A great deal of ink has been devoted in recent weeks to analyzing the seemingly incomprehensible and non-cost-effective Tory move to abandon the long form census.
Business groups and trade unions, politicians and academics, journalists and researchers, virtually every social stakeholder with an interest in objective data has lined up to contest the Tory move on the basis that it will lead to less accurate information being available to them as they seek to plan for and manage the varying dossiers before them.
'Accurate' is the operative word here. In an information economy information is king, or so common sense would have us believe, but the Tory move has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with hard-c conservative sense. Consider the following: the far-right tends toward the ideologically simplistic. Its proponents, Stephen Harper’s core base of support, believe probably more strongly than any other demographic in their own righteousness and right-mindedness.
This ‘we’re better than you’ mentality contrasts directly with more left-wing attitudes, which tend to downplay demagogic tendencies of infallibility and black-and-white attitudes towards what’s right and what’s wrong. The left generally favours acknowledging and accommodating greater cultural, social and ideological diversity, choosing debate over demagogues and collective decision making over centrally-controlled power.
A direct result of this attitudinal divide between right and left is that the right is far more motivated to participate in political movements and organizations. Its desire to enforce what it knows is right upon the ignorant masses lost in their collectivist, relativistic haze has been demonstrated time and again over the last several decades. It can be seen most clearly today where the right’s sense of orthodox truth and divine favour reaches its apex; namely evangelical political movements.
The census is a hugely important tool in this equation of conservative political engagement and control because, as so many groups have stressed since the Tories first made their announcement, its results are the key data which informs almost all policy making and economic planning.
By getting rid of the mandatory, long form census and replacing it with a voluntary alternative, conservative like Stephen Harper are confident that they will be able to leverage the right’s higher degree of volunteerism and political engagement and thereby begin the process of skewing census results to reflect the right’s minority political positions and social attitudes.
Many Canadians have been dumbstruck since this move was announced by the Tories, and we have been anything but assuaged by the nonsensical rationales being put forward by Tory spokesmen like Tony Clement in the weeks since. The only reason for abandoning the census that makes any sense at all is the desire of the right to begin to gain more and more control over the sources of data that inform our decision making.
The first rule of Propaganda 101, after all, has always been that although one can’t control what people think, one can control what they think about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The posting is a typical bit of left-wing blindness and incoherence. The essential problem can be seen in this deeply confused paragraph:
ReplyDelete"This ‘we’re better than you’ mentality contrasts directly with more left-wing attitudes, which tend to downplay demagogic tendencies of infallibility and black-and-white attitudes towards what’s right and what’s wrong. The left generally favours acknowledging and accommodating greater cultural, social and ideological diversity, choosing debate over demagogues and collective decision making over centrally-controlled power."
So "left-wing attitudes" "downplay...infallibility and black-and-white attitudes" because they "favor acknowledging and accommodating greater cultural, social and ideological diversity". Thus, they don't have a "'we're better than you' mentality".
But the author's own post is exactly the opposite of the tendencies he's describing. For instance, if "left-wing attitudes" entail "downplay[ing] infallibility and black-and-white attitudes", then it must be that, on the one hand, the poster's political commitments are not infallible and, conversely, attitudes of the opposition have important elements of validity. But although the poster specifically speaks of "acknowledging" such "diversity", you won't find one single such acknowledgement anywhere in his post. Thus, although the poster accuses "right-wing" types of being characterized by a "'we're better than you' mentality", the author's entire post is about.... why left-wing types are better than right-wing types. And, despite the author's claim that left-wing types are better at "acknowledging and accommodating... diversity" -including "ideological", diversity, due to their appreciation of the fallibility of "what's right and wrong", as well as their absence of "black and white attitudes" - there is not a single suggestion, anywhere in this post, of a single failing of the left, or a single strength of the right. All we get a series of assertions (as opposed to actual arguments) emphasizing the absolute correctness of the left, and the absolute ignorance of the right, generally phrased in hyperbolic and inflammatory language.
