Disagreement without antipathy

Mickey Kaus has an absolutely fabulous post on ten similarities between President Bush’s approach to immigration reform and his decision to go to war in Iraq (hat tip: Instapundit). Mickey’s analysis of both policies is IMO spot on and I like the post for two significant reasons.

First, Mickey does not attack Bush’s motives, going out of his way to suggest that, indeed, the underlying motives for both sets of policies are in all likelihood benign. So, for example, his Point #2 is that both Bush’s immigration policy and and the decision to go to war with Iraq have an idealistic basis:

Bush was sympathetic to the way Middle East democrats had been frustrated by “realist” foreign policies, and he’s clearly sympathetic to the problems of poor immigrants who come to the U.S. to work and feed their families only to be forced to live “in the shadows.”

Let’s make no mistake: a return to foreign policy realism as it’s been understood in the United States for the last 20 years or so means that we’ll continue to support oppressive regimes there—one of the complaints raised against our policy in the Middle East by the people who live there.

Our only real hope for an outcome in the Middle East emerging that will foment less hatred and violence resides in a better system emerging there. It’s looking less likely with each passing day that that better system will emerge through the forces of democracy and political liberalism. We might try promoting economic liberalization a little more enthusiastically. Stick to what you’re good at.

The second thing I like about Mickey’s post is its emphasis on the key similarity between the two sets of policies hinging on assessments of risk and reward which, while they may be compatible with Mr. Bush’s life experience and beliefs, may not be shared by everybody. For example, the search for grand solutions, the assumption that events would all break in a very specific (and highly unlikely) direction, and a preference choosing risky solutions with great rewards over more available but also less rewarding solutions are all based on the balance of risk and reward.

Different people have a different perception of risk and a different appetite for reward. In my view it’s not necessary (or productive) to demand that someone with whom you disagree is evil or stupid or even that you disagree on the value of basic goods like freedom or mercy. You may only differ in how you evaluate risks and rewards.

I tend to prefer, as Mickey suggests, an incrementalist approach with consensus-building at its center over grand solutions and that’s because I have a low tolerance for risk and a jaundiced view of most rewards. It’s also why I mistrust the radicals of the left or the right without believing that either are evil or even flat-out wrong.

They may just have different views of the value of their preferred end-state than I do.

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment