I meant to reply in kind to Julian Sanchez’ backhand of Rob Lyman for his defense of “communitarian patriotism,” but it slipped through the cracks. I was reminded tonight, because his post is at the top of our Technorati list.
Click on over and take a look; pay careful attention to the obvious respect and consideration with which he treats Rob. Then notice the giant mound of Swiss Cheese he erects as an argument.
Simply put, Julian made two gross errors in his argument, and caps it with an even more gross error in his behavior.
First, he makes claims about what Rob wrote that aren’t true.
Sanchez:
Step one: individuals in a democratic society bear responsibility for the actions (or failures to act) of their governments. This, as you may recall, is Osama bin Laden’s justification for killing American civilians. It’s asserted without argument. If it strikes you as plausible on face, notice that this is not the weaker claim that citizens are obligated to make a good faith effort to participate in the democratic process, vote for the best people given the information available to them, and so on. This is—and has to be for the purposes of this argument—a “strict liability” theory that looks at consequences. Bad policy enacted by the guy you voted against? Your fault. Some covert-op that only folks at the NSA knew about turns into a massive cock-up? You take your share of the blame as well.
Lyman:
Consider: Americans enjoy a democratic government which is, to a greater or lesser degree, responsive to our will. We are the authors of our government’s actions. If I vote for someone whose platform is opening up the prisons, I am partly to blame for the victimization of innocents which results when all those murderers and rapists get turned loose. If I vote for a politician whose platform is unilateral disarmament, I am partly to blame for whatever military catastrophe results. If Americans are killed by terrorists that my government failed to hunt down and kill, I am partly to blame.
Notice a few differences? Julian’s positions are two: either you buy into tribal blood-connection a la Bin Laden, or you have a procedural authorship that comes from your ‘good faith effort to participate.’ Rob isn’t making that point at all. he’s making the same point Schaar and I make, that we take on obligations by living in a society; some of the obligations are not of our choosing or making, but we bear them nonetheless.
Next he attempts to drive Rob’s argument off a cliff.
Sanchez:
Step three: Therefore (and I use the term loosely) each of us has a responsibility to be especially concerned with the welfare of our fellow Americans, rather than with people in general. This is my favorite. If you tilt your head and put your ear to the screen, you can almost hear these lines hollering: “Hi! I’m the fallacy of composition! You may remember me from such arguments as John Stuart Mill’s justification for utilitarianism, and Gladys the Groovy Mule.” If you’re bored and have some free time, see how many invalid arguments you can construct using this obviously incorrect form of inference. I’ll get you started: Corporations have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to be profit-maximizing. Therefore, shareholders must each act as profit maximizers in their own lives.
Gosh, Julian, I’m just not sure where to begin patching the holes in your argument. There’s a whole literature on obligation and citizenship; Waltzer and Schaar would be good places to start. And if theoretical arguments based on history and literature make one squirmy and uncomfortable, I’ll suggest a brief detour into emergent computation once he gets past the Introduction to Logic class.
I’ve got three problems with Julien’s post.
First, he carelessly misreads and misrepresents what Rob actually said.
Second, he ignorantly misapplies elementary logical propositions to a complex system, and ignores a whole raft of readily accessible literature both within the areas of logical analysis of complex systems, the limits of formal logic in modelling complex systems, and human history and politics – which was, after all, what we were talking about. I don’t know Sanchez’ writing well, so I can’t tell if he’s being willfully obtuse or just ignorant about the notions of obligation and citizenship, from a political theory perspective (note that I’ll make a careful distinction here between political philosophy and political theory. For a good primer, take a look at my post on it or at Chris Bertram’s, Russell Fox’s, or Matthew Yglesias.)
I have other philosophical issues with the ahistorical, atomistic individuality that his post infers, but I really don’t have enough data to know that’s where he’s coming from, so I’ll look around a bit before going there.
And finally, his dismissive and superior tone – particularly when combined with the intellectual failures set out above – set him up for the only appropriate response I can come to – which is to ask just exactly whose argument was it that is busted?