Thus, the poster's whole argument is self-defeating. He wants to argue that the left is superior to the right because it's attitudes are less "black and white", more conscious of the fallibility of all such attitudes, more willing to acknowledge and accommodate "diversity", including "ideological" diversity etc. But the author can only do all of this by issuing a black-and-white condemnation of his ideological opponents, failing to ever acknowledge any fallibility in his own attitudes, and thus obviously fails to either "acknowledge" or "accommodate" the "diversity" with which his political opponents confront him. And so the author is placed into the position of writing an entire post about how he "we" left-wing types are better than people the right-wing people whose whole problem is their "'we're better than you' mentality".
The posting is a typical bit of left-wing blindness and incoherence. The essential problem can be seen in this deeply confused paragraph:
ReplyDelete"This ‘we’re better than you’ mentality contrasts directly with more left-wing attitudes, which tend to downplay demagogic tendencies of infallibility and black-and-white attitudes towards what’s right and what’s wrong. The left generally favours acknowledging and accommodating greater cultural, social and ideological diversity, choosing debate over demagogues and collective decision making over centrally-controlled power."
So "left-wing attitudes" "downplay...infallibility and black-and-white attitudes" because they "favor acknowledging and accommodating greater cultural, social and ideological diversity". Thus, they don't have a "'we're better than you' mentality".
But the author's own post is exactly the opposite of the tendencies he's describing. For instance, if "left-wing attitudes" entail "downplay[ing] infallibility and black-and-white attitudes", then it must be that, on the one hand, the poster's political commitments are not infallible and, conversely, attitudes of the opposition have important elements of validity. But although the poster specifically speaks of "acknowledging" such "diversity", you won't find one single such acknowledgement anywhere in his post. Thus, although the poster accuses "right-wing" types of being characterized by a "'we're better than you' mentality", the author's entire post is about.... why left-wing types are better than right-wing types. And, despite the author's claim that left-wing types are better at "acknowledging and accommodating... diversity" -including "ideological", diversity, due to their appreciation of the fallibility of "what's right and wrong", as well as their absence of "black and white attitudes" - there is not a single suggestion, anywhere in this post, of a single failing of the left, or a single strength of the right. All we get a series of assertions (as opposed to actual arguments) emphasizing the absolute correctness of the left, and the absolute ignorance of the right, generally phrased in hyperbolic and inflammatory language.
Thus, the poster's whole argument is self-defeating. He wants to argue that the left is superior to the right because it's attitudes are less "black and white", more conscious of the fallibility of all such attitudes, more willing to acknowledge and accommodate "diversity", including "ideological" diversity etc. But the author can only do all of this by issuing a black-and-white condemnation of his ideological opponents, failing to ever acknowledge any fallibility in his own attitudes, and thus obviously fails to either "acknowledge" or "accommodate" the "diversity" with which his political opponents confront him. And so the author is placed into the position of writing an entire post about how he "we" left-wing types are better than people the right-wing people whose whole problem is their "'we're better than you' mentality".
Sorry for the double post there. My computer was screwing with me.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't that people who aren't conservative don't think they are right; it is just that, on average, they are more likely to have a certain John Kerry-esque tortured nuance to their views rather than the right/far-right base Bush/Palin certainty of a Sith lord. The general point that the author was making would certainly be in line with various studies showing that, on average, one of the big cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are much more likely to tolerate ambiguity, and are more open to new and different ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnthony - Am I correct in assuming that you were referring to the right/far-right base, rather than also referring to moderate conservatives?
It seems that complaints about the methodology of your argument serve only to distract from the author's point: that the "righteousness" of this Conservative government can only be replied to in kind if it is to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteTo respond in such a manner that you know will be understood by your counterpart is hardly a self-defeating argument.
The best comment I read about this census debacle was that while the tenets of libertarianism are noble and worth defending, this move by the Conservatives is not one promoting small governance, rather it is one promoting bad governance.
