Hyrum and Verlan's responses make me appreciate Bryan's ongoing effort to steelman rather than strawman his discussants.
Bryan regularly presents Hyrum's views in a way that Hyrum would agree with: "There is no fundamental and durable essence to political parties", even if he disagrees with the statement
Hyrum never presents Bryan's view -- "The consensus view of the collection across time of self-identified leftists would be 'we hate the market'" -- in a way that Bryan would agree with. Instead, he presents a different interpretation that he attributes to Bryan and proceeds to argue with that definition which no one in the room believes and thus no one has an interest in defending.
Yes, Hyrum makes interesting points, but it is never clear that his points really address Bryan's thesis. But this also might have something to do with Bryan's slipperiness. We are sort of engaging in the old philosopher game of necessary and sufficient conditions. But Brian makes anti-market sentiments necessary for leftists (despite some notable exceptions), while giving no sufficient conditions. For rightists, denouncing the left is sufficient and necessary? Bryan at least is transparent in labeling this “oversimplified”. I am tempted to call it hand waving.
Hyrum has moved me in his direction. Progressives hate progress, and conservatives don’t really want to conserve anything. Democrats only tolerate democracy if they can gatekeep who or what is on the ballot. The Republicans have a sort of upside down honesty in labeling, but only if you recall that Plato's Republic described a dictatorship.
Maybe there is a factor that determines which tribe people end up in, but I don’t think anyone has explained it well yet.
If there is no consistency regarding which side supports which pole, then that supports Hyrum's position that the distinction is incoherent. If there is, it refutes his position. So why wouldn’t we want to get into it?
Only one? Conceivable as a single dimension, where we can rank everyone?
There are lots of underlying divides. The question is, does it make any sense or accomplish anything to pretend we can rank people on a single dimension in a way that matters?
You're still my favourite author, sir. But the Lewis brothers have convinced me. I agree with them on this and disagree with you.
Since y'all seem to agree that the "right" hates the left, it seems the main point of contention is your claim that "the left" is anti-market. I can provide another counter-example that I'm quite familiar with:
Before Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, many pro-lifers were trynna "sneak in" abortion restrictions through burdensome regulations such as: the hallways of abortion clinics had to be of a certain width, etc. under the guise of "protecting women's health". As a staunch pro-lifer, I was totally in favour of these restrictions! But, I did find them rather disingenuous. Abortion IS rather safe for the mother. But incredibly dangerous for her baby!!! But they took a page from the anti-market playbook: kill an industry with regulation in the guise of "safety", like taxi medallions or oil pipelines. In the case of abortion clinic regulations, you should have seen the ink spilled by "leftists" arguing for the free market and against "overburdensome regulations!"
That being said, I do find it useful to having some sort of "short-hand" to describe your political views rather than having to list them one-by-one. For example, I am a "pro-life libertarian." I would probably find something on hwhich to disagree with other pro-life libertarians (both pro-lifers and libertarians LOVE to argue!) but it's still a useful short-hand that pretty much sums up my political views without having to name each one! I also believe it's useful to have a tribe. Abortion is the most important issue to me. If I were American and the RepubIicans were still the most pro-life party, I would probably always support the Republicans, even though I strongly disagree with them on immigration. I more strongly agree with them on abortion. So, I guess the Republicans would be my "tribe" and I would support them, donate to them, volunteer for them and vote for them, even if I don't agree with them 100%. But I believe the Lewis brothers wouldn't disagree. But "essentialist" definitions of left and right are not useful.
Also, consider Puerto Rico: It's politics are mainly defined by people's positions on Puerto Rican sovereignty: Independence, status quo or statehood. How do you classify these positions in a left-right dichotomy?
>I can provide another counter-example that I'm quite familiar with: Before Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, many pro-lifers were trynna "sneak in" abortion restrictions through burdensome regulations.
You may have misunderstood Bryan's point. He didn't say that the common denominator among "the right" is that they are pro-market - on the contrary - he said that the only common denominator among "the right" is that they are anti-left.
His assertion that "the left" is anti-market, does not imply that "the right" is consistently pro-market.
