Not often I comment on politics as such, but this piece, The Joe Rogan controversy revealed something important about the American left, is more interesting than its title. The author basically suggests that the conflict is due to the fact that individuals switch between operating in a deontological or consequentialist framework, depending on the context.
As you surely know, deontology is the idea that you always have a duty to do the right thing, whether that right thing is convenient for you, or even for the world. To me, this is most evident once you become a parent. You can make a contrived utilitarian explanation for why you behave selflessly in relation to your children in a proximate sense (as opposed to ultimate evolutionary one), but really it’s that in their bones most people feel they have a duty to their children. As far as consequentialism, for Americans, I think we’re often told that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima hastened the end of the Pacific War.* The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Though the author doesn’t frame it this way, I think the deontological and consequentialism framework map onto the liberal and democratic strains of our republic. Liberalism is about rights, liberties. Humans as ends in and of themselves. Democracy is about the body politic, the aggregate will as opposed to individual preference. If you emphasize deontology too much in a democratic contest, I predict you’re likely to lose more often than not. If you emphasize consequentialism to the total exclusion of deontology, you lose the human dignity which democracy is supposed to safeguard.
The piece above brings up the cases of Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger, both of whom could be argued to have been party to and/or directed war crimes. Both these individuals have been associated with or had connections to contemporary members of the liberal-Left (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). Of more timely relevance, it is curious to me how neoconservative hawks such as Max Boot and William Kristol are now accorded some (often grudging) acceptance on the moderate Left. Not only did Boot and Kristol support the Iraq War, but they went along without too much objection to the economic positions of the Right up until recently. The question we have to face then is why is Joe Rogan such a problem, while these reformed conservatives are not?
It seems to me that the key here is that liberalism, the deontological impulse, has limits and scopes. Parents may act in a way that is governed by deontology in relation to their children, but the same people can be coldly utilitarian when it comes to strangers. American foreign policy is nasty and brutish. But the policies which Powell acceded to, Kissinger architected, and Kristol and Boot cheered, resulted in the death or misery of foreigners. Obviously even people on the center-Left object to the killing of foreigners, but operationally their empathy and identity are with people in their own nation-state (even if they espouse the rhetoric of no borders). Similarly, many of the loudest voices in “cancel culture” are from the middle-class and above. Though these people favor redistributionist policies, they may not concretely be familiar with people who have dealt with inter-generational poverty (as opposed to a stint as a ‘starving artist’ in one’s 20s). Offensive comments by a famous influencer are more impactful for such individuals than the removal of social services which few of their intimates use in any case.
One final thing in relation to deontology and consequentialism is that many on the moderate Left who are behaving in a deontological manner in relation to Joe Rogan’s endorsement of Bernie Sanders also assert that Donald Trump’s reelection in 2020 is an existential threat to the republic. If that is true, then I am curious about their deontological tendencies here, where they make the case that one shouldn’t give on some principles to gain votes. Perhaps the revealed preferences show that they don’t actually believe Trump to be an existential threat?
* I am aware people dispute this.
Theoretically, this may be an interesting discussion. If there really were people who honestly believe that Sanders’ campaign accepting support from a host who is generally in favor of gay and trans rights, but questions biological males competing with females in combat sports, and had guests from all over the political spectrum is worse than Hillary Clinton proudly accepting support from war criminals and leading neocons, this would be an interesting phenomenon.
But I think we can confidently exclude that any of these people who feign outrage about the Sanders campaign spreading the supportive quotation by Rogan are honest. If Rogan had invited Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Warren on his show and then said something positive about them, these establishment trolls would be delighted and call everyone who criticizes it “divisive”. They are well aware, that Sanders’ policy agenda is very popular, that he is generally seen as honest and consistent. They also know that he not only has had consistent left-wing economic positions for decades, but that he has also been consistently against homophobia, sexism, and racism. Therefore, the supporters of the corporate warmongers of the DNC are so desperate.
