"A Better Way to Look at Most Every Political Issue"

[El]

We sometimes think of political issues in binary terms. Is someone pro-life or pro-choice? But most individuals hold views that are more complicated than a binary can capture.

An alternative is to describe a given position on a spectrum. On abortion, an outright ban sits at one extreme; at the other is the elimination of all restrictions on the procedure. In between are a staggering array of coherently distinguishable positions.

Politicians seeking to win votes express their stances either in terms of a binary or as a spot on a spectrum, depending on where they see the greatest advantage. Though their beliefs don’t change, how they frame them makes a political difference.

* * *

There’s a different set of frames, though, that are as relevant as binaries and spectrums, though they are less familiar and less discussed: equilibriums and limits.

Most political stances can be understood in terms of an equilibrium. For instance, some people might believe that access to abortion in a conservative state is too restricted under the status quo, and favor relaxing the rules regulating abortion clinics. That is, they might favor shifting the equilibrium in a “pro-choice” direction.

But ask those same voters, "Should there be any limits on legal abortion?" and they might declare that the procedure should be banned in the last trimester of pregnancy unless the mother's health is threatened. Insofar as the abortion debate is framed around the equilibrium, they will align with the pro-choice movement; but insofar as it is framed around limits, they will align with the pro-life movement.

On abortion and scores of other political issues, there are people who tend to focus on equilibriums, other people who tend to focus on limits, and still others who vary in their focus. A single question put to the public cannot reveal the majority position of the polity on such issues, because there are at least two different majority coalitions: One forms around the position that a majority holds on the best equilibrium; the other forms around the position a majority holds on the appropriate limit. The winning coalition turns in part on what frame is more prominent at any particular moment.

* * *

Now imagine two individuals who appear to be on opposite sides of a different matter. One aligns herself with what she calls the #MeToo movement; the other declares herself a critic of #MeToo. Yet digging deeper into their views on sexual harassment, it turns out that they are identical. They both believe workplaces ought to adopt policies that more effectively protect women from sexual harassment, and that there should be robust due process protections to guard against false accusations. They even agree on the language of their optimal policies.

What might explain their different postures toward #MeToo?

The first is focused on equilibriums. She believes that the status quo in American workplaces doesn’t adequately protect female workers, and that #MeToo is likely to improve things by shifting the equilibrium, making it marginally more friendly to working women. In contrast, the second is focused on limits. She frets that #MeToo is ending careers without adequate due process and enabling big injustices at the extremes. She worries that, left unchecked by opposition, it will spiral out of control.

Some Americans would feel less polarized and alienated from their fellow citizens if they recognized that some of the people fighting on “the other side” of a polarizing issue actually hold values and beliefs that are strikingly similar to their own.

* * *

Now think of campus politics.

The campus left wants the free-speech debate to be focused on limits. What if an invited speaker is a neo-Nazi or wants to say the N-word or deny the Holocaust? In contrast, the campus right fares better when the debate is focused around the equilibrium. Across partisan and racial divides, large majorities agree that colleges are not doing enough to teach young Americans about the value of free speech and not doing enough to ensure students are exposed to a variety of viewpoints. In surveys, they express antagonism toward threats of violence and racial slurs even while insisting that, on the whole, campuses should be less politically correct.

So why don’t people who want to shift the equilibrium away from political correctness try to broaden their coalition by simultaneously agreeing to ban “hate speech”? In this case, as in others, the “equilibrium majority” is reluctant to make concessions to the “limit majority” because they are concerned about slippery slopes. A refusal to concede limits can be necessary if one means to defend the merits of an absolutist position (like “torture should always be illegal”) or when one believes that an absolutist position allows bad behavior, but that anything short of it guarantees a slide to an inferior outcome, like lots of speech being suppressed.

But there are lots of other issues where equilibrium majorities seem foolish if they decline to grow their numbers at the expense of limit majorities, whether by focusing their efforts narrowly or reassuring persuadable voters by granting some limits. 

On drug policy, a libertarian could easily narrow his focus and rally a majority behind a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana; but if that libertarian instead backed a ballot initiative calling for the total elimination of all drug prohibitions, voters would likely reject it, because they are more averse to legal heroin than to illegal  marijuana—in such cases, the limit is a stronger motivator than the equilibrium.

