Comments on: The rhetoric of reaction

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:27:28 +0000

I don’t like the name of reactionaries either. These (powerful people generally associated with the Republican Party) are moving toward a future that has never existed but which they want to create. Therefore they are not conservative, but radicals. To distinguish them from the left, let’s call them radical complete bastards. The primary identifier is the need to protect the rich and powerful from public scorn and their own moral qualms. And a highly moralised disregard for the weak. Apart from that they’re just politicians.

By: baa

baa — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:58:43 +0000

I am of course, late to the party and run the risk of being last comment in the box (micha, I’ve saved you!), but I do note that poor Thorley got an unjust reception here. Surely everyone would agree that the “rhetoric of reaction” as detailed by Chris just consist of generic “anti” arguments (as someone noted above). They aren’t mutually exclusive, they aren’t wrong, and they aren’t exclusively the property of the right. The grain of truth is that ‘unintended consequences’ (and public choice) arguments were staples of neoconservative policy analysis in the 70s and 80s, and thus could be cosidered to have a right-wing pedigree. But that should be merit praise and thanks! Unintended consequences are important, and now both left and right think about them. So we all owe Irving Kristol for leading the charge. Send flowers and candy c/o the doorman at the Watergate hotel. The grain of sand, which, I suspect, irritates Chris’ right-leaning readers, is his suggestion that the american and european right as currently constituted uniquely opposes change in a way the left doesn’t. This, of course, is folly. I mean, really: the french left is dynamic and seeking change? The american right has no radical or revolutionary elements? No sale.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:46:18 +0000

I meant “electric fence” dammit! My speelings always been ecletic.

By: Nababov

Nababov — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:41:53 +0000

I’m feeling fisky, so… “I guess that makes reactionaries out of all the lefties who wish to undo Bush’s tax cuts, huh?” Telling someone not to piss on an electic fence is above politcial attitudes and platitudes. Anyone with a basic grasp of economics, left or right, can understand how Micawber’s Law is a real zero-sum game. “It amuses me to no end watching you guys squirm while trying to make these arbitrary definitions fit with reality.” Now what does this remind me of? “Iraq is a danger to us ‘cos it has WMDs?”, “US steel tariffs will make products cheaper?” “US tax cuts are creating jobs and improving quality of life? “I am a uniter, not a divider”? “…certain comment made by Randy Barnett some time ago, in which he lumped the entire left together for living in its own “constructed reality”. Barnett, however, had the good sense to revise and partially retract his observation when readers pointed out how silly it was.” Yer point here being? “I wait with baited breath for Henry, Brian and Kieren to make the same criticism of Chris that they made of Randy.” Let the hairpulling begin. Tell yer what, step outside, and they’re not there within 10 minutes, you start by yourself.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:01:52 +0000

A conservative opposes the current reform; a reactionary wants to undo the last one. I guess that makes reactionaries out of all the lefties who wish to undo Bush’s tax cuts, huh? It amuses me to no end watching you guys squirm while trying to make these arbitrary definitions fit with reality. I am reminded of a certain comment made by Randy Barnett some time ago, in which he lumped the entire left together for living in its own “constructed reality”. Barnett, however, had the good sense to revise and partially retract his observation when readers pointed out how silly it was. I wait with baited breath for Henry, Brian and Kieren to make the same criticism of Chris that they made of Randy.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:12:17 +0000

I was just about to say the same thing, DD, really I was. “contentious issues of public policy as to which the political left now holds the status quo and the right is urging changes (Roe v. Wade; public schools vs. vouchers)” is all about trying to return to the original status quo that existed before the said public policies came into effect. And because progressives propose change and reactionaries oppose it, you are more likely to find the “not a problem/not a big problem/solution will do more harm than good” line of arguement on the reactionary side. And thanks for the beer, Z.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:12:56 +0000

A conservative opposes the current reform; a reactionary wants to undo the last one.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:55:17 +0000

Certainly, there are contentious issues of public policy as to which the political left now holds the status quo and the right is urging changes (Roe v. Wade; public schools vs. vouchers). One can readily develop an argument that it is the left that is being “reactionary” on these issues, since they are resisting the changes put forth by the right. It would also be a relatively simple exercise too find examples of Hirschman’s “reactionary theses” coming from the left with regard to these issues. I suspect that those on the left would resist the label of “reactionary”, however, because it has generally been applied with a normative content that is pejorative. The original comment from dsquared that this sort of argument can be found on both sides of the political spectrum holds great truth for me. I just don’t see very much difference in the general breakdown of the two sides: Both sides have some zealots, a few opportunists, and a lot of people who honestly believe that their views and values can improve the polity and the lives of people in general.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 04:30:22 +0000

I actually forgot: perhaps rightwingers are shits and they also frequently use this particular form of rhetoric, but they don’t use this rhetoric because they are shits.

By: Pierre Menard

Pierre Menard — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:07:57 +0000

I thought the dismissal of Thorley Winston’s views was pretty unwarranted—not to mention uncivil. Yes, I know, all Chris wanted to do was write something lighthearted so that people would read Hirschman’s essay; yes, the types of arguments mentioned have a history of being used in bad faith. But in his post Chris did IMPLY that anyone who advances statements which fit this template is being illogical. I’m glad that Peter Briffa and Thorley Winston made posts showing that this is not true.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:20:58 +0000

To continue in a civil, gentlemanly, rational fashion, most of you have apparently not had a lot of contact with American core conservatives whose response to poverty is “It’s their own goddamn fault. Hope they starve slowly and painfully”. The theoretical justification here is “If various sorts of unproductive and improvident individuals die miserably, not only will the gene pool be cleaned out, but marginal workers will be motivated to work a bit harder and to be more respectful of authority”. The word for this ca. 1920 was “labor discipline”.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:12:01 +0000

Nabakov, have a beer too. I think that this is a general principle of polemic argumentation: “Any stick is good enough to beat this dog with” is a classic summation—from Dr. Johnson, I think. D2 ran through the automatic response pretty fluently. Later attempts fell somewhat short. While in theory it is possible that both sides sin equally in this regard, I think that (speaking as an American) the right wing is in fact much more often culpable. The reason for this is that the American right wing are shits. If you disagree, do you think that shits are not, in fact, more likely to use arguments of this kind? Or are you claiming that American rightwingers are not shits? Or perhaps that, while American rightwingers are shits, they’re not the kind of shits who use this particular type of argument, but rather prefer other kinds of shitty arguments such as death threats and accusations of communist al-Qaeda sympathies? Let’s discuss this reasonably without changing the subject or using harsh rhetoric.

By: UncleBob

UncleBob — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:56:51 +0000

In this part of the country (South-ish Texas) the responses commonly include something like: “It may be true, but they’re all in this country illegally anyway” so a. it doesn’t matter or b. they should be happy to go back and die of starvation in whatever Central American hell-hole they came from.

By: ekim

ekim — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:34:05 +0000

reactionary: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics reaction: 1 a : the act or process or an instance of reacting b : resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy The difference between “reactionary” and “conservative” seems to be one of degree, per the definition, hence it is possible to deferentiate the two.

By: Janes_Kid

Janes_Kid — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:11:01 +0000

When I use the settings >view>text size>largest, your article is almost unreadable.