I don’t care whether you’re on the right or the left, Stalinist or Libertarian. There is no excuse for not treating your intellectual or political opponents with some modicum of decency and courtesy. When people don’t, I’ll certainly make it a point to nail them for it, as I’m nailing Julian (the fact that his arguments were such a wonderful example of pseudointellectual arrogance was a perk), and I hope that other people will as well.
I wasn’t sure what was going to get me up tomorrow, because the paid work I do is uninspiring, and not many people read my blog, and the career seems without traction. But then I saw Noam Chomsky on Charlie Rose and I remembered the world needs people who know what a phoney that guy is, and why. I mean, he sounds so reasonable and soft-spoken as he delicately waves his hands around in tight circles referencing dark and unknown history documented only in the deepest catacombs of his private stash of data, until you realize that he just said he wants to replace the US political system and culture WITH BRAZIL’S.
So, I’ll get up in the morning because Noam Chomsky is absolute proof that there’s a war to be fought againt bad philosophy right here in the homeland.
Oh yeah, the reason I thought of Chomsky in relation to this debate is that he actually claims he LOVES the US. He’s able to build an illustrious career here not only because of the intellectual freedoms and resources given him, but because of the absence of civil strife and the presence of social stability created by the Madisonian design, that he would render up like hamburger to those lovely slashing knives of the factions that he calls “lively politics.”
Here’s a fellow who has broken the social compact with his meta-tribe, and simply presumes the rest of the tribe are too dumb to notice. And, no doubt, the fig leaf he’d employ should anyone think to look would be his tender allegience to his fellow man. Well, their meat at least… properly shredded.
Armed Liberal,
I find Julian’s argument compelling.
Armed Liberal,
BTW, you misinterpret Julian’s argument; its not about “tribalism” per se, but the neccessary implications of tribalism – that the fault of 9/11 would lay squarely on the shoulders of Americans for allowing it to happen.
“There’s a whole literature on obligation and citizenship; Waltzer and Schaar would be good places to start.”
Arguments from authority are hardly arguments at all; which is essentially your argument – see these guys, they agree with me.
BTW, criticism of Sanchez concerning rude behavior in an argument coming from you is awfully funny; pot + kettle = black.
I’m glad I didn’t go to college.. if I did maybe what this Julian guy said might strike me as something other than complete wankery.
cheers,
=darwin
JB –
Actually, I’ll disagree with you on all three points:
“its not about “tribalism” per se, but the neccessary implications of tribalism” – How would you separate those? I find myself in the position of Shylock on this (I can’t separate the pound of flesh from the blood it contains);
“Arguments from authority are hardly arguments at all; which is essentially your argument – see these guys, they agree with me.” Well, it’s a blog post, not a journal or an essay, both of which are longer forms of argument rather than the shorthand used here. I’ll suggest that arguments from authority are a reasonable form of argument in such a compressed format; without them I wouldn’t have time to write much and no one owuld have time to read it. But for a somewhat more extended view of my point (which, admittedly, I could have linked in the post, look *here* or *here*.)
As to rudeness, I made it quite clear that when people don’t treat others with some measure of civility, I reserve the right to do the same. (I do commit not to do it pre-emptively, however…)
A.L.
I can see how one might mount a contributory negligence sort of argument, and there might even be some degree of merit to it. But your eagerness to overstate the case just leaves me wondering how you’re wired. It’s as though you’ve assumed that humans breathe methane, and then mounted an argument about how critical it is that we remove the polluting oxygen from the atmosphere.
I think you could mount a reasonable argument, or case, that two tribes with conflicting interests might be well-advised to resolve their differences and form a composite tribe, or federation, with rules based on some kind of synthesis, and that this process might go on to eventually establish a meta-tribe with federalism and constitutionalism as basic values. But I can’t bring myself to leap to the conclusion that the duty of the tribe members is, originally, to take up the cause of the opposing tribe for the sake of a universalist ideal , especially when that other tribe has an avowed intent to annihilate them. I’m just saying you’re going to end up one confused puppy if you routinely take those kinds of leaps. Chris Hitchens has argued that we should begin to call our local anti-Americans “domestic masochists.” He has a way of getting to the point, that guy.
Scott,
“But I can’t bring myself to leap to the conclusion that the duty of the tribe members is, originally, to take up the cause of the opposing tribe for the sake of a universalist ideal , especially when that other tribe has an avowed intent to annihilate them.”
And no one implied this leap; at least I didn’t. You seem to think that since I don’t buy into your “blut und boden” notions of nations that I must accept the complete opposite. I thought we got over such primitivism and slavery to the state after the disasters of the 20th century.
A.L.
Sanchez sounds angry that Rob’s post got a mention from you know who. Or maybe he got out of the wrong side of bed that morning, or maybe he always writes like that. In any case, his sentiments obscure his argument.
The points Sanchez chose to criticize mirror a couple of the problems I had when I read Rob’s post . In particular (1) Rob’s description of the citizen as “the author of the government’s actions” and (2) the idea (elaborated in a comment) that “the duties of the government are the duties of each citizen”.
Stripped of its rage and rhetoric, Sanchez’ post contends that the first proposition is questionable and that the second depends on the fallacy of composition.
I agree that these criticisms don’t address the general point Rob was making about the obligations of the citizen. But Sanchez does raise reasonable questions about a couple of the key ideas Rob introduced in developing his argument.
I think the distinction you make, between philosophy and political theory, is apt. What confused me, when I first read Rob’s post, was that in setting out to make the case that a citizen’s duties are “morally mandatory”, I thought he was talking moral philosophy and not political theory.
It was only when I received “non-philosophical” answers to my questions in the comments that I realized where Rob was coming from.
A fine and thought-provoking post, fully deserving of the attention it’s received; Rob got me thinking (and commenting!) about things I haven’t thought much about for twenty years or more.
George Junior,
Rage? I didn’t get the impression that Monsieur Sanchez was in a rage; he seemed to more chagrined than anything. In fact, the only way you could come to that conclusion would be if were deliberately misreading his post. Rob’s post reads exactly like the “blut and boden” non-sense common amongst nations in the first-half of the twentieth century.
Chagrin/Rage? Can we agree on vexated?
I may be have mischaracterized the tone of Sanchez’s post but I didn’t deliberately misread it.
Incidentally, Rob’s use of the phrase “Tribal Patriotism” also reminded me of the conflicts of 20th century Europe. I prefer A.L.’s term “Communitarian Patriotism”, a patriotism informed by tradition, but founded on shared values and common interests not blood ties.
George Junior,
Your phrase reminds me of Soviet “patriotism.”
My question of course is how do you deal with “citizens” who are not “patriots?” Of course the question of what is “patriotic” also comes to mind? Such notions of what one’s duties are to ones fellow citizens, and thus really to the state, are rife with danger and frightening.
“Soviet ‘patriotism’”, really?
When I wrote the comment, I was thinking about the shared values of the Constitution, the American tradition of service to those ideals and the common interest we have in our nation’s security and prosperity.
Those notions don’t seem dangerous or frightening to me, though I understand some people reject them.
JB,
I was trying to stay out of this, but I can’t now.
What I wrote sounds NOTHING like “blood and soil” patriotism. The entire point of my post was to build a case for patriotism which was NOT based on blood or soil.
Instead, I chose to base it on the obligations which citizens of a consesual polity owe to one another. America is far too heterogeneous a country for “blood” to mean much; and no American can claim “soil” with a straight face, given the (often shameful) history of expansionist America.
Lots of people misunderstood my point re: responsiblity and blame; that’s my fault for being unclear. You are the only one who came up with this bizarre interpretation which makes me think you didn’t read very carefully.
My question of course is how do you deal with “citizens” who are not “patriots?”
You shame them. If they don’t meet my definition of patriotism, which can be summed up as “try to keep your fellow citizens from being killed,” they are contemptible.
Of course the question of what is “patriotic” also comes to mind?
That’s EXACTLY the question I was trying to answer. If you disagree with my answer, fine. Say so. Again, I wonder what essay of mine you were reading that you missed the point completely?
Such notions of what one’s duties are to ones fellow citizens, and thus really to the state, are rife with danger and frightening.
Far more frightening is the prospect of people who are afraid to even ask the question, much less attempt an answer.