How people embracing a philosophy act is more important in evaluating the wisdom and utility of that philosophy than studying all the great minds who came up with it in the first place.
I’m not a big fan of analyzing real world situations through the prism of political philosophy.
On paper, the most representative and egalitarian nation that ever existed was the Soviet Union. Governed by the democratic socialist model, decisions were made by the people’s representatives at the top only after layers and layers of input from below was received and digested.
Imagine a multi-level pyramid whose bottom step is the masses in general, which provides their input to a specific group (say, the glorious revolutionary metal workers of Kiev), who in turn provide their masses-inspired input to the Regional Committee for Metal Work Production, which in turn provides its masses and regional committee input to the Central Committee on Metal Work Goals and Practices, which takes everything it has received, adds its informed two cents (or in this case, two rubles), and brings it before the Soviet Politburo for extended debate and consideration where, ultimately, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev or some other “first among equals” would make a decision about the next five years goals and working conditions. What could be more representative than that? Particularly when you look at the Soviet Constitution which guaranteed a broad range of social and political rights such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, and social and economic rights.
Unfortunately, in practice things turned out a bit differently in the old Soviet Union. The people at the top of the socio-political food chain routinely ignored the people below them and imposed their own will on their subordinates. Those audacious enough to voice a dissenting opinion ended up in gulags, or worse. The consequences for behaving like the theory of democratic socialism proposed wasn’t the rhetorical loss of rights Leftists and those on the Far Right routinely claim happens to all Americans when a terrorist at GITMO isn’t given habeas corpus standing like you and I would receive for writing a bad check, or when a third world phone call is intercepted by US intelligence officials without a Federal judge first giving them permission. A “loss of rights” in the old Soviet Union meant instant banishment to the nearest concentration camp for you, and at times your family. That is, if they didn’t just up and decide to execute you instead.
So where exactly is the disconnect? Why would the average Soviet comrade acting in accordance with his constitutionally defined rights invariably end up breaking rocks in Siberia or puffing on his last cigarette before the proverbial firing squad? Why, in effect, was the philosophy of communist/socialist life so at odds with the reality of communist/socialist life? Was it just a few bad people acting venally that corrupted an otherwise perfectly sound, philosophically-inspired system? Or was it something else, namely, that the philosophy used to define and describe the system bore no resemblance to the way that system actually functioned?
When theory meets practice
Despite the grand theory and underlying philosophy that governed the old Soviet social and political system, there were no institutional processes and/or guarantees that actually put these words into practice. There was no recourse for removing incompetent or corrupt bureaucrats except from top down; that is, if the party leaders were displeased with a subordinate’s efforts to protect their power and privileges, that individual would be removed. If the people below were equally displeased by this same individual’s actions, then they were supposed to just shut up and take it in the name of advancing the socialist cause. After all, who ever said that life was fair, even in a communist/socialist paradise?
I dwell on the example of the old Soviet Union because it underscores an ongoing problem I’ve written about in this and other forums. It isn’t enough to point to the philosophical rationale and underpinnings of a grand plan of action and say, “we’d all be better off if we just lived our life by this creed.” Anyone can put together a cogent, logically consistent (at least to them) worldview for the preferred way of life. Mine is that actual fact and real data guide concrete decisions, and that we don’t do anything unless there is a real reason to do it. Hunches, fears, beliefs, the-sky-is-falling-we-need-to-act-now-before-it’s-too-late hysteria (think man-made global warming) aren’t the basis for rational policy, no matter how strongly they are embraced, nor how widely the general public shares these views.
Under my grand philosophy, public opinion is irrelevant to determining the truth of a matter. It’s simply that: an opinion. Unfortunately, my philosophy operates in the real world, not in some abstract parallel universe. In the United States even stupid people have opinions, and their voice counts. A year after the first moon landing, Knight Newspapers conducted a poll of 1,721 U.S. citizens and found that more than 30 percent of all of the poll's respondents were "suspicious of NASA's trips to the Moon" with the number rising to over half in some demographic areas. Rather than assess whether the Apollo mission should have continued for their scientific, economic and military value, politicians instead had to add this to the mix. How does one keep their seat in power by spending more money on flights to the moon if one-third of the country isn’t really sure we actually went there in the first place?
