This is the second instalment in Tim Dunlop’s One Question blogging experiment and the question this week has been posed by Harry Clarke:
How relevant are motives in assessing the public policy stance of a politician or commentator?
It’s an interesting question. But one whose premise I’m rather inclined to deny has the force that it is supposed to carry. Harry’s argument is that they shouldn’t be, because to take into account motives is to commit a logical fallacy. The first assumption in the application of a “motives fallacy” to political debate (briefly summarised, the idea that you should analyse a policy by its effects or predicted effects, not by the reasons a politician might have had for proposing it) appears to be that political discussion is itself rational. That’s something of a fallacy in itself. And I don’t just mean because a lot of political debate is in practice ad hominem, snarky, abusive, hyperbolic or whatever, though obviously it is. The thing is – it’s meant to be.
The idea that decisions would emerge from rational and considered debate is really a product of nineteenth century liberalism. It’s most often associated with J. S. Mill, but if you wanted to cite thinkers who’d make that argument, then you wouldn’t be short of candidates. Its context was a restricted electorate and an assumption that the prime decision makers were relatively independent members of parliament who would not be swayed by self interest or indeed party interest. It dates from a pre-Gladstonian era when there were in fact many independent Commons MPs, and when parties rarely sought to appeal outside the House. Indeed, when you look at the development of British democracy, it’s interesting to observe, as A. J. P. Taylor once did, that it was only after the second Reform Act that prime ministers were effectively chosen by elections not by the sovereign.
That all might sound like ancient history, but in fact it’s still relevant.
Of course, the career of Disraeli should have been sufficient to demonstrate to Millian liberals that rhetoric and appeals to emotion were at least as important, if not more so, in determining political outcomes. Or the fact that Mill himself only served one term in Parliament, before losing his seat to a Tory after the expansion of the electorate in 1865.
The great fear of British liberals (interestingly, conservatives weren’t so afraid) in the ninenteenth and early twentieth century was that politics would become captive of class interests – the inevitable result, they believed of a democratic polity where politicians had to appeal to the electorate, not just to their fellows.
The thing is, motive is relevant. For a start, every politician has the base line motive of wishing to be elected, and some wish to advance their careers from backbencher to frontbencher and even leader. Surely this contributes (at least in theory) to democratic accountability, and you shouldn’t discount ambition if it’s ambition to make changes and do things rather than just ambition to become more important.
Harry also writes, in his second post on the topic:
(*) Using the terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ can support motives fallacies.
Much as some bloggers would prefer there not to be a left and a right, there are, just as a matter of fact. I’ve previously set out what I think the distinction means in terms of political philosophy, and also made clear that as a bit of a passionate political fighter myself, being on the left is a designation I’m happy to own. And basically, no matter how much you might want to make an argument that it’s not a valid distinction, it’s been the most powerful organising force for actualy political combat for some centuries now.
And it makes a difference whether politicians are left or right.
This is where we get to the second assumption that I disagree with – that political debate should only, or primarily, be on the merits of policy. Even in terms of standard liberal democratic theory (think of the elitists like Schumpeter or pluralists like Dahl), this doesn’t wash. In a representative democracy, we’re choosing between different policy platforms, but we’re not assessing each policy on its merits (despite what mandate theory might claim). We’re just as much voting for pollies because we think their general political orientation matches ours, or doesn’t offend ours, or is closer to ours than that of the other mob, as we are for any specific proposals. No matter how Burkean our representatives are, they owe us their judgement so our judgement of their motives, beliefs and character is relevant.
For instance, the 1993 and 1998 elections might both have been claimed to be referenda on the GST, but they were about a lot more than that – specifically about how the leaders framed the question as central to the debate, and how they used it emotively to strike a chord and produce positive and negative reactions. I’ve chosen the GST as an example, both because it was seen rightly as being an important issue, and because it’s a policy that I think more or less everyone would now agree was blown out of all proportion by both its proponents and opponents. Policy is often just a stand in for broader symbolic contests. In practice, political scientists will tell you that if you can sway 1% of the electorate to vote on a particular policy, you’ve done very well indeed. People vote for a host of reasons, and rational assessment of policy alternatives is rarely one of them.
That’s not necessarily a good thing, and I think by holding pollies to account for their actual motives, and insisting that policy be well supported and evaluated, we can do a lot towards making political debate more rational. But, aside from questions of “character”, it does matter what in general politicians’ motives are, and what informs their choice of particular political alternatives. Yes, politics is emotive, nasty, and messy, but we don’t live in an ideal world, and those characteristics which don’t fit neatly into manuals of argumentative logic are in fact an essential part of it.
