Friday, May 25, 2007
"Framing" an Argument
My friends H, M, R, and S argue with me and each other about political, ecnomic, and social matters. Often S and I are on one side and H, M, and R are on the other side. Sometimes the division is more complicated. However, I classify H, M, and R, according to their expressed opinions, as "conservatives." S and I are the "liberals" or "anti-conservatives." S and I occasionally disagree. R tends to be more libertarian and less religious than H and M. For example, R favors funding for any and all stem cell research, including federal funding. H and M oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. In fact, they would prefer that embryos not be used for research at all.
In a recent exchange, R asserted that "liberal elites" do not trust the public to vote for or choose programs or policies that these "elites" favor. For example, "liberal elites" oppose drilling for oil in the ANWR in Alaska, while the people of Alaska are very much in favor of the drilling. The "liberal elites" do not trust the public.
My first response to this rant was to declare my support of local democracy. I argued that both local government units and the federal government can make mistakes, but that local units are more flexible and can recognize and correct mistakes quicker than the federal government can. I can go on (although I didn't in my e-mail to R, H, M, and S) to cite the federal government's long-running "war" on drugs as an example of a mistake that the feceral government is slow to recognize and correct. Local governments, for example the people of California, recognize that the inclusion of marijuana or hemp or cannabis in the list of dangerous drugs that ought not to be available to the public is a mistake. Even if the federal government won't recognize it, local voters know that the "legal" drug ethanol, the active ingredient in whisky and brandy and wine, is more "dangerous" than the "illegal" drug that is the active ingredient of marijuana.
But getting back to the emotional term "liberal elite," I now understand that the phrase is used simply to "frame" the argument. It is a way of showing scorn and contempt for a particular point of view without having to justify the opposition to it. I myself am opposed to drilling for oil in ANWR. My argument is that any oil discovered there (I concede that there is probably a lot of oil there) isn't going to affect the price of oil today, nor for several years. It will take that long to build the equipment to extract the oil and transport it to an all-weather port, such as Valdez. I believe that the money spent to drill and exploit the oil field there would be better spent developing and building plants that use new, renewable, and non-polluting sources of energy. My view is dismissed by my conservative friends as simply "elitist."
They do have an argument. After implying that I am a contemptible "liberal elitist," R goes on to point out that even though the oil from ANWR won't be available for several years, we in the United States will continue to use petroleum for fuel. When the oil from ANWR does come on line, it will represent oil that we no longer have to buy from sources in Arabia, Iran, Africa, and South America. The money that would have gone to the sheiks and emirs and ayatollahs and crazy South American leaders would instead stay within the United States. That is a valid argument. However, R and M go on to argue that the saved money would be spent in the United States in such a manner as to create 700,000 new jobs. That part of the argument I dismiss as being an unprovable, highly optimistic prediction. Whether the oil comes from ANWR or Iraq or Nigeria or Iran, the money to pay for it will come from Americans who buy gasoline for their cars and fuel oil for their furnaces and from American industries who directly or indirectly use petroleum to generate the power needed to produce their products. In one case the money will go to the sheiks and emirs and ayatollahs. In the other case, it will go to the stockholders of American Big Oil (Exxon-Mobile, Union, etc.). I have asked my conservative friends to explain to slow-witted me how the money that goes to American Big Oil is going to create any more jobs than the money that goes to the emirs and their ilk.
The argument "money-at-home = jobs" seems to me to be a variant of supply-side economics. Make it and people will buy. Build it and people will use it. My belief is that the decision of whether to start a new enterprise starts with the question of whether there is a market for a particular service or product. One has to prove that a potential market exists before a prudent investor will be willing to risk some of his money in the enterprise. One doesn't start the enterprise and then hope that customers will materialize.
My friend M argued that the extra money would be in American pockets, not in the pockets of the emirs, etc. It takes money to buy the services and products of a new enterprise. With this extra money, there would be extra demand, etc. I will let you, the reader of this blog, meditate for a while on this argument and decide for yourself whether it makes any sense.
