When it comes to understanding political and social issues, who should we listen to? Where should we find the RIGHT information? How do we know when we've found it? Should we listen to our favorite political pundits on TV? Or should we listen to our sharpest political writers? Should we listen to doctors, or maybe teachers? Or scientists? Should we listen to economists, historians, political scientists, or sociologists? Maybe it would be best to get all of our information from close friends, since they are trustworthy? Or it might be wise to follow the political advice of the "great generations" of the past? Maybe Plato had all the answers?
A few days ago I came across a post by the economist Maxine Udall. It was her reaction to a short animated video clip that discusses some of David Harvey's ideas about capitalism. I posted that same video on my own site just a couple of days before. The part of Udall's post that I found the most interesting was when she wrote:
I pretty much hate it when Marxists make sense. All those years growing up among the bourgeoisie have ruined me, I fear. But I tend to pay attention to them because they're very good at noticing that there is a problem. This video is an excellent description of the problem. I was relieved that no (Marxist) solution was offered so that I could entirely agree that more informed, broader, more open discourse is needed as well as new perspectives.
Those damn marxists! Granted, I know that this is partially tongue-in-cheek. She has a pretty good sense of humor, and I would not characterize her as being ideologically blinded by any means. But Udall's words got me thinking about the different ways in which we all get our information, and how closely linked they can be to ideology. This subject arises all the time when people of different political persuasions talk about economics. Almost immediately, the Keynesians, the Friedmaniacs, and the marxists will all take their corners. Almost inevitably, discussions break down into shouting matches or arguments in which each camp just continues to regurgitate their particular political-ideological position.
Economics is a difficult subject to talk about, since it is a pretty relevant subject to most people. And the ideas of economists are all around us, whether we want to see that or not. As Keynes once wrote,
[T]he ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist [1].
All of these ideas have histories, and in my view it makes sense to look further into these debates, rather than just cheerleading from the sidelines. Often, whether on some political blog or talking to people in public, it's difficult to even get a discussion going--and it's even more difficult to get people to listen to different points of view. Meanwhile, many people go around with the same old opinions in their heads, and are unwilling to even consider alternative points of view. This mentality is pervasive in our current political climate, and it cuts off not only debate, but actual dialog way before any sort of solution can appear on the horizon.
So what am I trying to say here? Am I telling the marxists to go read some Milton Friedman? Am I telling the Adam Smith acolytes to go actually READ what Karl Marx wrote?* Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. If people don't take the time to read what Marx was really talking about, then you end up with millions of people who use the word "marxism" without particularly knowing what they're referring to (Marx did write quite a lot, after all). The same goes for people who decry "capitalism," as if it's just one easy to describe process. It's not. The "capitalism" of Adam Smith's time isn't exactly the same process that we are dealing with today.
When I was an undergrad, there was nothing that irritated me more than seeing a professed anti-capitalist spout uninformed complimentary nonsense about someone like Joseph Stalin, of all people. Overall, there's nothing wrong with being critical of socialism, marxism, capitalism, or any other ISM. I'm all for tearing things to shreds, and I'm all about critical analysis. But it makes sense, to me, to be well informed about the target of your derision. Just an idea. We can learn a lot by studying, for example, the deeper histories of political and economic thought. Or, we can all split off into our respective camps and march around protesting "socialism" or "capitalism" while the anarchists spray paint "revolutionary" messages on the side of the nearest neighborhood Taco Bell. You decide. But I think the carnival of misinformation has already sold enough tickets this year.
So where is the ultimate source of information? Who has all the right answers? Who should we pay attention to? How can we use this information to form opinions and engage in reasonable, constructive debates? How can we actually DO SOMETHING with this information? This is a question that crops up all the time for me. The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that there is no single person, institution, or political party that has all of the right answers. Come on, we all know that deep down inside. Knowledge--whether political, social, cultural, or scientific, is always in a state of change. For that reason, there is no reason to ever assume that all of the right answers have been found, or that a problem has been completely solved. And that's why its important to constantly remain open to new ideas and even competing perspectives.** It makes sense to remove the barriers, and maybe actually take in some different points of view from time to time. Sure, those rigidly polemic pundits on TV are often pretty funny to watch, and they definitely score points for their respective political affiliates. But, in the long run, what do they achieve? A few good laughs? A nice break before the newest episode of "House"? Isn't there something more to all this? The end goal of political discourse has to be about something more than just scoring political points and TV ratings, after all.
*PS: More lovers of Adam Smith should actually read what Adam Smith wrote, too. Check out this article by Amartya Sen.
**If it sounds like I'm preaching, I apologize. This is written as much to myself as anyone else, and helps to sort out some of these issues in my head. There is my disclaimer, whether you like it or not.
[1] This is the final passage of Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.