Or take immigration policy. Democrats prefer to focus on the equilibrium. That’s because a majority of voters align with Democrats on the question of whether or not so-called “Dreamers” should get to stay in the United States or be deported; whereas a “limit majority” is more comfortable with Republicans who express the view that open borders would be disastrous than with Democrats who are reluctant to declare themselves against any specific hard limit on future immigration.

The GOP wants the country focused on the limits of immigration policy.

Yet on an issue like immigration, most Democratic politicians don’t actually believe that America should have open borders or that limits on immigration would put us on a slippery slope to no immigration at all; and most Republican politicians don’t actually believe that America should deport all illegal immigrants or that something like the Dream Act would put us on a slippery slope to open borders. Rather, Democrats are reluctant to articulate limits on immigration that they regard as sensible, because doing so is taboo in their coalition; and Republicans are reluctant to articulate limits on deportation that they regard as sensible, because doing so is presently taboo in their coalition as well. In both cases, there is a pernicious heuristic at work, where the mere act of conceding limits is conflated with lack of principle or with weakness and disloyalty, even though neither open borders nor deporting all illegal immigrants will ever happen. (A governing coalition that tried to blow past either limit would be destroyed.)

* * *

America’s two-party system frequently forces binary choices on voters, and locating oneself on a left-right political spectrum can be a useful exercise. But I’d like to see more political analysis that recognizes the difference between equilibriums and limits and examines the coalitions that form around them. Seeing those frameworks more clearly would reveal instances when differences between Americans are not as sharp as they might seem, and enable marginal improvements to policy on issues where slippery slopes are unlikely and the main obstacle holding back reform is the fear of a limit that almost no one wants to cross.

What do we think of this?

[Lestat]

A far more sensible approach than is often seen in politics. Insightful. Especially about the WAY questions are put, can load them one way or the other with respect to likely answers received.

One thing I want to see go, is the ability of politicians to, when they either know a bill will fail, because its fundamentally, in a word, fucking shite, or to sneak it in by the back door by tacking it on to another irrelevant law, such as say, slipping in a ban on weed legalization onto a bill designed to fight child abuse, that sort of thing is parasitic, cowardly, and those who do it have no honor. Such practices need to be strongly and effectively suppressed.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

A lot of it is Captain Obvious level stuff although the author seems to be committing a golden mean fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

For example, the #MeToo movement has already become a witch hunt. No sane person is in favor of allowing sexual predators in the workplace, however we're already at the point of guilt by accusation. Many innocent men have lost their jobs. This movement needs to die.

On the free speech issue, no one can decide on an exact definition of "hate speech". We need to err on the side of free speech.

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

[Calandale]

Looks too long to read.

[Icequeen]

Many things in the past have been settled in bipartisan fashion and I think there are many reasonable, thinking people on both sides of the fence willing to compromise or with similar views where it can happen again.

The difference I think this time is that we now have a somewhat authoritarian leader.

Stand when I say stand, clap when I say clap, print what I say, I know what this country needs best I won't listen to anything else.

Americans for the most part don't do authority well. This country was founded because people didn't want to be ordered what to do...nothing has changed.

Except now many of the people who were willing to meet on the middle ground have been pushed to the extreme  left or right out of anger. Anger that's even for the first time in history being heavily endorsed and fueled by the people in power.

Both sides I think knew that when the tide changes the government is going to basically serve them a shit sandwich, but before we at least had the options of lettuce and tomato to make it more palatable. Now it's like the kid that's sat down to dinner and told..."eat this or else".

I think we're all witnessing the "or else" effect. 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I don't buy this notion that Trump is a dictator.

He certainly tries to be one but it's not in the nature of the office of the President to be able to wield autocratic power.

Trump has been learning the limits of his power as president.

Whenever he tries to overstep those bounds, it comes off to me as being clumsy and incompetent, not scary.

[Icequeen]

It's NOT the nature of the office, so I guess many people are wondering WTF is he even going there?

Is he just shit stirring for a response? Attention? Well he's getting it and it's not all that good.