> You should have seen the ink spilled by "leftists" arguing for the free market and against "overburdensome regulations!"
Members of the left supposedly opposing a particular market restriction doesn't negate the assertion that a characteristic element of the left is an opposition to markets. That is, that almost anyone who identifies as a member of "the left" would have significant opposition to free markets in general.
Even in the limited case of abortion, did these "leftists" support free markets in general? Did they think that anyone should be free to perform abortions and not just government sanctioned doctors? Did they think patients, doctors, and insurers should be free to choose mutually amenable financial arrangements unhindered by governmental interference?
Even Caplan never claimed that every person "on the left" opposes any degree of freedom in markets. If so, everyone on the left would be fully communist, which would be absurd.
Rather, that criticism of and opposition to various market freedoms are characteristic of the left.
I brought up the fact that "right-wing" pro-lifers were trynna sneak in restrictions into the abortion industry as context, not as a claim that right-wingers can be anti-market. Of course they can be. Dr. Caplan agrees. I agree. You agree. The Lewis brothers agree. The right is not necessarily pro-market. It's anti-left. Got it.
But I brought it up as an example to show that the left is not always anti-market. But, perhaps you're right. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Dr. Caplan's position. I saw it as a kinda absolute statement: the "left" is ALWAYS anti-market. Given any issue, the "right" may be anti-market too, but the "left" will always be equally anti-market or more anti-market than the "right". The "left" will NEVER be MORE pro-market than the "right." (Please excuse the caps. I really wanted to emphasize a few key words but SubStack comments don't allow rich text. haha) If it is an absolutist position like this, it takes just ONE counter-example to disprove it.
But, if I understand you correctly, you're saying Dr. Caplan is NOT making an absolutist position. But rather "as a general rule". (I invite Dr. Caplan, himself, to clarify what he means here. hWho is right about your position, sir?) In that case, how do we disprove it? How many exceptions do we need before the "rule" no longer holds. Going back to his original blog post on the matter: https://betonit.substack.com/p/my-simplistic-theory-of-left-and-right ... It seems Dr. Caplan's standard is: If you got all self-described "leftists" from all over the world, from throughout history, the things that 80%+ could agree on is are generally: Markets bad!
OK, but we can't gather all "leftists" from throughout history. But, if a significant number (more than 20% of "leftists" today) would probably be generally in favour of markets. Many "leftists" in the US, for example, choose their tribe in opposition to the "Religious right". They are generally OK with most of the American economic status quo. Just are also for a free-market in child-sacrifice... I mean: abortion.
Here, also, we must be careful: If we claim that being "anti-market" means having ANY exceptions to an absolute free market in everything, this casts WAAAAY too wide a net. Most self-described "leftists" or "anti-market" folks would probably agree but so would most self-described "right-wing" or "pro-market" folks. Almost nobody is in favour of an absolute free-market in everything except ancap purists like Dr. Caplan. And I would urge Dr. Caplan to consider the wisdom of not casting too wide a net. He has rejected definitions of feminism for this reason for casting too wide a net. So, he should also reject definitions of "left" or even "anti-market" that cast too wide a net. Even defining anti-market as desiring some changes that would be more anti-market than the status quo would still probably include most "right-wing" and "pro-market" folks. So, still too wide of a net!
So, I think let's say we had the money to commission a survey...
Q1: "Are you right-wing or left-wing?"
Q2: "Do you generally agree or disagree that prices and quantities demanded of goods and services should be determined in a marketplace?"
Q3: "Do you agree or disagree that employers should generally be able to set their own wages for most jobs as long as it's over $15 per hour?" (Note: Only 32% of US workers make less than $15 per hour. So wanting a $15 minimum-wage but hands-off other wages, is still, generally, pro-market)
Q4: "Do you agree or that employees should generally be able to choose their employers, and start and quit a job at will?"
Q5: "Do you agree or disagree that that people who provide goods and services should generally be able to choose the price at which they want to sell their goods and services?
Q6: "Do you agree or disagree that consumers consumers should, usually be free to choose whether to purchase goods or services or not?"
