to this series, MBH. You've picked an important topic to subject to analysis. It's so amazing that a party that touts personal responsibility is so bent on hoodwinking people!
May 2, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so true. I wanted to include that in this post, but it would have been too much. Where I'm going next is "private language-games" which are basically the means of hoodwinking massive amounts of people. This is why Zen is always relevant: language games are like fingers point to the moon, but they are never the moon itself!
May 2, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say that republican concept of personal responsibility is to produce (starting at your tax cut example).
Then you distort it even further, by saying that "personal responsibility is about doing things for yourself".
Then you twist it beyond recognition when you say that "not relying on the government--which is the Republican definition of personal responsibility--does not entail critical thought".
But it's only setting the stage. The rest is such unbelievable mumbo-jumbo that it's clear that common sense and reality were not helping you right your post.
To set the record straight - personal reponsibility means being responsible for the consequence of your actions. That alone implies a lot of critical thinking. And it's not even an exclusively republican idea.
May 2, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I would agree that being responsible for the consequences of your actions implies a lot of critical thinking. That is, I would again agree, a legitimate understanding of personal responsibility.
I'm not claiming that personal responsibility does not entail critical thought. I think it most certainly does entail critical thought. Maybe where my post is confusing is when I switch from 'personal responsibility' as a rallying cry to 'personal responsibility' as an actual quality--a quality like the one you're describing.
May 2, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I think your premise is wrong.
You say that a misinterpretation of the concept of personal responsibility is what led to the current republican decline.
You also claim that the characters in Atlas Shrugged exemplified the version of personal responsibility by living for themselves.
But there is a difference between personal responsibility and individualism. They overlap but they are distinctly separate concepts.
Our entire social and legal system is based on personal responsibility and individualism. One is the foundation of our legal system, the other is the foundation of rights of an individual.
May 2, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What is the first word? WE are going to provide for the COMMON defense. WE are going to promote the GENERAL welfare.
The right has been very successful in the last 30 years distorting history but this country has always been about both opportunity for the individual and advancing the common good.
May 2, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE are going to promote the GENERAL welfare.
Some might say (I never would) that the promotion of "the general Welfare" as understood on the left* runs afoul of the earlier stated purpose, namely, to "establish Justice."
* "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
May 2, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, some would be assuming that things like language, culture, and education have no impact on ability. When I think deeply about that, I find it silly. In a past life, I bought the argument that Justice meant that you get out of it what you put into it. But no individual is an island, and there are too many variables to think of it that simply.
May 2, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To a degree and in the absolute, they may be right, Ellen, except when the promotion of general welfare is used as a corrective. The total free market fiasco and Wall Street Welfare hypocrisy belies any principled notions of personal responsibility. I believe in free speech, but I think all of the M.F.’s still espousing that BS from Gingrich to Greenspan to Gramm should be allowed to speak but only if they wear clown makeup and costume.
Providing unequal benefits would seem counter to the idea of justice unless those receiving more benefit had been deprived by the very societal institutions set up under the equality umbrella. The who, what, where, how and when is the battlefield (and I imagine you have all the numbers on educational opportunity, wage deflation, regressive “hidden” taxes, etc.).
That the government may give money, say, in the form of earned income credit directly to a poor family is certainly not equitable to the low wage worker next door. But if the system has been stacked to prohibit this family from prospering, assistance is just. If children are born into families without the ways and means to acquire the means to eat, then it’s not only just, it benefits the common good if the government ensures their health. Then again, them Irish babies sure is tasty.
May 3, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, very well put.
In reference to that M.F.'er. Ugh. Let me try to paraphrase him: "You see Phil, the world is crazy. There's no point in trying to find reason in it. Just make your money and get out. That's the only option."
Don, that's a brilliant suggestion: they cannot speak their gibberish unless there wear a clown suit and full makeup. Excellent.
May 3, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, very nice post, MBH, You write so well. I was going to say it'd be funny to see some of those MF'er clowns take their vaudeville act on the road, but on second thought, they are more like those scary clowns in horror movies!
May 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, thank you so much!
You're so right. They are definitely the creepy kind of clown.
May 3, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. My response is below.
