Intellectuals in politics

What should be the attitude of rational intelligent people towards politics? This ancient question has been revived by a row between Jonathan Portes and Stewart Jackson.

My point here is not that Mr Jackson made a mistake. So what if he did? Twitter is a medium for snap judgments, and reasonable people will forgive folk for mistakes on it. However, Mr Jackson didn't fess up to his error, and - aided by Douglas Carswell - resorted to abuse.

This episode demonstrates several biases. There's ego-involvement; having misread the data (we've all done it), Mr Jackson saw the need to stand by his error. There's tribalism; Mr Jackson's allies support him, even though he's wrong. There's wilful ignorance, in Mr Carswell's advice to "just ignore" Jonathan. And there's an epic sense of privileged white male victimhood in the belief that folk like Jonathan "determine parameters of debate."

All this reinforces my scepticism about Jonathan's work on immigration. Introducing facts into the immigration debate is like teaching a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

It also shows that politics is about power, not truth; Mr Carswell's question, "who read[s] his blogs?" is a revealing one.

In this sense, intellectuals like Jonathan (and Simon) who get involved in politics are victims of a culture clash. Their opinion that the truth matters is an example of deformation professionelle - the mistaken belief that the perspective of one's own profession has general relevance.

So, what should be the attitude of intellectuals to politics? There are three possibilities, and I oscillate between them:

 - Think of politics as a laboratory for studying behaviour. Physicists have the Large Hadron Collider; we have parliament. And just as physicists don't get angry when particles prove elusive, not should we get angry when politicians display cognitive biases. It's the nature of the beast.

 - Shift the Overton window. Jonathan's work showing that free migration is a reasonable position won't convince many people overnight. But shifting that window is a decades-long job. Civilization advances one funeral at a time.

 - Follow Epicurus's advice, and just ignore it. The problem is that whilst this is perfectly feasible for we comfortably wealthy types, it is not so possible for the worst-off - for insurance recipients (let's avoid the loaded language of "benefit claimants") or migrants. Someone must speak for them. In doing so, Jonathan is one of the few heroes of our time.

A clarification: this post is not about immigration. A reasonable person could argue that although migration has small net economic benefits, it carries non-economic social and cultural risks.

Another thing: This episode also reveals the appalling way in which political language is misused. Carswell claims to be a libertarian. But if you're opposed to free migration, you are not - by definition - a libertarian. 

Comments

[Stephen Baker]

I'm struck by the contradiction in Carswell's assertion that people like Portes "determine parameters of debate" and his rhetorical question, "who reads his blogs?", which suggests that Carswell considers Portes irrelevant.

[CairneyPaul]

I agree that we should not be surprised when politicians show cognitive biases. However, it may still serve a purpose for public intellectuals to get angry when they display the behaviour you describe. And I'll bet that some physical scientists *do* get angry at particles

[Phil]

That's the thing about the liberal elite, though - they've surreptitiously acquired the power to set the parameters of public debate, even though their own ideas enjoy no public support. It's classic reactionary conspiracism, and if I were David Hirsh I wouldn't stop there (but I'm not, so I will).

[Malcs]

The reservation I have about this is that, while intellectuals may well choose to treat parliament as a lab, verbal thugs in parliament like Carswell are increasingly obsessed with ensuring those intellectuals can't be paid for intellectual work in the first place. The fact is that academic experts and thuggish Tory McCarthyites are in struggle, and asking one side to pretend they're not is probably not actually to their advantage.

[Tugsandtost]

Last paragraph v important. DC's combo of economic libertarianism and social authoritarianism is chilling.

[Chris Clark]

I'm not so sure that you can't be a Libertarian and oppose free migration. I think, Chris, you are mistaking Libertarians for Anarchists in your final sentence.

Libertarians like Douglas believe in strong property rights as one of the pillars of a free society. The freedom for people to claim benefits from a system they have not contributed to would be seen as analogous - though probably not equal to - the freedom to scrump a farmer's apples. The farmer's liberty is also a factor to be concerned with.

[Luke]

"I'm not so sure that you can't be a Libertarian and oppose free migration. "

Eh? Restricting people from going where they want sounds like a bit of a restriction on liberty to me. True libertarians (I'm not one) do believe in open borders - eg Bryan Caplan.

