The story of liberty

Atlantic intern Conor Friedersdorf has a terrific piece up on Doublethink on the problem of conservative journalism:

Escaping this ghetto requires understanding why the media slants left. Contra the least-thoughtful conservative critics, there isn’t any elite liberal conspiracy at work. Bias creeps in largely because the narrative conventions of journalism are poor at capturing basic conservative and libertarian truths. An instructive example is rent control. A newspaper reporter assigned that topic can easily find a sympathetic family no longer able to afford its longtime apartment in a gentrifying neighborhood. Their plight is a moving brief for a rent ceiling.

As almost everyone long ago conceded, however, opponents of rent control offer superior counterarguments. Limiting rent degrades the quality of a city’s housing stock, causes shortages as a dearth of new units are built, and spurs a black market where well-connected elites game their way into subsidized flats. A talented reporter, given enough time and space, could craft a narrative that illustrates how rent control ultimately makes poor families worse off. His job is relatively difficult, however, for he can hardly write a pithy anecdotal lead about the hundred families that won’t occupy a non-existent apartment building because a foolish policy eliminated an unknown developer’s incentive to build it.

The right, in other words, has a problem with narrative. The stubborn facts of this world contradict pieties left, right, and libertarian, occassionally forcing each group to revise its thinking. But the core critiques of liberalism intrinsically resist the narrative form. Who can foresee the unintended consequences of government intervention in advance? Who can pinpoint the particular threats to liberty posed by an ever-growing public sector?

He goes on to mourn the lack of dedicated conservative and libertarian journalists specializing in narration. There is some, of course . . . but then I remember that one of my favorite such pieces was written by Michael Lynch, who has now left journalism. I'm keeping my eye on Conor, however.

Comments

The rent control analogy really gets at the heart of why I find it is so difficult to explain neo-liberal/libertarian thinking to people like progressives who see themselves as highly empathetic. You can explain that, for example, lowering tariffs on such-and-such commodity might cost 10,000 American workers their jobs but would also improve every American’s lot by 1 percent as well as improve the lot of workers overseas by 10 percent. Mathematically, the vast majority is far better off. There’s no debate. But empathetically, the question is, "But what about those 10,000? They're worse off. It’s best to just leave the tariffs as they are."

I call this "thinking in terms of exceptions"--if a small minority could be temporarily hurt by an action, even if it greatly helps the majority, it's tough, sometimes too tough, for them to swallow.

Posted by Luke G. | May 19, 2008 5:34 PM

Interesting, but an argument that journalism skews liberal because the examples of conservative/libertarian policy successes can't be found would, to my mind, lead to a completely different conclusion that that above. (See if you can imagine what conclusion I'd draw.)

And, secondly, the entire argument is predicated on a model of journalism where facts and research are used to craft narrative, but there's precious little evidence that any journalists are actually doing that. The model of simply assuming what's true - i.e. that the "common man" loves bowling and never eats arugula - and drawing conclusions from it seems much more common.

Posted by Chet | May 19, 2008 5:35 PM

Often overlooked is that journalists spend a lot of time covering government and interviewing government employees and officials. It's hard to avoid becoming sympathetic to their concerns, and their concerns usually involve more tax dollars.

Posted by David Crisp | May 19, 2008 5:39 PM

The focus of progressivism is often concentrated benefits incurring diffuse or hidden losses. That's not really a recommendation for it.

Posted by Megan McArdle | May 19, 2008 6:01 PM

Reason actually has a great deal of wonderful narrative writing. I think Conor's objection is that that material is ghettoized. The question is whether that stuff would get printed in The New Yorker or The Atlantic or the New York Times.

Posted by Kevin B. O'Reilly | May 19, 2008 6:05 PM

I call this "thinking in terms of exceptions"--if a small minority could be temporarily hurt by an action, even if it greatly helps the majority, it's tough, sometimes too tough, for them to swallow.