May 2, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with lalo on this one. You've produced an ironically subjectivist narrative and used non-partisan issues to attack one party only.
Why are the Repos your choice of whipping boy when the genuine problem transcends party affiliation?
May 3, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fair critique. Let me say this: Republicans, for the most part, believe in individualism. So subjectivist thought is not even seen as a problem, but more as a virtue. On the other hand, Democrats, for the most part, believe in the primacy of the whole. So subjectivist thought is seen as fragmented.
Your point is correct though. This is not--strictly speaking--a partisan issue. However, there is the pattern I described above.
Thanks for your input eds.
May 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Republicans, for the most part, believe in individualism. So subjectivist thought is not even seen as a problem, but more as a virtue. On the other hand, Democrats, for the most part, believe in the primacy of the whole. So subjectivist thought is seen as fragmented."
Interesting point of view. I see how it could influence you but I also sense fallacies.
The primacy of the whole is a subjectivist notion in this sense. Why is the Democrats' belief seen as a virtue rather than as a correlated problem, esp. if they are deluded in thinking that they are not themselves fragmented?
I have problems with broad brushes outside of comedy. So I don't easily accept your subjective characterizations which you seem to make out to be objective dialectic!
Also, the individualists tend to be Libertarians rather than Republicans, in my limited experience.
May 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the Bush regime accepted responsibility for starting a war over WMD's, after kicking out the UN people who were finding none, and after none were found, declaring "Mission Accomplished!" and changed the reason to another bogus one? You mean like THAT kind of accountability?
You mean like people who have gold-plated health insurance provided by their government who don't want everyone else to have it? How is that accountability?
May 3, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that there is a difference between personal responsibility and individualism. But I do think that personal responsibility--as misinterpreted by those following Rand--is virtually identical to individualism.
Our entire social and legal system is based on individual rights--not individualism. The belief that all men/women are created equal does not entail individualism--that everyone ought to act for their own satisfaction. In fact, just the opposite. If all men/women are created equal, then one has as much reason to act on the needs of another as for one's own self.
Our entire social and legal system is based on order amongst collectives--not personal responsibility. Institutionalized law is an extension of order within an organization. An organization entails many persons. Personal responsibility is most commonly used in reference to a single individual.
I understand your distaste for my premise, and I don't intent to convince you it is correct. But I do believe that you are assuming a basic separation between individuals that I don't think exists in reality. I find that we are all interdependent. Personal responsibility, as properly understood, is a wonderful concept. Gandhi called it swaraj (or self-rule). But that is not the basis for a legal system or a society. If everyone were self-ruled (in the most virtuous sense) then there would be no need for a legal system. A legal system exists precisely because some people try to rule other people, and that manifests in many different forms.
May 2, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our entire social and legal system is based on order amongst collectives--not personal responsibility.
Yup -- and amongst those collectives the most powerful is composed of Wall Street bankers and their courtiers and sycophants.
Seems to me that what we need is a lot more "personal responsibility" (via RICO, anti-trust and consumer protection enforcements as a start) and a lot less enablement of "collectives."
May 2, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff Ellen! It's unfortunately true that Institutionalized law is an extension of order within the most powerful of collectives. And yes, personal responsibility (as properly understood) would shift power away from those whose order is Institutionalized and into the hands of more deserving people.
May 2, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might also ditch the idea that corporations are persons.
May 2, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, isn't that like saying: a pack of wolves, when moving together, equals a mountain.
May 2, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that!
May 2, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I think you misunderstand the difference between individualism and selfishness. Selfishness is individualism taken to the extreme, just like communism is collectivism taken to the extreme.
Second, personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions is the basis for our legal system, whether you like it or not. Any legal prosecution of any wrongdoing is based on that. This has nothing to do with self-rule.
May 2, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh! My response is below.
May 2, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I'm presenting individualism as Rand understood it. She wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness." In her mind, selfishness was a good thing. And it was the foundation of individualism. Now maybe SHE had those notions confused. But I think you're trying to pin me with Ayn Rand's confusions.