Let's say agreement on 4 out of 5 of Q2 to Q6 indicates a "pro-market" view. I can understand someone not understanding Q2 or having a gut reaction to the word "marketplace" (because of their "tribe"). I would imagine most would agree on Q4 and Q6.
To agree on 4 out of 5 is a rather high bar. But I would be "willing to bet" $50 USD that at least 40% of American "leftists" would probably agree with 4 out of 5 of Q2 to Q6. And if 40% of American "leftists" agree, I would surmise that over 20% of all "leftists" worldwide, throughout history agree.
Consider, for example, Bill Maher. Bill Maher would probably describe himself as a "leftist" but he often uses sports analogies. He thinks there ought to be rules of the game, even salary caps across the league, etc. But he generally believes in a meritocracy. He is against nepotism, inheritance, legacy admissions, etc. But he is generally, pro-sports and compares the market favourably to sports. I would surmise that Bill Maher is GENERALLY pro-market.
So, why would 40% of so-called "leftists" call themselves "leftists" if they are, generally, pro-market? Probably because they call themselves "Democrats" because the Democrats currently embrace the policies they like and really care about. And they know that "Democrats" are generally considered "the left" and Republicans are generally considered "the right". So, just tribalism, as the Lewis brothers are arguing.
Thanks. You are correct that defining anti-market as supporting any market restriction at all, is not the most useful. Luckily, Bryan didn’t do that exactly.
Looking at what he ascribed to the left in the piece you link, it wasn’t even a particular economic position. Rather it was an attitude: “No matter how good market outcomes are, they can’t bear to say, “Markets have done a great job, who could ask for more?” Similarly, he suggested that a position which 80% of self-identified left wing people would agree with would “consist in a bunch of complaints about markets.”
That’s why (if nothing else) your proposed questionnaire with particular policy proposals isn’t the most relevant to his proposal. As he states there “Within each side, the difference between moderates and extremists is the intensity of their antipathy, not the object of their antipathy.” There exists a wide spectrum in the degree of their antipathy, and accordingly in their expected responses to a questionnaire.
But what unites them is a tendency to view of markets as an object of antipathy to be complained about.
As an illustration, we may consider a group that actually is defined by its antipathy – racists. Racists are those (for the purpose of this example) who view members of a race with antipathy. The most extreme possible version of racism would be the desire to exterminate all members of the race. The least extreme version of racism would be the desire to not harm members of the race, or interfere with them at all, but to merely view them negatively.
A parallel spectrum exists, in Bryan’s usage, among the anti-market left. The most extreme possible version of it would be the desire to see all markets fully eradicated. The least extreme theoretically possible version of it would be the desire to not actively interfere with markets, but merely to feel bitter about them and to view them negatively.
Bryan asserts, reasonably I think, that a large majority of people who identify with the left view markets as an object of antipathy.
Like any sentiment, it can’t be rigorously defined or delineated, but that hardly renders it a useless concept.
That’s the main response. I may address one more side points in another comment.
Those questions are all pretty vague and meaningless. Only one of them has an actual hard question (minimum wage) in which you have to come down on one side or not.
Let's take Q4. Most leftists I know believe that employees should be able to start and quit jobs at will, but they would be against "at-will employment". They support unions and believe in job protections. They want to make it difficult for employers to eliminate jobs or fire people. If somehow layoffs do happen they should follow after long delays, notices, after all other options have been exhausted, and include generous severance packages long running health and retirement obligations.
If I were to summarize the ideal job structure for a leftist it would be *tenure*. Where you are guaranteed employment no matter what you do and are free to pursue your creative desires as you see fit. Wasn't the professors life basically Marx's dream.
I mean anyone outside of literal communists is going to answer "yeah I think we should have prices for things". But whenever someone actually comes up with a price it's "not fair", "not affordable", "not equitable", etc.
"You can have a free market only if the result of the free market is what we find acceptable, and quite frankly we are rarely satisfied."
Do you guys read what leftists actually right on this stuff???