Or vice-versa. I remember when I and a sister were chatting with an Oregonian about how the no-self-service gas law came to be, and the Oregonian was commenting how much she and many of her friends dislike the policy. My sister's query was, "If people don't like it, how did they ever get it passed?" The friend explained, "It was sold as a job-creation measure."

My sister's response: "Oh, well I guess that's a good idea."

That, in a nutshell, is how easy it is to sell feel-good social programs to persons who do not recognize by instinct that when you cannot force into existence a job that the free market generally does not bear without creating a corresponding efficiency, and then go looking to see what that might be and whether the tradeoffs are worthwhile. Fortunately, the friend neatly defanged that one with "Not really, the pump jobs are all minimum wage positions with no benefits, bad hours, and high turnover", which mitigated the need for a three hour remedial session of Econ 101.

Moral: feelings can be sold with minimal effort.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | May 19, 2008 6:12 PM

This doesn't make sense to me. For one, I think the implication that liberal policies are supported by emotions alone is a stawman.

Second, everyone selling a policy tries their best to reduce the argument down to a (to borrow a term from a currently fashionable set of management gurus) "sticky story". Remember Bush's tax families? Or the Iraqi women in abayas showing their purple fingers?

Finally, and most importantly, conservative ideology (As practiced by the Republican party - the largest, best funded and most organized group of persons pushing for rightward political ideas) have pretty much stopped having a coherent economic policy, beyond providing unfunded tax breaks and expanding medical benefits to seniors. If Reason's editors were the Republican Party's economic madarins, I'm sure those ideas would be better deployed within the mainstream media. And believe me - nothing would make me happier than if the NY Times had a smart libertarian economist to have a column on the same day as Paul Krugman rather than that dishonest neocon hack, W Kristol.

Posted by szr | May 19, 2008 6:29 PM

Yes, there is a problem with journalists and the convention. There is also a problem with there being no spokesperson/group for limited government.

I am a reporter for one of the 20 largest (last time I checked) papers in the country. In this largely Democratic county there are routinely issues where I question whether the governmenet noddy - state, city, county, school district, township - should even be involved.

Convention dictates that I not raise those issues on my own. I can ask pointed questions. I can try to find others making arguments against a program. But I can't take on an issue in a daily story unless someone else will raise it for me. In the daily scramble, my hands are tied.

My advice is for libertarian-leaning folks to start regional limited government groups and start issuing non-confrontational press releases that gently question actions where the government is inefficient or oversteps its bounds. And the return any phone calls from reporters.

Make yourself a well-reasoned source and you'll get quoted in opposition to lots of stuff.

It's the most concrete and tangible way I know of that will work to refocus debates.

Posted by Patrick | May 19, 2008 6:36 PM

Luke G., the economic term for what you're talking about it "pareto-equality," which is a fancy way of saying no changes can be made unless the changes leave everyone equally well off or better. Trouble is, when you're trying to end a destructive subsidy, this idea really ties your hands.

Posted by Diana | May 19, 2008 6:48 PM

Radley Balko is great at using narratives. Then again, for me he's sort of preaching to the choir, so I don't know how effective his method of journalism is at communicating to non-libertarians.

I think John Stossel is also very good at constructing narratives to tell the whole story. Then again, though, I'm not an un-biased viewer.

Posted by Christopher Monnier | May 19, 2008 7:04 PM

This doesn't make sense to me. For one, I think the implication that liberal policies are supported by emotions alone is a stawman.

IMO that's not the real argument, rather that progressivist social policies tend to have an emotional element at the front, which makes for a very shallow and easily peddled "sticky story" that propagates quickly, well before the merits of the position are ever investigated. Consequently, the merits of the position often are not investigated as thoroughly as they should be.

This may be personal positional bias, but I've lost count of the number of times I've run into a debate for some or another progressive policy that ultimately took the two-stage form of:

1. I like position 'x' because it is designed to help people, and that makes me feel good;
2. You oppose position 'x'? That makes me feel bad, and obviously you hate people and are evil!