To your second point: I think I understand what you're saying. And I think that's correct. I just think there's more to the story. People are usually prosecuted because they don't take personal responsibility for their actions. I mean, if you hit me in the face. You're charged with a crime. But if you plead guilty, then there is no prosecution. Prosecution only exists when someone won't take responsibility for their actions. So it's also true that the legal system is founded on people avoiding responsibility for their actions.
May 2, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is too funny. Whether or not Rand is correct, she's just one person. I haven't read that book so I don't have an opinion on it, but I think it's a little silly to use that as a foundation that somehow explains what's wrong with republicans today.
With regard to criminal law, if you commit a crime and plead guilty, you will still have to face the consequences of your actions, no? If you plead guilty to killing someone, you still go to jail. Legal system, contrary to what you say, is not founded on people AVOIDING responsibility.
May 2, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, ask elected Republican officials if their economic policies had anything to do with their election. Then find the most cited literary justification for their economic principles. I agree its silly to base a platform on the philosophy of one person. But when we consult history, most movements--especially the short-lived ones--start from one person's philosophy.
On the legal system, yes you are correct: the legal system is founded on holding people responsible for their illegal actions--making them face the consequence. I'm conceding to you the point of *foundation*. Then I'm adding a point of *causation*: the legal system is founded *because* people tend to avoid responsibility.
May 2, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I'm already composing an equally charming post that explains the Democratic ascent based on the work of Saul Alinsky.
Over and out.
May 2, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHA!!! Fair enough!
May 2, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post MBH, very thought-provoking.
I would like to add something about the evangelical coalition and the mind-boggling hypocrisy regarding personal responsibility, but I am in a bit of rush. The Evangelicals seem to simultaneously hold that we are all flawed (original sin) and therefore are incapable of acting responsible without the help of god/church, while also strongly advocating the message you are exploring in your post.
I think this election had a really fascinating example with Sarah Palin and her pregnant teenage daughter. I had a shocking revelation that in some ways I was more morally conservative than my Texan evangelical inlaws. I thought Sarah was a poor parent, and yet they were perfectly okay with it and just took it as par for the course. Polls bore this out. I remain confused at this contradiction today.
Another issue I see is that among thinking conservatives the cheny/rove/bush southern conservaitism is not really conservative. (I am thinking of people like Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, or David Frum, traditional Burkean conservatives who favor incremental change over dramatic revolutionary movements like that of Engels or his opposite, Ms. Rand).
These so-called 'cocktail party conservatives' recognize that the Republicans have became a fundamentally unconservative party, that is they became a party that preached a radical prescription that would reshape the world. In addition to the free market fundamentalism and greed is good that you highlight, there is there attempt to reshape a foreign culture through our ideals and weapons. Such dramatic gestures are a complete anathema to a true conservative disposition. Such an ideological contradiction can not hold, particularly in a party that is trying to ideologically purify itself.
P.S. I like to share this little jewel whenever the Ms. Rand comes up in respectable conversations.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/20tucker.html
May 2, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really need to edit before i post, very sorry for all the typos.
May 2, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries. Great points though. I really wanted to include some of that in the post, but it was just getting to be too long. Especially the point that the cocktail conservatives are all who understand what conservatism is. I almost made the claim that what's left of the Republican Party cannot logically possibly return to the majority if their aim is "purity."
May 2, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Oh my dear god Saladin, that's fantastic! Since I read all 1,200 some odd pages, the updated version holds special meaning for me. Thank you!
May 2, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my quest to stop American label confusion, I would like to point out that Palin is a fundamentalist and not an evangelical.
The term evangelical is thrown around very loosely these days and some of the people it is applied to are anything but representative of that community. It taints the waters of constructive dialogue as we try to reshape this country from the ground up. Most evangelicals I know (many of whom are on this site) don't swim in those crazy, shark-infested waters.
I think it is our duty as progressives to be as precise with our language and our criticism as possible. Poorly aimed invective can have collateral damage that is rarely seen until it is much too late. We have a very small margin of error right now to pull ourselves out of this collision course with our imperial past and will need the efforts of those millions of Americans who call themselves evangelicals or born-again Christians.
Otherwise, good points.