Obviously, much more than this was involved in shifting NASA’s goals from the moon to near earth orbit than the idiocy of the Knight newspaper’s polling sample. But the example underscores my point that what the public thinks about man-made global warming, or any other substantive issue, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the matter. Public opinion may not count in determining what is objectively true or not, but public opinion does matter — and it matters greatly — in the making of public policy in general, at least in a democratic or representative society. If the media has succeeded in convincing everyone that we’re in a recession today, even though the actual criteria for recession have not been met, then we’re in a recession. And any political candidate who says otherwise is “out of touch” with reality.
Is philosophical “reality” real?
All of which leads to an important political conundrum. What exactly is reality then if it isn’t an accurate reflection of the actual world in which we live?
Normally here I’d launch into a mini-discussion of the difference between hard science and social science, and leave it at that. Hard science deals with basic, incontrovertible facts. Heat water to a specific temperature at sea level, and it will boil every time. Period. If it doesn’t, another exogenous factor is at work — impurities in the water, other atmospheric conditions, etc. Now contrast this with the reality-based social, economic and political “facts” that purport to reflect reality. Most of these representations of reality are based on assumptions which themselves are infused with other assumptions, opinions, biases, and pre-conceived notions. Change any one of these parameters and you change the outcome of the predictions they make.
I say “normally,” though, because today we don’t always have a contrast between hard and social science. On important matters like global climate change, the influence of genetics on human behavior, and other such matters, we have scientific “consensus” to rely on. You know, the same process that told us in 1970 we were going to freeze, that told us in 1990 we were going to burn. Or drown when the glaciers finally melt . . . someday.
In effect, on the scientific issues that matter most to policymaking, the cry is not “we need better data to make better decisions,” it’s “we can’t wait for better data to make better decisions.” Reality, even in the scientific world, has become what we want/fear/expect it to be, not what it “is.” [For those of you ready to pounce on me for being anti-scientific, please extend me the courtesy of reading what I’ve written in depth on this subject. The man-made global warming alarmist community has a vested interest in assuring that global warming is indeed (a) occurring, and (b) the direct result of man’s activities. Change either of these fundamental “facts” and there is no government money for research, and no political power and prestige for those leading that charge.]
Evaluating philosophical reality
And so we return to a discussion of political philosophy. Because facts are so fungible in the scientific community when it comes to important social policy, we’ve been treated to the notion that it’s the concern, not the data, that should drive an action. It’s a small step to apply this same logic to the social sciences as well. When analyzing whether Philosophy A makes sense, is better than Philosophy B, or bears any relationship at all to how the real world functions, we’re similarly told that a philosophy should only be judged by its own words and dictums, not how that philosophy actually manifests itself in the real world.
Thus, we need to vote for a third party presidential candidate because doing so keeps us ideologically pure. Never mind that third party presidential candidates can’t win under our present electoral structure, and voting for them tends to help out the opposing philosophy (think Nader in Florida in 2000). Ideological purists view these matters as distracting “details.” Like it or not, the American political system functions in the real world. Ignore these realities, and your policy efforts will fail no matter how pure your underlying philosophy is. Reagan had the choice to bolt the Republican Party in 1976 after losing the nomination and start his own movement, or stay in the Republican party and work to transform it. He stayed, gained office, and had an actual opportunity to implement his ideas.
It’s the same reason I rail against anti-Iraq War activists who want to pull the troops out “now.” “End the War” is a slogan. “Bring 50,000 troops home in 30 days” is a policy action. These activists will not discuss the strategic political, social, economic and military implications of a fixed timetable to withdraw troops independent of the facts on the ground because they either have no idea how their philosophy will operate in the real world (i.e will it make any sense or just be a completely stupid suggestion?), or they do know their wishes and wants are impractical, but have other personal objectives they care more about (like embarrassing or defeating George Bush).
