The Hidden Costs in the Free Market of Ideas
by Stephen F. Schneck, Catholic University of America
June 23, 2009 - 8:00am (Print)
Taking advantage of the privilege of my first posting on this site, allow me to consider the too-often-unasked question of what we should hope to accomplish in this space. Maybe there's a metaphor in this for how best to do common ground politics, but I leave that to your discernment.
OK, so what should we hope to accomplish? Most on-line forums and blogs fail, in my estimation, because they endeavor to organize themselves as free markets of ideas, which is a worrisome model. Taking its inspiration from economic markets, the model of the free market of ideas imagines that success comes from pointed, self-interested competition. In economic markets, proponents tell us that the free and sharp clash of buyers and sellers generates what Adam Smith called invisible hands that work to promote the most stable economic order, the most rapid economic progress, the lowest sustainable prices, the highest quality products, the quickest technological innovation, and in general the happiest consumers and producers. However true such market thinking is in the economic realm (and many have some doubts at the moment), it does not seem that the market model works in regard to ideas. The failure of most public interest blogs is indicative.
Both conservatives on the right and liberals on the left have long criticized the free market of ideas model; and, they're worth considering here. Conservatives insist that the clashes of competition do not generate order and light, but only cacophony and heat. Moreover, they contend, that free markets of ideas do not protect previously accepted agreements but instead constantly contest even the most precious accepted truths. Those on the left claim that markets of ideas do not yield progress but instead, by encouraging people to blow off steam, actually work to undermine impetus for change.
These critiques explain why most blogs, especially public policy blogs, seem to spin in place. So, wanting to succeed in genuinely making progress on common ground initiatives, I want to avoid the free market of ideas model in this venue. Clashes of pure red and pure blue are not wanted. Really. Leave the ideology to ideologues and come to this site with fresh thinking and an honest intention to work across the hoary old battlelines of the culture wars. The decades long stalemate on a host of culture war issues from abortion to same-sex marriage will not be overcome with the tired old talking points. Progress demands getting beyond mere clashing. This forum needs to show, through the success of its discourse, how that might be possible.
I'm a university professor, trained in political science and philosophy. I'm also a Roman Catholic who has no issues with the moral and social teachings of my faith, but who also believes that the public square is not about anyone's religion. I've got ideals and vision, but understand that effective politics is the practice of what's possible. Look to me for pragmatic and common ground considerations of contemporary social and moral issues.
When Barack Obama spoke, last month, at Notre Dame's commencement exercises, he made it his mission to work for an improvement over "the tired old talking points" but he also said something important that folks on both sides of the issue ought to consider. He said, "The ultimate irony of faith is that it must necessarily admit doubt."
My suspicion is that much of the stridency we notice in the abortion debate comes from the fear people have to admit that the folks debating against them have a good point. Those on the right make absurd claims about the motivations of those on the left -- they call them 'pro abortion' or 'baby killers'. They claim that those who speak up for reproductive rights are 'really' just pawns of the gigantic and highly profitable 'abortion industry', that they have no care for the stability of the family or for the need we all have to make sacrifices. Of course, many on the right never address bona fide issues of privacy and of dignity for women.
On the other side, there are those who refuse to believe that people can be honestly motivated by a desire to bring justice to a particular segment of the human family. It wouldn't do to view 'anti-choicers' as people who are earnestly attempting to 'be their brother's keeper' so they ascribe ignoble reasons to their cause. They're 'really' just attempting to keep women down, or to take the fun out of sex, or to find an outlet for their racist and misogynistic attitudes. Besides, they lack the capacity to think critically about their religious convictions.
Maybe the people who disagree with you aren't stupid or crazy or evil. Maybe they're saying something you would do well to listen to.
Paul Bradford Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Well said, Paul. One of the aggravating things for me as a pro-choicer is that I do try to understand and accept--even, to a certain extent, admire and share--the views of the opposition. This type of tolerance is one of my fundamental guiding principles in life.
The anti-abortion side of the argument often speaks of the erosion of moral values, as if the pro-choice side wants nothing more than for people to have constant orgies and abortions. The truth is, though, and I suspect you know this, that being pro-choice and pro-life aren't mutually exclusive positions. I do share some of the moral values that the 'pro-life' activists are claiming to protect, but I have honestly never understood some of their positions, because they don't make any logical sense to me outside of the framework of pushing ones morals onto someone else. It is possible to work towards instilling those values in people without restricting the choices available to others.