It has been discussed elsewhere that conservatives have been more adept at using framing to force a desired conclusion to a debate or argument than liberals. I don't expect liberals to improve their "framing" skills. However, they must learn to recognize a frame when they see it and call it by its name. Terms like "liberal elite," "tax-and-spend Democrats," and "soft on crime" are well-worn frames that have had some influence on elections. The last liberal that I can recall that used frames effectively to counter his conservative opponents was Franklin Roosevelt. "Economic Royalist" was an effective frame in his day. We liberals need a man like FDR today.
In a recent exchange, R asserted that "liberal elites" do not trust the public to vote for or choose programs or policies that these "elites" favor. For example, "liberal elites" oppose drilling for oil in the ANWR in Alaska, while the people of Alaska are very much in favor of the drilling. The "liberal elites" do not trust the public.
My first response to this rant was to declare my support of local democracy. I argued that both local government units and the federal government can make mistakes, but that local units are more flexible and can recognize and correct mistakes quicker than the federal government can. I can go on (although I didn't in my e-mail to R, H, M, and S) to cite the federal government's long-running "war" on drugs as an example of a mistake that the feceral government is slow to recognize and correct. Local governments, for example the people of California, recognize that the inclusion of marijuana or hemp or cannabis in the list of dangerous drugs that ought not to be available to the public is a mistake. Even if the federal government won't recognize it, local voters know that the "legal" drug ethanol, the active ingredient in whisky and brandy and wine, is more "dangerous" than the "illegal" drug that is the active ingredient of marijuana.
But getting back to the emotional term "liberal elite," I now understand that the phrase is used simply to "frame" the argument. It is a way of showing scorn and contempt for a particular point of view without having to justify the opposition to it. I myself am opposed to drilling for oil in ANWR. My argument is that any oil discovered there (I concede that there is probably a lot of oil there) isn't going to affect the price of oil today, nor for several years. It will take that long to build the equipment to extract the oil and transport it to an all-weather port, such as Valdez. I believe that the money spent to drill and exploit the oil field there would be better spent developing and building plants that use new, renewable, and non-polluting sources of energy. My view is dismissed by my conservative friends as simply "elitist."
They do have an argument. After implying that I am a contemptible "liberal elitist," R goes on to point out that even though the oil from ANWR won't be available for several years, we in the United States will continue to use petroleum for fuel. When the oil from ANWR does come on line, it will represent oil that we no longer have to buy from sources in Arabia, Iran, Africa, and South America. The money that would have gone to the sheiks and emirs and ayatollahs and crazy South American leaders would instead stay within the United States. That is a valid argument. However, R and M go on to argue that the saved money would be spent in the United States in such a manner as to create 700,000 new jobs. That part of the argument I dismiss as being an unprovable, highly optimistic prediction. Whether the oil comes from ANWR or Iraq or Nigeria or Iran, the money to pay for it will come from Americans who buy gasoline for their cars and fuel oil for their furnaces and from American industries who directly or indirectly use petroleum to generate the power needed to produce their products. In one case the money will go to the sheiks and emirs and ayatollahs. In the other case, it will go to the stockholders of American Big Oil (Exxon-Mobile, Union, etc.). I have asked my conservative friends to explain to slow-witted me how the money that goes to American Big Oil is going to create any more jobs than the money that goes to the emirs and their ilk.
The argument "money-at-home = jobs" seems to me to be a variant of supply-side economics. Make it and people will buy. Build it and people will use it. My belief is that the decision of whether to start a new enterprise starts with the question of whether there is a market for a particular service or product. One has to prove that a potential market exists before a prudent investor will be willing to risk some of his money in the enterprise. One doesn't start the enterprise and then hope that customers will materialize.
My friend M argued that the extra money would be in American pockets, not in the pockets of the emirs, etc. It takes money to buy the services and products of a new enterprise. With this extra money, there would be extra demand, etc. I will let you, the reader of this blog, meditate for a while on this argument and decide for yourself whether it makes any sense.