...and everything derails thereafter. Now, there may be good reasons to support 'x', and a person who has actually looked deeper into the trade-offs might raise a spirited and compelling defense. But if 'x' naturally pulls at people's feelings and 'y' seems harsh or unyielding, it takes a lot more research and effort to sell people on 'y' than does 'x'.

As such, the emotional feel-good position, provided it isn't laced with truly glaring amounts of stupidity, can readily become a status quo for the average person who has other things occupying their time and interests. And that can include a journalist if s/he is not a subject matter expert for a given topic, or has spent a good deal of time witnessing human tragedy and would like to see it easily mitigated.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | May 19, 2008 7:16 PM

AMFAS: your argument is a more reasonable version of Friedersdorf's - but it isn't exactly his.

Conor says: "the core critiques of liberalism intrinsically resist the narrative form." as if lefties had the market cornered on emotion. They don't. They may get empathy on their side more often than not (but the media also does stories with emotional punch that, e.g., show white kids who are relegated to their second choice college because of affirmative action.), but it certainly doesn't apply to other kinds of emotions, like fear. In the case of fear, the narrative form strongly favors the side that reduces, say Iraqi insurgents as mini bin Ladens waiting to infiltrate our country and cause new 9/11s.

And perhaps most importantly, Conor uses his analysis presupposing a conclusion - that the media has a liberal bias. I've noticed they have an establishment bias. A bias for horserace political analysis over substantive policy debate. A bias for economics reporters who don't have a clue about what they're writing about, and who seem to show no interest in learning about it. A bias for "he said, she said" stories. On some issues, the narrative is easier to write in a way helpful to the left. In other issues, the narrative is easier to write toward the right. I don't see political bias as much as intellectual laziness.

Posted by szr | May 19, 2008 9:00 PM

Chuckle. First of all, anyone who's still promulgating the myth of the 'liberal media' is either being deliberately disingenuous in their metric, or have drunk waaaaay too much kool-aid; a 'liberal media' would have obliterated McCain ages ago, for example. But this is the more interesting comment:

You can explain that, for example, lowering tariffs on such-and-such commodity might cost 10,000 American workers their jobs but would also improve every American’s lot by 1 percent as well as improve the lot of workers overseas by 10 percent. Mathematically, the vast majority is far better off. There’s no debate. But empathetically, the question is, "But what about those 10,000? They're worse off. It’s best to just leave the tariffs as they are."

I'm sure most people here are familiar with LeGuin's short, 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas', where a utopia (small 'u') is only possible because all misery is inflicted on a small child. More abstractly, everyone has small itches, eyelashes that fall onto their eyes, etc. So wouldn't it be better overall no one suffered from these tiny annoyances, even if it meant that one person was ingeniously tortured for years?

It's hard to deny the rationality of this if one is a strict utilitarian, and yet, it seems at odds with everyday life. Now, I don't know where the situation falls on the scales in the 'one percent mildly better off at the expense of 10,000', but surely the situation is not as cut and dried as all that.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 19, 2008 9:59 PM

It would be better to find out the facts and draw conclusions from them, rather than craft a narrative based on conservative ideas. If your facts and conclusions are sound, you'll convince people without the emotion-based "narrative."

We can all find indicisive and changeable people, and/or people who ignore facts for emotion. A serious reporter won't act like one of them.

Posted by Susan of Texas | May 19, 2008 10:10 PM

Yes ScentofViolets, economic analysis is utilitarian by nature. Are there problems with this? Yes. But the nice thing about markets is that overt violence is not part of it.

Your Balko example presupposes that the victims have no power or choice, but the "victims" of globalization or tariffs have the ability or choice to make things better for themselves. It's part of the creative destruction that you hear so much about.

Posted by stanfo | May 19, 2008 10:11 PM

WHOOOOSH!

So then, in your book, it's a net gain to have one person tortured if it eliminates the minor discomforts of 5 billion people?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 19, 2008 10:19 PM

So then, in your book, it's a net gain to have one person tortured if it eliminates the minor discomforts of 5 billion people?