"why did the left (more than the right) tend to oppose the War on Terror"
The War on Terror was racist against non-white non-Christians, so the left opposed it.
Also, the left would rather have spent the money from the War on Terror on leftist social programs.
"why does the left currently want more of a “market” in laborers from foreign countries?"
Immigration control is racist.
Also, more immigrants would mean more leftist voters, which is a good thing.
Obviously once the immigrants are here they should be shielded from the "exploitation" of the market economy. Hence why illegal aliens should immediately get citizenship and qualify for the welfare state, which should be enlarged.
"why is the left currently more in favor of free markets when it comes to drugs, prostitution, and gambling?"
The left is pro-vice, though it does not acknowledge these things as vices.
Exploitative versions of these things should be regulated away, subsidized addiction treatment options should be available for anyone who wants them, and anyone that has negative experiences related to these items should be cared for by the state.
Also, nobody providing these services should get particularly rich doing so. Things like gambling should be heavily taxed for fund schools and such.
"why was Trump’s proposal to control the “liberal” private-sector tech companies considered “right wing”? "
Tech companies censor and promote information in order to increase the power of leftists, because leftists are correct about everything and misinformation must be fought. Any attempt to stop them from controlling misinformation is an attempt to bring dangerous right wing propaganda into the public sphere which will cause harm.
"The Market" might not police information properly. We are lucky that our socially responsible tech CEOs are choosing the social stance over the market stance.
"why is Mitt Romney considered to be more moderate"
Leaving aside the idea that Mitt Romney got all the same venom during the actual campaign, the difference is that Mitt Romney is polite, not racist, and would never do anything that would really derail the leftist march. He's not a threat, which makes him "moderate".
I think it is really disingenuous to use Donald Trump as an example showing that there is no consistency to conservatism. If the authors would choose, say, George Will or Paul Ryan, they might have a more difficult time coming up with mocking "How is that conservative?" rhetorical moves.
"he’s considered the quintessential right winger—the purest, most perfect embodiment of the right-wing essence taken to its logical conclusion."
means one has already accepted the essentialist theory . Otherwise how could Hitler (or any other person) be quintessential right-winger?
It is wholly another matter that Hitler is far from being a right-winger. So this kind of error leads me at least to discount anything Hyrum says about left or right wing.
One exhibit in support of the Lewis thesis is Bush Jr and Obama. I lived in California under both presidencies, surrounded by leftists. They hated Bush and thought he was evil incarnate. Then came Obama and pursued the same policies, but those leftists thought Obama was the greatest president at least since Kennedy.
In their defense, when I confronted my friends with this discrepancy, they pointed out that Obama had better appointments. Which is something I agree with, but I still don't see how that supports the Evil vs Great dichotomy between the two. (For the record, Evil and Great are not my adjectives. I've often seen them used about Bush and Obama, respectively).
Michael Malice has a simple question to divide people into left and right: “Do you believe that people are equal?” If you’re on the right your answer is a quick No. If you’re on the left your answer is either Yes or No followed by three paragraph elaboration.
So, Caplan's "simplified view" was: left - anti-market / right - anti-left. And the "Lewis-elaborate view" is: right - anti-left / left - anti right. Right? - Hitler and Trump are NOT "right-wingers": Hitler's party was the National-SOCIALISTS German WORKERS party, saw themselves as very progressive and revolutionary; modern historians do acknowledge the "modernising, anti-feudal, anti-old-elite" effects of the NSDAP's actual politics (if you look for true reactionaries: their party was the DNVP ). Trump is mainly a populist, used to be closer to the Democrats, but found it easier to take over the GOP. A smart New Yorker. - That said, the Lewis main thesis seems accurate and - who knows - maybe even more helpful. In our parliament there were three parties once, now six - this makes "left-right" a much less interesting concept anyway.
This was the best reply email Bryan has posted from previous interviewees! I loved reading Hyrum’s answers - clearly a super intelligent and thoughtful guy. I want his book even more now I’ve seen his writing style.