[Chris Clark]

Sure Luke, many Libertarians will support open borders. Almost all Libertarians would/should see open borders as desirable in and of themselves but, when combined with government enforced transfer payments towards all who inhabit a given location, we have a system whereby cynics could use free migration to impinge on the liberty of those who seek to retain the fruits of their own labour and/or merely escape the hand of incompetent fools in government.

When you say "true libertarians" I think you are refering to people who lie in or close to the "anarchist" end of the libertarian spectrum.

My point, small as it is, is that you can truthfully call yourself a Libertarian and still see politics as a cost/benefit compromise between different forms of freedom, restricting some to protect others.

[Chris Clark]

**sorry that should read: "...and/or stregthen the hand of incompetent fools in government."**

[Andy Morgan]

Surely providing evidence for your assertions, being able to defend them and being able to counter and question others' assertions should be important especially for politicians serving on bodies like the PAC. Having a very old PPE degree I can't be classified as an intellectual but I can't help wanting politicians to make decisions based on the best available independent evidence not thier gut feelings or prejudices..

[Zorblog]

Most scientists ignore politics. In a sense, they're right, but why do they engage in science in the first place then? (curiosity can't explain all that hard work)
Now, I'm not a specialist, but I believe Marx said that theory without action was not relevant. It can be said that he had a more lasting impact than most economists.

[Luke]

Chris C, I'm sure a lot of people who call themselves libertarians believe that libertarianism means low taxes. While I accept libertarianism is not inconsistent with low taxes, my understanding is that it goes a little further than that - clue being in the name. But as I say, I'm not a libertarian.

[Chris Clark]

Luke, I think the core beliefs of libertarianism is that society tends to operate best when men and women are left to judge their own interest and act accordingly without any more oversight and intrusion than is required to commonly ensure property rights and basic rule of law. Also that where government is necessary or desirable, democratic process is devolved as far as possible in the direction of the individual.

The former point puts most libertarians pretty firmly at odds with Marxists on issues of economic freedom and oppression.

The latter point explains why many libertarians agree strongly with the anti-corporatist/managerialist tone of this blog and are massively against the EU, however benign its intentions, as is seen as remote to the individual and lacking direct democratic mandate.

I rather like the libertarians as a bunch, although many take it too far (those of anarchist tendencies) and some fail to admit that small states cannot operate without strong civic responsibilities being upheld and encouraged within the populous.

Inevitably some folks who just want the freedom to be ghastly individuals and like to use the libertarian creed as a sort of self-justification.

[rogerh]

Why would Portes' detractors kick up a fuss over whether or not free immigration is a good or bad thing? In practice we have de-facto free immigration of nice young white people and the GDP numbers are only minimally affected either way. So the experiment has been done, the data is to hand - hardly worth discussing

Except for one thing - the data was not to hand 10 or so years ago when the current migration wave started - similar fears were voiced. I suspect the real fuss now is over a fear that not-so-nice people will turn up, do no work and adversely affect the GDP/head numbers. Portes' data and argument have no effect on this fear - the experiment has not been done, there is no data, only hypothesis. So Portes is peddling half the story and Jackson peddling a non-story but with overtones of a hidden fear. Not much help from either or them!

How will the experiment turn out? If the past is any guide the effect will be minimal but as they say in finance - past performance is no guarantee. Politics, nice to watch, tiresome to do.

[Luke]

It's curious that Jackson has now backed down. A link to this post was tweeted to him....and links to this post did the rounds yesterday.

Has Chris "Epicurus" Dillow changed the debate? Farmyard animals always work where statistics fail.

[Alex]

Another option might be to change the idea of politics so the truth does matter in political discourse. This means also changing the culture of other linked domains e.g. the media more broadly, public perceptions etc. But it could happen.

[Magpie]

" - Shift the Overton window. Jonathan's work showing that free migration is a reasonable position won't convince many people overnight. But shifting that window is a decades-long job. Civilization advances one funeral at a time."

I tend towards the above. For what's worth: as I see things, it's not so much a matter of failing or succeeding, but a matter of being true to oneself.

Or, to put things differently: is there something more worthy of one's time? Something that can better justify one's own (very brief) existence?