Depends if that one person is one of the left-wing trolls around here.

Posted by David Nieporent | May 19, 2008 11:35 PM

This argument is easy to make in the opposite direction. The reason why journalism skews conservative is that the potential benefits of government-led reforms which change the entire shape of the market and benefit society as a whole are difficult to conceptualize and diffuse, with no specific beneficiaries under the current system (e.g. carbon taxes, "smart growth" land-use policies, promoting healthy diets, environmentalism as a whole). The benefits and beneficiaries of conservative initiatives -- cut taxes, get rid of this business regulation -- are specific and clear.

In fact both arguments are nonsense. It's just harder to argue for new proposals that benefit society as a whole than for the current system or for proposals with clear and specific beneficiaries.

Conservatives and free marketeers cherish the belief that the argument that government intervention actually blocks out all kinds of wonderful things which would have happened if the market had been allowed to work its magic is incredibly sophisticated, and that it's not embraced by the masses because it's too hard for them to understand and because the masses have trouble conceptualizing abstract principles and unintended consequences. But this is simply not true. In fact this argument is embraced by the masses precisely because it is simplistic and easy to conceptualize. "The minimum wage actually hurts the poor," "Guaranteed national health care means rationing," "Feminism is sexism/is bad for women," "Affirmative action is racism/is bad for blacks" -- this "white is black" rhetorical trick is one of the most widely accepted habits of the American mind. On the more general point that government initiatives to fix a problem make the problem worse, liberal journalists internalize this idea before they graduate high school; it's part of the bedrock ideological armature of anyone who has grown up in the US since the 1950s. But what happens afterwards is that they spend many years encountering a whole series of different situations in which the role of government is crucial and inextricable from the economy and society -- i.e. they experience real life, which is complicated and messy and in which airy abstractions about deregulation do not get one very far, and where, as Megan acknowledged in an earlier post, when you simply remove the government, what you get is not a plenteous free market; it is more often a war zone, or a really bad market.

Posted by brooksfoe | May 20, 2008 12:16 AM

The "liberal media" myth is one of the hoariest (and silliest) conservative chestnuts out there. It belongs on the same shelf as "Obama is a secret Muslim" and "Democrats all WANT the terrorists to win."
Fox is essentially part of the Republican ministry of propaganda. Ditto for most talk radio. Most other outlets aim for some balance, but are easily led around by the nose. So, in the run up to the Iraq war the New York Times channeled administration propaganda without question, and occasionally raised a question in the back pages. I could go on and on - anyone talking about the "liberal media" must be doing it with almost no actual knowledge of what is actually printed and broadcast.

If Friedersdorf had simply observed that any policy case requiring a basic level of literacy in economics, or science, or history is hard to make in the mass media, no one could object. To cast this as a left/right phenomenon, and to try to build this into a "liberal media" myth is just plain foolish. Everyone's entitled to a few foolish ideas when they're young, though, so here's hoping he continues to develop.

Posted by peter | May 20, 2008 12:33 AM

brooksfoe - But what happens afterwards is that they spend many years encountering a whole series of different situations in which the role of government is crucial and inextricable from the economy and society -- i.e. they experience real life,

I'm not sure the data fits that hypothesis.
People in America tend to become more conservative as they get older. And businessmen, who arguably have to add value to society rather than just describe it, tend to be more conservative. Professors and teachers, on the other hand, tend to be more Progressive Liberal.

I'll agree, of course, that people come to depend on government services which makes sudden changes catastrophic. Surprises of any type create risk. Even if we believe a gov't program is less efficient than a free market solution, it can still take years for an actual free market solution to be created, and in the meantime the gov't program is better than nothing at all.

The benefits and beneficiaries of conservative initiatives -- cut taxes, get rid of this business regulation -- are specific and clear.

Progressive Liberalism tends to be about favoring the weak against the strong.

