I’ve been watching the Netflix TV series “Better Call Saul“, which can be seen as a defense of rules utilitarianism.
The protagonist is a con man named Jimmy who has all sorts of schemes to evade regulations and/or steal property to benefit himself and his friends. The gimmick in the show is that the producers portray Jimmy as a sort of lovable rogue, who feels guilty when his actions cause pain in others. He bends society’s rules, but only when he thinks the gain will exceed the cost. (At least in the early seasons.)
Unfortunately, Jimmy’s actions almost always seem to backfire. They lead to all sorts of repercussions that cause Jimmy to feel guilty. But he soon gets over it, and then is on to his next adventure. His girlfriend thinks he needs a psychiatrist, but he actually needs a philosopher.
Jimmy’s problem is that he has adopted a crude form of utilitarianism, attempting to judge each action on its merits. He fails to understand why society needs rules to constrain behavior.
Here are some recent political examples:
1. Some pundits have called for packing the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges by expanding the court from 9 to 15 members. They fail to understand that any transitory benefit from extra judges ruling in the way they wish would be more than offsets by the degradation of our political system.
2. Some Republicans tried to overturn the 2020 election because they thought Trump would be a better president than Biden. They failed to understand that even if this were true, the cost of turning the US into a banana republic would greatly outweigh any short-term benefit.
3. Some Democrats spent money promoting GOP primary candidates that claimed the 2020 election was stolen, assuming that those candidates would be easier to defeat in the fall. They failed to understand that durable political success only comes from making the opposing party adopt some of your views. (FDR, Reagan and Thatcher are good examples.)
4. Some economists believe this would be a good time to raise the inflation target to 3%, forgetting that the extra benefit from a bit more inflation at this juncture would be more than offset by the cost of a loss in policy credibility, making it harder to operate monetary policy in the future.
5. Foreign policy decisions too often reflect an emotional ad hoc response to today’s headlines, not carefully considered mutual defense institutions with rules such as NATO.
When I make these arguments, I often get the following pushback: “All is lost in any case. The system is hopeless corrupt. So why not do the same?”
That’s basically the attitude of all the con artists of the world. Other people are corrupt, so why should I play by the rules? Others cheat on their taxes, so why should I pay mine?
Adam Smith said there’s a great deal of ruin in a nation. You may think the US is hopelessly corrupt, but try spending some time in the Congo, Afghanistan or North Korea. I assure you that things can sink far lower, and will sink lower unless we try to uphold standards.
But it’s not easy. Jimmy’s brother Chuck is portrayed as the grown-up in the room. He is a stickler for rules, a strict rules utilitarian, and is portrayed as an annoying kill-joy (and other terms I cannot use here—we do have rules!) Jimmy is the fun guy—he’s why we watch. So I warn you not to expect any thanks if you fight this battle for ethical standards. Even your ideological soul mates will consider you a traitor when you refuse to cut corners to help your side win political battles.
PS. This NYT article makes some related points:
The Thielites want to see the government hollowed out — to eject the administrative state and erase its memory — not to enhance liberty, but to make our nation’s current operating system more suitable for coercion. They wish to unseat the liberal technocratic elite only so they can install their own: a more competent, compliant and unfettered one.
What this vision is not, is a conservatism of limits. Rather, it is Promethean, progressive, in the most basic sense: It deplores any constraint on its power to govern, shape the future, despoil the planet, innovate, and expand the American economy. All limits — pluralism, democracy, ecology, human frailty — must be overcome in pursuit of winning the world game, reasserting American dominance and dispelling our decadent malaise.
READER COMMENTS
John Hall
Oct 6 2022 at 6:51am
Good piece. You don’t spoil the ending to the show, but thinking about the ending in context with this post is good as well.
Scott Sumner
Oct 6 2022 at 11:43am
I should say that I haven’t yet seen season 6.
Matthias
Oct 6 2022 at 8:14am
About (3): it depends on whether you want your ideas to be in power or you want to be personally in power.