It's only scary to me because I have a kid around draft age and the man seems to have a short fuse and first hand access to a lot of powerful toys. Mostly I just find it annoying and embarrassing.

Seriously...if I hit on the lotto tomorrow and finally decide to see the world I'm telling any foreign locals I meet that I'm from Canada.

[El]

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

Could you explain in more detail what you think is going to end up happening as a result of immigration from Mexico, and what the historical precedent you're referencing is (or at least a sampling of it)?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

Could you explain in more detail what you think is going to end up happening as a result of immigration from Mexico, and what the historical precedent you're referencing is (or at least a sampling of it)?

Well the obvious and most relevant example is the Roman Empire that started giving out its citizenship to the Huns, Visigoths and Vandals. They in turn, sensed weakness in the crumbling empire and invaded less than 100 years later. The Western Roman Empire collaped then. The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire lived on because at least they had a collective sense of identity.

Something similar will happen to the Southwestern US. The self-loathing white liberal cucks will be too guilt ridden to stand up to the Mexican invasion. Then either the Federal government, led by a conservative president will step in and repel the invasion and force them back across the border or the Southwest will be lost to Mexico.

Borders can only exist if you have the political will to defend them.

There's a reason the Bible contains the metaphorical story of the Tower Babel.

[Calandale]

Well the obvious and most relevant example is the Roman Empire that started giving out its citizenship to the Huns, Visigoths and Vandals. They in turn, sensed weakness in the crumbling empire and invaded less than 100 years later. The Western Roman Empire collaped then. The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire lived on because at least they had a collective sense of identity.

Your Roman history is appalling. Rome was NOT sacked by citizens, but rather by client states it failed to meet
its payment obligations to for their military service.

Something similar will happen to the Southwestern US.

You mean NATO will invade, because we stop supporting it? I doubt that.

Borders can only exist if you have the political will to defend them.

Well, that's true. If we allowed foreign military units free reign, we'd be toast in short order.

There's a reason the Bible contains the metaphorical story of the Tower Babel.

You do know THAT story is about hubris, don't you?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Well the obvious and most relevant example is the Roman Empire that started giving out its citizenship to the Huns, Visigoths and Vandals. They in turn, sensed weakness in the crumbling empire and invaded less than 100 years later. The Western Roman Empire collaped then. The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire lived on because at least they had a collective sense of identity.

Your Roman history is appalling. Rome was NOT sacked by citizens, but rather by client states it failed to meet
its payment obligations to for their military service.

That's spin to say the very least. I can't find that story in a single history book.

There's a reason the Bible contains the metaphorical story of the Tower Babel.

You do know THAT story is about hubris, don't you?

Yes, a story about the hubris of smug, decadent, cosmopolitan elites who think that multiculturalism makes stable societies. It doesn't.

[Al Swearegen]

We sometimes think of political issues in binary terms. Is someone pro-life or pro-choice? But most individuals hold views that are more complicated than a binary can capture.

An alternative is to describe a given position on a spectrum. On abortion, an outright ban sits at one extreme; at the other is the elimination of all restrictions on the procedure. In between are a staggering array of coherently distinguishable positions.

Politicians seeking to win votes express their stances either in terms of a binary or as a spot on a spectrum, depending on where they see the greatest advantage. Though their beliefs don’t change, how they frame them makes a political difference.

* * *

There’s a different set of frames, though, that are as relevant as binaries and spectrums, though they are less familiar and less discussed: equilibriums and limits.

Most political stances can be understood in terms of an equilibrium. For instance, some people might believe that access to abortion in a conservative state is too restricted under the status quo, and favor relaxing the rules regulating abortion clinics. That is, they might favor shifting the equilibrium in a “pro-choice” direction.

But ask those same voters, "Should there be any limits on legal abortion?" and they might declare that the procedure should be banned in the last trimester of pregnancy unless the mother's health is threatened. Insofar as the abortion debate is framed around the equilibrium, they will align with the pro-choice movement; but insofar as it is framed around limits, they will align with the pro-life movement.