May 3, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEM, I'm so glad you said that. I never thought about the distinction, but you're so right. Evangelicals don't necessarily believe Adam and Eve were the first humans several thousand years ago--that's just fundamentalists. So, while Evangelicals can be fundamentalists, they are not necessarily. Thanks!
May 3, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for an interesting post. I am convinced that those of us in the "extreme center" will one day co-opt the republican party and put it to good use, taking a good chunk of "moderate" democrats and independents with us.
May 3, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the use of the Republican Party is to balance the progression of the Democratic Party--not and never to negate it. The Republican Party's M.O. should never have been to move the country in one direction or the other, but only to balance the movement from the Democratic Party's vision. If the country is a car, then the Republican Party should be the breaks--nothing more, nothing less. But my how important are the breaks!
May 3, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a better analogy is that in a two party system we are both in the same car, going on the same trip and should agree on the destination if not the exact route. It should be a matter of methodology rather than ideology.
May 3, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff JEM! I'm right there with you!
May 3, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem is that there are tensions between principles and tensions between values, in addition to tensions between possible methods. There are real (important) differences as to both ends and means.
Good debate requires polarization in order to highlight issues, it's like a magnifying glass. But when a Party becomes the Party Of No, while also failing to do their job in the analytical part of the process of dialectic/debate, AND failing to contribute effectively to the synthesis of methods, something is very wrong in the kingdom (of Denmark).
May 3, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAH!
May 3, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I remain confused at this contradiction today."
If you can see it as a paradox instead, you won't be so confused!
People are imperfect. That doesn't mean they cannot stand for principles. Word is only object in the likes of postmodernisms, otherwise it is understood that the symbol is different from that which is symbolized.
Maybe I totally missed your confusion.
May 3, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believing one thing and doing another is a paradox. Teaching one thing and doing another is a contradiction.
May 3, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Believing one thing and doing another is a paradox. Teaching one thing and doing another is a contradiction."
Well, I was replying re Saladin, but...
A paradox is a truth behind apparent contradiction. Not practicing what you preach may or may not be a contradiction, but if people are imperfect that doesn't mean they cannot strive towards perfection in speech or other deeds. So you need to show or prove that the alleged contradiction is significant as well as being clear(er) about it in the first place.
Teaching by example and teaching by talking about stuff are different. In most cases I suspect that doing both harmoniously is most effective, but there are important exceptions to this rule of thumb.
The reply was aimed at Sal's alleged confusion, but you've given me a further chance to demonstrate my method as well as talking the talk here... :-)
May 3, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought a paradox was believing two contrary things.
And the others were hypocrisy.
May 3, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or you could call it holding two contrary things in mind at the same time.
Creativity is often the result of paradox. We deal with it a lot in therapy.
Interesting question. One more thing to ponder here.
May 3, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holding two contrary things in mind would be related to cognitive dissonance. That isn't the essence of paradox but it's related. I believe that the ability to handle cognitive dissonance is some kind of rough measure of intelligence.
I'm not clear on the implicit discrimination of cog. dis. -- that is, does intelligence mean that there is less dissonance or rather that the person can handle the same dissonance better?
Hypocrisy is about false fronts, facades which don't match the interior. It also gets applied to those who practice the opposite of what they preach. But practicing the opposite is not quite the same as not practicing what you preach.
The point about paradox is that it can be resolved, the hidden truth can be revealed. That is why it's about *apparent* contradiction. It's similar to a riddle, but we don't "resolve" a riddle, we solve it.
May 3, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I think that's much better. Paradox is a seeming contradiction. So, believing contrary things at the same time would be a perfect example.
I really like the idea that creativity often comes from paradox. It's like seeing something from different angles. The more perspectives the more likely you can present something new.
god you're so good!
May 3, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is Oh Brother !!. Personal responsibility is the last thing republicans should be preaching about. They are the antithesis
of that concept. To personal responsibility means when you screw up you don't try to put the blame on someone else, you take the consequences. It means that when a business any business goes broke because of mismanagement, it goes out of business. It dose not get rescued by the government. It means that if one invests in anything they take the risk and if what they invest in goes down the toilet, they take it in the shorts like anyone else.
No...republicans not absolutely nothing about personal responsibility.