It’s the same criticism I’ve had against paleoconservatives who always tell me what the proper philosophy of life should be, but have difficulty answering specific policy-related questions about how their philosophy would actually operate in America today. My initial exposure to paleo thought wasn’t a crash course in the collective writings of paleo intellectuals. It was the policy-related proposals coming from self-identified paleos who wanted the United States to return/conform to the notion of a kith and kin-based “natural hierarchal social order.” To which I asked, exactly what does this mean for US immigration policy today, as one example? End it completely? End it for non-Europeans only. Send back all non-Europeans already in the country, etc?
Separating philosophy from action
Regardless of what a philosophy says it is, the proof of the pudding lies in what its human proponents practice it as. Just saying that you hold freedom of religion dear is meaningless if, as in the case of the former Soviet Union, you imprison people for practicing any faith not officially sanctioned by the state. The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is neither democratic, nor a republic, despite the words it uses to describe itself. In the real world actions matter, not words. In assessing a philosophy in the real world, it’s always better to look at what its proponents think it is and act accordingly, rather than point to what some dead guy said it was a few years back when he was formulating it in his mind.
How the people embracing a philosophy act is therefore more important in evaluating the wisdom and utility of that philosophy than studying all the great minds who came up with it in the first place. Words have to have real world substance to have true meaning. Just stating the belief that people do best when they are surrounded by similar looking people from similar genetic backgrounds isn’t enough. Notwithstanding the stupidity of a belief system that elevates genetics over shared values, such a philosophy only works if you are at the point where you are starting a new country. If you plan on retrofitting an old one, you need to account for all the racial impurities it presently contains. Allowing them to stay and imposing a new social order from this day forward kind of diminishes the underlying argument that the existing situation is so bad it requires change (we cut out cancers, not co-exist with them). So, if this is something you really believe, tell me how to accomplish it in the real world, not just state the kind of world you wish to have.
The sad tendency is that when confronted with a call to relate their philosophies to real world conditions, many ideologues can’t, or worse, won’t. Like the old Soviet leaders they point to their constitution and official governing philosophy to answer any questions, while expressly refusing to discuss the way in which things actually operate. Lest anyone think that my only Western political focus is on paleoconservative philosophy, Obama is a perfect illustration of these points as well. But unlike the uber-Right, Obama and his acolytes are not capable of transcending rhetoric. They have absolutely no clue as to what the philosophy of “change” means in real terms, other than a Democrat is in the Oval Office instead of Bush. They’ll deal with the real world later, only when they have to after winning the election. Right now their only focus is on saying the right code words to the right political fanatics to gain electoral victory.
Conclusion
Having now pissed of Paleoconservatives, Code Pink apologists, Third Party advocates, Man-Made Global Warming alarmists, Genetic determinists, Obama supporters, and any remaining Stalinists or Communists in general who think I gave the old Soviet Union a bad rap, let me restate my central thesis once again.
No matter how important philosophy is to building the proper foundation for correct, logically-consistent action — and it is extremely important to have a coherent set of beliefs to guide one’s actions, vs. just following a self-centered personal political agenda — a philosophy is worthless if it can’t relate in real terms to the real world in which it operates. Just telling us where we need to be in life isn’t enough. The philosophy must also give direct concrete guidance as to how to best achieve those goals in an imperfect world. It may be that present reality is so “skewed” that it will take generations of small steps to achieve meaningful change. But the philosophy must guide the practical small steps we are to take. And wishing that all people in America shared a common ancestral background, to cite one example, is not the same as telling us how this is brought about.
Exposing philosophy to the real world will expose whether that philosophy is visionary or utopian. Visionary men like Ronald Reagan used philosophy to reshape government. Utopian ideologists, by contrast, state their absolute convictions — and when pressed to explain how to bring them about in the real world, or to explain how they came to believe these ideas in the first place, restate their absolute convictions.
