He writes of Ron Paul: "He's creating political theater", and "Well its the argument you'd expect any politician involved in a heated political campaign to make when given such a question, no? I think that's essentially the point- he doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but rather finds it valuable to try and frame the issue in the way that makes him look like the party's savior."
He is creating political theater. This is what politicians do.
I don't fawn over Obama on here. I generally like the guy, but I make no bones about the fact that he's a politician and he does a lot of things out of political motivations. In fact that's how I react to all politicians on here, as far as I know. It's really puzzling to me that the same people who claim to be so inoculated against politicians seem the least likely to come out and say this about Ron Paul or the Tea Party. Many do, let me be clear. Many libertarians aren't big Ron Paul supporters. But enough people carry with them this inconsistent outlook that it's a real puzzle to me. When excited Ron Paul supporters accuse me of being enthralled to a politician I go from puzzled to humored (or angered... if adjectives like "statist" get mixed in).
Warren concludes by saying: "So I'd say your quite correct about #2 above, but I think its a stretch to say Paul is being anymore deceptive than the average player in this particular campaign."
I want to clarify I agree completely. On any given point Paul may be more naive than other politicians, of course. But taken together he's exactly the same as the rest of them - at least insofar as how he responds as a politician to incentives.
What he and others do differ on, of course, is policy. I personally think his policy is worse than many other alternatives. But in terms of his incentive structure as a political animal, Ron Paul is (as Warren says) not "being any more deceptive than the average player in this particular campaign".
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
re: "When excited Ron Paul supporters accuse me of being enthralled to a politician I go from puzzled to humored (or angered... if adjectives like "statist" get mixed in)."
ReplyDeleteWell it is quite puzzling if someone believes that the only people that could be enthralled to politicians are "people with different policy views than my favorite politician." As you said its amusing at best and downright annoying at worst.
re: "What he and others do differ on, of course, is policy. I personally think his policy is worse than many other alternatives. But in terms of his incentive structure as a political animal, Ron Paul is (as Warren says) not "being any more deceptive than the average player in this particular campaign"."
This is the distinction I was going for. You can think Ron Paul's prescriptions are more naive than another politician's without thinking he is simply "more dishonest".
I would say, for instance, that Ron Paul's view of policy falls for the trap of viewing some of his preferred policies as some kind of panacea rather than a trade-off with real world consequences regardless of whether he supports the trade that is made (I would, for the record, say the same thing about someone who holds some form of government intervention to be a panacea). He certainly doesn't have to be extra dishonest for that to apply!
Warren,
ReplyDeleteThat's because "solutionism"* is fairly rampant in politics (particularly in comparison to the rest of life). That's not that surprising; it is cheap for a lot of people to be "politically engaged" so a cheap way of thinking about stuff comes to the fore in politics. The only way to avoid this is not to play the game to start with.
*I can define this if you want, but what it means sort of obvious.
re: "The only way to avoid this is not to play the game to start with."
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like more solutionism to me. When you say doing nothing is exactly what we should be doing, you're providing a plan for what we should be doing just like everybody else is.
The smartest approach to me seems to be not to be afraid of "doing" things, doing the things that you have the best evidence for, and properly accounting for the fact that you're going to be wrong in many cases and that the degree to which you will be wrong will vary.
Pretending that a minimalist approach isn't "doing something" just because it looks that way superficially doesn't help anyone out if its no better a solution!
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteNot enough coffee today?
I'm not suggesting that one does "nothing" (note how I don't have a apoplectic fit because you misinterpreted me).
Wow - way to miss the point of the comment Gary.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know you don't normally advocate doing "nothing" but the point is that simply advocating disengagement of any degree is still "doing something".
Besides - in this particular case you're talking about "not playing the game" which is pretty close to not doing doing anything.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteNo, not playing the game means creating your own game Daniel.