C
May 2, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
C, that's so true. I didn't think of it from that angle, but that deserves a post all its own. Personal responsibility in practice: how Republicans demonstrate what they really mean by personal responsibility!
May 2, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, while some Republicans may be touting Rand's philosophy now, there is a long tradition of conservative animosity towards Rand due to her atheism and her denunciation of Christian ethics. If you don't know that, then you've done a very poor job of researching your topic. Equating Objectivism with conservatism and claiming the former represents the philosophy of the Republican party is so disconnected from the reality of the situation, that it could only be uttered by someone who is standing off at a great distance, and is not terribly interested in understanding the phenomenon he is carelessly trying to describe. That's my long-winded way of saying that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Second of all, referencing an obscure philosophy book as the only support for the central portion of your thesis--i.e., that Rand's philosophy is subjectivist--would get you an 'F' from any philosophy professor. You at least have to say enough about the author's argument to show that you read and understood it. You are supposed to provide enough of a synopsis so that your reader doesn't have to run out and buy the book in order to know what the heck you're talking about.
Lastly, I had to go back and reread the previous paragraph after I read this:
strict obedience to an already formed set of values--even if those values are entirely inconsistent, self-defeating, dehumanizing, or simply nonsensical.
To make sure you hadn't switched to talking about leftists. That stuff makes nice boilerplate for preaching to the choir, but if you were trying to make an argument that would convince your opponents, you should have put your conclusion at the end instead of the beginning. And argued for it.
May 3, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ardsgaine, thank you for the feedback.
First, I don't think that I've equated conservatism with Objectivism. But I do implicitly claim that contemporary conservatism is rooted in Objectivism. Granted, the apple has fallen a long way from the tree!
While the religious right would certainly denounce Rand for her atheism, they have never been known for their consistency in principles. They fall in lock step with her economics.
Second, agreed. The book may be--objectively speaking--obscure. For me, I studied under the author for three years, which is why I may not have taken that into account. However, I do represent the book's relevance: "Rand's theory of knowledge turns man into an "alien-explorer": an entity which cannot gather trust-worthy knowledge through interpersonal interaction." That is the thrust of the book, as I see it, and that is a fair synopsis of its thesis, I think. I even provide a link from 'Rand's theory of knowledge' to Wikipedia's page on foundationalism. Granted, Rand would argue that her epistemology is not foundationalist. But, the arguments are compelling, to me, that she is. Rod Long's book is exhibit A, and exhibit B is nature of interaction between characters in Rand's fiction: those in the know or "of the mind" preach their knowledge, they never go to the level of those with whom they interact.
Lastly, I think that's a fair critique. I thought about inserting a caveat: this can equally apply to those on the left, but for different reasons. However, I don't think that's my ultimate conclusion. I think my final conclusion is that subjectivist thinking is the root of personal responsibility without critical thought. Now I certainly don't make that clear. Then again: I look at a blog as a weblog--a sort-of recording of thoughts: somewhere in between stream of consciousness and formally argued material. But, I would agree that I could be more clear in my argumentation.
Again, thank you for the feedback. It's always welcome!
May 3, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
MBH,
Agree completely that conservatives are not known for adhering to principles. Philosophically, they tend to be pragmatists, and that is one of the most important ways in which they differ from Ayn Rand. The essence of conservatism is the desire to cling to two conflicting systems: Christianity and Capitalism. Since the two ideologies cannot be reconciled, it is impossible for conservatives to appeal to fundamental principles. That's why they treat homilies like "personal responsibility" as fundamentals rather than analyzing them more fully.
You say that conservatives are in lock step with Ayn Rand's economics, but surely you know that they routinely violate the principle of laissez-faire capitalism that she espoused. The Wall Street bailout is just the most blatant and obscene example in recent memory. Their version of deregulation is more properly called re-regulation. It does not set people free, it just changes the rules affecting them. They don't really want to get rid of those rules because a) the Republican politicians like the power it gives them; and b) the religious right has learned from the left how to use the rules to enforce their moral beliefs (FCC, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives...)
So there is no commitment in conservative philosophy to Rand's philosophical principles, not in the area of politics or ethics, and certainly not in epistemology or metaphysics. Rand is someone that some (not all) conservatives like to quote from when they think she supports their position, as they would appeal to the Bible, or Burke, or any other "authority" with whom they agree on some out of context particular.