For many utopians, their inability to offer more than platitudes as policy is nothing more than a reflection of their half-baked philosophies in the first place. But for other philosophies, this inability is the result of a much deeper concern. A philosophy that calls for major societal changes — whether it’s in the name of protecting the planet, purifying the race, or ushering in “change” itself — that is not capable of producing actual policy options for us to evaluate, or demonstrating the incontrovertible facts upon which it is built, is not just misguided. On the contrary, it has taken great pains to hide the policies it would produce, because to acknowledge them publicly would be to expose the petty prejudices and distorted worldviews of its author.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Dear Phil,
I think that what you are looking for – real world solutions etc – was perfectly summed up by our friend Friedrich Nietzsche. But before we get to the meat, let me give a flavor:
On Philosophers: - "What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is not that one discovers again and again how innocent they are - how often and how easily they make mistakes and go astray; in short, their childishness and childlikeness - but that they are not honest enough in their work, although they all make a lot of virtuous noise when the problem of truthfulness is touched even remotely."
Herd mentality: - "What they [the people] would like to strive for with all their powers is the universal green-pasture happiness of the herd, with security, lack of danger, comfort, and an easier life for everyone; the two songs and doctrines they repeat most often are 'equality of rights' and 'sympathy for all that suffers' - and suffering itself they take for something that must be abolished."
‘Free men? - "The over-all degeneration of man down to what today appears to the socialist dolts and flatheads as their 'man of the future' - as their ideal - this degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal (or, as they say, to the man of the 'free society'), this animalization of man into the dwarf animal of equal rights and claims, is possible, there is no doubt of it. Anyone who has once thought through this possibility to the end knows one kind of nausea that other men don't know - but perhaps also a new task.”
And so we come to someone who could provide ‘real life’ practical solutions: - "It is interpretation, not text; and somebody might come along who, with opposite intentions and modes of interpretation, could read out of the same 'nature', and with regard to the same phenomena, rather the tyrannical inconsiderate and relentless enforcement of claims of power - an interpreter who would picture the unexceptional and unconditional aspects of 'will to power' so vividly that almost every word, even the word 'tyranny' itself, would eventually seem unsuitable, or a weakening and attenuating metaphor - being too human - but he might, nevertheless, end by asserting the same about this world as you do, namely, that it has a 'necessary' and 'calculable' course, not because laws obtain in it, but because they are lacking, and every power draws its ultimate consequences at every moment. Supposing that this also is only interpretation - and you will be eager enough to make this objection? - well, so much the better."
And so - "An apparently opposite drive serves this same will: a suddenly erupting decision in favor of ignorance, of deliberate exclusion, a shutting of one's windows, and internal NO to this or that thing, a refusal to let things approach, a kind of state of defense against much that is knowable, a satisfaction with the dark, with the limited horizon, a Yea and Amen to ignorance -"
And after man had sacrificed all else - "what remained to be sacrificed? At long last, did one not have to sacrifice for once whatever is comforting, holy, healing; all hope, all faith in hidden harmony, in future blisses and justices? Didn't one have to sacrifice God himself and, from cruelty against oneself, worship the stone, stupidity, gravity, fate, and nothing? To sacrifice God for nothing - this paradoxical mystery of the final cruelty was reserved for the generation that is now coming up: all of us already know something of this. - "
I think, Phil, that could just well be the current generation!! What do you think?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | July 23, 2008
Once again, good work, Phil. Although I had to read the teaser sentence out loud in order to understand it…
Anyway, one thing you discuss is "public opinion." I would suggest that public opinion is a fiction. Public opinion is not an entity, nor is it a uniform, consistent, homogenous quantity. It simply is a measured number of individuals who happen to hold a similar stance at a particular moment in time regarding a single aspect of an issue.
Even within that measured group of individuals, "public opinion" may yield some sort of a consensus, but for wildly divergent reasons. Let's take the polled question, "Do you have a favorable view of President Bush regarding the war on terror, or unfavorable?" I would answer, "unfavorable," because the war has been prosecuted ineptly. A leftist would probably also answer "unfavorable," but because he hates Bush and wants to see him fail, etc..
But the media would trumpet the high unfavorable ratings, and would tell us that the great majority of Americans oppose the war. That, of course, would be a false conclusion.