It has been discussed elsewhere that conservatives have been more adept at using framing to force a desired conclusion to a debate or argument than liberals. I don't expect liberals to improve their "framing" skills. However, they must learn to recognize a frame when they see it and call it by its name. Terms like "liberal elite," "tax-and-spend Democrats," and "soft on crime" are well-worn frames that have had some influence on elections. The last liberal that I can recall that used frames effectively to counter his conservative opponents was Franklin Roosevelt. "Economic Royalist" was an effective frame in his day. We liberals need a man like FDR today.
Labels: Conservatism, Drilling in ANWR, drug policy, FDR, Framing an argument, Liberalism, Libertarian, Nineteenth Amendment, Tax and Spend Democrats
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Odd Thoughts for a Saturday Morning
My friend M, whom I consider to be a complete right wingnut, trades insults with me by e-mail at least twice a week. In his latest, he included this comparison between "conservative" and "liberal." I will leave it to you to decide which of us is the nuttier.
First, his definition is not new; I'm sure I've seen it before.
Conservative Beliefs:
Liberal Beliefs:
What's new to me is that the RW nuts have added the line on global warming to make it a political issue. It shouldn't be.
I am not familiar with any "liberal" comparison of "liberal" with "conservative." I won't try to construct such a list myself. Rather, I choose to punch a few holes in my friend M's definition of the two. First, it's big news to me that free enterprise, freedom of speech, self reliance, and freedom of religion are beliefs that only conservatives have. There's a question about the meaning of the second amendment right to bear arms: is that an individual right or is it the right of the States to have their own independent militias? That's still an unsettled question. At any rate, conservatives in cities like Los Angeles are just as appalled as liberals whenever an innocent child is killed by gunfire from a street gang member, and when the police find that gangs have superior weapons to the ones we provide to our policemen.
My point is that, according to M's list, nearly all of us are "conservative." The only persons not included are some criminals and a few hard-core dedicated communists. Even communists believe in self-reliance. A fundamental flaw in M's list is that it isn't useful as a means of classifying opinions.
Now, what does M have to say about liberals? Obviously he regards them with scorn and contempt. Don't worry; that's just one of M's insults. I get even with him in the next round of e-mails. Aside from that, what is wrong about the list for liberals?
Government Regulation: Contrary to what Libertarians and the Cato Institute would have us believe, private enterprise does not remain competitive without some rules. Monopolies are forbidden. Conspiracies to fix prices are forbidden. Companies are required to label their products and provide printed warnings of any hazards regarding a product. These are sensible rules that we all agree with. Someone has to enforce them. An impartial policeman is needed to keep free markets free and competitive. We all pay the policeman to do that; it is one of the functions of government. You may argue that some regulations are unnecessary and burdensome. No one disagrees with that possibility. The necessity of a particular regulation must be settled by the public and not by industry.
The Government takes care of everyone: I certainly hope that government would treat everyone fairly. A great man, our sixteenth President, said that government should do for people what people can't do for themselves. Perhaps M favors a government that takes care of only a select few. We have a tendency toward such a government now. The Bush Administration is concerned about caring for the wealth of the rich, by keeping their taxes low, and caring for the feelings of the christian fundamentalists by forbidding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and by advocating against abortion and gay marriage. It's not greatly concerned about the lives of the volunteers who are fighting Bush's War in Iraq nor about the lives of their families. The care or neglect is shown in the funding priorities of the administration.
Only Government has (controls) guns: People who call themselves liberals have all sorts of attitudes regarding the ownership and use of guns. You attitude depends on where you live. A farmer uses a gun to protect his chickens from the hawk. Men in small towns and on farms in some States like to go deer hunting in the fall. Rural people tend to regard a gun as a useful and necessary tool. City folk don't shoot at hawks and don't spend their vacation time hunting deer. To them, a gun is something a policeman uses to protect them, or something a mugger uses to rob them, or something gang members use to kill each other. City folk would feel more comfortable if guns didn't exist. If they didn't exist, the police wouldn't need them, either. There are certainly some liberals who passionately desire strict regulation of hand guns, dealing with who is allowed to own or use one, how they are marketed and sold, the kind of ammunition available for them, and what type of gun is allowed to be sold to the public. A lot of the controversy has to do with automatic or semi-automatic weapons: weapons that can fire many bullets for one pressing of the trigger. Farmers have no interest in such weapons. Neither do deer hunters. Gangs and other criminals like them. The police generally do not carry such weapons.