John Hawkins
Oct 6 2022 at 10:46am
I don’t have NYT access, but I really don’t see Peter Thiel this way at all… His about-face on JD Vance (who has been the most opportunistic) was very reassuring to me.
Infovores
Oct 8 2022 at 12:34pm
Did he about face on Vance or did he just stop funding him because he thinks he’s going to win without needing any more of his help?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/peter-thiel-signals-he-is-done-helping-jd-vance-will-fundraise-for-blake-masters.html
As a casual observer Vance seems a more defensible candidate than Masters, but maybe you know more than I do. The latter was appealing to me initially but has been acting kind of like a clown lately.
nobody.really
Oct 6 2022 at 12:32pm
A fair argument — IF you had also said, “And Republicans should never have gamed the judicial nomination process for transparently partisan ends, because this has led to the entirely predictable result that our judicial system is now hopelessly degraded in the eyes of the public, as evidenced by every opinion poll.” The fact that you omit this obvious counterpart strongly suggests you are not speaking from principle, but rather from partisan preference.
nobody.really
Oct 6 2022 at 1:40pm
Upon reflection, that last sentence was needlessly harsh. I suspect we ALL speak from principle AND from preference; motivated reasoning is part of the human condition.
So apologies to Sumner. I’m happy to speak harshly to people, but I should at least let them deserve it first.
robc
Oct 6 2022 at 3:33pm
Scott partisan towards the GOP? Have you read him before?
I probably lean that way (not far enough to vote for a republican if the LP is on the ballot, but still a little) and Scott, if anything, leans the other way. But that might just be my bias, I would never accuse him of Dem partisanship. You are WAAAAAYYYYY out of line.
MikeW
Oct 6 2022 at 7:07pm
I would say that you fail to see that many people have felt that the supreme court has been hopelessly degraded since at least the 1960s. Everything you’re feeling about the courts now, others have been feeling already for several decades. And they also feel that the judicial nomination gaming was started by the Democrats (the Bork nomination).
nobody.really
Oct 6 2022 at 8:11pm
I agree that Bork received treatment uncharacteristic of Supreme Court nominees, and this led to him being excluded based on criteria that Senators had not previously employed. That said, I don’t know that this led to any loss of public esteem for the court. Rather, Reagan just nominated Anthony Kennedy. It’s not clear to me how much difference that swap made to subsequent judicial rulings—a fact you cannot say about the exclusion of Merrick Garland.
Moreover, Bork’s chief accomplishments related to getting courts to embrace a more efficiency-oriented, Chicago-school interpretation of antitrust laws. That’s a momentous accomplishment—but arguably at odds with the current court. Bork’s (and Areeda’s, Bowman’s, and Posner’s) “new learning” arose in the 1960s and ‘70s, well after the adoption of the Clayton and Sherman anti-trust acts. Evidence suggests that the original purpose of antitrust law was anti-BIGNESS: legislatures wanted to defend small-town life–with small farmers, small stores, and small politics–from the predations of urban big business. Efficiency was far from the only rationale, if it was a rationale at all. So if you really believe in originalism, you’d have to reject Bork’s analysis.
We’ll see how long it takes for those principled originalists on the high court to get around to acting on that conclusion. I’m not holding my breath.
Scott Sumner
Oct 7 2022 at 1:27am
So some of my commenters believe the Court was hopelessly degraded by the Dems. Some of my commenters believe the Court was hopelessly degraded by the GOP. Some of you seem to think I ignored that argument, whereas in fact I addressed it head on in my post, which perhaps you did not read carefully. If you did read it carefully, you should address my actual arguments, not ignore them.
nobody.really
Oct 7 2022 at 3:21pm
A lovely homily. But what does it mean?
Yes, “there’s a great deal of ruin in a nation”–meaning that a lot of things can go badly before you reach some kind of collapse. But that’s the game theory question: HOW FAR can you go before things collapse? In a competitive environment, everyone has an incentive to push things to those limits. Sumner seems to argue that we should condemn FUTURE bad behavior, but hey, let bygones be bygones. Of course, once someone engages in new bad behavior, it will immediately become past behavior–worthy to be overlooked.
I’m reminded of Rafiki smacking Simba over the head with a stick. “HEY–what’d you do that for?” Simba demands. “What does it matter?” Rafiki answers. “It’s in the past!”
If standards are worth upholding prospectively, they’re worth upholding retrospectively, too. If we really want to get good behavior in the future, remediate past bad behavior.
Changing the size of the court would provide a mechanism for remediation. What mechanism does Sumner propose? He proposes “following rules.” So if we change the size of the court using legal means, then presumably that’s ok, right?
vince
Oct 7 2022 at 12:28pm
How did Republicans game the judicial nomination process? The Senate, not the President, is the bottom line for Supreme Court justices.
The real problem is our dysfunctional two-party system. There are more than two opinions, but two opinions are all we get. Ranked choice voting or approval voting would give third parties a chance.
MarkW
Oct 6 2022 at 12:41pm
I don’t disagree with any aspects of the argument here, but I wouldn’t have gone with an as-yet hypothetical offense of the left in #1 when there are so many actual offenses to choose from, such as politicizing the IRS and FBI, lying to courts to obtain authorization to spy on political opponents, and implementing government censorship by proxy, to name just a few.
nobody.really
Oct 6 2022 at 1:11pm
1: What about this strategy doesn’t promote this end?
Every political party will push its agenda (“pursue a maximalist strategy”) up until the point where doing so will cause it to lose elections. The Democratic strategy is designed to help Republicans lose elections, which should teach Republicans to select less extreme candidates for future elections (and, perhaps, to expel certain extremists from the party). Once the party begins picking more moderate candidates–that is, once the electorate reconciles itself to the idea that its best option is to select a candidate that is open to accepting some views from across the isle–then bipartisanship can proceed.
2. I don’t think the Democrats’ problem is getting Republicans to adopt their views. The Republican rank-and-file already favor a variety of populist causes–recognition of same-sex marriage, marijuana reform, abortion rights, gun control, assisted suicide, higher taxes on the rich, etc.–as much as Democrats. Hell, once upon a time, Republican politicians opposed pre-marital sex, contraceptives, and divorce–but you couldn’t find a majority of CATHOLICS who supported those positions. (Remarkably, while libertarian candidates poll badly, libertarian positions often poll very well!)
But Republicans who support such positions cannot get through the primary process which is dominated by the most extreme partisans. Donald Trump was one of the few politicians who could overcome that hurdle–and I suspect many people here would conclude that Trump hardly qualifies as a Republican in any conventional sense.
(Democrats face analogous constraints: Contemporary Democratic politicians have difficulty condemning illegal immigration, having to use the term “undocumented immigration.” And there are arguably a variety of nuances involving, for example, transgendered people and athletics, but Democrats are not in a position to acknowledge this. And honestly, affirmative action has never been popular. In academia, social constraints have arguably grown even tighter.)
In short, persuading the majority isn’t the (largest) challenge: The real challenge is in persuading the powerful that pandering to the extremists is a losing strategy. Democrats arguably learned that lesson with McGovern. Republicans are (hopefully) in the process of learning that now. But the powerful mostly need to lose a few elections before they accede this point.
Dan
Oct 8 2022 at 9:28am
“Less extreme”
are they “extreme”? By what criteria? According to whom? The progressive declares one who says “freer markets should not be hindered” as “extreme”.
the Progressives says “charging a person with a crime for violently assaulting another person “ as extreme.
citing the second amendment right to bear arms is extreme for the progressive politician and progressive media personality.
so, what is ‘extreme’?
nobody.really
Oct 10 2022 at 5:29am
According to the voters in the general election.
