I generally avoid these sections of the forum, but a recent podcast made me make an exception. I thought it worth bringing up, to see what people thought of it.
http://ift.tt/1mBphhs
The podcast is about something called the Three Languages of Politics, an attempt to figure out why we always seem to be talking past one another. It's from an Objectivist/Libertarian perspective (while I normally object strongly to confusing the two, it's explained in this podcast why in this case it's justified), but I'm not interested in the views on those topics (I know them, believe me). What I'm more interested in is the concept of the languages of politics themselves.
Essentially, the arguments is that there are three very different ways of looking at politics:
Progressive: The focus is on oppression and power dynamics
Conservative: The focus is on civilization vs. barbarism
Libertarian: The focus is on liberty vs. government control
When a topic is brought up, people using different languages of politics approach it differently. A libertarian will discuss, say, pot legalization in terms of liberty vs. intervention--they will say things like "Why should the government control what I put in my own body?" A conservative will discuss it in terms of protecting civilization--they'll point out that drug abuse and adiction are uncivilized and frankly dangerous behaviors. Progressives seem to stay out of that debate for the most part (or at least I don't hear much from them), but they'd likely discuss the impacts on the poor, and on social mobility. The end result is that the different folks talk past one another. Why would anything beside defending civilization matter? OF COURSE drugs are bad; they degrade civilization and therefore should be prohibited! Why would anything besides liberty matter? OF COURSE I'm allowed to smoke whatever I want; that's what being an adult means!
The trick to solving this is is something I've advocated in the R&P forum for a long time: actually understanding one's opponent, and being able to look through their eyes for a moment in order to understand where they're coming from. Conservatives aren't anti-liberty; progressives aren't anti-civilization; libertarians aren't out to grind the poor under our jackboots. Looking at the question from the other side's perspective allows one to formulate arguments that are actually effective. A libertarian isn't going to care about power dynamics, so discussing it in terms of liberty vs. intervention is going to be much more impactful, regardless of the topic. Showing a conservative that society doesn't collaps into chaos and fighting over hte last cans of tuna fish when X happens is going to be much more effective than arguing that it will help the poor. And so on. Awareness of these languages may also help interpret the statements made by the other side. When a libertarian says "It's not my concern if they get into a bad contract", they don't mean "Anyone making less than $100k/year isn't fit to live", they mean that they do not believe they have the right to comment on that topic, for very good reasons. Progressives, on the other and, don't mean that they think anyone making more than $100k/year should be shot, they are coming from a place of genuine concern and compassion.
Personally, I think a fourth language should be added: religion. I'm in Alabama; I can see the impact of religion on politics first-hand. Plus, there's the whole Islam thing (check out the R&P for more of that than you can stomach). That said, folks who emphasize that axis--religious and atheistic--tend to not engage in discussion so much as raving, so perhaps their exclusion is based on the fact that meaningful discussion with such folks isn't possible. (Note htat I'm not saying atheists AS SUCH are irrational; I'm just saying that folks who think that religion is the primary thing to focus on in politics tend to be. See Humes fork for an example of what I'm talking about.)
http://ift.tt/1mBphhs
The podcast is about something called the Three Languages of Politics, an attempt to figure out why we always seem to be talking past one another. It's from an Objectivist/Libertarian perspective (while I normally object strongly to confusing the two, it's explained in this podcast why in this case it's justified), but I'm not interested in the views on those topics (I know them, believe me). What I'm more interested in is the concept of the languages of politics themselves.
Essentially, the arguments is that there are three very different ways of looking at politics:
Progressive: The focus is on oppression and power dynamics
Conservative: The focus is on civilization vs. barbarism
Libertarian: The focus is on liberty vs. government control
When a topic is brought up, people using different languages of politics approach it differently. A libertarian will discuss, say, pot legalization in terms of liberty vs. intervention--they will say things like "Why should the government control what I put in my own body?" A conservative will discuss it in terms of protecting civilization--they'll point out that drug abuse and adiction are uncivilized and frankly dangerous behaviors. Progressives seem to stay out of that debate for the most part (or at least I don't hear much from them), but they'd likely discuss the impacts on the poor, and on social mobility. The end result is that the different folks talk past one another. Why would anything beside defending civilization matter? OF COURSE drugs are bad; they degrade civilization and therefore should be prohibited! Why would anything besides liberty matter? OF COURSE I'm allowed to smoke whatever I want; that's what being an adult means!
The trick to solving this is is something I've advocated in the R&P forum for a long time: actually understanding one's opponent, and being able to look through their eyes for a moment in order to understand where they're coming from. Conservatives aren't anti-liberty; progressives aren't anti-civilization; libertarians aren't out to grind the poor under our jackboots. Looking at the question from the other side's perspective allows one to formulate arguments that are actually effective. A libertarian isn't going to care about power dynamics, so discussing it in terms of liberty vs. intervention is going to be much more impactful, regardless of the topic. Showing a conservative that society doesn't collaps into chaos and fighting over hte last cans of tuna fish when X happens is going to be much more effective than arguing that it will help the poor. And so on. Awareness of these languages may also help interpret the statements made by the other side. When a libertarian says "It's not my concern if they get into a bad contract", they don't mean "Anyone making less than $100k/year isn't fit to live", they mean that they do not believe they have the right to comment on that topic, for very good reasons. Progressives, on the other and, don't mean that they think anyone making more than $100k/year should be shot, they are coming from a place of genuine concern and compassion.
Personally, I think a fourth language should be added: religion. I'm in Alabama; I can see the impact of religion on politics first-hand. Plus, there's the whole Islam thing (check out the R&P for more of that than you can stomach). That said, folks who emphasize that axis--religious and atheistic--tend to not engage in discussion so much as raving, so perhaps their exclusion is based on the fact that meaningful discussion with such folks isn't possible. (Note htat I'm not saying atheists AS SUCH are irrational; I'm just saying that folks who think that religion is the primary thing to focus on in politics tend to be. See Humes fork for an example of what I'm talking about.)
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1r3u2Qr
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire