TheAgitator.com
A Vote for Bush
Wednesday, October 27th, 2004Slate’s writers, editors, and contributors reveal who they’re voting for. It’s overwhelmingly Kerry. That’s not surprising for a cadre of fairly elitist journalists. But I was most struck by everyday economist extraordinare Steven Landsburg’s explanation for why he’s voting for Bush:
If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I’d have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry.Duke thinks it’s imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it’s imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There’s not a dime’s worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.
Bush’s reckless spending and disregard for the truth had me almost ready to vote for Kerry–until Kerry picked his running mate. When the real David Duke ran against a corrupt felon for governor of Lousiana, the bumper stickers read, “Vote for the crook. It’s important.” Well, I’m voting for the reckless spendthrift. It’s important again.
Best explanation for a Bush vote I’ve read yet.
what explanation? the vp democratic candidate is a schmuck, well heres another reason radley, the presidnental democratic candidate is a schmuck too.
bush may be a schmuck too, but kerry is higher up on the scale.
someone pass be a budweiser and lets go huntin.
Yeah, because bigotry against citizens of another country far outweighs our president supporting a constitutional amendment and a partial-birth abortion ban that both thwart state’s rights.
Yeah, making sure India has equal access to our outsourced job market is more important than the rights and privileges of our OWN citizens.
Brilliant.
Yet another closed-minded person who apparently hasn’t bothered to actually read what David Duke has written. Some of it actually makes sense. His magnum opus, “My Awakening,” displays not hatred for other races but love for his own. And as far as I can ascertain, his writings and speeches call for separation, not for one race to rule over another. As for specific policy and social issues, let’s take forced desegregation and multiculturalism — how’s that working out for America?
Bigotry is wrong. The Dr. is right.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos, Cal
I know that you didn’t write it, Radley, but I find the idea that there’s “not a dime’s worth of moral difference” between Edwards’ and Duke’s beliefs unconvincing. Perhaps if he was motivated by actual xenophobia (which I’ve not seen evidence of) or racism, it’d be a closer match.
What I see is a politician proposing what he thinks would be in the best interest (whether it actually would be is not the issue, here) of his countrymen, which is something that countries are routinely in the business of doing. If we follow Landsburg’s thinking through, we can’t ever do anything that’s in our own interest if it is at the disadvantage of non-citizens…or fail to do something for non-citizens that we wouldn’t do for citizens. Wouldn’t that automatically justify (if not compel) any military action to correct human rights abuses?
Furthermore, wouldn’t this thinking also apply to detainees? This administration denies them many of the rights that we reserve for our own citizens (due process, trial by jury, speedy & public trial, etc). Doesn’t that implicate them, as well, according to Landsburg’s reasoning?
Come on Radley, that might be the dumbest reason I’ve read for voting for Bush! There is a huge difference in being bigoted against your own countrymen who share a history, culture and societal values on the basis of skin color, and discriminating against nations and their citizens whose goals, values and interests may be completely opposed to yours/ours. It’s an apples and oranges argument.
If the argument is supposed to be a strictly economical analogy, it’s a weak one. Duke discriminates against black because he thinks they are inferior. Edwards would discriminate against foreign competition because he thinks it is in the best interest of all Americans, not because he thinks the Chinese are an inferior race. It is his job to look out for our interests. I don’t happen to agree with Edwards, but Landsburg’s statement is just stupid.
I don’t see Radley’s “Best explanation…” remark as anything but sarcastic.
We actually have a new politician in Louisiana running this time on the same free trade issues…and linking it to our rich cultural heritage, as he puts it. Louisiana fisherman working the inland waters of the Gulf now have increased competetion from other state fisherman plus their crawfish crops prices are being threatened by crawfish harvested in China. He is promising to stop the cometetion(how I dont know)to protect the fishermans hertigate and livelyhood..
The main flaw in Landsburg’s theory is that our elected representatives are not elected to work for the good of the Indian people, they’re elected to work for the good of the American people. They aren’t elected to work to ensure profits for American business at the expense of the American people.