In this context, “extreme” means “less likely to win a majority of votes because they repel intendent voters and inspire passionate opposition.”
Sumner notes a common pattern: Two candidates, X and Y, compete for the Republican nomination. Polls reveal that Y has a better chance of winning in the general election because she can appeal to independent voters and doesn’t inspire passionate opposition from Democratic voters. So Democrats want Republicans to nominate X instead. They promote this goal by running putative attack ads saying “Don’t vote for X; he’s too conservative!” These ads are catnip for conservatives, and in many Republican primaries, conservatives predominate. Predictably, Republicans respond to the attack by rallying around X, rather than the candidate that (polling shows) would have the better chance to win in the general election.
This strategy dates back at least to 2012, when Democrat Claire McCaskill won a US Senate seat for Missouri, a generally Republican state, by goading the Republicans to nominate their most “extreme” candidate to run against her.
nobody.really
Oct 6 2022 at 2:47pm
A technical point: How does Rules Utilitarianism differ from Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism advocates pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number, or some variation of that.
Rules Utilitarianism advocates adopting rules that promote the greatest good for the greatest number, or some variation of that. Presumably this reflects a theory that promoting rules promotes greater stability and predictability, which achieves promotes the general welfare better than ad-hoc decision-making.
But if so, wouldn’t ALL Utilitarians choose to embrace Rules Utilitarianism? If Utilitarianism is just consequentialism, and if Rules Utilitarianism promotes better consequences, then I see no difference.
In the case of Better Call Saul, it sounds as if Jimmy didn’t merely fail to embrace Rules Utilitarianism; he failed to embrace Utilitarianism at all.
Ok, arguably the difference arises from the idea that we cannot perfectly anticipate the consequences of our actions. Rules Utilitarians have greater skepticism about their capacity to anticipate the consequences of ad hoc decisions than their capacity to anticipate the consequences of adopting and adhering to rules for all eternity. In contrast, Utilitarians have greater skepticism about their ability to anticipate the consequences of adopting and adhering to rules for all eternity than their ability to evaluate the consequences of choices on an ad-hoc basis. Both seem reasonable.
I surmise that a Rules Utilitarian would distinguish herself from a Utilitarian by continuing to embrace rules beyond the point where evidence indicated that doing so would produce the greatest good for the greatest number. We might imagine the Japanese soldier who continues to live in seclusion well after WWII had ended, or Wall-E continuing to clean a planet that has long been abandoned (or perhaps other I, Robot examples).
But arguably Rules Utilitarians are needed to maintain Mutually Assured Destruction. We maintain peace among nuclear powers because each nuclear power credibly promises endless retribution to a nuclear attack by another nuclear power. This is a quite utilitarian outcome. But once deterrence fails and all their missiles are in the air, there may be no point in actually carrying through with the retribution; indeed, US citizens might prefer to be rescued by Russian conquerors than to be left to die in their nuclear hellscape. In short, the utilitarian calculus changes. So to maintain the credibility of the nuclear deterrence, each nuclear power needs to employ people who at least APPEAR to be willing to deliver that retribution, whether or not there’s anything left to be gained by doing so.
Wow–you can sure tell when I’ve got a big project to procrastinate on, and too much coffee, huh?
Scott Sumner
Oct 7 2022 at 1:34am
“But if so, wouldn’t ALL Utilitarians choose to embrace Rules Utilitarianism? ”’
You seem to overlook the point that utilitarians can disagree about the utility of rules. Utilitarians don’t have to agree on everything.
(In fairness, you later seem to acknowledge this point.)
Philo
Oct 6 2022 at 2:56pm
“Some Republicans tried to overturn the 2020 election because they thought Trump would be a better president than Biden.” They said their motivation was to restore the winner of the actual vote, which had been incorrectly counted. Maybe they didn’t actually believe this, but are you sure they didn’t?
