Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | The Two-State Solution |
»
|
|
Friday, December 03, 2004
Moderation And Labels
Your Curmudgeon recently expressed himself on the subjects of moderation and agendas, and got quite a lot of flak for doing so. The general tenor of the objections was strange; it embodied a desire to save the pleasant connotations of the word "moderate" without having to grapple with trivia such as objective meaning. It gave your Curmudgeon to think about the function of political labels, their importance as attractors, and the ways in which the less-than-scrupulous use them to further their interests at the expense of others.
First, let's put calipers on those connotations:
- "Moderate" sounds non-confrontational.
- "Moderate" implies a willingness to compromise, to meet others halfway.
- "Moderate" is often associated with "reasonable" and "fair."
- "Moderate" is the antonym of "extreme."
Those do sound nice, don't they? Your Curmudgeon likes all of them. But has anyone noticed what's absent from the above?
Don't all rush forward at once, now.
The list of connotations doesn't mention any issues of substance, of course. That's in the nature of a connotation; it's an aura that surrounds a word, not a hard and fast dictionary meaning that applies to it. But it also doesn't mention means or consequences. Given that one has identified some political position described as "moderate," what means will be used to implement it? Wouldn't the "moderate" evaluation apply to the means and the consequences as well?
If there's any truth to cause and effect, your Curmudgeon thinks the means and consequences implied in a political position must be included in its evaluation, including its evaluation as "moderate" or "extreme." (If there's no truth to cause and effect, why talk politics at all? Whatever will happen will happen; anything we might do would have only a random effect thereupon.)
When most people use "moderate" to describe a political position, they mean that the position stands between two more "extreme" positions. It's a "compromise." Most people don't factor means or consequences into that assessment.
In politics, the means is always force.
The State has exactly one characteristic that distinguishes it from the Thursday night chess club: its agents are permitted to coerce. That is, they may use force and the threat of force to get their way, without fear of a penalty. Since politics is the process whereby a society determines what tasks the State will undertake and what conditions it will attempt to redress, it is inherently about legitimizing coercion in particular circumstances.
This is fundamental stuff. The reader who doesn't grasp it will have difficulty with political argument until he does. So your Curmudgeon will say it once more, with feeling: The State has no other tools that the chess club lacks. To argue that a matter be put into the State's hands is to argue that coercion is necessary to achieve some end.
Coercion -- the use of force or the threat of force -- is the most dramatic stance any man or organization can take toward any other: "Do as I say or I'll kill you." It cannot be made plainer than that.
Now, when a man articulates a political position, it will generally fall into one of the following categories:
- The State should take responsibility for [insert task or condition here].
- The State should not take responsibility for [insert task or condition here].
One of these positions legitimizes the use of force in a family of circumstances. The other refrains from doing so.
The end to be pursued might be very important to a large number of people. It might appear to justify the use of the strongest conceivable measures. But the means themselves should always be kept in view. The end does not justify the means; the means are inherently an end in themselves, to be justified in themselves.
Whence cometh "moderation" in all of this?
The great Marshall Fritz, founder of the Advocates for Self-Government and the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, once posed the following conundrum:
- Smith: I think the use of recreational drugs should be legal, but the private ownership of firearms should not.
- Jones: I think the private ownership of firearms should be legal, but the use of recreational drugs should not.
- Davis: I'm a moderate; I agree partway with each of you.
What are Davis's positions on the issues of guns and drugs?
- Does he think recreational drugs and private firearms should both be legal?
- Does he think recreational drugs and private firearms should both be illegal?
- Does he hold some third position? If so, what is it?
We're used to calling Smith a "liberal," and Jones a "conservative," although there are many who use those labels that would differ on the specific positions. For example, lawyer and prominent firearms advocate Don Kates is a self-nominated liberal, whereas former Secretary of State George Shultz, who advocates the decriminalization of recreational drugs, is considered a conservative. Still, when a man presents himself under the flag of either of the more popular political labels, we immediately assume that his positions on guns and drugs will be in keeping with the positions taken by Smith and Jones. It's the function of a label to stand as shorthand for a group of positions on specific issues.
But this "moderate" thing...what can one infer from Davis's adoption of the term?
He who can think this one through to a firm conclusion is a rare creature indeed.
More often than any other interpretation, people take "moderate" to mean "I'll allow you some of what you want, but not all of it." So in the above poser, Davis is likely to say to Smith, "all right, we'll decriminalize cannabis-based drugs, and maybe reduce the penalties on some of the others, but cocaine and the opiates will remain firmly illegal." He would then say to Jones, "all right, we'll let semi-automatic long arms to be legal, but handguns will require a police permit, and full-auto weapons will continue to be banned." He would implore the two sides to give up part of what they want in each case for the sake of compromise. He'd use the word "reasonable" quite a lot, though he'd never trouble to explain why his suggestions were any more reasonable than the "extreme" positions taken by Smith and Jones.
But we have not yet addressed the question of means. Smith, in his pro-drug / anti-gun stance, has implied that the State should have coercive power over private parties on the subject of guns, but not on the subject of drugs. Jones, in his pro-gun / anti-drug stance, has implied that the State should have coercive power over private parties on the subject of drugs, but not on the subject of guns. Davis, if his "moderate" position is as given above, has implied that the State should have coercive power over private parties on both subjects. He has doubled the field of legitimacy for State coercion.
How does this qualify as "moderate"? That is, if we steer by the connotations attached to "moderate," how does it avert confrontation, avoid extremes, and satisfy the dictates of reason?
When the subject is the consequences of State action, the matter becomes more muddled still. Granted that, on most subjects, there's room for legitimate dispute about the degree to which a change in State policy is responsible for what follows. Societies do change for reasons other than political action. However, the arguments over the consequences of State policy often have a Looking-Glass-Land texture to them, as Thomas Sowell ably pointed out in The Vision Of The Anointed.
Dr. Sowell noted in that book that many who agitate for a given policy change claim that it will bring about a particular result. If their argument is sincere, the advocate for the policy change ought to be in the front ranks of those calling for it to be repealed should the result not materialize, or should negative unforeseen consequences countervail the gains. Instead, the advocates usually defend their position by shifting the criterion for evaluation. For example, the War on Poverty was originally proposed as a domestic Marshall Plan to minimize or eliminate poverty and dependency in the United States. When subsequent to the Great Society's anti-poverty programs, the amounts and degrees of poverty and dependency in America increased radically, the advocates of those programs discarded their original arguments and claimed that "things would have been far worse" without the programs. They were allowed to rest on such assertions even though their opponents had accurately predicted the results and had been laughed aside for doing so.
Does "moderation" countenance this sort of rhetorical shiftiness? Is it "reasonable" to defend a policy when the results were not as its advocates, but as its opponents predicted -- or is it dogmatic and "extreme"?
Some years ago, a Colorado political activist named David Miller approached moderation in a unique and thought-provoking fashion. Miller first subdivided social and interpersonal action into two categories:
- Action to encourage private parties to do some particular thing;
- Action to discourage private parties from doing some particular thing.
He then noted that there are only five methods, schematically, by which Smith might cause Jones to do what Smith wants, or to refrain from doing what Smith does not want. In increasing order of intensity, those are:
- Smith can talk to Jones, presenting an argument of some kind.
- Smith can help Jones, or offer him tangible incentives.
- Smith can take (or threaten to take) some of Jones's property.
- Smith can jail (or threaten to jail) Jones.
- Smith can kill (or threaten to kill) Jones.
Of course, if Smith is indifferent to what Jones will do, he needn't do any of the above, but we speak here of deliberate attempts by Smith to modify Jones's behavior. Still, that axis of indifference ought not to be neglected, as it's the position occupied whenever one decides, with regard to the proclivities of one's fellow man, to "live and let live."
When Miller mated to the two categories of interpersonal action, the result formed a spectrum of no small significance:
| Attempts to Discourage or Prohibit | Attempts to Encourage or Compel |
| Kill | Jail | Take | Help | Talk | Talk | Help | Take | Jail | Kill |
Between the two "Talk" cells on this spectrum lies the aforementioned axis of indifference, at which Smith does nothing purposeful to affect Jones's behavior. From that axis, Smith can only move two steps in either direction -- out to the "Help" cells -- and no further, unless he is willing to contemplate the use of violence.
Where, then, is moderation? Does it have any connection whatsoever with the specific thing Smith is trying to get Jones to do, or not to do?
Regular readers of Eternity Road will already know where your Curmudgeon stands.
This topic arises today for many reasons, not the least of which is a post from Kim Du Toit on his difficulty "explaining" himself to European acquaintances. At one point, Kim makes an interesting self-evaluative statement:
I don't know what Brits and other Euros must think when they come to this site. But the fact of the matter is that while I am very conservative myself, I believe that I am more "moderate" than most. (Okay, stop laughing, willya?)But it's true. I'm not a Drug Warrior, nor am I an ardent anti-abortionist, and I'm an atheist, fer gosh sakes.
Other than on guns and some cultural issues, I'm pretty laissez-faire in my views -- and sometimes this leads people to think (incorrectly) that I'm a libertarian.
How very strange. Libertarianism is the laissez-faire attitude toward others: "Each man shall be free to do all that he wills with that which is properly his, so long as he infringe not the equal freedom of any other man." So in one breath, Kim has defined himself as a libertarian and then has disclaimed the label. But he's not alone; Connie Du Toit has done more or less the same thing.
See what sort of trouble labels can get you into?
There's much more to be said on the subject, of course, but this is plenty for a Friday in December, and at any rate there's Christmas shopping to be done. So your Curmudgeon will close here with the phrase to which he hopes he's accustomed you:
More anon.
Comments
“Moderation” is one of those concepts that I never liked, but it took a while for me to understand why I didn’t like it. As a youngster, it was mostly because I saw more in black and white, and didn’t understand how anyone could be in the middle.
I see more shades of gray as I get older, but I still don’t like the positive connotation of “moderate”. Tying in with some of your comments, one of my main objections to having a “moderate” exert meaningful mediation in a process it that it results in dishonest negotiation. The ones on the extremes have a vested interest in going as far extreme as possible, just to shift the perception of where the “moderate” view is in favor of their direction.
This makes for a fundamentally flawed and unfair form of negotiation that colors our entire political landscape. The “compromise” that is eventually reached bears often bears extreme or fatal flaws as a result, because, besides the problems you’ve highlighted, there’s also no connection with any logic or reality because of the shifts and exaggerations of the extremists.
The extremists on the left tend to take greater advantage of that tactic. If a gun-control advocate thinks handguns are bad, before you know it, he’s been pushed into demanding that anything that uses gunpowder be illegal. There is really no limit to how far they can go towards advocating more control - the Soviet Union proved that.
On the other hand “extremists” on the conservative/libertarian axis (those who don’t want overt control) don’t usually have as far to go. There is not really anywhere beyond “no control”.
Of course, on some issues, conservatives experience the same centrifugal force towards the extremes. The drug war is the best example, but I’d nominate the “values-based educational curriculum” supporters and their creationist brethren as candidates, too.
And I foresee a big issue arising that we’ll all have to grapple with “what kinds of controls, if any, do we impose”. Europe is grappling with it now - just starting, in fact. It is this - exactly what actions should a religion be prohibited from advocating and promoting? Should a preacher/priest/rabbi/imam be able to advocate violent insurrection in the country in which the church resides? Or terrorist acts that are effectively murder? What kind of shelter (read: privacy) should a religion be able to give its members who are suspected of planning or carrying out such acts? Are our present laws sufficent to deal with these acts? And if the answer to any of these questions is no, what exactly should the government be allowed to do to prevent or punish such acts (beyond its current authority)?
As a more-or-less libertarian hawk, I find these questions unconfortable to think about. But it’s even worse to think about the ineffective “neither fish nor fowl” policies likely to be advocated by moderates, which will probably combine ineffectiveness with intrusiveness if the past is any guide.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/03/2004 at 12:52 PMThis is very good. But I think it points up the fact that lawmaking is a blunt instrument. Your examples focus on obtaining a binary result (e.g., ‘no guns,’ ‘no drugs,’ ‘some guns/drugs’). Whereas I believe what people genuinely want is more along the lines of ‘a life free of the fear and actuality of gun violence and the pernicious effects of drug use and addiction.’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/03/2004 at 02:41 PMWhat people want is not really all that related to what they end up getting. As you’ve conceded, John, state power is a blunt instrument.
Gun prohibition causes tyranny. It does no good to claim, when the boot is on your neck, that all you wanted was to stop being afraid of your neighbor going off his meds and shooting up the block.
Drug prohibition causes gang violence. It does no good, when the streets of your cities have turned into a free fire zone in the battle for turf, to bleat about how all you wanted was to save people from the horrors of addiction.
Even leaving aside (much as it pains me to do so) the question of whether fear and addiction are fit subjects for government intervention, the fact remains that you can’t legislate _outcomes_. Cause and effect is a law of nature…and laws of nature trump laws of man, every time.
Posted by Matt on 12/04/2004 at 02:05 AMInteresting,however the law of unintended consequences always bites you on the ass. The only value of moderation is that (maybe?)the bite is not so deep or severe. Perhaps moderation is only trying to keep you alive, not well or whole? You make a compelling argument that once you begin to adjust (dick) with the system you are not moderate, extereme or otherwise. You’re just dicking around. Bomb damage assessment to follow. Great post as always.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/04/2004 at 03:04 AMGod bless you Fran,
In the extended version to my diatribe at http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/moderation_and_agendas/
I had written of labels working not for our own benefit. I jettisoned it because it detracted from my expressing the anger which I felt at the time. And I really wanted to express my lost patience in no uncertain terms.When the ideological corral was first introduced to me, it became clear that to keep from being manipulated too easily, one had to choose to deny labels.
Often times that makes you an outsider to everyone you know. When others don’t recognize your handles, it’s as if you haven’t spoken the proper password. But there is no other way to significantly see the Ideological Corral and all its awful manipulation unless you view it from outside its trap.
Searching a way to help others to see both this truth and its importance has been a most difficult journey for me. Thankyou for getting to this issue. God bless that you have more success than I have. For should you succeed, you will bring blessed awakening to true grassroots power to those who have yet to learn what you obviously have.
Posted by Pascal Fervor on 12/04/2004 at 03:41 AMSir, you should be composing symphonies!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/04/2004 at 06:24 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