Perhaps Landsburg’s argument is that our government should ignore the will of the people in favor of a basically socialist economic policy of wealth transfer from US citizens to the poorer nations.
There is a huge difference in being bigoted against your own countrymen who share a history, culture and societal values on the basis of skin color, and discriminating against nations and their citizens whose goals, values and interests may be completely opposed to yours/ours.
If you’ve ever read the writings of white nationalists and other neo-nazi types (and I have), this is precisely the same argument they make for racial separatism: White America and Black America differ in terms of history, culture and values and thus should be kept apart. It is as repulsive an argument when put forth by racial bigots as it is when put forth by nationalistic bigots.
This is indeed a great reason to oppose a Kerry presidency. The only I point with which I differ with Landsburg is whether this is reason enough to support Bush. It isn’t. So long as third-parties and voter abstinance are available choices, we need not choose the lesser of two evils.
“There is a huge difference in being bigoted against your own countrymen who share a history, culture and societal values on the basis of skin color, and discriminating against nations and their citizens whose goals, values and interests may be completely opposed to yours/ours.”
The goals, values and interests of people in poor countries in this case is that they want to work so that they can feed, clothe and educate their children. How is that different from our goals?
Seems to me that Bush/Cheney are more interested in protecting individual American rights to hire whoever the hell they want to, foreigner or not.
Kerry/Edwards continue to play the class-warfare card (”they don’t want you to have a job and make money” bullshit). They know that emotions of the “poor and underprivileged” (my ass) can take them a long way.
And as far as being bigoted or discriminating against other countries… damned if you do (care) and damned if you don’t thanks to the Liberal Way.
Why do so many people seem to have no understanding of simple national pride and loyalty? Why are these things so easy to understand in other scenarios, but not when it comes to our nationality?
I side with Americans first for no other reason than they are AMERICANS! If someone has to go without food, it should not be the Americans. If someone has to go without medicine it should not be the Americans. If someone has to go without a job it should not be Americans, and if someone has to die, it should not be the Americans. At least, not first.
And that is what I expect from my government and my military. I expect them to look out for America’s interests first. Period. Peace in the world would be nice, and I am all for it. But peace here is more important. Why? Because it is the team I am on.
No one questions the motives of France for putting French interests above the worlds. In fact, we are the only country on the freaking planet that is somehow wrong because we do not make it policy to put our own interests last behind the rest of the world.
And I don’t care if their “goals” are the same as ours. Of course they are. And we contribute more than any other country to help them. I would venture to say that through charities, churches, Habitat for Humanity and other such programs, our private sector gives more than any other country’s government to help the poor in underdeveloped nations. And that does not even address how much our government gives.
Similar goals is irrelevant. The Cardinals and the Red Sox have the same goals. That does not mean that Pedro Martinez is obligated to help or even root for the Cardinals. Is he pulling for the Red Sox because they are morally superior? A better class of ballclub? No. He is pulling for them because he is one of them, and has a stake in their success.
The same reasons I pull for the Americans.
So, wait, when Bush imposed those punitive steel tariffs, was that motivated by xenophobic hatred against the citizens of steel-exporting countries? By Landsburg’s logic, such as it is, changing the name of “French Fries” in the Senate and House Cafeteria to “Freedom Fries” was nothing short of calling for the genocide of the Gaullic Race.
I have read some dumb justifications for voting against Kerry, but this has to be the most mind-numbing. I can only assume Radley was being sarcastic.
Actually, maybe I am being too harsh. After all, it is rather unbecoming of a potential US Vice-President to prefer that full employment and economic stability accrue to US citizens, before others. What a dumb racist.
(BTW—did I actually read a post above that held up David Duke’s belief that the races should be “separated” as somehow reflecting positively on Duke? What the hell is happening to your site, Radley!?)
I was about to make the same argument that Chris makes. But then I saw his post. Best thing I’ve seen on any blog.
Chris - Agreed for the most part. The only part I would change is - I as an individual am not obliged to root for Americans more than members of another country. If I want to send my charity to Africa before helping someone here - that is my prerogative and is very morally defensible.
That said, the government is obliged to help Americans first (and arguably only). It represents Americans and has a duty to those it represents.