Scott Sumner
Oct 7 2022 at 1:40am
Actually, I suspect that many (including Donald Trump) did not actually believe this. But in any case, being delusional does not justify anti-democratic actions. There’s a reason we have procedures for determining election winners, it’s to avoid a situation where the fight over the election continues after the votes are counted.
When there is a dispute, it should be handled as it was in the 2000 election—keep counting the votes until you get as accurate a measure as reasonably possible.
nobody.really
Oct 7 2022 at 11:43am
Wait–what?
So all this time I’ve been delusional for NOTHING?
vince
Oct 7 2022 at 12:47pm
“When there is a dispute, it should be handled as it was in the 2000 election—keep counting the votes until you get as accurate a measure as reasonably possible.”
There were calls then for an auditable voting system, one for which voters can be sufficiently confident that the outcome is valid. It’s never been adopted. Big surprise; we get disputed elections.
This is from verifiedvoting.org: Voting systems that record votes directly on electronic devices or transmit results over the internet SHOULD NEVER BE USED SINCE THERE IS NO WAY TO CHECK THAT VOTES WEREN’T ALTERED.
Michael Sandifer
Oct 6 2022 at 8:24pm
While your general point is correct, you don’t offer empirical support for #1. The US has packed, or unpacked, the Supreme Court several times, for political purposes. Did these instances hopelessly degrade our political system or did the political system continue on a path of improvement in most respects? This doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but you’re just relying on an a priori argument.
There’s a good argument that tit-for-tat is called for here, in part, because it would illustrate that, ultimately, violating norms as McConnell did when he refused to let Garland get a vote as a nominee won’t pay long-term dividends. I think it’s dangerous to allow one party to hold the country hostage just because the other party cares about the country more. Tit-for-tat is a pretty common strategy in evolution, so it has utility.
As I mentioned before, if Biden and the Democrats packed the Court to 12 members, with even numbers of Democratic and Republican appointees, it might actually add legitimacy to the Court, while disallowing many partisan rulings. Sure, it might be a do-nothing Court, comparatively, but that’s not necessarily a bad idea in an era of such polarization.
Mark Z
Oct 6 2022 at 11:31pm
Given that Republicans haven’t packed the court, it wouldn’t be ‘tit for tat.’ And how would adding 6 justices of each party have any effect at all? Currently conservatives have a (more or less) 6-3 majority. Adding 6 of each would just mean they’d have a (more or less) 12-9 majority. There would also be no reason whatsoever for the next president of the opposite party to pack the court in his favor. The equilibrium point is the de facto reduction of the Supreme Court from an independent branch of government to a rubber stamp for the executive branch. One step close to the dictatorship for the sake of democracy I guess.
Michael Sandifer
Oct 7 2022 at 12:05am
I think you need to re-read my comments.
Scott Sumner
Oct 7 2022 at 1:43am
“The US has packed, or unpacked, the Supreme Court several times, ”
I don’t agree. FDR tried to pack the Court, but failed.
Michael Sandifer
Oct 7 2022 at 11:30am
Scott,
I guess you don’t recall I’d presented the history previously:
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/blog/history-of-court-packing/
https://www.msba.org/packing-and-unpacking-the-u-s-supreme-court-a-brief-history/
Court packing was nothing new when FDR tried to do it, though it had not been done in a long time.
Anonymous
Oct 13 2022 at 12:51pm
As your link shows, the number of justices rose to 9 as the circuit courts grew to nine, then they basically stayed that way from then until now (briefly plus or minus 1, and not apparently for the purpose of partisanship)
Susannah
Oct 6 2022 at 10:15pm
Kim is the utilitarian. She reasons that Howard’s demise is a “a career setback for one lawyer” and therefore, a fair exchange for getting the money to she needs to open her legal aid clinic, where she can give many poor people top-notch legal representation. Season 5, episode 10.
Scott Sumner
Oct 8 2022 at 4:28pm
I sort of ignored her, as she’s not a believable character. She’s all over the map.