[コーチ バッグ]

澶氥亸銇偑銉炽儵銈ゃ兂 銈点偆銉堛伅銇俱仧銆併偊銈с儢銈点偆銉堛伅銇俱仧鐧虹敓娆°伄銉囥偠銈ゃ儕銉笺仹銇亗銈娿伨銇涖倱銇屻儷銈ゃ兇銈ｃ儓銉炽€併偗銉偍銆佹銆併偍銉儭銈广€併儠銈с兂銉囥偅銇嬨倝銉忋偆銈ㄣ兂銉夈伄銉堛兗銉堛儛銉冦偘銈掑彇寰椼仐銇俱仚銆傜銇竴搴﹀崢銇磭鎷濄伄鍙ゅ吀鐨勩仾瑾槑銈掕仦銇勩仧銆傘仢銈屻伅鏈綋銇剾銇亗銈娿伨銇涖倱銇屻€佽嚜鍒嗚嚜韬伀鐩撮潰銇椼仸绔嬨仯銇︺亜銈?2 浜恒個銇椼倣鍨傘倢鑳搞亗銇仧銇銇倛銇ｃ仸绔嬨仱銇椼€佸悓銇樼洰鐨勩伀婧栨嫚銇ㄨ銇仌銈屻伨銇欍€傘仢銇撱伀鐩稿綋銇噺銇亾銈屻倝銇█钁夈伅璩㈡槑銆傚伣銇儷銈?銉?銉淬偅銉堛兂璨°伅銆併亾銇疅闅涖伄銈兗銉兂 銉?銉淬偅銉堛兂瑁藉搧銈掔董鎸併仚銈嬩笉姝ｃ偝銉斻兗瀵剧瓥銇с仚銆俇銆俿銆併亗銇ｃ仧鐭ョ殑瑷畾娉曘伄銉囥偠銈ゃ儕銉笺倓灏傞杸瀹躲伄銉︺儖銉笺偗銇浜嬨伀銇ゃ仾銇屻倠浠栥伄浜恒€?銈掍繚璀枫仚銈嬨亾銇ㄣ亴閲嶈銇с仚銆?
コーチ バッグ http://ascotjoinery.co.uk/css/Coach-Handbags-Outlet-c-101_133.html

[ロエベ 財布]

銉炪兗銈便儐銈ｃ兂銈般伄鑻ャ亜銈兗銉?銈广偒銈︺儓 銈广儕銉冦偗銇ㄣ仐銇︺仩銇戙伅璩囬噾銈掋偆銉炽偣銉堛兗銉仚銈嬨伄瑙ｅ儚搴︺伄琚嬨倰鎻愪緵銇椼伨銇欍€傝姹傘仚銈嬪叕绱勩仺涓€绶掋伀銇с伅銇亸銆侀¨瀹伅銆佷笉骞搞仾銇婇噾銇仧銈佷綍銇嬨倰鍙椼亼鍙栥倠銆傚懆銈娿伄鏂规硶銈掑姽鏋滅殑銇氦娓夈仚銈嬨亾銇ㄣ亴銇с亶銇亜銇撱仺銇屻亗銈娿伨銇欍€屼尽鏍笺€嶃伄涓嬨伀銇椼伨銇欍€傘€屽畨鍏ㄣ仾銆嶃亴銆佺劇闁總銇垎閲庛伄涓栦唬銇仧銈併伀鑰愩亪銈嬩粯鐫€銇椼伨銇欍€傝博澹层儩銉炽儣娆犱箯閫叉闆倢銇︽銇勩仸銇忋仩銇曘亜銆傘伖銇嶃仹銇傘倠闈仹銇€併偪銉栥伀渚″€ゃ亴銇傘倠銇椼€佸銇忋伄銉夈儷銈掔敓鎴愩仚銈嬩綆銈炽偣銉堛伄銉囥偠銈ゃ儕銉笺伄璨″竷銇娿倛銇炽儚銉炽儔銉愩儍銈般伄杌㈠２銇仧銈併伀鐗广伀鎰忓洺銈掕卜銇ｃ仸銇勩倠闁撱€?
ロエベ 財布 http://www.mcshanepackaging.com/updater/Loewe-Womens-bag-c-1101_1103.html