“ falsification…is what separates rationality from dogmatism and science from religion. All scholarly theories must be, in principle, falsifiable”
It is disappointing to see otherwise thoughtful writers include something so crude.
Falsification is not what separates science from religion- the functions of these endeavors is are what makes them distinct. Science is the attempt to understand how nature works. Religion is the attempt to bind a community together.
Furthermore falsification is not a reliable demarcation of what a legitimate scholarly theory can be. Among other problems, the statement is self refuting (like asserting there is no truth). That falsifiable predictions are useful does not entail that the only way to arrive at truer understanding of the world requires falsifiable statements. A Bayesian approach is better. Other criteria such as parsimony are important to. Such views about falsification, religion, science, and rationalism are…dogmatic.
I am glad that I learned to speak spanish, because it gives me more insight in to at least some of the immigrants culture, and as far as I can tell they are extremely socially conservative, much more so than Americans are. Many go to chhurch weekly, oppose gay marriage, and I assume that eventually there w ill be some sort of conflict when the left realizes that they've actually made the country more socially conservative by bringing in Democrat voters.
For example, every single Hispanic person I know strongly disapproves of abortion. And I don't know any out Hispanics. I'm sure they exist, but they're definitely not a huge percentage.
My impression is that all political issues are complex and can be seen from multiple perspectives. It's not that there is no issue that is essentially left or right wing but there is an approach which favours a left or right wing 'flavour'. For example, abortion - both the left and the right could formulate good arguments in favor or against, but they would not be the same arguments. While the left and right could find defensible reasons for opposing or agreeing with any single policy issue they will do so for different reasons (although there may be crossover). Opposing immigration could be a left wing position if the emphasis is on the effects on low paid workers but supporting it would have to focus on ethical reasons to help those wishing to immigrate. The right could oppose immigration due to concerns about cultural homogeneity and problems with assimilation but support it for market reasons. The war on terror could be seen as left or right - depending on the focus of attention, as could the war on drugs, prostitution, gambling and censorship. I suspect that because all of these issues are multidimentional, whether an issue is perceived as right or left is only in the context of which part of it is being prioritised at any given moment. And of course this is context specific (will be quite different depending on the social, economic, geopolitical context).
Excellent points. That Hitler is perceived today as a man of the "right" is because the many progressives that he impressed in the early thirties had to distance themselves from him certainly after he broke the non-aggression pact with the USSR if not earlier. Today we call that political projection. Most "progressive" western nations today are closer to Mussolini's model of fascism than liberal democracies. Left and right are indeed meaningless. Statism vs Liberty, individualism vs tribalism, makes more sense, particularly when viewed in 2 dimensions.
“What if the next president of the United States (with the help of a congress from his own party) was the most anti-market president in a generation…”
Would it make sense to define Bryan’s simplistic theory, not as a single-axis essentialist position, but a two-axis position? One axis is anti/pro-market, the other axis is anti/pro-left.
1) anti-left/anti-market quadrant - What we would typically consider “right wing”.
2) anti-left/pro-market quadrant - Also what we would typically consider “right wing”.
3) pro-left/anti-market quadrant - What we would typically define as “left wing”.
4) pro-left/pro-market quadrant - No one exists here, as this is a metastable state. If you’re pro-market, leftists will reject you, thus making pro-leftism difficult.
Pointing to examples of 1 aren’t a very good rebuttal to Bryan’s theory. What you should really be doing is trying to find stable and persistent examples of 4.
For stable and persistent examples of 4. I nominate the Swedish Social Democrat Party, which has pretty much run things in Sweden for 100 years. This party is not a normal political party, it is rather the political wing of the trade union movement. And the trade unionists like market solutions because prosperity is dependent on our export-driven economy.
Perhaps. The ideas that come to my mind are bleeding heart libertarians (e.g. Matt Zwolinsky), and perhaps true neoliberals (e.g. Matt Yglesias).
But even then, I kind of get the feeling that many of these people are either pretending to be leftists but aren’t, or are leftists and are just signaling pro-market attitudes as a way to be different, but have no strong attachment to them.