Freedom of speech you agree with (witness the treatment of conservative speakers on campus): It's just plain nutty to conflate the behavior of rude, impolite college students with liberalism. I suspect that what the students object to is not the "conservative" content of a particular speech but the obvious lies and half-truths that so many "conservative" speakers utter. If a speaker states that he believes in a society in which everyone has an equal chance for success but must achieve success through his or her own efforts, I don't see why anyone would object. However, if the speaker goes on to say, as Milton Friedman once said before a college audience, that there is no poverty and there are no poor people in the United States, he deserves to be booed.
Blind Belief in the Only True Religion (Global Warming): Now, there is an assertion that is just plain nutty. I won't bother to respond to it.
Recently, M, H, S, R, and other friends have been e-mailing me and each other about global warming and universal health care. Now I admit that universal health care is a rather radical idea. I'm not sure it's a liberal idea. It's probably to the ideological left of many liberals. However, the existence of Global Warming has been condeded by almost everyone except James Inhofe, a Senator from an obscure mid-western State. It is not sure what the consequences will be. One prediction is that the levels of the oceans will rise several feet.
I keep trying to think of a model for a system of universal health care. Some Republicans (e.g., Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger) think of the model of auto insurance. Everyone is required to carry liability insurance for his car. Why not require everyone to buy health insurance? For those who can't afford the premiums, the State will provide a subsidy. Mr. Bush proposes that the federal tax code be modified to allow health insurance premiums to be counted as deductions. (They were allowed until about 1970).
One model I think of is fire protection. In Los Angeles City and County, everyone is protected by fire departments who try mightily to protect homes threatened by wildfires. We don't buy insurance so that the fire crew will come; we pay taxes that pay for the fire departments. We do have fire insurance on our homes, but that is to pay for repairing the damage done, not to pay the fire crew to come to extinguish the fire. If we followed this model, we would set up numerous free health clinics where people could get treatment for various medical problems. The free clinics would also encourage people to participate in preventive medicine, just as fire departments encourage us to install smoke and fire alarms, give us advice on how to protect out houses from wildfires, how to build houses that resist burning, and the like. Really serious medical problems would be dealt with in hospital emergency rooms. As to health insurance, that would pay for expensive treatment needed to restore good health.
I'm not sure I like this model very much, but it would be an improvement over what we have now. It would be like the health care system in Los Angeles in 1960, when the county had funds to operate free health clinics. My wife and I used to go to such a clinic every year to get our flu shots.
Anyway, that's enough odd thinking for a Saturday morning, especially as it is almost noon.
First, his definition is not new; I'm sure I've seen it before.
Conservative Beliefs:
- Free enterprise.
- Self reliance
- Second amendment right to bear arms.
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of religion
Liberal Beliefs:
- Government regulation.
- The government takes care of everyone.
- Only government has (controls) guns
- Freedom of speech you agree with (witness the treatment of conservative speakers on campus).
- Blind belief in the only true religion (Global Warming)
What's new to me is that the RW nuts have added the line on global warming to make it a political issue. It shouldn't be.
I am not familiar with any "liberal" comparison of "liberal" with "conservative." I won't try to construct such a list myself. Rather, I choose to punch a few holes in my friend M's definition of the two. First, it's big news to me that free enterprise, freedom of speech, self reliance, and freedom of religion are beliefs that only conservatives have. There's a question about the meaning of the second amendment right to bear arms: is that an individual right or is it the right of the States to have their own independent militias? That's still an unsettled question. At any rate, conservatives in cities like Los Angeles are just as appalled as liberals whenever an innocent child is killed by gunfire from a street gang member, and when the police find that gangs have superior weapons to the ones we provide to our policemen.
My point is that, according to M's list, nearly all of us are "conservative." The only persons not included are some criminals and a few hard-core dedicated communists. Even communists believe in self-reliance. A fundamental flaw in M's list is that it isn't useful as a means of classifying opinions.
