The rhetoric of reaction

I will read the whole thing, but I’d be careful about applying the lesson. Thinking you have the proponents of the other side of an argument figured out doesn’t necessarily imply that you shouldn’t take their claims seriously. Otherwise you might find yourself guilty of a similar species of oversimplification.

Surely the point was not that none of the viewpoints of conservatives are correct, merely that there is a fairly well entrenched set of responses conservatives employ to justify their conservatism. Rather than trying to make the world a “better place”, they simply fall back on why any potential improvement either fixes a non-existent problem, makes the problem worse or doesn’t matter.

I’m sure a similar analysis could be made of arguments used on the left to support some of their more idiotic policies from their half-witted elements. As an analysis of a horribly large number of conservatives, however, this is spot on.

Do you have any actual examples of these arguments being used by the same person regarding the same issue? Certainly I’ve seen plenty of people make argument (1) regarding some allegations about the plight of poor people, and argument (2) regarding others, and argument (3) regarding still others. And there are issues on which some commentators will make (1), others (2), and still others (3).

But neither of these, it seems to me, implies inconsistency or bad faith on the part of any actual right-wing commentator. The problems of poverty, after all, are not monolithic, and neither is conservative thought.

Hmm…an arguement about the nature and structure of an argument.

…I’ll go make some popcorn and get comfortable. This should be fun.

You mean ajay’s posting was for real? I really thought it was another example of the quality irony (y’know like “goldy and “coppery”) that I was hoping to enjoy being displayed in this thread.

And Thorley, mate…

“regardless of whether or not you find it inconvenient that people have the temerity to disagree with you.”

…back at you babe.

Simply saying that you are proposing a “reform” and accusing your opponents of being “reactionaries” (which is one of the most disingenuous forms of smears in the public policy arena) is not a substantive counter-argument.

Chris is talking about styles of *rhetoric*, not arguments. He even helpfully placed the word “rhetoric” in the title of the post (it’s between “The” and “of” if you want to check) in order to make himself clear. If you’re interested in talking about rhetoric, let’s hear what you’ve got to say. If you just want to make crashingly obvious points about _ad hominem_ arguments, then why don’t you search google for a “List of Fallacies”, and then do feel free to not post the link here.

Chris wrote:

The same, of course, for global warming or any number of other issues. That these responses are difficult to hold consistently, doesn’t always prevent their proponents from either advancing them simultaneously or switching promiscuously among them.

Okay let’s take global warming as an example (without arguing the merits but rather the types of objections a detractor might raise). Suppose that one does not support a proposed “reform” for global warming and offers the following three objections:

a) There is insufficient evidence to show that the Earth’s temperature is increasing at an unnatural rate due to human-created emissions of “green house gases.”
b) There is insufficient evidence to show that global warming even if it were occurring would be an important problem.
c) The proposed “reforms” such as increased taxes and energy prices would have unintended consequences such as a lower standard of living and increased poverty which would make things worse.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with any or each of the previous objections, how would it be difficult to hold each of them consistently? Can anyone also not see (even if you disagree with each or any of the objections) why none of the arguments contradict each other and can therefore be argued “simultaneously” or individually without detracting from each other?

Actually it’s pretty clear from the bulk of his post that he’s doing a bit of both. Affixing the label of “reactionary” to those who oppose your proposals or POV is pretty much an ad homenem attack much like throwing around the invective of “extremist” or “unpatriotic.”

My arse it is. It’s a perfectly accurate description of reactionaries, just as “racist” is a perfectly accurate description of racists or “communist” of communists.

Your remaining remarks about consistency imply very strongly that you still haven’t grasped the difference between logic and rhetoric, and frankly I’m beginning to think you’re doing it on purpose.

I had thought of advising D^2 not to feed the troll.

Those of us who remember D^2’s efforts at certain tech-oriented web sites can’t help but find this amusing.

D^2: Well, if “reactionary” is a merely descriptive term without loading, pray tell me what it actually means?

Assuming, that is, that “reactionary” has a meaning other than “opposed to self-labeled ‘progressive’ policies”? (Which is, in my experience, how the term is most often actually used, but I suppose an appeal to usage is not likely to be effective here.)

More specifically, can you provide a definition of “reactionary” (and by implication “conservative”) such that you can, in practice, differentiate “reactionary” and “conservative”? If not, I submit the term is being abused, perhaps in the above manner. If so (and I certainly hope so), well, that would certainly clear the waters, wouldn’t it?

(As an aside, I’ve noticed, when asking people who themselves use the term, for themselves or their ideas, to define “progressive”, that they can rarely manage to do so in an even vaguely coherent manner. I’m not sure that this is a problem with “progressive” as a term more than with the particular people in question, however. It is a reason I tend to avoid the term except in quotes, or when dealing with people who themselves use the term, for themselves.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.