I think there is something to Bryan’s theory, but I’m unsure if I would use the term “market”. But I also can’t think of anything better. “Status egalitarianism”, perhaps.
Hyrum and Verlan's responses make me appreciate Bryan's ongoing effort to steelman rather than strawman his discussants.
Bryan regularly presents Hyrum's views in a way that Hyrum would agree with: "There is no fundamental and durable essence to political parties", even if he disagrees with the statement
Hyrum never presents Bryan's view -- "The consensus view of the collection across time of self-identified leftists would be 'we hate the market'" -- in a way that Bryan would agree with. Instead, he presents a different interpretation that he attributes to Bryan and proceeds to argue with that definition which no one in the room believes and thus no one has an interest in defending.
Thanks Bryan.
Yes, Hyrum makes interesting points, but it is never clear that his points really address Bryan's thesis. But this also might have something to do with Bryan's slipperiness. We are sort of engaging in the old philosopher game of necessary and sufficient conditions. But Brian makes anti-market sentiments necessary for leftists (despite some notable exceptions), while giving no sufficient conditions. For rightists, denouncing the left is sufficient and necessary? Bryan at least is transparent in labeling this “oversimplified”. I am tempted to call it hand waving.
Hyrum has moved me in his direction. Progressives hate progress, and conservatives don’t really want to conserve anything. Democrats only tolerate democracy if they can gatekeep who or what is on the ballot. The Republicans have a sort of upside down honesty in labeling, but only if you recall that Plato's Republic described a dictatorship.
Maybe there is a factor that determines which tribe people end up in, but I don’t think anyone has explained it well yet.
If there is no consistency regarding which side supports which pole, then that supports Hyrum's position that the distinction is incoherent. If there is, it refutes his position. So why wouldn’t we want to get into it?
Only one? Conceivable as a single dimension, where we can rank everyone?
There are lots of underlying divides. The question is, does it make any sense or accomplish anything to pretend we can rank people on a single dimension in a way that matters?
You're still my favourite author, sir. But the Lewis brothers have convinced me. I agree with them on this and disagree with you.
Since y'all seem to agree that the "right" hates the left, it seems the main point of contention is your claim that "the left" is anti-market. I can provide another counter-example that I'm quite familiar with:
Before Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, many pro-lifers were trynna "sneak in" abortion restrictions through burdensome regulations such as: the hallways of abortion clinics had to be of a certain width, etc. under the guise of "protecting women's health". As a staunch pro-lifer, I was totally in favour of these restrictions! But, I did find them rather disingenuous. Abortion IS rather safe for the mother. But incredibly dangerous for her baby!!! But they took a page from the anti-market playbook: kill an industry with regulation in the guise of "safety", like taxi medallions or oil pipelines. In the case of abortion clinic regulations, you should have seen the ink spilled by "leftists" arguing for the free market and against "overburdensome regulations!"
That being said, I do find it useful to having some sort of "short-hand" to describe your political views rather than having to list them one-by-one. For example, I am a "pro-life libertarian." I would probably find something on hwhich to disagree with other pro-life libertarians (both pro-lifers and libertarians LOVE to argue!) but it's still a useful short-hand that pretty much sums up my political views without having to name each one! I also believe it's useful to have a tribe. Abortion is the most important issue to me. If I were American and the RepubIicans were still the most pro-life party, I would probably always support the Republicans, even though I strongly disagree with them on immigration. I more strongly agree with them on abortion. So, I guess the Republicans would be my "tribe" and I would support them, donate to them, volunteer for them and vote for them, even if I don't agree with them 100%. But I believe the Lewis brothers wouldn't disagree. But "essentialist" definitions of left and right are not useful.
Also, consider Puerto Rico: It's politics are mainly defined by people's positions on Puerto Rican sovereignty: Independence, status quo or statehood. How do you classify these positions in a left-right dichotomy?
>I can provide another counter-example that I'm quite familiar with: Before Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, many pro-lifers were trynna "sneak in" abortion restrictions through burdensome regulations.
You may have misunderstood Bryan's point. He didn't say that the common denominator among "the right" is that they are pro-market - on the contrary - he said that the only common denominator among "the right" is that they are anti-left.