Now, what does M have to say about liberals? Obviously he regards them with scorn and contempt. Don't worry; that's just one of M's insults. I get even with him in the next round of e-mails. Aside from that, what is wrong about the list for liberals?
Government Regulation: Contrary to what Libertarians and the Cato Institute would have us believe, private enterprise does not remain competitive without some rules. Monopolies are forbidden. Conspiracies to fix prices are forbidden. Companies are required to label their products and provide printed warnings of any hazards regarding a product. These are sensible rules that we all agree with. Someone has to enforce them. An impartial policeman is needed to keep free markets free and competitive. We all pay the policeman to do that; it is one of the functions of government. You may argue that some regulations are unnecessary and burdensome. No one disagrees with that possibility. The necessity of a particular regulation must be settled by the public and not by industry.
The Government takes care of everyone: I certainly hope that government would treat everyone fairly. A great man, our sixteenth President, said that government should do for people what people can't do for themselves. Perhaps M favors a government that takes care of only a select few. We have a tendency toward such a government now. The Bush Administration is concerned about caring for the wealth of the rich, by keeping their taxes low, and caring for the feelings of the christian fundamentalists by forbidding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and by advocating against abortion and gay marriage. It's not greatly concerned about the lives of the volunteers who are fighting Bush's War in Iraq nor about the lives of their families. The care or neglect is shown in the funding priorities of the administration.
Only Government has (controls) guns: People who call themselves liberals have all sorts of attitudes regarding the ownership and use of guns. You attitude depends on where you live. A farmer uses a gun to protect his chickens from the hawk. Men in small towns and on farms in some States like to go deer hunting in the fall. Rural people tend to regard a gun as a useful and necessary tool. City folk don't shoot at hawks and don't spend their vacation time hunting deer. To them, a gun is something a policeman uses to protect them, or something a mugger uses to rob them, or something gang members use to kill each other. City folk would feel more comfortable if guns didn't exist. If they didn't exist, the police wouldn't need them, either. There are certainly some liberals who passionately desire strict regulation of hand guns, dealing with who is allowed to own or use one, how they are marketed and sold, the kind of ammunition available for them, and what type of gun is allowed to be sold to the public. A lot of the controversy has to do with automatic or semi-automatic weapons: weapons that can fire many bullets for one pressing of the trigger. Farmers have no interest in such weapons. Neither do deer hunters. Gangs and other criminals like them. The police generally do not carry such weapons.
Freedom of speech you agree with (witness the treatment of conservative speakers on campus): It's just plain nutty to conflate the behavior of rude, impolite college students with liberalism. I suspect that what the students object to is not the "conservative" content of a particular speech but the obvious lies and half-truths that so many "conservative" speakers utter. If a speaker states that he believes in a society in which everyone has an equal chance for success but must achieve success through his or her own efforts, I don't see why anyone would object. However, if the speaker goes on to say, as Milton Friedman once said before a college audience, that there is no poverty and there are no poor people in the United States, he deserves to be booed.
Blind Belief in the Only True Religion (Global Warming): Now, there is an assertion that is just plain nutty. I won't bother to respond to it.
Recently, M, H, S, R, and other friends have been e-mailing me and each other about global warming and universal health care. Now I admit that universal health care is a rather radical idea. I'm not sure it's a liberal idea. It's probably to the ideological left of many liberals. However, the existence of Global Warming has been condeded by almost everyone except James Inhofe, a Senator from an obscure mid-western State. It is not sure what the consequences will be. One prediction is that the levels of the oceans will rise several feet.
I keep trying to think of a model for a system of universal health care. Some Republicans (e.g., Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger) think of the model of auto insurance. Everyone is required to carry liability insurance for his car. Why not require everyone to buy health insurance? For those who can't afford the premiums, the State will provide a subsidy. Mr. Bush proposes that the federal tax code be modified to allow health insurance premiums to be counted as deductions. (They were allowed until about 1970).