John S
Oct 8 2022 at 7:59pm
“she’s not a believable character”
While her behavior is hard to understand, I don’t agree that Kim isn’t believable. She exhibits many of the tendencies that can arise in the adult children of alcoholics.
“Adult children of alcoholics are often attracted to people who are emotionally unavailable, such as alcoholics or people with compulsive personalities. They often gravitate toward people who need to be rescued. By focusing on the needs of others, they do not have to face their own shortcomings or difficulties. Since they usually do not know how to engage positively with someone, they often remain in unhealthy relationships for too long.”
https://englishmountain.com/adult-children-alcoholics-characteristics/
Kim showed evidence of this pattern in S1 ep. 1 after her smoke with Jimmy, when she calmly cleaned up the mess he made with the trash can. As for the rest of her character arc, we can see the seeds of it after the billboard incident, when she smiles to herself. This is further fleshed out in S2 ep. 1 (“Switch”).
Kim has had to exercise extreme self-control to get to where she is (and probably to avoid the genetic tendencies of her mother). But no one can keep themselves bottled up forever. How does it feel when that tension is released? The answer is on her face at the end of “Switch.”
Arqiduka
Oct 7 2022 at 4:36am
If you really, actually belive that some republicans called the election into question because they thought Trump was better than Biden – i.e. if you completely refuse to entertain the idea that some may think the election was stolen – and to the degree that this line of thinking is widespread, than the US has far bigger issues than a few steps in the banana republic direction l. You guys are heading towards civil war, you no longer have a true mental model of your fellow citizens.
Brian
Oct 7 2022 at 11:19am
Maybe you didn’t see our blog host’s post at 1:40 a.m. that says “being delusional does not justify anti-democratic actions”.
Arqiduka
Oct 7 2022 at 5:51pm
People surely are to be left the dignity of being delusional if they seek it, without having their own thoughts retold to them by their betters.
Scott Sumner
Oct 8 2022 at 4:31pm
Please be serious. The idea that Trump won the election is right up there with theories the moon landing was faked. It’s nutty conspiracy theorizing, not to be taken seriously.
Chris
Oct 7 2022 at 7:20am
Really nice piece. At the same time, it’s not hard to come up with a reading of Better Call Saul that is pretty accurate and actually promotes what Jimmy is doing, and, by implication, some of those you critique.
Chuck is presented as the adult, but knows how to press advantages when he has them–and he usually does because he’s a great lawyer/rule utilitarian. Howard is not the lawyer Chuck is, but he has the family connections to get most of the same advantages Chuck has (and fewer of the disadvantages). Together they consolidate their advantages in a way that benefits them and their deep-pocketed clients.
As for Jimmy (and Kim), it doesn’t matter if they have talent, they just don’t do things the “right way.”
In this reading, Better Call Saul is both a specific and damning critique of the transformation of American law over the last 40-50 years, AND an overall critique of the ossification of most major American institutions which no longer fulfill the roles we were raised to believe they would.
I don’t agree with this, but it’s compelling to many people. And they don’t want to be reassured by assertions that even if their paycheck has stagnated, the benefits of technology–Look! An iPhone!!–mean they’re actually better off than they think they are.
Scott Sumner
Oct 8 2022 at 4:33pm
Anyone who actually thinks Jimmy is a hero has a pretty serious flaw in their moral reasoning. He’s a con man.
vince
Oct 7 2022 at 12:32pm
Isn’t item 2 a little hyperbolic? The argument should be more like item 3. They believe the election, with all its irregularities and lack of accountability, was stolen.
Scott Sumner
Oct 8 2022 at 4:37pm
So if the situation were exactly reversed, and Biden had lost by 7 million votes, these Republicans would be arguing that Biden had actually won?
There’s clearly a great deal of “motivated reasoning” in politics.
John S
Oct 7 2022 at 7:37pm
Interesting analysis, on both the show and politics.