On abortion and scores of other political issues, there are people who tend to focus on equilibriums, other people who tend to focus on limits, and still others who vary in their focus. A single question put to the public cannot reveal the majority position of the polity on such issues, because there are at least two different majority coalitions: One forms around the position that a majority holds on the best equilibrium; the other forms around the position a majority holds on the appropriate limit. The winning coalition turns in part on what frame is more prominent at any particular moment.

* * *

Now imagine two individuals who appear to be on opposite sides of a different matter. One aligns herself with what she calls the #MeToo movement; the other declares herself a critic of #MeToo. Yet digging deeper into their views on sexual harassment, it turns out that they are identical. They both believe workplaces ought to adopt policies that more effectively protect women from sexual harassment, and that there should be robust due process protections to guard against false accusations. They even agree on the language of their optimal policies.

What might explain their different postures toward #MeToo?

The first is focused on equilibriums. She believes that the status quo in American workplaces doesn’t adequately protect female workers, and that #MeToo is likely to improve things by shifting the equilibrium, making it marginally more friendly to working women. In contrast, the second is focused on limits. She frets that #MeToo is ending careers without adequate due process and enabling big injustices at the extremes. She worries that, left unchecked by opposition, it will spiral out of control.

Some Americans would feel less polarized and alienated from their fellow citizens if they recognized that some of the people fighting on “the other side” of a polarizing issue actually hold values and beliefs that are strikingly similar to their own.

* * *

Now think of campus politics.

The campus left wants the free-speech debate to be focused on limits. What if an invited speaker is a neo-Nazi or wants to say the N-word or deny the Holocaust? In contrast, the campus right fares better when the debate is focused around the equilibrium. Across partisan and racial divides, large majorities agree that colleges are not doing enough to teach young Americans about the value of free speech and not doing enough to ensure students are exposed to a variety of viewpoints. In surveys, they express antagonism toward threats of violence and racial slurs even while insisting that, on the whole, campuses should be less politically correct.

So why don’t people who want to shift the equilibrium away from political correctness try to broaden their coalition by simultaneously agreeing to ban “hate speech”? In this case, as in others, the “equilibrium majority” is reluctant to make concessions to the “limit majority” because they are concerned about slippery slopes. A refusal to concede limits can be necessary if one means to defend the merits of an absolutist position (like “torture should always be illegal”) or when one believes that an absolutist position allows bad behavior, but that anything short of it guarantees a slide to an inferior outcome, like lots of speech being suppressed.

But there are lots of other issues where equilibrium majorities seem foolish if they decline to grow their numbers at the expense of limit majorities, whether by focusing their efforts narrowly or reassuring persuadable voters by granting some limits. 

On drug policy, a libertarian could easily narrow his focus and rally a majority behind a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana; but if that libertarian instead backed a ballot initiative calling for the total elimination of all drug prohibitions, voters would likely reject it, because they are more averse to legal heroin than to illegal  marijuana—in such cases, the limit is a stronger motivator than the equilibrium.

Or take immigration policy. Democrats prefer to focus on the equilibrium. That’s because a majority of voters align with Democrats on the question of whether or not so-called “Dreamers” should get to stay in the United States or be deported; whereas a “limit majority” is more comfortable with Republicans who express the view that open borders would be disastrous than with Democrats who are reluctant to declare themselves against any specific hard limit on future immigration.

The GOP wants the country focused on the limits of immigration policy.

Yet on an issue like immigration, most Democratic politicians don’t actually believe that America should have open borders or that limits on immigration would put us on a slippery slope to no immigration at all; and most Republican politicians don’t actually believe that America should deport all illegal immigrants or that something like the Dream Act would put us on a slippery slope to open borders. Rather, Democrats are reluctant to articulate limits on immigration that they regard as sensible, because doing so is taboo in their coalition; and Republicans are reluctant to articulate limits on deportation that they regard as sensible, because doing so is presently taboo in their coalition as well. In both cases, there is a pernicious heuristic at work, where the mere act of conceding limits is conflated with lack of principle or with weakness and disloyalty, even though neither open borders nor deporting all illegal immigrants will ever happen. (A governing coalition that tried to blow past either limit would be destroyed.)

