Scott Sumner remarks on the same phenomenon I asked about here:
I think there’s a deeper problem here. Progressives see their ideology as being somehow more rational. Perhaps in some ways it is (although I’d argue not in all ways.) Then they assume those on the other side must somehow reflect dark irrational forces. Again, there are people like that on the right. But here’s what can happen when you start thinking that way. Tyler Cowen is probably the most reasonable, moderate, open-minded, thoughtful thinker on the right. The sort of voice that open-minded people on the left should welcome. He writes a column in the NYT that has a very balanced view of the issue of health care, coming out for a mixed public/private system. Saying there are no easy answers, etc. Then Aaron Carroll responds with a ridiculous post that accuses Cowen of making all sorts of claims that he never made. Pure fabrication. Perhaps Carroll assumed the worst because Tyler is on the “other team.†Anyone who read Tyler’s column and the Carroll post, would immediately see that it was completely inaccurate, not even close. That is anyone who doesn’t view the world through politically-tinted glasses. Thus Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong both linked approvingly to the Carroll post. This is really really sad to see. Especially because these two individuals are so brilliant, so talented at blogging. Krugman’s recently had great posts on everything from the Fed to the euro to noise in restaurants. But when it comes to politics he becomes completely unhinged.
Read the whole thing.
We do not and cannot discern the inner thoughts, motives, and intentions of others. They cannot even be deduced with any great reliability from their stated beliefs, the policies they support, or even, in general, their affiliations. Some people believe that you help people by giving them money. Some people believe that you help people by not giving them money. Both may have the same intention: helping people. There is a difference of opinion as to how to effect that.
I read both guys. I think Cowen is a better writer and has a much broader fund of knowledge. Carroll is better informed on health issues. On this topic, I thought they were talking past each other, a common internet phenomena. I suspect that if they sat in the same room and talked it over, they would be mostly in agreement.
I think Cowen is a real treasure. Not sure he would do it, but he should have a daily column in some major paper. If genius son decides he likes economics better than Physics, I would be quite happy to have him do grad school with Cowen.
Steve
I also read both commentaries. Cowen’s piece was more introspective, measuring possibilities and outcomes of the ACA, while Carroll’s seemed peevish and redundant with his clever usage of ‘annoying’ in voicing discontent/disagreement over Cowen’s analysis.
The excerpt from Scott Sumner, though, was IMO spot on, in describing the social progressive’s perspectives from those of their arch enemy, the people on the right. For instance, anytime there are descriptions about the Tea Party, they are dogmatically framed in ways that say this group is simply ‘crazy.’ Ironically, though, many social progressives see the OWS, with painted zombie faces, outbreaks of violence etc., as being a legitimate protest movement with few caustic judgements attached to it.
Nevertheless, like Sumner suggests, in many cases the differences represented by these opposing two factions are based more in their interpretation and activation of a means they want used, to arrive at basically an end which is oftentimes less dissimilar than they might realize.
@Dave Schuler
We do not and cannot discern the inner thoughts, motives, and intentions of others. …
We? Is there a mouse in your pocket?
Your honesty is refreshing, but this proves that you are unqualified to comment on issues. Of course, we can know what someone is thinking. (My use of “we” is limited to those who agree with me, and therefore, it is valid.)
Seriously, I do disagree with you. If you find someone’s words and actions diverging, you should begin to ask why. If you find someone’s reality diverging from yours, you should ask why. If you find someone’s altruism converging with their self-interests, you should ask why.
You may need to modify your “reality”, but you will probably alter the “facts” to accommodate your “reality”. Hence, epicycles. It can be done, but it is a lot of work.
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
– Paul Bradford in “The Dungeonmaster”
I thought the referent was clear: human beings. Human beings do not read thoughts and do not draw inferences of the motives of others with perfect, unbiased accuracy.
Under the circumstances, justice demands that we give other people the benefit of the doubt.
“If you find someone’s words and actions diverging, you should begin to ask why. If you find someone’s reality diverging from yours, you should ask why. If you find someone’s altruism converging with their self-interests, you should ask why.”
Those are hard questions to answer, as another’s reality is usually smothered in their own definitions and personal sense of what is justice, humanity, fairness, liberty and responsibility. The ratios providing some kind of comfortable fulcrum point, comprising a response to each of those words, would probably be different with each poster on this blog.
Wow…yeah DeLong and Krugman are smart, but they’ve been hyper-partisan for a very long time and have let it blind them. That Sumner doesn’t see this is itself rather sad, IMO.
@Dave Schuler
I thought the referent was clear: human beings. …
We don’t need no stinkin’ human beings.
Under the circumstances, justice demands that we give other people the benefit of the doubt.
I agree.
I was reading more into it than you intended, and I was mixing another train of thought with yours.