[ Sidebar on the show: I don’t think Jimmy slips into pure crude utilitarianism until Season 5. In Seasons 1-3, I’d say his actions roughly fall into 3 buckets.
1/3 playing it straight (w/occasional decency)
1/3 shortcuts/small cons (crude utilitarianism)
1/3 tit-for-tat (on steroids, and def. w/o “forgiveness”)
My take on Season 4 is that it’s about Jimmy experimenting with four possible solutions to the prisoners’ dilemma. Based on the feedback he gets, he chooses the “right” solution, which leads to his transformation in the season finale. ]The win-at-all-costs political ethos and stalemate you describe has troubled and depressed me a lot over the last couple of years. I wish the majority of people would take the sensible long-term view about the need to play by the rules of the game, without which society will devolve into chaos. But I worry that it might be impossible to outrun the shadow of the prisoners’ dilemma; much as I hate to admit it, it seems that there are no incentives for either side to break the cycle of retaliation. Why choose “cooperate” when you know the other side will defect?
John S
Oct 7 2022 at 7:56pm
Although I don’t think it has even a 1% chance of making a difference, I still respect Andrew Yang’s efforts to heal the divide with his Forward party initiative. The voting reform thing is great, but in my view its most important aspect is how it puts reconciliation and coming together as Americans to solve our problems at the front and center of its message.
You’d think that would be a popular message, right? But it turns my stomach to see the hate he gets on Twitter for promoting that sentiment (mostly from the left, which sees any attempt at reaching out to sensible Republicans as an endorsement of fascism; don’t they understand that promoting moderate candidates on the right is exactly what we need?)
It’s probably best for my sanity not to dwell on this. There are still lots of interesting things to do, and as for the rest: Que sera sera.
Scott Sumner
Oct 8 2022 at 4:40pm
“Why choose “cooperate” when you know the other side will defect?”
I find this sort of fatalism to be useless. If I want to explain why Danes cooperate more effectively with strangers than do citizens of most other countries, your theory would seem to offer no explanation. So what’s the point?
John S
Oct 8 2022 at 7:19pm
“Why choose “cooperate” when you know the other side will defect?”
Let me clarify that I don’t subscribe to this ethos. I’m merely positing game theory as an explanation of the current predicament and why it may persist. But I’ll still fight the good fight for as long as I can; when my schedule clears up, I will participate in as many Forward party activities as possible.
“If I want to explain why Danes cooperate more effectively with strangers than do citizens of most other countries, your theory would seem to offer no explanation.”
My intention was to describe how political polarization/stalemate can become entrenched in general, not to explain differences in cooperation among countries. To explain Denmark, Joseph Henrich’s WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic) hypothesis might be the best starting point. According to Henrich, people in WEIRD countries are more likely to trust and cooperate with strangers (an example he cites is higher levels of voluntary blood donation). I haven’t read the book, so I can’t give it a fair assessment; however, even if true, it wouldn’t contradict the prisoners’ dilemma I described above.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-henrich-weird-people/615496/
John S
Oct 8 2022 at 7:44pm
“So what’s the point?”
As you stated in a previous conversation we had a while ago, the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have a problem. And I responded that the second step is figuring out how the problem originated in the first place. If we can first admit that the logic of game theory already stacks the deck in favor of polarization, then perhaps that will motivate us to fix flawed voting structures that exacerbate that tendency, such as first past the post and party-based primaries.
Appealing to the “better angels of our nature” is fine, but in the end, incentives matter. So the point is to identify possible avenues for reform.I also don’t think Denmark can remain complacent. In Sweden, the far-right has just scored its best-ever result. “The Sweden Democrats are the second-strongest party, gaining 20.5% of the vote in their best-ever election performance. That makes them the biggest party on the right, in front of the Moderates who came as a close third with 19.1%. “https://www.dw.com/en/swedish-election-the-astonishing-rise-of-the-right-wing-sweden-democrats/a-63100694
Comments are closed.