"Public opinion" is important to leftists with their egalitarian perspective. They don't like representative government as a concept, they would prefer direct democracy. But only if they can control the flow of information to the people so that the people will then vote properly (witness their love for the Supreme court as a vehicle to institute leftist policy, the Fairness Doctrine, voting rights for felons, open borders, etc.).
We've bought into the notion "public opinion" as axiomatic, and have therefore ceded the entire argument to the leftists.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 23, 2008
Joseph — Good to hear from you again.
As long as we’re dealing with social issues and policies, there will always be assumptions and biases (hidden and inadvertent) built into the calculation. This is unavoidable, because in the end we’re not dealing with things as precisely knowable as the temperature at which water boils at sea level.
My objection is to the increasing willingness I see in both the hard and social sciences to substitute concerns/fears/hunches for real data. In the social sciences, thanks largely due to the extensive and uninhibited presence of the Internet, anyone can post anything as “objective truth”. Whether it’s the 9-11 Truthers, moon landing deniers, or people re-writing contemporary history to put their candidates and Ideas in a new light, it’s just propaganda-disguised-as-fact. This tendency has always been there throughout history. The difference today is that the average person can now indulge in his own propaganda — and get a world-wide audience — instead of leaving it to the professionals.
My real concern is the way that the so called hard science have also begun to imitate this behavior. Again, there’s nothing new about different competing explanations of reality coexisting at the same moment in history. Thomas Khun’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is a great book about this. What I object to the nexus between government funds, public power/prestige, media-agendas to help or hurt one socio-political philosophy over another, etc, all converging to pretend that highly biased and value-laden computer models somehow reflect reality. And, the flat out decisions by these Protectors of the Word to never re-examine their assumptions, or collect more reliable and accurate data, that might interfere with their conclusions.
Whether its science or philosophy, therefore, I’ve come to disregard what the founders of that idea say they stand for (protecting the planet, protecting the country’s institutions, etc.), and ask instead “what do the people embracing this ‘philosophy’ actually believe as judged by their actions?”
I’m sick and tired of people whose philosophy can’t tell us how to get from point A to point B, other than to say that point A is bad, and point B is good. And, I’m equally frustrated with people who think that strongly held beliefs and emotions are a substitute for sound policy. Or worse, the belief the one policy action (which is based more on hope than facts) can benefit other policy outcomes as well (reducing assumed man made global warming will help stabilize Middle Eastern politics).
It’s time we all demanded that facts be accompanied by data, and an honest discussion of the assumptions surrounding those facts. And, that we need more than the end goals of philosophy to judge the worthiness or even true nature of that philosophy. We need philosophically inspired concrete goals and actions to get us from point A to point B.
In short, it’s not the philosophy we need to focus on, but the actions and choices of the people who profess to embrace that philosophy.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008
MM –
Public opinion is just that, an opinion. And like certain parts of our anatomy, everyone has one.
You've put your finger on the real issue though. Public opinion is a constituent part of representative government. But how is it measured to accurately reflect reality? And this involves how the PO questions are framed. We don’t even need push-polls to distort a position (“Do you support Candidate X’s position to bankrupt the economy through his tax policy?). Just framing the question positively or negatively will do (“should we monitor the phone conversations of overseas terrorists vs. should we conduct warrantless wiretaps of phone calls coming through American lines?)
The only real opinion poll that counts is election day, when we look at the actions of people, not their abstract thoughts.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008
Polling is so popular in the MSM because it's the lazy way to create news. And you're right, the predisposition of the questioner can create bias just as easily as push polling does.
What I find most interesting, though, is how leftists prefer polling to elections. Was it in Ohio in 2004 that the exit polls found John Kerry (he served in Vietnam, you know) leading, but the actual election was won by GWB? Leftists cried foul and asked how the election could be so wrong when polls are so right.
I think that leftists like polling because it is more nuanced, there are more shades of gray; but casting a vote is just so black-and-white, so absolute, so final. Again, I believe that leftists don't like people making up their own minds, unless the information used to do so is carefully controlled by leftists.
