Terms of Engagement
In their third (and final?) critique of a certain climate blogger, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus explain to their own critics why they don’t take on the other side:
The work of holding Republican obstructionists, anti-government extremists, and right-wing conspiracy mongers to task is work for principled conservatives, not liberals. The work of greens and liberals is to challenge the Democratic demagogues, the left-wing bullies, and the Climate McCarthyites who narrow and polarize the debate in ways that make effective policy action all but impossible. If we can hold our own hyper-partisans to account then fair-minded conservatives might do the same.
This is an interesting philosophical position to take, one that I suspect Roger Pielke Jr. agrees with. Personally, I find these terms of engagement too restrictive.
In the real world, where perception counts as much (if not more) than reality, I believe that Shellenberger and Nordhaus do themselves no good by hewing so faithfully to the position they laid out above.
This presumption that there are two kinds of people and that it would always be obvious which kind one is strikes me as really weird and counterproductive to begin with. If it were true though, it’s hard to see why the proposed approach would be especially sensible.
It is precisely because the whole two-camps view of the world is drastically incorrect that one should criticize people who agree with you on some things and not on others.
To the extent there really are two teams, the person who exclusively criticizes the blue team, surely, is on the red team.
Well, I agree that the approach is not “especially sensible.”
But I disagree with you on that last blue team/red team statement. This is not the same as a typical liberal/conservative dichotomy. S & N are making a different case. It’s taken to the extreme, in my view. But for example, I don’t conclude that they are anti-environmentalists because they mostly criticize precepts that flow out of conventional environmentalism. In fact, I think they make very important and trenchant criticisms of contemporary environmentalism, a counter perspective that was long overdue.
So too do they make valuable contributions to the energy and climate debate. I just think the approach they take-by only whacking their fellow greens– is not altogether pragmatic. It helps, I think, to be an equal opportunity whacker.
Michael Tobis says:
“To the extent there really are two teams, the person who exclusively criticizes the blue team, surely, is on the red team.”
This is of course evocative of Dick Cheney saying that anyone who criticized (then) US policy in Iraq was a traitor. How absurd from Cheney and similarly from Tobis.
Tobis should spend 10 minutes reading the literature on public policy, which is full of critique and very little celebration. Are all of these scholars anti-government? Hardly. The Public Editor for the NYT spends his time criticizing his own paper, and no time criticizing the WSJ or WP. Is he anti-NYT? No. If you actually think about where the terms “red team” and “blue team” come from (hint, it is not the electoral map), you’ll understand why having a diversity of views can actually make policies stronger.
Why do S&N or anyone else have to behave as Tobis or others think is the “right” way to behave? Can’t we allow some diversity in views as well as approaches? Or is only one approach acceptable?
RP Jr misses my use of the word “exclsusively”, entirely changing my meaning.
There are certainly things to be criticized about the environmental movement, but on the face of it I think going out and founding a think-tank that lobbies in DC as one’s primary implementing activity is evidence that one’s critique is lacking in a fundamental way. Alternatively, perhaps one is just an opportunist.
Sorry Keith, it’s BS. First of all, if all the criticisms are directed against one side, what is the occasional reader to think about who is closer to reality.
Second, there is the Overton window thing. If one side receives constant criticism then the terms of the debate are pushed in the opposite direction.
What Schelleberger and Nordhaus are doing is concern trolling at best and trying to elbow everyone else out of the way.
Steve,
I fail to see how creation of a think tank is evidence of a faulty critique.
Eli,
If S & N are “trying to elbow everyone else out of the way,” then what of the person they have been posting on the past week? Would you say the same of him?
Michael Tobis is right (and RPJr misses his point entirely):
“This presumption that there are two kinds of people and that it would always be obvious which kind one is strikes me as really weird and counterproductive to begin with…..”
Plenty of people claim to be “green” or “liberal” — or even Obama Democrats. Others claim to be “conservatives” — and most all claim to be “principled.”
This isn’t a trait of the individual. It’s a description of any single position or vote on any single question.
There aren’t two sides. Pretending there are is a way for people taking complicated and contradictory positions to pretend they don’t need to clarify their own inconsistencies. Whether someone claims to be a “green” or “liberal” or “Obama Democrat” or “conservative” — they all claim to be “principled” — means little. Claiming purity is a great way of avoiding responsibility for thinking about the details.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/two_party_system.png
“Just because you’re on their side doesn’t mean they’re on your side.” (Teresa Nielsen Hayden)
Want to see what works, in action?
Criticizing both Cheney and Obama: http://congressmanwithguts.com/
Criticizing Fox News (“They have no sense of humor”).
This can get scary very fast.
I asked elsewhere if any of the people claiming “McCarthyism” were old enough to remember what life was actually like during the years Joe McCarthy was a Senator. None of them answered; their pictures look young enough they likely have no clue what kind of demon they’re invoking by using that name.
They should look hard at demonizing anyone on any “side” of this modern world’s choices. Don’t confuse how we are now with the old dead past. Leave it dead.
I have one other name to warn you about — you’ll understand if you clicked the link I gave you above and watched the interviews there — it took you about five minutes. Did you do that? Ok:
“Huey Long.”
I agree with Michael Tobis’ 1st comment, (which doubly agreeing RPJ has misinterpreted)
It’s worth noting that (possibly less in the US) people do change politics over the course of their lives. The quote usually attributed to Churchill is along the lines of “If you’re not a liberal under 30 you don’t have a heart, and if you are one over 30 you don’t have a head” or somesuch. There is also some empirical stuff on women and a values shift which takes place over the course of their lives.
So whilst agreeing overall, I suggest you change the two teams to blue and green, to align with (the anti-inductive), <b>grue</b> and <b>bleen</b>.
Luke, grue and bleen are sort of muddy colors, but that may have been your point.
Eli – no deliberate mud or muddying – must be soil on your whiskers.
Keith, the main thing the environmental movement suffers from is an excess of foundation-driven lobbying. Unsurprisingly, doing more such lobbying just adds to the problem.
Steve, I don’t know if it’s “main thing” but it’s up there. Still, I was referring to a think tank, not lobbysists.
Do S & N have a lobbying presence on the Hill? I don’t think so. Best as I can tell, they limit themselves to public arena discourse. That’s a whole different thing that lobbying behind closed doors. So in comment 5, you conflated the two activities.