More than your attempt to tie Objectivism and conservatism by the tail, though, I'm baffled by your attempt to turn Rand into a subjectivist. Subjectivism is the belief that consciousness creates reality. Where in the world does that belief pop up in Rand? Without developing your position more, this...
Rand's theory of knowledge turns man into an "alien-explorer": an entity which cannot gather trust-worthy knowledge through interpersonal interaction.
Makes no sense to me whatever. Can you provide examples of how this plays out in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
May 3, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a great question and I'm glad you ask it. Rand is not an explicit subjectivist, in fact she is barely an implicit one either. The problem though with her epistemology is not whether she espouses subjectivism or not. The problem is whether or not her version of objectivism is air tight. I don't think it is.
Her epistemology finds that sense data is the raw foundation of knowledge. From sense data, the individual generates judgments. But, testimony from others within the community can never count a knowledge. The "mind" must find the knowledge itself. So this brings up some problems. If you cannot use reputable testimony as part of your foundation of knowledge, then how would you know the earth is round? I mean, unless you yourself have actual sense data which demonstrates that the earth is round, then you really don't know if the earth is round or not. So Rand starts to look like a kind of a skeptic. And we know that skepticism--although it does not entail subjectivism--certainly makes reaching objective reality very difficult.
So the problem with Rands epistemology (and I'm paraphrasing from *Aristotle vs. Rand* http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Value-Aristotle-versus-Rand/dp/1577240456 ) is that it does not allow things like culture and language to play any role in the foundation of knowledge. That standard for knowledge sets the bar so high that it dissolves into skepticism. That doesn't mean she's a subjectivist, but it does mean she's not entirely an objectivist.
May 3, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I should note that for the sake of my original post, I consider non objectivists to be subjectivists. That may be misleading. Rand is not absolutely a subjectivist, but her epistemology does not disallow subjectivism.
May 3, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican personal responsibility is best demonstrated by George Bush's:
May 3, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, I especially love how they wouldn't put the cost of the war on the budget. Ugh.
GWB really pulled the curtain back on what they meant by personal responsibility.
May 3, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, MBH, and looking forward to the rest of the series! I personally wouldn't dig so deep to find the source of the GOP's decline. I don't think it's so much ideological inconsistency - that comes with any political coalition. Rather it just patently failed at governing. The coalition between traditional small-c conservatives with Neo-cons, evangelicals, and Corporatists was always going to be uncomfortable, and I don't know if it's a needle easily 'thread'. Are any of these coalition members internally inconsistent in their ideology? Well, the evangelicals are susceptible to all the paradoxes of faith, related to some of the things you say. Corporatism isn't seriously ideology-based, though to the extent that it pretends to be, it is worth pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in That position. As for Neo-cons and traditional conservatism, I think they're pretty solid, though I disagree with the belief-system that makes it up.
Just one additional thought about your central concept of 'personal responsibility'. I prefer to use the notion of Autonomy which captures a lot of different aspects of vaguely related moral principles and values worth picking apart. Nomy Arpaly's book (Unprincipled Virtue) does a pretty good job of picking these aspects apart. I don't think there is an obvious tie between the value of Autonomy as 'personal efficacy' - the ability to take care of yourself in material terms - and the value of Autonomy as 'independence of mind' - which you see the republicans as failing to uphold. Anyway, thanks for this...
May 3, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Obey! Thank you! To the second point, agreed totally! Autonomy is a much better concept than personal responsibility. To the first point, I think that's excellent: the members come from inconsistent backgrounds, while each background may or may not be internally consistent. That's so true, and it makes me think. It seems that the economics of the right is a common thread throughout all of the backgrounds. I think that is what I'm after: to show the internal inconsistency within the common thread. So that's really what I'm trying to say: the right's economics is rooted in subjectivist thinking. Subjectivist thinking is like a mild form of autism.
Thank you Obey!
