Responding to my criticism of Paul Krugman for using arguments that focus on the alleged motives of one's opponents, Brad DeLong cites an instance in which he says that Lawrence Lindsey (a former economic adviser to President Bush) made a case for steel tariffs as an alternative to "unilateral disarmament" on trade issues. As Brad points out, this argument is a crock.
It is such an obvious crock that Brad finds it incredible that Lindsey actually believes it. Brad writes,
So what is the right response? Is it to stick to making only "C" arguments, and to pretend to take Larry seriously as he momentarily throws off all his analytical commitments and beliefs and channels the mercantilist arguments of early Ira Magaziner? Or is the right response to make the "C" arguments, but also make the "M" argument that Larry is being a sock puppet for Karl Rove because he wants to keep his White House mess privileges?
I think that the right response is to make the "C" arguments. I would explain, for anyone who needs to be taught, why Larry's argument is a crock.
I would not make the "M" argument. I do not care whether Larry knew his argument was a crock or not. Either way, he is not to be trusted in the future. If he makes a statement that is not obviously right or wrong, I will not give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just as I believe that there is a strong case for making unilateral reductions in trade barriers, I believe that there is a strong case for making unilateral reductions in angry rhetoric and attacks on motives. Like tariffs, expressions of anger and suspicion may inflict some damage on the targets of one's rhetoric, but perhaps even more damage on oneself.
I agree that declaring you divine an opponent's motives is specious, but there are times when honesty demands revealing facts that make those motives suspect. For insance, clear conflicts of interest do exist and should be noted. In a debate, when a person makes fallacious statements to support their own self interest, merely debunking the fallacies may devolve into a "he said she said". The fact that Lindsey made a fallacious argument in support of his and his boss's political interests seems as relevent as the actuality of the fallacy.
Posted by Steve on October 10, 2003 10:29 PM | Permalink to Comment
The consequences of a particular idea must indeed be our foremost consideration. But can we entirely exclude the motivational factors which might incline someone to a particular conclusion? Arnold Kling seemingly pushes his argument a bit too far. Human beings are sinful creatures and incapable of perfect objectivity. The latter is unfortunately only a goal. The at least metaphorical reality of Original Sin is an inescapable reality. Still, Kling is far more right than wrong. We should deal with motives only after truly understanding someone’s position. I am therefore glad that he has reminded us of our intellectual duty to be fair minded and to give others, as much as possible, the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by David Thomson on October 10, 2003 06:37 PM | Permalink to Comment