Only then can people be trusted to do the right thing. But controlling information is getting more difficult, what with the internet and talk radio. And the supreme court isn't handing down leftist decisions like it used to.
Comment by Mountain Man | July 23, 2008
MM: Here’s my take. Leftists prefer victory to defeat. Polls (however conducted) are a tool to an end, and have no other meaning or value assigned to them than that.
If the Left loses the actual vote, they point to the exit polls. But if they win an election the polls predict they'll lose, they're happy to accept the outcome despite the disparity.
Ideology only matters to the Left if it can be used to fool the people into voting for their candidates, or tarnish an opponent’s victory. It’s a tool that permits action (usually in pursuit of a hidden self-interest), not a foundation for action.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008
P
I had to read your teaser sentence 2X also! But you will think it’s our fault!
I book I found to be indispensable, tho it’s now 27 yrs old, is "Political Pilgrims" by Hollander, a primer on human credulity re utopias, the suspension of critical faculties, & the indifference to the benefits of political pluralism and especially intellectual freedom.
Every time Leftists founded a new society they had to establish absolute power to enforce their leftist ideals which could not succeed in the real world, where few, if any, men are angels. But western intellectuals will have praised the good intentions & say that socialism failed only because it wasn’t really tried properly. And the next socialist utopia will be founded & praised by western intellectuals until it too becomes an economic basket case & the merry go round continues. Political pilgrims acknowledge no accountability for their earlier follies.
Oh, & did I mention how he shows that western intellectuals are more disillusioned by their own western democratic capitalist country than the ever-failing socialist ones? See, it’s excusable to be soft on repressive loony leftist regimes but not to be soft on America’s faults, real or imagined. As Hollander shows, what exempts these latter-day pilgrims from the need for self-criticism is the redemptive quality or moral absolution that is conferred upon them by their alienation, that is, the measure of rectitude demonstrated by the rejection of their own society to which the misjudgment of other societies is irrelevant.
OK, you'll have to read that last sentence 2X!
Comment by From Inwood | July 23, 2008
Perhaps I should have said "how the people who embrace a philosophy act …"
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 23, 2008
Great piece. Glad somebody wrote it.
Truth and integrity have always been for sale, though I used to take comfort that scientists, judges and our learning institutions did not dare take to auctioning it so readily.
That is because we used to hold them accountable for such trangressions. But now they have a great support system, and the worst ideologues, and even domestic terrorists, today can count on permanent hero status from the left, and perhaps even a high chair at a pretigious university.
Hurt capitalism. Deal a blow to conservatives and otherwise take some flesh from western society and you earn your place, even if you only did it for the money.
VP Gore is a prime example. Only a fool would lionize a bufoon who writes global warming speeches while at 20,000 feet in a private jet, paid for by the estimated $100 million he's earned preaching against the very lifestyle he lives.
The heroes of the left are my scoundrels, the scoundrels of history, and scoundrels yet seen.
Comment by nick adams | July 24, 2008
To comment on the opening line…
"How people embracing a philosophy act is more important in evaluating the wisdom and utility of that philosophy than studying all the great minds who came up with it in the first place."
It seems like there are 'practitioners' of every philosophy that represent bad examples of that philosophy.
Comment by liwfz | July 25, 2008
liwfz: True, anyone can distort a philosophy. That's why I wrote more than the opening line.
My point is that we need to look beyond rhetoric at philosophically-inspired actions. We need to be very suspicious of a "philosophy" that can only speak in philosophical terms, and is unable — or worse — unwilling, to translate that philosophy into practical action.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 25, 2008
Dr. Jackson,
In regards to your comment # 11:
If a philosophy is unable or unwilling to translate itself into practical actions, then there can be no actions from that philosophy to analyze. I'm confused….
On the other hand, I strongly agree that "actions speak louder than words."
Comment by liwfz | July 25, 2008
liwfz: I lay out my position pretty clearly in the essay itself. Which part of what I wrote beyond the opening sentence is the source of your confusion?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | July 25, 2008