However - and this is a big however - sometimes, such as in the case of free trade, it benefits “Americans” more to do something that also benefits members of other countries even while it hurts some Americans at the same time. (i.e. outsourcing jobs for cheaper products and streamlining our markets)
The question of what “benefits Americans” is very debatable, but that should be the confines of the public policy debate.
Is Protectionism Immoral?
Like many, probably most economists, I generally do not support protectionist measures. But I don’t share economist Steven Landsburg’s take
People like Micha Ghertner and Steve Landsburg seek to deny the reality that ethnicity binds people together in deep-seated ways.
It’s perfectly natural — and universal — to have altruistic, positive feelings towards those of your own ethnic group. It’s not “racist”, so long as you’re not promoting actually doing harm to another group. If you’re just looking out for those with whom you share a common ethnicity, then again, it’s natural, healthy, and universally felt.
It’s called evolutionary biology, Micha and Steve, and it’s very, very strongly embedded in humans, whether you like it or not. You seek to pathologize a totally normal, natural, and healthy feeling in humans.
The desire to rape and kill is strongly embedded in humans. Is that an argument for raping and killing?
And I don’t know where you people get the idea that the purpose of the U.S. government is to promote the “good” of the American people, let individual rights and the rest of the world be damned. This is an especially ridiculous argument coming from conservatives, who rightly object when modern liberals grossly misinterpret the General Welfare clause of the Constituion.
Who was it who once said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none”? Ah, fuck it, it was probably just some leftist wacko who didn’t put enough emphasis on “racial and ethnic pride.”
Why anyone would be proud of something they were born with and have absolutely no control over is beyond me.
I don’t think evolutionary biology respects national borders, loony tunes. Nice try, but I don’t think I have a “Team America” gene.
All those adopting the “protectionism is OK because AMERICANS should come FIRST!” rhetoric should be aware the protectionism doesn’t help us, it hurts us. Barriers to trade benefit domestic producers at the expense of domestic consumers. Anyone truly wishing to “side with America” should fiercely oppose protectionism.
my prediction: civil war in the US within 10 years……
I don’t think that Loony Toons was literally saying that we have evolved with respect to national borders, but that our desire to group with ethnically or culturally similar people is deeply ingrained. Most people, for instance, marry within their own ethnic or cultural group. I think that this effect is mostly benign, as long as it’s not taken to a place where “other groups are bad,” as is the case with racism. This generally benign nature sets it apart from such impluses as rape and murder.
I don’t think we’re talking so much about national pride as we are about geographic alliance. I don’t think it’s improper that I might rather see those close to me prosper more than those farther away, especially since much economic activity is constrained by proximity. Is it morally bankrupt to provide aid to a domestic disaster relief program (hurricanes, just to pull an example) if there are more dire disaster relief needs abroad?
Noah, I don’t think that many here are disagreeing with the idea that protectionism is bad…we’re just saying that one can advocate protectionism with good intentions for the American people, and without being xenophobic.
Ms. Dani, I’m not sure I understand your comment about damned if you do/damned if you don’t. I guess I’m not seeing a lot of damned if you do. Surely, this talk of protectionism doesn’t have involve caring for the people of other nations, but with maximum economic advantage.
Errr, I think evolutionary biology *does* respect national boundaries. I think it’s a classic case of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’. It’s the same reason people enjoy their home team win in sporting events. Even if you disagree, it certainly doesn’t make those who do ‘loony’.
Is it morally bankrupt to provide aid to a domestic disaster relief program (hurricanes, just to pull an example) if there are more dire disaster relief needs abroad?
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is morally bankrupt, but it is definitely arbitrary and inconsistent. I can understand preferring the interests of oneself, one’s family, one’s group of friends and acquaintances, and one’s community relative to a total stranger living elsewhere. But when we get to much larger groups like states, let alone the U.S. in its entirety, I see no rational reason to give preference to someone simply because they live in the same country you do.