* * *

America’s two-party system frequently forces binary choices on voters, and locating oneself on a left-right political spectrum can be a useful exercise. But I’d like to see more political analysis that recognizes the difference between equilibriums and limits and examines the coalitions that form around them. Seeing those frameworks more clearly would reveal instances when differences between Americans are not as sharp as they might seem, and enable marginal improvements to policy on issues where slippery slopes are unlikely and the main obstacle holding back reform is the fear of a limit that almost no one wants to cross.

What do we think of this?

I think a lot of this stuff is water is wet type of stuff.

Many accuse me of being Conservative or even alt-right or Far Left and the truth is far removed.

Why? Because I do not accept or hold true to Progressive view points.

I believe that abortion is not a form of birth control. I do not think abortion ought to b easy or readily available and have no issue with individual states to have their individual restrictions on it. I think that abortion ought to be available in conjunction with therapy, education and better access to actual birth control. In saying this I recognise that some people require abortions for any number of reasons and in cases of ignorance or lack of education and birth control that having better education and access to birth control will help and in the case of trauma of abortion process and grief and/or instances of rape and incest that having therapy will help here as well.

I think that men and women should have the right to marry any other consenting adult.

I think that offering beta blockers and surgery to minors is a mistake and that a regulated and thorough processes of therapy and education should be offered for anyone who wishes to become another gender. But I do not believe it should be illegal.

I think that gun rights ought to be a matter for individual states and that gun-owners by virtue of having a gun do not make them irresponsible or immoral. I think that regulations ought to be enforced and followed strictly and that mental health issues and criminal history ought to bar someone from owning a gun.

I think that every country should be responsible for who they let in and under what circumstances and that sneaking in or overstaying your visa automatically bars you from any say in your rights in that country from that point. A country should decide who is their citizens.

I agree with the death penalty for egregious crimes where it is beyond a shadow of a doubt as to who was at fault.

I believe in religious freedom but I strongly believe that enforcing your own religious mores on others or demanding an adherence by other to your religious standards is BS.

I believe in freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

[Calandale]

Well the obvious and most relevant example is the Roman Empire that started giving out its citizenship to the Huns, Visigoths and Vandals. They in turn, sensed weakness in the crumbling empire and invaded less than 100 years later. The Western Roman Empire collaped then. The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire lived on because at least they had a collective sense of identity.

Your Roman history is appalling. Rome was NOT sacked by citizens, but rather by client states it failed to meet
its payment obligations to for their military service.

That's spin to say the very least. I can't find that story in a single history book.

Must be because you didn't look. Please point to ONE case where citizens of the empire 'invaded' it.
The visigoth sack of rome (410) was quite simply exactly what I stated. If you missed THAT, I have
no idea what history in the decline you were reading? Some revisionist crap packaged for the 'alternative
news' lovers?

There's a reason the Bible contains the metaphorical story of the Tower Babel.

You do know THAT story is about hubris, don't you?

Yes, a story about the hubris of smug, decadent, cosmopolitan elites who think that multiculturalism makes stable societies. It doesn't.

Uhm...you have a revisionist BIBLE too? Post flood, there was ONE culture. Multiculturalism (if you want to take an analogy here)  was the punishment, not the cause.




Usually, your questionable statements stay out of things that can be really backed up. I'd suggest you
remain out of my wheelhouse, at least. Stick with sociology and psychology - you're safer there.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

Could you explain in more detail what you think is going to end up happening as a result of immigration from Mexico, and what the historical precedent you're referencing is (or at least a sampling of it)?

Nations survive mass immigration.

Australia has been experiencing mass immigration for more than 200 years. Admittedly the first nations peoples didn't survive it all that well, but since then the rest of us have prospered.

Singapore has experienced mass immigration. So has Hong Kong. These are countries that have continuously grown their populations despite extremely low birth rates.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The major political parties are not all that far apart on major issues (like the economy, like immigration, like trade and the offshoring of jobs). So they dig their heels in and fight like hell over things that don't matter all that much to most of us. Conservative politicians in particular like to stir up xenophobia and fear of foreigners while opening the floodgates to relatively wealthy and well-educated economic immigrants (at least that's what happens here in Australia, and I suspect that it is similar elsewhere).

It's all about convincing us that the small things that make them different from the other party are what really matter.