Race, Health Care and Strategic Thinking

Hi,

Sorry to have been “off the air” for a bit — this is a very busy time. Before getting into substance, I know many of you are waiting for the online access to The Predictioneer’s Game software that I promised. This has taken longer than I hoped but it is VERY close to being ready. The conversion to a web version was a bit more complicated than I thought. It should go up this week.

President Carter has raised the spectre of racism as an explanation for the sometimes harsh — maybe even mean-aspirited — opposition to President Obama’s health care proposal and lots of his other policies. I doubt racism is much of a factor but I want to present a way to think about this that reminds us that whether racism is a motivating factor or not is beside the point and adds nothing to the merits or demerits of arguments on either side of the fence. But before doing that, we would do well to remember that President Reagan was called terrible names (fascist, even Nazi) by various and sundry groups. One of the rhetorical questions at Stanford university when there was a serious prospect that Reagan’s library would be located just across from the campus was, “Would we take Hitler’s library?” I always thought the obvious answer should have been, “Yes.” A library is an invaluable educational resource. Having Hitler’s archives would have been a great asset for those trying to understand what twisted reasoning led to the holocaust. And let’s remember that President Bush was routinely described as stupid (although apparently his SAT scores were higher than Al Gore’s) and much worse and Vice President Cheney is still routinely described in the nastiest terms by those who disagree with his views. President Clinton was impeached for his personal failings (and lying to Congress about them) but I suspect most of the opposition was motivated by dislike for his policies especially since some of those who rose up against him were guilty of similar personal failings. President Roosevelt (Franklin) was called a communist. Nothing new in any of this. But I still digress.

Whether arguments against policy are motivated by racism, anti-Illinoisism, anti-anyism really is not that important. What is important is whether the content of the arguments has merit. That is, even despicable motives may still lead to smart arguments — that is the logical foundation for free speech going back to the early emergence of Britain’s parliament. We should worry less about motives — which are hard to establish — and worry more about whether the arguments for and against any policy carry weight in terms of their logic and evidence.

So if motivations are not that important why is it so common to impugn the motives of others? Let’s put on our Game Theory Goggles so we can see through the mist of motives. Attacking motives is a particularly effective strategy, just like accusing a foe of being a child molester (which does matter!).  It costs the impugner very little. Jimmy Carter is unlikely to bear much cost because of his claim that racism is behind opposition to Obama’s policies. But those who oppose the policies now anticipate that they may be tainted with a heinous label, like “racist,” and so may be more likely to self-censor.  Thus, debate quiets down, intensity of preferences becomes muted, and we, the public, lose the opportunity to hear the full range of arguments. That may serve partisan interests but it doesn’t serve We, the People very well. So let’s stop debating whether racism is behind opposition and get back to debating (civilly but forcefully) the merits of alternative health care plans and other policy proposals. Let’s finally start talking logic and evidence — what do we know and how do we know it — about health care reform instead of slinging mud and cherry picking examples to support our personal point of view.

OK, that’s my rant for the day.