philosophy


Flavors of populism   Recently updated !

Nailing down populism is difficult. Merriam-Webster says it’s “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment.” The idea that “the people” should rule sounds left-wing, but we tend to think of populism as right-wing. It sounds like another way of saying “pro-democracy,” but that doesn’t get to its core.

Cas Mudde’s idea hits the target better. It’s as an ideology that divides society into two antagonistic camps, the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” The elite isn’t necessarily the party in control of the government. The MAGA movement is populist, even though Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. What it sees as the corrupt elite is the academic institutions, the news media, the entertainment industry, all those who deal with information on a large scale. The “purity” of the people also plays an important role; immigrants and children of immigrants don’t count, at least until they’ve undergone a purification process of many years.

Another form of populism in the US comes from the left. It emphasizes “the people” above all else, stressing the first three words of the Constitution rather than the “inalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence. It sees the elite establishment as one of wealth, often claiming an “oligarchy” runs the country while the president and Congress are just their pawns.

Populism is opposed to liberalism because it takes the Will of the People (or what it claims is their will) as the highest standard. People have no rights that the People can’t legitimately take away. When populists succeed, they establish their own ruling elite, directing the economy, and above all controlling information. It’s called “socialism” or “fascism” depending on which side runs it, but there’s little difference. It’s almost always illiberal because it places the popular will ahead of individual rights. Liberal democracy regards the democratic process as a tool for keeping any single faction from dominating the government and suppressing minorities; populist democracy treats the will of the “pure people” as an end in itself, entitled to stomp on outsiders and minorities.

In principle, populists should yield if they think the majority opposes them. In practice, they think the majority always supports what they want. We’re all inclined to overestimate the number of people who agree with us, because we talk to such people so often. Populist leaders, though, need to shape the popular will to match their own. This means using their power to promote their views and suppress opposing ones. Populists are rarely big on free expression for anyone but themselves.

Today we’re caught in a battle between the left populists and right populists, and the liberal alternative often has a hard time getting heard. This doesn’t bode well if either side ultimately gains full power.


Life continues

The first quarter of the 21st century has ended. Statistically, I’m unlikely to see the end of the second quarter. This makes me think about the end of my life. As far as I know, I don’t have any conditions that will kill me in the near term, but I’ve probably got just a couple of decades left at most. How should I look at the unpleasant topic of death?

“When I die, the world ends.” That’s one way to think about it: that nothing matters after you’re dead. It’s bleak but tidy. However, people make out wills, think about how the people they love will get along, and so forth. We think about the future beyond our lifetimes. Science fiction writers and fans think about what the world will be like centuries or even eons in the future and hope it will be a good one. People risk their lives to promote a cause. What happens after we’re dead matters to us.
(more…)


Ayn Rand’s ethics in today’s world

Many people characterize Ayn Rand’s ethical philosophy as based in acquisition as the primary goal. This is a gross misreading that says more about the people who view it that way than about her philosophy.

In John Galt’s long speech in Atlas Shrugged, which expresses her philosophy in the context of the story, she lists seven virtues: “rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.” “Getting rich” or any equivalent isn’t in the list. Productiveness can lead to wealth, but getting rich without it is inconsistent with her standards.
(more…)


The misuse of fallacies

Recognizing logical fallacies is important when evaluating claims and arguments. At the same time, it’s important to recognize when someone misidentifies or misapplies a fallacy. People can claim to knock down valid claims by saying they commit a fallacy, when actually there’s no fallacy.

Take the “slippery slope” fallacy. Some slopes really are slippery. You have to evaluate a claim that X will lead to Y by the specifics, not just the formal structure. A trivia quiz I recently saw offered something like this as a supposed example of the fallacy: “If I give you an extra day to complete the assignment, I’d have to give it to anyone else who asks.” The quiz’s author was probably thinking something like, “The teacher can give special favors to some students and not others, so it’s fallacious to make that claim.” That assumes that consistent and fair treatment count for nothing.
(more…)


The “Paradox of Tolerance” swindle 1

“Paradox of Tolerance” is a favorite slogan of censorship advocates. Most often they drop the words in a discussion without elaboration to give the impression they’ve said something profound. Some will mention its connection to Karl Popper. Few will cite his words, since they’re actually opposed to censorship.

The words in question are from a footnote in The Open Society and Its Enemies. The footnote is a bit unclear; Popper was adding a passing thought, not a polished commentary. Here are the words:
(more…)