May 3, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just rereading this thread again, MBH, and was wondering if you could clarify at some point (in future blogs?) the subjective vs objective thinking distinction you put alot into. Where do you put
- quasi-realism
- intersubjectivity
- objectivity about moral issues/ social issues/ other (?) issues
And have you noted how the kind of anti-realist discourse à la continental philosophy tend to be associated historically with the left rather than the right? Any thoughts?
May 3, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are some excellent questions! I think that things like intersubjectivity and what Kant called the subjective universal would overlap--at the very least--the objective. And that's where quasi-realistic frameworks would be helpful in picturing how.
I think that's such an awesome question about the tendencies between right and left. I agree that the right usually tries to frame the world is terms of realism, but their individualism implies nominalism: so they've got some difficulties right off the bat. If they understand the difficulties then they can move towards intersubjectivity.
May 3, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPMCafe really needs an instant message feature. I hope you see this comment on your dashboard.
I've updated this post to take into consideration your points about the intersubjective. You're very right, and I want to be as technically correct as possible. Thank you for raising those concerns. I'd love to know if you think the case is now air tight...
May 5, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice addendum, MBH. I'm thinking about your #1-4. I think it's a bit hard to get from 1 and 2 to subjective thinking, and 3 and 4 are plausible to the extent that they aren't really REASONS in a serious sense. They are causal explanations, not rationalizations of one's attitude/commitment. So they don't involve subjectivist THINKING, since there isn't much thinking that goes into their position. It could be interesting to investigate the psychological foundations of such social pressures, and the 'fear and loathing' aspect of some elements in Republican support. But it's not going to get you to an Ideological analysis of what is going on. As for 1 and 2, there is a lot of things worth prying apart - the extreme tension between subjectivist and objectivist thinking in (i) small-gov't conservatism, (ii) social conservatism, (iii) neo-conservatism. I don't know much about the latter two, but in the first you have the bait-and-switch from amoral scientific study of market efficiency and assumptions about 'utility-maximizing rational actors' to a moral attachment to 'Free' markets. Still a bit vague to me, but worth prying into. Is any of that useful...?
May 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's great stuff! You're so right that (3) and (4) are not reasons--they don't involve thinking. As for moving from (1) and (2) to subjectivist thinking, I need to change that. Given the questions you're raising, I think the whole problem needs to be reframed. Instead of whether an ideology is a subjective mode of thinking or an objective mode of thinking, the problem should be this: does the ideology allow access to the intersubjective mode of thinking? That way the leap from (1) and (2) to thought that is not critical will be less of a leap. So the question would look like this: (1)does a moral belief in free markets or a belief in the perfect efficiency of free markets allow room for intersubjective thinking? and (2) does a desire to legislate morality (making abortion illegal, making gay marriage illegal, etc.) allow room for intersubjective thinking?
Your question yesterday was so damn good, that it really opened my eyes to a lot. I was always a fan of the intersubjective way of thinking but I never put two and two together. Now I can understand that the intersubjective is a mode of perception that allows a dialectic balance between the subjective and the objective. And that balance is necessary because either perspective, in and of itself, is limited. Pure subjectivism is solipsism. Pure objectivism objectifies everything and everyone. Both are dehumanizing extremes. So the question cannot be framed as subjectivist thinking vs. objectivist thinking.
May 5, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought, how did I miss this? But I see I did recommend it.
Good solid analysis. It is just so difficult to give most repubs the benefit of the doubt.
I see dick army or delay or some such and I really cannot believe they hold any concepts dear.
May 3, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you DD! You're so right. Concepts, for them, are not tools for understanding. Concepts, for them, are tools to hoodwink.
May 3, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent post.
May 3, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Curt!
May 3, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your premise needs clarification. Republicans are the party of no responsibility whatsoever for the richest 1% of Americans, ambivalent moral tut-tutting for the occasional person with an income in percentiles 91 through 99, and extreme personal responsibility, backing their full throated moral indignation with the legal threat of fines and prison, for everyone in percentiles 90 and poorer.
Republicans are the party of triple divorcees, wide stances and gambling addicts telling single moms they deserves to be poor for not keeping their legs together, but the Wall Street douches who bankrupted their companies and everyone else's are fully entitled to their annual bonuses. To suggest otherwise is an unspeakable infringement of their God-given rights.