Other responses from:
Interesting discussion. If I may, I’d like to lower the tone a notch.
Who, apart from Andrew Norton and Jack Strocchi? Anyway, of those two, the first does it in a complicated manner to universal claim the fruits of Whig liberalism and Mill for the modern political Right, and the second does it to try and further his bizarre new functional grammar, Esperanto for a modern GOVT1001.
The rest of us do ‘yeah, beyond Left and Right’ in the context of claiming spurious unanimity, humanist ethical universalism or slurring people with ‘moral relativism’—as the great Evil Pundit prophesied (from your link Kim).
Motives fallacy bah. Is economic interest no longer a viable political left/right distinction?
Harry Clarke, on more than one occasion has used “Leftist” by way of categorising a response to his assertion, i.e. as a counter argument or to bolster his own. Indeed, I can prove this by going to his blog Kalimna and pull out the relevant discussion from the archive, but it is not necessary. For now. All it would prove is that HC is being disingenuous rather than wrong.
What complicated matters is that Harry was not able to freely and cleanly draw inferences from my post-ulates that I am indeed a “leftist” because he is tainted with the knowledge of me outside the blog: we went to school together and we were both “leftists” then. Harry claims he has “moved on” but I have remained in his mind as one who I was then. He may be right.
So why is Harry falling on the motives fallacy? Has he just discovered it?
For me, knowing where Harry is coming from is useful – this is not a strict formal logic exercise. Apart from truth values we he have value judgments and debates which rely on value judgments.
Take for instance the argument mounted by Susan Sontagabout Leni Reifenstahl that she was a Nazi when the latter produced the photographic picture book about the Nuba people of Africa. I mean, she well knew who Reifenstahl was by then.
Heh, “used to be Left”: that’s one of my own favourites. You can use it simultaneously as a nasty putdown or a righteous self-description, and it works so very effectively for both. Bérubé hit the nail on that little meme:
Frrroooom-tish. “Used to be Right” isn’t nearly as cruel, not even for such unworthies as Malcolm Fraser or Leon Trotsky.
That’s a very spiffy post by Bérubé.
Of course, “leftist” is a nonsense term because it is so vague. The spectrum would run from Louis Auguste Blanqui to Lindsay Tanner or Tony Blair.
In time, leftists will become deviationists and renegades, as the extreme right’s grip on power tightens.
I am a bit astounded at appropriation of “libertarian”. I could describe myself as a libertarian, an accurate enough term, but I am not into Hayek but rather Hasek.
Yeah, Kim. And was Chris Hitchens spooked by Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million by Martin Amis?
Leftist is always chosen as a term because we know that nice men like Tony Blair and the Eustonistas aren’t encompassed by it. The “ist” suffix is supposed to be redolent of “Stalinist”, “Marxist” etc.
We don’t hear much about “rightists” or “libertarianists” or “liberalists”.
In economic liberal land, there are rhetorical tropes too.
I reckon motives are key to political argument. Maybe I am naive but to me this is more true than ever as incumbent governments seek to control information flows and sculpt debate to suit their purposes.
You only have to look at WorkChoices to see this happening. If the Government were confident that their policy was sound and the best solution for Australian workers don’t you think they’d be happy to release all the data they currently collect about AWAs?
Clearly WorkChoices is shafting the low skilled and the young. The Government knows this because it was designed to be that way. The Government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about WorkChoices so it cannot be independently verified to be a good policy solution. So we have nothing to judge the policy on but what we think the motives of the Government are on this issue. They have not been straight with us in the past on IR matters, and I see no reason to believe they will be in the future.
Never forget that the great thinker known as the Unabomber was quite fond of the term “leftist” as a pejorative – it’s through his manifesto like a plague.
Some more responses to the question -
Ken Parish:
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/13/tim-dunlops-1q-the-relevance-of-motive/
tigtog:
http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=647
Harry Clarke suggested that the arguments from motive seem to be an endemically leftist tactic:
“In Australian political debates motive fallacies are so repeatedly and commonly used – particularly, but not exclusively*, by the political left” — see Kalimna Blog
I was thus interested to hear Joe Hockey interviewed on the 7.30 Report tonight:
JOE HOCKEY: Kevin Rudd says he’s not being controlled by the union bosses. Where is all Kevin Rudd’s money coming from? Where are his candidates coming from? And where are his policies coming from?
……
They [union bosses] are going into churches, they’ll go into Meals on Wheels, they’ll go into any group to try and get the message out that people should vote for Kevin Rudd and Labor at the next election.
Now, you’d say to yourself ‘Why would they want to do that?’, because they are desperate, the union bosses are desperate, to have Kevin Rudd elected.”