Conservativism (and Classic Liberalism) tends to be about religiously or ethically derived standards of justice.

It is harder to demonstrate the benefits of the second in narrative form.

Posted by Ryan W. | May 20, 2008 12:58 AM

If your facts and conclusions are sound, you'll convince people without the emotion-based "narrative."

Wrong. Proof: religion.

Posted by Ditko Hands | May 20, 2008 1:05 AM

Ditko Hands - Wrong. Proof: religion.

Atheists and Religious folks both rely on facts as well as narrative. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Some more selectively than others.

Though personally I agree this far; there's no point in eliminating emotion based narrative entirely. It's a crucial supplement. But somehow I doubt that that's all you meant.

Posted by Ryan W. | May 20, 2008 1:14 AM

It is harder to demonstrate the benefits of the second in narrative form.

Huh? What? Are you sure you meant the second? Because it seems pretty obvious to me that religious scriptures, like the Bible, are the apparently-successful attempt to communicate the benefits of those standards of justice in narrative form.

Posted by Chet | May 20, 2008 1:17 AM

People in America tend to become more conservative as they get older.

This is not "data". And you need to disaggregate what you mean by "conservative". Support for Medicare and Social Security gets stronger as people get older, for obvious reasons. And those are exactly the kinds of liberal programs Friedendorfer is talking about -- targeted entitlements. Liberal programs like a carbon tax don't fit his model at all.

Posted by brooksfoe | May 20, 2008 1:19 AM

I mean Friedersdorf. Duh.

Posted by brookselfoborfer | May 20, 2008 1:29 AM

Chet - Huh? What? Are you sure you meant the second? Because it seems pretty obvious to me that religious scriptures, like the Bible, are the apparently-successful attempt to communicate the benefits of those standards of justice in narrative form.

I essentially agree with you. I just don't think that telling people "do this and you will go to heaven" is a very direct way of explaining the material benefits of religion to people.

Posted by Ryan W. | May 20, 2008 1:33 AM

And you need to disaggregate what you mean by "conservative".

Good point. It's not safe to deal with generalities. To use more specific terms I'm referring those who prefer free market solutions and smaller government. Economic conservatives.

Of course, you're right that a rigorous response, going issue by issue and demographic by demographic would take more research than I have time for. Forgive me if I let it be.

Posted by Ryan W. | May 20, 2008 1:52 AM

Atheists and Religious folks both rely on facts as well as narrative. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I was going where Chet went. I suppose there is some idea of a fact involved in believing Jesus rose from the dead, but its convincing power comes from the story surrounding it. I see you already agreed to this basic idea, but I don't understand how you can hold both at the same time, so whatev.

Progressive Liberalism tends to be about favoring the weak against the strong.

I think you're missing something here. Conservatism also plays with the same narrative as what you attribute to liberalism, only inverted: to the right, outsiders are subverting the inherent strength of tradition.

Conservativism (and Classic Liberalism) tends to be about religiously or ethically derived standards of justice.
It is harder to demonstrate the benefits of the second in narrative form.

Harder, OK. But the foundational Western text about justice ("ethically derived" I suppose, if you mean based in reason) is a narrative about Socrates. I guess if your point is that few can pull it off as well as Plato, I'll go along. Nietzsche did it too.

Posted by Ditko Hands | May 20, 2008 2:47 AM

Ditko Hands -

Okay, I think we're basically in agreement.

To be clear, just because I believe that it's harder to present a conservative narrative doesn't mean that I think religious folks must fail at it. Part of the paradigm is that it sees itself as succeeding against the odds because it is more in alignment with God/Truth/Nature/a non-self destructive means of social organization and benefits from that alignment.

I don't understand how you can hold both at the same time.

I don't believe that all people choose their beliefs for the same reasons. I think the proportions would be interesting, but I'm not sure of them.

I think you're missing something here. Conservatism also plays with the same narrative as what you attribute to liberalism, only inverted: to the right, outsiders are subverting the inherent strength of tradition.