It is a bit ironic for me that many of the more vehement anti-choicers use religious arguments, as my ideology of tolerance is strongly tied to my faith. I may not agree with the choices of others, but my faith leads me to support them in whatever choices they do make regardless. For me, this is what being pro-choice is about--being supportive of the decisions of others.
"I do share some of the moral values that the 'pro-life' activists are claiming to protect"
To me, the essential Pro-Life value that guides my understanding of the way parents ought to respond to the news of a pregnancy can be expressed this way: "Take care of your responsibilities, even when it is difficult, even when doing so requires sacrifice." The essential value I take from the Pro-Choice side is, "Trust women to be responsible."
I think we need to trust mothers (and fathers) to do what's best for their children in the same way we need to trust the president to do what's best for the country. Trusting doesn't mean that you're 100% sure that s/he is going to do the right thing, nor does it mean that you can't ever criticize the job s/he's doing. It means that you realize that the person can't possibly do her/his job without being trusted.
I may not agree with the choices of others, but my faith leads me to support them in whatever choices they do make regardless. For me, this is what being pro-choice is about--being supportive of the decisions of others.
I didn't agree with the choice Bush made to invade Iraq, nor did I 'support' him in his choice; but I absolutely agreed that he had the authority to decide what to do -- just as I agree that a mother has the authority to decide how to manage the pregnancy she shares with her child.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Stephen,
I appreciate your practical approach to the issue. Passion is critical, but it has to be disciplined to achieve results in the public sphere.
I wonder if more collaborative technologies, like a wiki, might help prevent this discussion from spinning in place? Let's create some rules about how to manage these discussions and begin to produce specific products.
Thanks.
Well, I'm encouraged by the pragmatic focus of the remarks, so far. Thanks, everyone. I particularly liked AA's suggestion of trying new technologies like wikis. The format of blogs does lend itself to something like "letters to the editor" rather than engaged conversation. In the meantime, though, I promise to listen and respond as well as I can in this medium.
Paul and Jayn, I agree with your points on how to proceed here in this venue. When we're trying to find common ground across the aisles we have to respect each sides' sincerity and and also their non-negotiables. It's proven unproductive to fight over non-negotiable positions. Sounds like you've both been in such fights, with the usual morality bombs thrown back and forth.
No, we need to think about steps about which we can agree and get some things accomplished. Thanks again!
I want to avoid the free market of ideas model in this venue.
What model do you wish to use instead? I've read your post three times, the last time very carefully, and I can't figure it out. Your description 'discourse' dosn't help since I think it just means conversation. By rejecting the free market of ideas model are you suggesting some subjects should be considered off limits? Are you suggesting we limit crosstalk so that no one directly disagrees with/criticizes anyone else? Sorry to be so dense.
Hi, crowepps!
As you guessed, I'm hoping to encourage something more conversational rather than confrontational. That said, it's not enough to just talk. Discourse should lead to improvements in understanding and to ad hoc agreements about practical policy steps to pursue.
Does that mean some things are off limits to discuss? I think my argument would be that it's pointless to shout at one another about strongly held but sharply divergent value positions. Let's talk and listen to each other about areas where we might find common agreement about practical policies.
"Leave the ideology to the ideologues"
Perhaps you could help me understand how the proposed discourse can hope to overcome the frank differences that separate someone who believes in truth and someone who practices relativism.
Many on the right believe fervently in the existence of a single truth and practice their lives based this concept.
The left tend to more frequently argue from the point of the relativist.
I can understand why one would want to be a relativist and indeed I suspect everyone practices relativism in some aspects. They simply have identified the abortion arena as an area where likely relativism, due to the cost of being wrong, is unacceptable.
Hi, Randian.
Interesting question. Thanks!
Maybe left and right are just labels that mask a much more complex personal range of values and positions, with countless shades of gray and many small areas of overlap. Sorry to sound like a philosophy professor, but recognizing that kind of complexity is important for common ground efforts. So, we peel off our labels and look underneath to talk about where we might agree.
This is much harder to do than it seems. Elsewhere I've made the observation that standing up for common ground means you'll be hit from all sides. Cheers!!