Sure, there could be sophisticated theories about why some people might think that it is much worse if support by a popular talk show host who is generally accepting of gay and trans equality, but as a sports commentator questions whether biological males should go against women in contact sports is accepted, this is worse than accepting the support by war criminals. It would, indeed, be interesting if there were people who honestly think that way. But we would have to switch off commonsense in order to believe people who claim they think this way.
The point about revealed preferences is spot on. I find it a useful lens through which to view much rhetoric from the left including, I’m sad to say, climate change.
But the policies which Powell acceded to, Kissinger architected, and Kristol and Boot cheered, resulted in the death or misery of foreigners.
I don’t know what specific policies or wars, to which you refer here, but it wasn’t just foreign deaths. Over 4,000 Americans died in Iraq alone.
I was a minimal-interventionist before the war, but lost my mind after 9/11 and wanted vengeance. I enthusiastically supported the war and the Bush administration, which I deeply regret now. And I weep for my fellow Americans who died there.
Utilitarianism is actually a subset of consequentialism even though many people treat them as synonymous. You can be can maximize any objective function you like and still be a consequentialist even including things like knowledge that aren’t any being’s welfare. Feeling that the welfare of one’s children as more important than one’s own is certainly in line with that, though believing one has a duty to act in a certain way with regards to one’s children regardless of the consequences isn’t.
This reads like a David Brooks column.
Vacillation between deontology and consequentialism is typical of idealistic philosophies and goverments. On my commute this morning I was listening to a Great Courses lecture on the French Revolution. The dentology of the early revolutionaries vs the consequentialism of the Jacobins. Marx (in theory) vs Lennin/Stalin/Mao (in practice).
Failure of the dentological theory or the failure of the theory to persuade always leads to consequentialism to “save the Revolution”.
ppl focus on gulf war 2. in hindsight i’m not sure gulf war 1 was even worth it. some humanitarian pretext turned out to be lies. the main issue is we back the gulf monarchies. we probably should. but it’s not a moral thing. and there was a huge iraqi death toll.
I don’t know what specific policies or wars, to which you refer here, but it wasn’t just foreign deaths. Over 4,000 Americans died in Iraq alone.
those americans were soldiers. often from red-states. ergo, “foreigners.”
also, i was ambivalent but leaned + to iraq war 2. i got caught up. a lot of us did. but there were ppl in and around bush ii who were intimately involved in it. it’s just really weird for me to see ‘woke scolds’ accept them as respectable now cuz they are anti-trump. meanwhile if someone is prolife they feel ‘unsafe’.
@Twinkie The foreign deaths were on the order of 100,000+ v. 4,000 ish U.S. troops. Also, the economic damages relative to the size of the economy had immense impact locally relative to the U.S. impact which was non-negligible but far smaller as a percentage of GDP.
When I first read a few tweets about this Sanders – Rogan faux rage, I thought: “Who needs rivals, when one has campaign advisors like these?!”
1) Have heard argued that Buddhist quietism cum ‘personal religion’ cum identity politics were introduced by CIA-ish in order to interrupt coelescence of Black Power with et al marginalized white subgroups.
2) 2nd amendment as cthonic proxy deontological identity.
Both emotion-indulging distractions that effectively forestall alliance that might otherwise overtop the mutually loathed hegemon.
The vast majority perfectly immune to reason, as ever. Sadly resulting in the usual banal eternal fisticuffs and dungeonings. America’s animal roots exposed now, swept and tumbling in the big muddy. Too soon we be now sediment too. Several cracked city light lenses poke ankle-high out of the fluvial plume, dully glinting as the sun rises in the east. My pole bends. There’ll be catfish a la Putin for breakfast!
Democratic politics are often rooted in claims of rights to self-governance, while liberal rights are often phrased in terms of consequentialism – argument, exercising control of certain kinds of speech or drug use acts, for instance, if not wrong in itself, leads to increasing the likelihood of acts which case harm. (E.g. criticism of prohibition of drug use as not wrong in itself, but consequentially likely to lead to harm through the collateral damage of enforcement). So I’m not sure I totally agree with the distinction being absolute, though it may occur more often than not.
