At a recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh expressed his hope that President Obama's policies will fail. He stated, "I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."
Many have interpreted his argument as, "I am a conservative, I think conservative policies and ideals are best for the country, and so I don't want liberal policies and ideals to take hold."
But this isn't really what he was saying. He was saying that he would prefer Obama's policies fail, and the country suffer further, rather than be proved wrong. Even if it so happened that Obama's policies repair the economy, modernize our infrastructure, alleviate crushing entitlement debt, improve international security, increase access to healthcare and generally make Americans better off, Rush would be upset, because much of his world view would be shaken.
If any rational prognosticator, pundit or voter were strictly concerned with the national welfare, he or she should always want any policies enacted to succeed, regardless of ideology or who is in office.
What Rush is really saying, is that he has preferences with respect to his beliefs. He values beliefs for their own sake, not just because he thinks they will make the country will be better off. This isn't unique to Rush, or to conservatives. People of all stripes hold and cherish beliefs for their own sake. This is why liberals and conservatives alike are often imbued with deep self-righteousness. (And ooh doesn't self-righteousness feel good). We often don't just hold beliefs because we think we are right, we hold them because they make us feel good.
There is often very little cost associated with being wrong. Regardless of my individual views, or my single vote, national policies will remain the same. I may believe universal health care is a good thing, but that belief in and of itself will not generate substantial direct costs to me. I get to walk around feeling good about myself, inflated with self-righteousness. I care so much about my fellow citizens that I support public expenditure to help every one stay healthy. What a nice guy I am, really. And so, at virtually no cost, I can choose whichever beliefs so happen to produce the maximum psychological/pleasure return. In this sense holding the irrational belief is actually rationale from the standpoint of utility maximization. Of course, overwhelming contrary evidence would dash those returns, and that seems to be what Rush is concerned about here (not to mention that wildly successful Obama policies would undermine his entire schtick and lucrative career). Any republican who hopes for Obama to fail is really concerned more with the psychological returns from his or her views, than with what is right for the country. The same holds true for any democrat who hoped Bush's policies would fall flat.
This is a problem. Once these irrational views are aggregated, policies ARE indeed affected. All of a sudden, people's views which were premised more on what makes them feel good, than what is best for the country begin to shape policies. Not every one thinks and behaves this way all the time on every issue, but certainly almost all of us do it to a degree. Whether your political leanings, the country would be better off if we all tried to be a little bit less like Rush.
(And oh my god it feels so good dumping on Rush Limbaugh.....)
-Civil Rights Dude
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