Rob writes:
ReplyDelete"It isn't that people who aren't conservative don't think they are right; it is just that, on average, they are more likely to have a certain John Kerry-esque tortured nuance to their views rather than the right/far-right base Bush/Palin certainty of a Sith lord."
I respond:
You're missing the point of my comment. I wasn't engaging in the sort of partisan point-scoring which you attribute to me and which you engage in yourself, i.e., I wasn't trying to prove that the "right" is better than the "left", or vice versa, for any particular reason. That would be a much broader question. I was only trying to highlight the internal incoherence (self-contradiction) of the blog post (which, however, exemplifies a common form of self-contradiction on the left, as I say above; whether it's better or worse than anyone else's self-contradictions is a separate question). Thus, my point wasn't about the right or left being better or worse with respect to the tendencies described by the blog author, but rather that the the blog post itself exemplifies the tendencies which it's condemning, and in a manner which is self-defeating (e.g., the poster accuses "right-wing" types of being characterized by a "'we're better than you' mentality", the author's entire post is about.... why left-wing types are better than right-wing types).
Anyway, your own comment exemplifies some of the same problems, because you attempt to write off whole groups of people by resorting essentially to name-calling rather than arguments ("certainty of a Sith lord"), and then you try to conclude by making a distinction between "good" and "bad" conservatives - the latter of whom, apparently can be dismissed in any which way you like, despite all the claim which the blog post attempts to defend about the left's comfort with ideological and other forms of "diversity", fallibility, etc.
Derek writes:
ReplyDelete"It seems that complaints about the methodology of your argument serve only to distract from the author's point: that the "righteousness" of this Conservative government can only be replied to in kind if it is to be taken seriously."
I respond:
I don't see this anywhere in the blog post and, regardless, responding "in kind" would in fact invalidate the author's whole position, which is to claim that left-wing types are of a different "kind" (acknowledge, accommodate diversity; don't see right and wrong in black and white; accept fallibility; are better than right wing people because right wing people think they're better than other people, or some such incoherent nonsense).
A more general response to Rob and others defending the blog post's claim that liberals are more open to "new and different ideas", "ambiguity", "fallibility", "diversity", including "ideological diversity", less likely to see "right and wrong" in "black and white", etc. would be this:
ReplyDeleteTry to substantiate those claims simply by quoting from the blog author's own blog. I don't think it could be done. Instead, what you'll find is just a long string of blanket, unqualified, hyperbolic condemnations of conservatives. The author is simply incoherent and hypocritical.
I don't know why I haven't heard anyone in the media relating the Conservatives absolute addiction to polling to their 'idea' for a larger volunteer census.
ReplyDeleteThe ConParty would have it be the most massive and expensive opinion poll in Canadian history, with taxpayers footing the bill instead of their party (again). In the Conservative backrooms, they will take great delight in this.
John Baird, Jim Flaherty, and of course Tony Clement; these guys are all power hungry cronies standing on weak foundations and taking the falls for their cold leader, just as they did in Ontario when they messed things up deciding to create "Mega-Cities" or weakening the support for the unemployed, the poor, the homeless. Not enough of the rest of Canada knows about their ugly Ontario pedigree under Harris.
I wish everyone would just read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" all the while thinking of how "Chicago School Economics" is at play here and now in Canada. Mr Harper and his work dogs are disrupting our social/political/financial systems and attempting to reorganize them to take advantage of the state of upheaval and disarray they helped create.
I mean, they'll all be out of politics relatively soon, right, and move on to jobs in finance and industry, likely working for the corporations that they are already kinda' working for anyway, setting up policies and structures to benefit their core support and culture.
I wasn't engaging in the sort of partisan point-scoring which you attribute to me and which you engage in yourself, i.e., I wasn't trying to prove that the "right" is better than the "left", or vice versa, for any particular reason. That would be a much broader question. I was only trying to highlight the internal incoherence (self-contradiction) of the blog post (which, however, exemplifies a common form of self-contradiction on the left, as I say above; whether it's better or worse than anyone else's self-contradictions is a separate question).