I agree that conservativism uses that narrative extensively, but is it really outside of what I've described? This seems like just another case of people believing in a standard (right or wrong, regardless of the relative power of the two parties) and opposing those who violate or undermine that standard.

But the foundational Western text about justice ("ethically derived" I suppose, if you mean based in reason) is a narrative about Socrates. I guess if your point is that few can pull it off as well as Plato, I'll go along. Nietzsche did it too.

The Greek philosophers were pretty exceptional in that regard, I agree.

Did Nietzsche really successfully argue for any ethical standard? Intentions aside, his Ubermensch seems to have moved people in the opposite direction.

Because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

Posted by Ryan W. | May 20, 2008 9:31 AM

Yes, when Atlas Shrugged is the best known literary story of your ideology, it kind of shows how hard it is for you to tell good narratives.

Okay, obligatory Rand joke out of the way, I'll agree with Christopher that Radley Balko does a good job with narratives, but he's usually arguing the liberal side of libertarianism - the "police have too much power over citizens" side, rather than the economic stuff.

SoV,

Your LeGuin story is a good example that reinforces Conor's point - the idea of one person being tortured is far more compelling than the idea of many people being irritated. But it doesn't inherently refute all utilitarian/libertarian ideals.

For the reverse story, would you say it's okay to take $100 from each American to spare one person from being tortured all their life? Sure, sounds good, by our previously established attitude towards the LeGuin story. Now say we have to repeat this choice, 1,000 times. 1,000 people being tortured (say, in Africa) each one can be saved by taking $100 from each American. Sound like less of a good idea now? Sure, 1,000 people saved from torture, but now Bill Gates and co are the only Americans left who aren't homeless and starving.

Both extremes can be told and are both bad. I'll admit I'd probably hate living in a world that was the extreme manifestation of all libertarian ideals taken to their furthest possible conclusion. And I'd also hate the opposite extreme. Happiness lies somewhere in the middle, balancing the two ideals against each other to find the best practical implementation. But the narrative issue mentioned here biases the balancing process toward one side, which is a legitimate problem. That problem is not solved by pointing out that the extreme on the other side is bad.

Posted by Geoff | May 20, 2008 10:24 AM

progressivist social policies tend to have an emotional element at the front, which makes for a very shallow and easily peddled "sticky story" that propagates quickly, well before the merits of the position are ever investigated.

Two words: Barack Obama

If your facts and conclusions are sound, you'll convince people without the emotion-based "narrative."

If only this were true...see two words above.

So wouldn't it be better overall no one suffered from these tiny annoyances, even if it meant that one person was ingeniously tortured for years?

Is this a serious argument? Are you actually equating some domestic workers having to change jobs with torture?

Posted by TakeFlight | May 20, 2008 11:06 AM

A practical implementation of this utilitarian tradeoff involves military intervention to get rid of regimes with bad human rights records. Assuming we could do it well (a big assumption), would it be okay to, say, reimpose the draft and raise taxes substantially, in order to invade, occupy, and ultimately reform countries with bad human rights records? Note that in the worst places, changing from nightmarishly bad governments to merely unpleasant ones (moving, say, from North Korea's government to China's government) would represent a huge increase in well-being.

Posted by albatross | May 20, 2008 11:18 AM

Oh, I almost forgot: South Park!

I know, it's hardly journalism, but it's actually a significant attempt to tell libertarian "fables" - if you will - to a mainstream audience. Yes I know you're probably thinking I'm crazy, and that it's mostly about swearing and grotesque humor, but there are often good stories in there - stories that begin with understandable liberal tendencies, and end with the discovery of the libertarian counter-arguments.

The fact that they're presented as the adventures of entertaining characters, rather than as political policy essays, makes them more appealing to a large segment of the population.

It's hardly this generation's H.L. Menken, but I don't think I'm totally off-base here either...