May 3, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Aatos! Thank you! I think you pretty much have them pegged!
May 3, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo P!
You say the Republican platform is personal responsibility (without critical thinking) but didn't you lay out the critical thinking in your 2nd paragraph in regards to incentive?
May 4, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey V!
Ha! First, I love your rebuttal approach--quite innovative. I should expect nothing less.
Here's why I think that's only partially true: 'incentive', as presented in the second paragraph, equals *extrinsic* motivation. That mode of reasoning thinks that actors are motivated to reach something outside of themselves. But if a human being is truly an end in his/herself, then the primary motivation ought to be an *intrinsic* motivation. Satisfaction of the intrinsic motivation is accomplished by more than mere production--which is all it takes to satisfy extrinsic motivations. Satisfaction of the intrinsic motivation requires self-efficacy and creativity--not mere production.
Murray Rothbard mocked the suggestion to synthesize praxeology with organized social structures. But I'm convinced that praxeology is only part of the story. Praxeology is a mode of perception (and a necessary one at that). But it's only useful when balanced with organized social structures. Otherwise it is--in tip of the cap to Rand--a floating abstraction.
May 4, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm not trying to argue the merits of the idea that government handouts create disincentive (although I do think that's true). My point was that you seem to be suggesting that Republicans endorse a philosophy of personal responsibility (without critical thought). By that do you mean they blindly follow this idea of personal responsibility? If so I don't think that's the case. Most Republicans would probably give you very good reasons why they believe in personal responsibility.
May 5, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that they follow the idea of personal responsibility blindly. I do though think that, for the most part, they only see one dimension of the idea: productivity. A lot of times this takes shape as "supply-side economics." Or focus on incentives.
What I'm calling "critical thinking" means seeing more than that one dimension. I think there is a clear distinction between self-efficacy and creativity on the one side and productivity on the other. Granted, they all overlap each other. But self-efficacy and creativity are caused by a desire to be one's truest self, while productivity is caused by a desire to get what one most wants. So, to think of incentive in purely external terms is to only see one dimension of motivation. While I wouldn't call that blind, I would call it inappropriately narrow vision.
May 5, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the other dimension you mention isn't relevant to personal responsibility. I don't see what one's dynamic creative spirit has to do with being able to take care of yourself or being responsible for your actions. It sounds like you're saying "Republicans don't like government handouts because they think it subsidizes laziness, but they're not considering the fact that the recipients of these handouts really enjoy not having to work."
May 6, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other dimension is relevant to personal responsibility. An essential element of creativity is newness--bringing about something new or finding a new perspective. An essential element of critical thinking is creativity. Thinking which cannot find new perspectives is--by definition--uncritical. If part of personal responsibility is critical thought, then part of personal responsibility is creativity. Personal responsibility--properly understood--implies creativity.
May 6, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, personal responsibility just means not having to rely on others, and being accountable for your own actions. I don't see what creativity has to do with personal responsibility. Could you define personal responsibility as you see it?
May 8, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. Personal responsibility means not needing to rely on others and also being accountable for your own actions. I also think that not relying on others is a very broad concept. And I think it implies independence of judgment--thinking beyond coercion and social/economic pressures of who/how/what to be/do. The problem is that purely independent judgment is sort-of impossible. As Rod Long says, "there's no escaping the circle of endoxa." He means: we can't judge based solely on our own sense-data. We're always judging inside of a particular language, culture, historical context, etc. So the trick is to find perspectives beyond all these constants (which is why anarchy, for example, as a mode of perception/structure of interaction is so valuable). I'm just suggesting that creativity is necessary to get to that kind of perspective. The ordinary person would have to let go of preconceived notions, which--to most people--is a frightening prospect. And once they've done that, then they start to generate a new vision, a new historical context, a new language, a new culture, etc. And that generation, I would say, is creative.
I think you--personally--are highly creative and I think that you and I worked through a lot of that process together in Auburn. But without creativity, none of it would have been possible.
May 8, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think you--personally--are highly creative and I think that you and I worked through a lot of that process together in Auburn."
Aww gee, thanks prez! *dap*
May 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
*dap* : )
May 8, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink