| the political other |
 the political other
|
May. 19th, 2008 @ 11:08 pm 
|
|---|
Recently, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) amyceleste left me with an intriguing puzzle: Given that it is a helpful capability to see the [potentially sparse] good in people, esp. of the political or philosophical opposition, how does one square that with the blanket condemnation of the position that they take?
One thing that comes to mind is the difference between understanding and agreement (vestehen and einverstanden sein). Clearly amyceleste is right in arguing that a discourse position that will not even achieve the level of understanding the other side has serious issues. Indeed, the only way to prevent the mis-understanding (and thereby the attacking of a paper tiger), is to ensure that the other's position is clearly understood—taking some form of coherence of reconstruction as the minimal sign of internal validity of a hermeneutic endeavor (Vorhof der Stärke and all that).
The second aspect that appears helpful is the minimization of dissent. An example might help: Protestant Swiss theologian Karl Barth used to say that there was only one good reason not to be Catholic—to wit, the postulate of the analogy of being (analogia entis in the diction of St Thomas Aquinatus), rather than the Protestant notion of the analogy of faith (analogia fidei). Barth felt that all other problems that were separating the Catholic and the Protestant churches were either fundamentally tied to that issue or did not really matter that much. Such a localization of differing is helpful as it forestalls demonizing the other side. There can be agreement over what one differs about, forming the basis for all further dialog.
Recently I received a letter from Texas House Representative Michael McCaul. I dont quite recall how I ever managed to get on McCaul's mailing list, but the letter, which touts McCaul's involvement in the HR 5857, the Homeownership Protections and Housing Market Stabilization Act, has some interesting exemplars that put the current analysis to the test.
... many families and individuals sought out alternative, and often risky, financing packages. ... While this bill [HR 5857] would help needy homeowners who are truly victims [of the mortgage crisis], it would not reward those who were reckless and irresponsible at the expense of responsible homeowners.
The world of McCaul falls into two groups: the responsible and the irresponsible. The purpose of the law or even government is to aid the one but not the other (esp. if doing so would somehow damage or burden the responsible). In the end, this is a theory of rational choice based on sufficient information, that postulates that everyone knew what they were doing when they were doing it (accepting risky packages), and therefore need to accept what they got.
But in order for that to be the case, McCaul has to assume that the failures in the mortgage setup were not systematic, but random. And indeed, he writes earlier:
Some of these financing options offered excellent benefits and truly allowed for creative funding, while others have proven to not benefit consumers in the long term and have caused unexpected [!] and unfortunate financial consequences for borrowers.
The primary solution then is more information, to help distinguish the non-beneficial from the creative:
... [HR 5857] would establish licensing and registration requirements for residential mortgage originators to improve mortgage disclosures .... This legislation also ... combats mortgage fraud. ... Rest assured I will continue to promote reform and transparency in the housing market ... for middle class families who are feeling the brunt of the current housing crisis.
PS: Yes, McCaul is pushing to lower the taxes too.Current Mood:  thoughtful |
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/67798472/5805524) |
| From: | matherd |
|---|
| Date: |
May 20th, 2008 06:25 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
In general, I agree with the need to understand the point of view of those you disagree with. But at some point you realize that virtually all politicians aren't actually saying what they believe, but what they think they need to say to make the most people vote for them. Trying to understand their point of view is doomed to failure, because they aren't basing their comments on some coherent worldview. It's not like you can come to any sort of agreement with them when there's no functional reasoning framework underlying what they advocate.
![[User Picture Icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/53943476/1500190) |
| From: | _rck_ |
|---|
| Date: |
May 22nd, 2008 03:57 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
well, yes and now
|
(Link) |
|
I agree with and understand that point too; but the theme of Vorhof der Stärke suggests that you should attempt to reconstruct the most rational form of their argument.
I agree that even for this exemplar, there was a strong temptation to find the non-sequitur and ditch the letter. It is not clear that one has to assume that the failures are random; it is just about the only way to make the argument not fall apart on the second paragraph.
Nevertheless, it is not uninteresting, and often even educational (to me at least), to try to give a screwy argument the best shot it would have been given by a more talented person. You can chide this as optimizing bubble sort ... but even that might at times have its charms.
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by LiveJournal.com |
