On Political Binaries

Responding to The Radical Moderate

In a recent post over at The Radical Moderate's Guide to Life, Lauren talks about replacing political binaries and a political compass with something that seems more amorphous to me. She calls it a political landscape.  I think there is something useful about this move, but I am not sure I am fully on board.  I'll briefly explain why here.

Most importantly, as problematic as binaries are—and I agree they are extremely problematic—they often help us understand something.  For example, in some instances, it is useful to ask “will this policy or action result in more freedom or more restrictions of freedom?”  Or “will this result in higher infant mortality rates?”  Or “will people be more or less able to lead good lives?”  Strictly speaking, each of these questions suggest (to me anyway) scales rather than strict binaries, but the scales are simple bilateral scales, meaning there are two sides though also (potentially many) positions between them.  I don't know of any good reason to think we can't place different actions, policies, or political leaders on those scales in a way that can provide useful information.  (I want to say "useful information about the political landscape!)

The problem I think Lauren is clearly right about is that people try to reduce everything to one question with a single possible set of (perhaps binary) results.  That is a problem.  It is lazy thinking that simplifies so much as to make it difficult to remember that there are many questions, many perspectives, and many possible solutions to each question.  If we want to understand the social and political world, we can't succumb to that sort of simplification.  We have to remember there are many questions, some of which we may not have even considered but may be urgent for other people.  We have to accept some form of pluralism—about the questions, the solutions to the questions, and the perspectives on the questions and solutions.  

Importantly, I tend to think the pluralism we should accept retains objectivity.  There are, I think, objective answers to moral and political questions, but those answers involve, are based on, and help to promote, a (relatively small set of) plural (and irreducible) values.  Getting straight on what those values are will be important.  I don't mean to say there is one question with one bilateral scale for each value—there may be, but perhaps each (or some) of the values can only be looked at with multiple bilateral scales.

My point here is only that for each of the values we are concerned with (and though I think some of those are objective, I am open to the likelihood that some are not), there may be an interesting and important scale with binary endpoints.  That, as I've said, can be helpful for thinking about the social and political world.  Knowing that a politician values national security more than freedom of movement, for example, can be important.  Knowing only that said politician scores "high" on a scale of the value of security is good, but failing to temper that with knowledge that the same politician scores "low" on the scale of the value of freedom (of movement), could be disastrous. Knowing only that they share your concern for security without knowing they do not share your concern for freedom, might have you voting for them though they would support legislation requiring passports for movement between states (i.e., provinces) which you would oppose.

So, my suggestion, contra Lauren, is that the “landscape” isn’t really a landscape or map in the ordinary senses of those words.  We can't draw a map or paint a landscape and place different political leaders, policies, or actions on either in any particularly meaningful way.  (I'd be very interested to seeing an attempt to do so!  This is something it would be very cool to be wrong about!) Instead, I think what we have to recognize is simply that there are multiple, perhaps overlapping, "scales" that are all of concern.  Using these scales requires realizing which matter in which cases, how much they matter in any given case (especially if, as is likely often the case, more than one scale is relevant in the case).  Lauren might be willing to accept that.

I want to encourage a further step—though it may also be a step Lauren might take with me.  Simply put, I’m inclined to think the (partially overlapping) set of scales we are concerned with can be organized or structured in some way.  I'm not sure how, but perhaps the most useful analogy is a computer algorithm.  The algorithm can take the scores on any number of scales, use previously determined weights for each (perhaps different depending on the question we seek an answer to), and tell us what policy (or politician or action) most fits with our political worldview.  Those of us who value freedom at least as much as we value security would have algorithms that follow from that weighting; those who value security more, would have different weightings.

At the end of the day, I am not sure I like the terminology here, so feel free to send me suggestions for better ways to discuss it all!