Whether or not evolutionary psychology actually shows that this is deeply ingrained in us, to say that we should act in accordance with this desire would violate the naturalist fallacy. We have instinctual urges to do all sorts of things that aren’t in our interests to do given the present level of human advancement: have sex with as many people as possible, kill those who threaten or compete with us, eat lots of sugar and fat, etc.
That’s what I’m saying, if you really have “good intentions” for America, you can’t advocate protectionism. We figured out over two centuries ago that trade is beneficial. Anyone who fails (or worse, refuses) to recognize that today can’t simply claim ignorance. I think the fundamental motivation for protectionism in this day and age is a malicious mistrust of foreigners, just as Mr. Landburg suggested.
Being a competitive shooter, I hang out with a lot of Republicans (*sigh*). Whenever anyone mentions foreign trade or imported goods, the change in their demeanor is palpable. To them, imported goods are quite literally evil.
Economics and Morality
I read Steve Landsburg’s reasons for voting for Bush a few nights ago. He is one of only five Slate staff members surveyed that is casting his ballot for the incumbent this coming Tuesday. In his statement he certainly didn’t…
Micha writes:
“I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is morally bankrupt, but it is definitely arbitrary and inconsistent. I can understand preferring the interests of oneself, one’s family, one’s group of friends and acquaintances, and one’s community relative to a total stranger living elsewhere. But when we get to much larger groups like states, let alone the U.S. in its entirety, I see no rational reason to give preference to someone simply because they live in the same country you do.”
Ethnic feelings of altruism go far beyond one’s immediate family. Humans share a significant percent of our genes (around 10% in most cases) with those in our own ethnic group, which is about the same amount as a person shares with, say, a great-grandson.
If you can understand why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own immediate family (biological) and one’s own friends and community (shared values and experiences), then I do not understand why you can’t make the leap to seeing why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own countrymen (biological and shared values and experiences — less so than with an immediate family member or friend, but still significant, and certainly not “arbitrary,” as you put it) over people from a far-off land.
Ethnic feelings of altruism go far beyond one’s immediate family. Humans share a significant percent of our genes (around 10% in most cases) with those in our own ethnic group, which is about the same amount as a person shares with, say, a great-grandson.
Blacks and whites share more in common between groups than within groups. That is, there are more intragroup differences than intergroup differences.
Regardless, it seems to me that your argument, as you seem to admit, if not explicitly, is identical to the arguments made by white nationalists and other racial separatists. Landsburg’s point stands.
If you can understand why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own immediate family (biological)
Race is not discrete biological category.
I do not understand why you can’t make the leap to seeing why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own countrymen (biological and shared values and experiences — less so than with an immediate family member or friend, but still significant, and certainly not “arbitrary,” as you put it) over people from a far-off land.
Mexico and Canada are not “far-off lands.” Further, just because we can understand why some people divide the world into “Us” and “Them” does not mean these categories are justified. They remain morally arbitrary.
Micha writes:
“Blacks and whites share more in common between groups than within groups. That is, there are more intragroup differences than intergroup differences.”
Well, that’s like saying a human and a squirrel each have two eyes, two ears, and a mouth, so they must be the same. Surely the things that make humans similar greatly outweigh the things that make us different. But it doesn’t mean it’s irrational for a human to notice and value those differences.
Micha writes:
“Regardless, it seems to me that your argument, as you seem to admit, if not explicitly, is identical to the arguments made by white nationalists and other racial separatists. Landsburg’s point stands.”
You young people! Think you can just say the word “racism” and the argument ends in your favor. My argument is not made only by “white nationalists” — Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks and everyone else in the world feels altruistic towards members of their own group in ways they do not towards members of other groups. Why do you single out “white nationalists” for pathologization of their natural human feelings of kinship, when such kinship is held to be normal and natural for every other group in the world?
Micha writes:
“Mexico and Canada are not “far-off lands.” Further, just because we can understand why some people divide the world into “Us” and “Them” does not mean these categories are justified. They remain morally arbitrary.”
Well, fine, then take Vietnam and Sri Lanka. That’s just a semantic quibble.
