Recently Stanley Fish wrote a column on the Supreme Court decision in F.E.C. v. United Citizens . In it he explained very clearly the difference in the arguments of the Court's liberal minority and conservative majority. The conservative majority, Fish explained, made a "principled" argument, while the liberals relied on a "consequentialist" approach. These two approaches are often present in left/right debates in the political arena as well. Health insurance reform provides a clear example of a debate between left and right to which the principled-consequentialist theoretical framework can be applied productively to sort through the complexity, confusion, and intensity of the clashing rhetoric.The conservative majority's argument in F.E.C. v. United Citizens relied on a theory (i.e. principle) without judicial consideration of actual or potential real world consequences. If corporations are legally considered individuals, then they are endowed with the individual right of "free speech" just like everyone else. The liberals on the court, on the other hand, argued that the practical consequences of treating corporate entities as individuals for the purpose of speech protection would be overwhelmingly negative. Unleashing limitless "independent expenditures" by corporations, argued the liberal Supreme Court minority, would further reduce the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in and/or impact elections, and would threaten the democratic integrity of elections.
Every left/right argument about health insurance reform can be fitted to the "principled/consequentialist" frame. In fact, one of the most frustrating aspects of this very intense and often acrimonious debate is the failure of both sides to make their arguments from a consistent theoretical basis. Instead, both sides shift seamlessly between principled and consequentialist claims creating the sense among less passionate observers of dueling monologues, rather than anything resembling a reasonable dialogue. Passionate advocates on both sides are so focused on the righteousness of their chosen ends that they don't even realize the intellectual inconsistency, irrationality, and even intellectual dishonesty of their intermingled principled and consequentialist claims.
The beauty of the Court's opinion in F.E.C. v. United Citizen was the clarity of the disagreement between the majority and the minority. Each side had crafted a reasonable, intellectually consistent argument for all to see and to judge on the merits. Neither side tried to obscure their approach in order to co opt support from less attentive voters. Politicians and policy activists employ no such philosophical restraint; they take virtually no pains to maintain the intellectual integrity of their arguments. Sadly, politicians who do try to live up to high standards of reason in their rhetoric rarely survive in elective politics for long. The intellectual integrity of the dueling opinions on the High Court is not possible in public policy debate because winning votes and voters is the unavoidable bottom line. Winning is the ONLY thing.
What if we could get the liberals and conservatives in Congress to agree to a structured debate about health insurance reform where theoretical inconsistencies would be highlighted and explored? What if efforts to avoid weak spots in arguments by shifting from principles to practicalities (and vice verse) were called out and disallowed, requiring each side to acknowledge all of the implications of their principled and consequential claims before moving on to greener rhetorical pastures? What if each side were required to make two distinct arguments, principled and practical (if possible) without confusing the two?
I truly cannot say which side would prevail in the court of public opinion if this type of structured, mediated debate were possible, but I can say with some confidence that it would serve to reduce (though obviously not eliminate) the ugliness and irrationality that inevitably accompanies the uncritical and uncompromising contestation of passionately held beliefs.
In the debate over increased government regulation of the health insurance industry Conservatives have a clear principled argument deserving of very serious consideration and even deference. Instead of denying that increased regulation reduces individual freedom from government, we should acknowledge it and then consider whether or not the present issue (i.e.universal health care access) justifies any reduction in our freedom from government, and if so then how much and with what safe guards against regulatory overreaching?
Democrats have a persuasive argument about the negative consequences of an uncompromising adherence to America's creedal principles of limited government and individual freedom. Instead of refusing to consider the practical consequences of literal and unyielding interpretations of these cherished principles for fear of incremental enslavement at the hands of determined ideological insurgents, we should demand clear illustrations of the severity of present conditions and explicit acknowledgements of the potential threats to our freedoms of the proposed reforms.
Incivility and social unrest generated by debates such as these are by-products of a competitive political system that at present produces very few incentives for compromise or even rhetorical moderation. Instead, each side appears to have calculated that the present caricature of a debate between unrealistic dogmatists and unprincipled relativists will play to their electoral advantage in either the short or long run.
As I try, largely in vein, to bring highly emotional folks on both sides back to earth in terms of rhetoric versus reality, I wonder if the present state of our national conversation has past the fail-safe point? Is it possible that the only thing most Americans can see clearly these days is their emotional attachment to political cues and symbols that often have little or no reasonable connection to the political questions at hand? I hope not.