His assertion that "the left" is anti-market, does not imply that "the right" is consistently pro-market.
> You should have seen the ink spilled by "leftists" arguing for the free market and against "overburdensome regulations!"
Members of the left supposedly opposing a particular market restriction doesn't negate the assertion that a characteristic element of the left is an opposition to markets. That is, that almost anyone who identifies as a member of "the left" would have significant opposition to free markets in general.
Even in the limited case of abortion, did these "leftists" support free markets in general? Did they think that anyone should be free to perform abortions and not just government sanctioned doctors? Did they think patients, doctors, and insurers should be free to choose mutually amenable financial arrangements unhindered by governmental interference?
Even Caplan never claimed that every person "on the left" opposes any degree of freedom in markets. If so, everyone on the left would be fully communist, which would be absurd.
Rather, that criticism of and opposition to various market freedoms are characteristic of the left.
Thanks, Mallard. You make some good points.
I brought up the fact that "right-wing" pro-lifers were trynna sneak in restrictions into the abortion industry as context, not as a claim that right-wingers can be anti-market. Of course they can be. Dr. Caplan agrees. I agree. You agree. The Lewis brothers agree. The right is not necessarily pro-market. It's anti-left. Got it.
But I brought it up as an example to show that the left is not always anti-market. But, perhaps you're right. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Dr. Caplan's position. I saw it as a kinda absolute statement: the "left" is ALWAYS anti-market. Given any issue, the "right" may be anti-market too, but the "left" will always be equally anti-market or more anti-market than the "right". The "left" will NEVER be MORE pro-market than the "right." (Please excuse the caps. I really wanted to emphasize a few key words but SubStack comments don't allow rich text. haha) If it is an absolutist position like this, it takes just ONE counter-example to disprove it.
But, if I understand you correctly, you're saying Dr. Caplan is NOT making an absolutist position. But rather "as a general rule". (I invite Dr. Caplan, himself, to clarify what he means here. hWho is right about your position, sir?) In that case, how do we disprove it? How many exceptions do we need before the "rule" no longer holds. Going back to his original blog post on the matter: https://betonit.substack.com/p/my-simplistic-theory-of-left-and-right ... It seems Dr. Caplan's standard is: If you got all self-described "leftists" from all over the world, from throughout history, the things that 80%+ could agree on is are generally: Markets bad!
OK, but we can't gather all "leftists" from throughout history. But, if a significant number (more than 20% of "leftists" today) would probably be generally in favour of markets. Many "leftists" in the US, for example, choose their tribe in opposition to the "Religious right". They are generally OK with most of the American economic status quo. Just are also for a free-market in child-sacrifice... I mean: abortion.
Here, also, we must be careful: If we claim that being "anti-market" means having ANY exceptions to an absolute free market in everything, this casts WAAAAY too wide a net. Most self-described "leftists" or "anti-market" folks would probably agree but so would most self-described "right-wing" or "pro-market" folks. Almost nobody is in favour of an absolute free-market in everything except ancap purists like Dr. Caplan. And I would urge Dr. Caplan to consider the wisdom of not casting too wide a net. He has rejected definitions of feminism for this reason for casting too wide a net. So, he should also reject definitions of "left" or even "anti-market" that cast too wide a net. Even defining anti-market as desiring some changes that would be more anti-market than the status quo would still probably include most "right-wing" and "pro-market" folks. So, still too wide of a net!
So, I think let's say we had the money to commission a survey...
Q1: "Are you right-wing or left-wing?"
Q2: "Do you generally agree or disagree that prices and quantities demanded of goods and services should be determined in a marketplace?"
Q3: "Do you agree or disagree that employers should generally be able to set their own wages for most jobs as long as it's over $15 per hour?" (Note: Only 32% of US workers make less than $15 per hour. So wanting a $15 minimum-wage but hands-off other wages, is still, generally, pro-market)
Q4: "Do you agree or that employees should generally be able to choose their employers, and start and quit a job at will?"
