1. Start with the diamond chart or "Nolan Chart" that most people are familiar with, which has libertarian, left, right, and populist corners.
2. Instead of calling the sides "economic freedom" and "personal freedom" call it "economic individualism vs. economic communitarianism" and "personal individualism vs. personal communitarianism", for the same reasons I've discussed ad infinitum on here: you are very transparently coming from a libertarian perspective when "freedom" converges right on the libertarian corner. You really don't seem to realize how silly and self-serving it looks.
3. Now, pop it out into a cube by adding a third dimension - an idealism/pragmatism dimension.
I consistently fall on the corner between "centrist", "left", and "libertarian" on these things, and I imagine in this formulation of it, I would fall way up at the "pragmatist" end of the third dimension.
Adding the idealism/pragmatism dimension explains why Sumner often seems to get along better with Krugman than with Murphy. Sumner's schema explains how Sumner is close to Murphy and how Sumner is close to Krugman, but it doesn't explain how these are true at the same time that it is true that Murphy and Krugman are very far apart. Mine does explain that.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
'idealism/pragmatism' is loaded wording - just as is 'freedom'. After all, who is going to self-identify as valuing being in favor of unworkable ideals?
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe it's a "fixity of principle" vs. "flexibility of principle".
ReplyDeleteIt cuts both ways - pragmatists don't think that they are unprincipled either.
Whatever is the best term for it, I think there has to be an element that captuers the extent to which ideas are imperatives or tools.
Sort of related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6Y9Hm8UyM&feature=player_embedded
ReplyDelete