That McCarthy is extrapolating from ideology rather than observing fact is illustrated by that line about how "Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are prosperity killers—and inevitably so."It never ceases to amaze me that intelligent, educated people are capable of taking positions so obviously untrue.
Inevitably so? Really? It's possible America would be more prosperous today if Social Security had never passed. It's impossible to disprove the counterfactual. But this we can say with certainty: Social Security did not kill American prosperity. A nation in the middle of a Great Depression actually did pass Social Security ... and went on to win history's biggest war, build the most prosperous country in the history of the world, and provide its future citizens a level of wealth and comfort the Americans of the 1930s and 1940s could scarcely imagine.
America from the New Deal to the present is, on the whole, a success story. We're richer, less unjust, and offer more freedom to our more numerous citizens. The unprecedented War on Terror poses a bigger threat to that than decades old programs.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Inevitably So
When people say that things are "inevitably so," even though they are patently false, you know you are in the presence of either madness or ideology. Conor Friedersdorf takes on "constitutional conservative" Andrew McArthy:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi there! I haven't been getting your blog in my email for several days now. I tried to resubscribe but it told me I was already on the list....I couldn't find your email to ask you about it directly, sorry. I really enjoy your blog and don't want to miss it!
I think by "inevitably" he meant "inevitably, eventually." That is, it might not hurt in the short run, but it would always do so in the long run.
For example, one might say that population growth at our current rate "inevitably" will lead to massive world problems.
Not that I believe that is true for Social Security, but it seems wrong to use the fact that the Depression ended with social security to argue that SS won't "inevitably" affect the economy.
On the other hand, it would still be a statement made absolutely without evidence, on the basis of economic theory that has a spectacularly bad record at predicting what really happens in the world.
It seems to me the problem with the statement is that it slyly inserts, as a given we all agree on, a position that is actually subject to wide disagreement. In other words, the problem is with the particular rhetorical technique it represents. It's an expression of hostility, and a form of bullying as well, since it's a more or less subtle sign of disrespect designed to provoke its target into an overt (and hence graceless and vulnerability-exposing) expression of outrage. The bullying may well be unconscious, but it's there. One may add that hostility is not the only element in this technique. It's a way of reaching for commonality with all those who accept the same proposition.
The real, real problem is that it may be quite difficult to resist the temptation to indulge in this technique. I'm sure I've done it, and it's there every time one indulges in casually referencing contentious positions as though they're simple truth, as in (to give equal time both right and left) "Obama's failed presidency" or "the supply siders' disastrous theories." I happen to think supply side was and is a disastrous theory, but the phrase in quotes implies that the word "disastrous" goes in there the same way "blue" goes before sky, and it doesn't.
I would add that there is also an element of self-comfort in this technique. I might like a phrase like "the supply siders' disastrous theories," because it implies that the theories' disastrousness is something we all agree on, it's a closed question, and we can now move on in the fullness of our commonality. But that ain't so.
I wonder if (to the extent that what I've been saying is true) the use of this technique is part of the reason that liberals tend to read other liberals, conservatives to read other conservatives, and so on. An assumed commonality that one doesn't share can be intensely aggravating.
Certainly it is tedious to read arguments founded on axioms you don't accept, unless you just want to build up a good outrage. And I understand what David is saying about rhetoric.
But stepping back a moment, is there any evidence whatsoever that the existence of programs like social security is impoverishing? Or is this just a postulate of libertarian economics that has failed every real world test? Has any economy in the history of the world ever grown faster for a sustained period than South Korea's from 1960 to now?
Post a Comment