One model I think of is fire protection. In Los Angeles City and County, everyone is protected by fire departments who try mightily to protect homes threatened by wildfires. We don't buy insurance so that the fire crew will come; we pay taxes that pay for the fire departments. We do have fire insurance on our homes, but that is to pay for repairing the damage done, not to pay the fire crew to come to extinguish the fire. If we followed this model, we would set up numerous free health clinics where people could get treatment for various medical problems. The free clinics would also encourage people to participate in preventive medicine, just as fire departments encourage us to install smoke and fire alarms, give us advice on how to protect out houses from wildfires, how to build houses that resist burning, and the like. Really serious medical problems would be dealt with in hospital emergency rooms. As to health insurance, that would pay for expensive treatment needed to restore good health.
I'm not sure I like this model very much, but it would be an improvement over what we have now. It would be like the health care system in Los Angeles in 1960, when the county had funds to operate free health clinics. My wife and I used to go to such a clinic every year to get our flu shots.
Anyway, that's enough odd thinking for a Saturday morning, especially as it is almost noon.
Labels: auto insurance, fire damage to homes, fire insurance, liberal vs. conservative, Libertarian, Milton Friedman, second amendment, Universal health care
Friday, April 06, 2007
Counter arguments to Libertarians
In yesterday's post (see below) I commented on a recent Libertarian argument against a proposal to provide universal health insurance to all by means of a single-payer system. Canada has such a system, as do many other industrialized countries. I am not satisfied with my own critique of the Libertarian argument against such an approach. I know that there are others who are much more able than I am to mount a convincing defense of single-payer and a devastating attack of the Libertarian argument. However, I will attempt such an attack anyway.
The writers made the following four arguments against proceding now with setting up a single-payer plan:
The writers made the following four arguments against proceding now with setting up a single-payer plan:
- A single-payer or universal plan doesn't provide timely access to certain expensive medical procedures, such as joint replacements or organ transplants.
- Lack of personal health insurance or personal wealth does not preclude Americans from obtaining health care from hospital emergency rooms.
- Statistically, one can not show that having health insurance correlates with having better health.
- The additional cost of caring for the uninsured is no more than three percent of the total cost of the American health care system, the writers say.
Rather than proceed with a single-payer or universal plan, the writers recommend that we should try to do something about things that drive up the cost of health care to mericans. We should adopt such remedies as health savings accounts, a standard health insurance deduction in the personal income tax, and deregulating the insurance industry.
- Access to such procedures as joint and organ replacements are delayed in some countries by a shortage of facilities to perform the procedures, not by the bureaucratic inefficiency of the government's health care plan. In addition, in our own country, these precedures are not available to persons who lack both insurance and the money to pay for them. We read in the papers of accounts of poor, uninsured persons who do receive such procedures, but they are the exceptional cases in which some generous person or organization pays the cost. Libertarian point #1 is not a valid argument against universal health care.
- Emergency room care also does not provide expensive treatments like organ or joint replacements. It provides only the medical services needed to prolong a person's life or to treat an illness. If you have a weak heart and have a heart attack, the emergency room staff will resuscitate you but will not give you expensive treatment for your condition.
- There are several possible explanations for the lack of correlation between having good health and having insurance. One is that a majority of Americans do have health insurance. The lack of correlation simply means that insured Americans, on the average, are as healthy as the average uninsured American. A good fraction of uninsured Americans are young people with good health who either can't afford the insurance or don't see any need for it. Another is private insurance is not structured to encourage one to stay healthy by having frequent check-ups. It is structured to enhance profit by discouraging visits to the doctor unless the patient has a case that is convincing to the insurance adjuster.
- To argue that the cost of caring for the uninsured amounts to "only" three percent of the cost of the American medical care system and then to argue in favor of such controversial and untested remedies as deregulating the insurance industry, setting up personal health savings accounts, and an insurance deduction in the income tax seems rather hypocritical to me. I have no doubt that providing insurance to the uninsured would reduce that three percent cost to something less.
Anyway, for what it's worth, there is my answer to the Libertarian argument against universal health care or universal health insurance. I welcome your comments.
Labels: Cato Institute, delays in expensive medical treatments, Libertarian, single-payer, Universal health care