Posted by Geoff | May 20, 2008 12:02 PM

Peter - The idea that the media is all, or always liberal is clearly a myth, but it does lean that way. Fox News leans right, as do some other sources but they are a minority, even if they are large enough to be an important minority. Many other sources claim, and to some extent try for, objectivity, but the same could be said for FOX news. In both cases there is some effort at objectivity, but the media outlet has built in biases, that can't be eliminated.

Posted by Tim Fowler | May 20, 2008 12:21 PM

For the reverse story, would you say it's okay to take $100 from each American to spare one person from being tortured all their life? Sure, sounds good, by our previously established attitude towards the LeGuin story. Now say we have to repeat this choice, 1,000 times. 1,000 people being tortured (say, in Africa) each one can be saved by taking $100 from each American. Sound like less of a good idea now? Sure, 1,000 people saved from torture, but now Bill Gates and co are the only Americans left who aren't homeless and starving.

Both extremes can be told and are both bad. I'll admit I'd probably hate living in a world that was the extreme manifestation of all libertarian ideals taken to their furthest possible conclusion. And I'd also hate the opposite extreme. Happiness lies somewhere in the middle, balancing the two ideals against each other to find the best practical implementation. But the narrative issue mentioned here biases the balancing process toward one side, which is a legitimate problem. That problem is not solved by pointing out that the extreme on the other side is bad.

I was responding to this in particular:

You can explain that, for example, lowering tariffs on such-and-such commodity might cost 10,000 American workers their jobs but would also improve every American’s lot by 1 percent as well as improve the lot of workers overseas by 10 percent. Mathematically, the vast majority is far better off. There’s no debate. But empathetically, the question is, "But what about those 10,000? They're worse off. It’s best to just leave the tariffs as they are."

I'm merely pointing out that the justification for lowering tariffs, based upon a rather simplistic idea of utility, is not a very good one, so this is probably not a very good example for your argument. And you can make a 'compelling narrative' either way (I've never understood this so-called power of narrative myself. I think I'm tone-deaf in that regard.) In any case, it seems to me that the introduction of any 'narrative' is undesirable, distorting as it does any cool-headed consideration of a proposition.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 20, 2008 1:25 PM

So wouldn't it be better overall no one suffered from these tiny annoyances, even if it meant that one person was ingeniously tortured for years?

Is this a serious argument? Are you actually equating some domestic workers having to change jobs with torture?

Posted by TakeFlight

Sigh. I'm pointing out that a glib and simplisitic utilitarian justification is probably not what is called for here. And there is the matter of consistency; the same people who make the argument that lowering tariffs is a net plus, even though some people will suffer for it are in many cases the same people who make the argument that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, since that will cause some people to suffer.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 20, 2008 1:33 PM

In any case, it seems to me that the introduction of any 'narrative' is undesirable, distorting as it does any cool-headed consideration of a proposition.

A perfectly reasonable stance to take, but it doesn't really sound like an accurate description of mainstream media.

I'm thrilled that we can have a cool-headed consideration of propositions here in these blog comments (well, if you filter out a lot of the not-so-cool-headed ones) but that doesn't reflect the tone of magazine and newspaper articles, much less TV news. They love narrative.

Posted by Geoff | May 20, 2008 2:34 PM

I hate to interrupt the sanctimonious circle jerk y'all are having, but where are all the amateur sociologists and cultural anthropologists in the woodwork examining why so many "whites" have these racist passions?

For example, the liberal community bends over backwards to excuse the conspiracy theories of the black populace, like their kooky theories of the crack and AIDS epidemic that are largely self-inflicted. There are all sorts of diversicrats in the academe profiting off this kind of work.

But economically impoverished whites never seem to have their advocates amongst these no-doubt worldly readers. It's all so RACIST and incomprehensible, backed by ignorance lacking in data - except for the fact that African-Americans commit crime far in excess of their proportion, achieve lower on the success ladder given relatively the same starting points, etc.

Why the egregious discrepancy especially when objective, statistical data seems to bear out one group's racial tropes over another?

Posted by Billare | May 26, 2008 7:30 PM