I’m not a huge fan of dividing the world between “usses” and “thems”, but again, I don’t see the logic behind you calling them “morally arbitrary”. As I’ve explained, there are solid reasons, both biological and cultural, why A Sri Lankan, if he has a choice, will keep 100 jobs in Sri Lanka, and why an American, if he has a choice, will keep those 100 jobs in America.
Well, that’s like saying a human and a squirrel each have two eyes, two ears, and a mouth, so they must be the same. Surely the things that make humans similar greatly outweigh the things that make us different. But it doesn’t mean it’s irrational for a human to notice and value those differences.
No, it isn’t like that at all. Humans share more in common with each other than they do with squirrels. But blacks and whites do not share more in common with members of their own groups than they do with each other.
You young people! Think you can just say the word “racism” and the argument ends in your favor. My argument is not made only by “white nationalists” — Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks and everyone else in the world feels altruistic towards members of their own group in ways they do not towards members of other groups. Why do you single out “white nationalists” for pathologization of their natural human feelings of kinship, when such kinship is held to be normal and natural for every other group in the world?
Insofar as Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks implement policies which prefer members of their own ethnic group to other ethnic groups, they are wrong. But I’m not arguing with these people; I’m arguing with you.
I’m not a huge fan of dividing the world between “usses” and “thems”, but again, I don’t see the logic behind you calling them “morally arbitrary”. As I’ve explained, there are solid reasons, both biological and cultural, why A Sri Lankan, if he has a choice, will keep 100 jobs in Sri Lanka, and why an American, if he has a choice, will keep those 100 jobs in America.
These are not moral explanations. They explain our behavior, but they do not justify it.
Micha writes:
“Insofar as Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks implement policies which prefer members of their own ethnic group to other ethnic groups, they are wrong.”
Interesting — so you would deny the right of, say, South Koreans, to keep non-Koreans from emigrating to Seoul? You deny the right of Turks to implement governmental policies designed to keep jobs in Turkey? You seem to be denying the very right of the ethnically-based nation state to exist. Is that correct?
Ethnic bonds have the potential to be destructive. In the past they have led to violence and oppression of other groups. But when they are only positive, I do not see your objection to them, since most people around the world see identity and culture as a vital part of their essence as a human being. As long as it does not turn destrcutive, which it doesn’t have to, why is this bad? Should an Italian not take pride in his country’s history, culture, language, etc.? An Iranian? A Japanese? Destruction of every culture in the world — which is where your point of view leads eventually — seems a high price to pay.
Interesting — so you would deny the right of, say, South Koreans, to keep non-Koreans from emigrating to Seoul? You deny the right of Turks to implement governmental policies designed to keep jobs in Turkey? You seem to be denying the very right of the ethnically-based nation state to exist. Is that correct?
Yes.
As long as it does not turn destrcutive, which it doesn’t have to, why is this bad?
Show me a government policy which gives preference to one ethnic group over another and I will show you a policy which is destructive and bad. You cannot have a state which claims to recognize that “all men are created equal,” and then proceed to treat men unequally.
Should an Italian not take pride in his country’s history, culture, language, etc.?
There is a difference between taking pride in one’s culture and excluding people who do not share the same culture. Further, I think it’s kind of silly to take pride in something you have absolutely no control over.
Destruction of every culture in the world — which is where your point of view leads eventually — seems a high price to pay.
Lack of state-enforced preferences does not “destroy” culture.
Micha writes:
“Lack of state-enforced preferences does not “destroy” culture.”
It certainly does. Let’s say that Iceland, for example, was suddenly forced to abandon its zero-immigration policy. The island, which has a thousand-year-old culture and is ethnically homogenous, suddenly finds it population (275,000) swamped by a half-million immigrants from developing nations. Iceland would cease to be Iceland, and its culture –one of tolerance, prosperity, shared history and yes, ethnicity — would be destroyed.
The obvious solution? Iceland should not allow immigration, as it does not. In other words, Iceland needs to have a government policy that favors its ethnic groups — Icelanders — over all others, and places value on Icelandic culture and ethnicity.
Those nations that have experimented with mass immigration from the third world — like Holland, as we hear in the news this week — would not find your arguments convincing.
You may find it interesting to check out some helpful info in the field of bonus - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!