ReplyDeleteAnd in attempting to do so, you've missed the point. The author made some general statements, and my point is that I think the general point he was making in regard to far-right conservatives (but that might not apply to moderate conservatives) is in line with studies showing that a main cognitive difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals are much more likely to tolerate ambiguity, and are more open to new and different ideas. It has nothing to do with a sense of superiority; it has to do with the level of certainty in one's political positions. It's not that liberals, on average, are necessarily uncertain, they just, on average, don't have the level of certainty that Conservatives have.
So, both sides have a sense of superiority; it is just that conservatives, on average, have been shown to have a much higher level of certainty in this position.
@ Rob:
ReplyDeleteYour point has nothing to do with my point. You allege that it has something to do with the point that the blog author was trying to make, but I see no evidence of that from the original post, and you cite no such evidence from the post either (in fact, above you ask the blog author to clarify this point, suggesting that it wasn't clear in the first place). In sum, I'm not sure that you have a point which is directly relevant to the blog post, or indirectly relevant to my comments on it.
As for the points which you do make, colour me unconvinced. You apparently take your own point to be derivative from, or supplementing, "studies". However, the phrase "studies show" (or something along those lines) does not amount to an actual argument, let alone suffice to demonstrate anything. Many studies purport to show many things, and so in the absence of specific citations and detailed analysis of those citations, your vague references to "studies" are underwhelming, to say the least. In fact, studies claiming to show something like what you suggest (as well as studies claiming to show various unflattering things about liberal "psychology") have circulated for many decades (at least sixty years), and studies criticizing, or providing various alternatives to, those studies have existed for about as long. Not to mention the fact that the precise claims and methodologies of these various studies have changed over time. I know all of this because, well, I've studied many of them. Some of the material is interesting, but either way, if I wanted to learn something more about the subject, your extremely vague commentary on the subject would not suffice to adding anything substantive to a discussion of the subject.
Anyway, I will repeat a point which I made above, namely, that even your modified claim to the effect that "both sides have a sense of superiority", but conservatives have it to a greater extent is, at the least, inappropriate in the immediate context, since I was writing an immanent critique of the blog author's post, i.e., staying entirely within his own terminology and frame of reference, and it is not clear to me how anyone could actually evince less of a sense of certainty in their position than the blog author. To wit (as illustrated at greater length above): the blog author writes a series of absolute, unqualified condemnations of the "right-wing" position, and gives not a single critical comment about the "left-wing" position. Indeed, if you look over his whole history of blog posts you can see this pattern repeating itself over and over again. So even if "on average" the difference between the right and the left were as you suggest, it seems obvious that in that case the blog author rather flagrantly deviates from the "average". In fact, however, I think that the blog author's incoherence or hypocrisy is rather typical of what one finds on the left.
In any case, as I came to this thread through a post about it on the Macleans.ca website, I can't resist posting one of the better comments on the blog post provided by one of the commenters on the Macleans boards, since it makes one of the same points that I try to make above more succinctly. To wit, here is the comment of Macleans.ca poster Gaunilion:
"This paragraph was just too awesome to pass up:
"This ‘we’re better than you’ mentality contrasts directly with more left-wing attitudes, which tend to downplay demagogic tendencies of infallibility and black-and-white attitudes towards what’s right and what’s wrong."
In other words, we (the Left) are better than the Right because we don't have the sense of superiority that they do. Well played, Philbin!"
Indeed, no study in the world will rescue the logic of the sentence which the Macleans.ca poster has so ably skewered.
Mr. Philbin,
ReplyDeletethat sound you hear is the percussion of one hand clapping.
Your post was ridiculously shallow and ill-argued. In effect, it comes down to Liberal ideology, which you could have summed up thusly:
"Libeal good, Conservative bad"
Yep.....you wasted a lot of words trying to state that one simply line.
And still no one believes you.
, and saved yourself some time.