On the suddenly acceptable fellowship of “neo-cons” to “the Left”, it seems almost purely pragmatic? I guess to me it seems more like the sort of Left really being talked about is a Centre-Left technocratic (Wonk?) wing. The current cultural moment is (supposedly) about a dichotomy between this and “right wing populism”. So bloody hands of “Establishment figures” downplayed.
(Whether the deaths of foreigners more morally acceptable to them than countrymen/ingroup, I don’t know. I suspect less acceptable (and probably particularly less acceptable the deaths of foreigners of Islamic faith), but it hardly matters for what they would say publicly as they would be well aware that foreigners can’t vote.)
“Once-hot DNA testing unicorn 23andMe is in serious trouble” by Daniel Roberts, Editor-at-Large, Yahoo Finance, January 29, 2020
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oncehot-dna-testing-unicorn-23-and-me-is-in-serious-trouble-115817212.html
Silicon Valley DNA testing company 23andMe, which has raised nearly $800 million in funding and was last valued at $2.5 billion, cut 14% of its workforce last week. The cause is a slowdown in sales of its direct-to-consumer DNA kits, which run $100, $200, or $500 depending on how much information you want about your ancestry, genetic composition, health and wellness, carrier status, and vulnerability to certain diseases.
It isn’t just 23andMe. DNA tests went boom in 2018, with the number of consumers who had bought one doubling to 26 million; now sales have gone bust. MIT Technology Review estimates that the largest DNA test players sold just 4 million to 6 million DNA tests in 2019, an industry growth rate of 20%, the slowest year for the industry ever.
In July on its 2019 Q2 earnings call, the CEO of DNA analysis device-maker Illumina (ILMN) said the “ongoing weakness in the DTC market has resulted in a significant shortfall in our array business” and that “given unanticipated market softness, we are taking an even more cautious view of the opportunity in the near term.”
* * * Another potential issue for 23andMe is that once a person buys the kit and learns about their ancestry, they don’t have to spend more money with the company, though there are optional listing services for additional fees. For many people, it is a single purchase without repeat business.
” resulted in the death or misery of foreigners.”
I don’t think it is about foreigners. Many leftists, like Elizabeth Warren, talk about a crisis of twenty transwomen murdered every year. When there are over 15k murders every year and people only talk about twenty transwomen they value trans people a lot more than cis people.
A very thought provoking piece.
How morally pure does one want to be? Liberalism was, in it’s earlier forms, just simply being not Catholic or even being against hierarchy/monarchy might qualify. Questioning slavery was “liberal.”
What I took from the piece is a reminder that progressives are authoritarian in their worldview, not liberal.
I usually consider liberals to be people that are generally more permissive/egalitarian and cons are more critical/hierarchical BUT both are more permissive of those within their group and less so to those that aren’t.
My cousin was a purist progressive but became an anti-Trump #Resistance purist, accepting of Boot and Kristol, Frum. He now is a Biden fan and a war hawk, so try and figure that one out. Still a purist but just a different focus. He went from Bernie voter to Bernie being a Putin puppet.
My point being that Boot and Kristol are now in their group so they get a pass. And I’d agree that the foreigners killed are in no one’s group, so I guess they don’t count.
Perhaps the King of deontological ethics might be Franz Jägerstätter.
A devout Catholic, he refused to take an oath to Hitler or fight for Germany and was tortured and executed by guillotine. He had 3 daughters. Purist indeed.
Over at Unz they’re pointing out that Boot and Kristol are Jewish, whereas Rogan is not. Of course then the liberal elites would love Prager and Ben Shapiro.
I think it’s more of a class thing, though–Boot and Kristol remind the liberal elites of themselves and push all the right buttons on trendy issues, whereas Rogan is a dirty ex-MMA guy who pals around with Alex Jones. Basic ingroup-outgroup tribalism (I am sure you are far more experienced on the genetics than me!)
Boot and Kristol are Jewish, whereas Rogan is not
Maybe there is some kind of point system where one is allowed one or two contrary positions but beyond that it’s to the dungeon. Jews will criticize other Jews. Just look at how many of them jumped all over B. Stephens. I didn’t really get Razib’s explanation.