Q5: "Do you agree or disagree that that people who provide goods and services should generally be able to choose the price at which they want to sell their goods and services?
Q6: "Do you agree or disagree that consumers consumers should, usually be free to choose whether to purchase goods or services or not?"
Let's say agreement on 4 out of 5 of Q2 to Q6 indicates a "pro-market" view. I can understand someone not understanding Q2 or having a gut reaction to the word "marketplace" (because of their "tribe"). I would imagine most would agree on Q4 and Q6.
To agree on 4 out of 5 is a rather high bar. But I would be "willing to bet" $50 USD that at least 40% of American "leftists" would probably agree with 4 out of 5 of Q2 to Q6. And if 40% of American "leftists" agree, I would surmise that over 20% of all "leftists" worldwide, throughout history agree.
Consider, for example, Bill Maher. Bill Maher would probably describe himself as a "leftist" but he often uses sports analogies. He thinks there ought to be rules of the game, even salary caps across the league, etc. But he generally believes in a meritocracy. He is against nepotism, inheritance, legacy admissions, etc. But he is generally, pro-sports and compares the market favourably to sports. I would surmise that Bill Maher is GENERALLY pro-market.
https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/1639470312399183872
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673
So, why would 40% of so-called "leftists" call themselves "leftists" if they are, generally, pro-market? Probably because they call themselves "Democrats" because the Democrats currently embrace the policies they like and really care about. And they know that "Democrats" are generally considered "the left" and Republicans are generally considered "the right". So, just tribalism, as the Lewis brothers are arguing.
Thanks. You are correct that defining anti-market as supporting any market restriction at all, is not the most useful. Luckily, Bryan didn’t do that exactly.
Looking at what he ascribed to the left in the piece you link, it wasn’t even a particular economic position. Rather it was an attitude: “No matter how good market outcomes are, they can’t bear to say, “Markets have done a great job, who could ask for more?” Similarly, he suggested that a position which 80% of self-identified left wing people would agree with would “consist in a bunch of complaints about markets.”
That’s why (if nothing else) your proposed questionnaire with particular policy proposals isn’t the most relevant to his proposal. As he states there “Within each side, the difference between moderates and extremists is the intensity of their antipathy, not the object of their antipathy.” There exists a wide spectrum in the degree of their antipathy, and accordingly in their expected responses to a questionnaire.
But what unites them is a tendency to view of markets as an object of antipathy to be complained about.
As an illustration, we may consider a group that actually is defined by its antipathy – racists. Racists are those (for the purpose of this example) who view members of a race with antipathy. The most extreme possible version of racism would be the desire to exterminate all members of the race. The least extreme version of racism would be the desire to not harm members of the race, or interfere with them at all, but to merely view them negatively.
A parallel spectrum exists, in Bryan’s usage, among the anti-market left. The most extreme possible version of it would be the desire to see all markets fully eradicated. The least extreme theoretically possible version of it would be the desire to not actively interfere with markets, but merely to feel bitter about them and to view them negatively.
Bryan asserts, reasonably I think, that a large majority of people who identify with the left view markets as an object of antipathy.
Like any sentiment, it can’t be rigorously defined or delineated, but that hardly renders it a useless concept.
That’s the main response. I may address one more side points in another comment.
Those questions are all pretty vague and meaningless. Only one of them has an actual hard question (minimum wage) in which you have to come down on one side or not.
Let's take Q4. Most leftists I know believe that employees should be able to start and quit jobs at will, but they would be against "at-will employment". They support unions and believe in job protections. They want to make it difficult for employers to eliminate jobs or fire people. If somehow layoffs do happen they should follow after long delays, notices, after all other options have been exhausted, and include generous severance packages long running health and retirement obligations.
If I were to summarize the ideal job structure for a leftist it would be *tenure*. Where you are guaranteed employment no matter what you do and are free to pursue your creative desires as you see fit. Wasn't the professors life basically Marx's dream.
I mean anyone outside of literal communists is going to answer "yeah I think we should have prices for things". But whenever someone actually comes up with a price it's "not fair", "not affordable", "not equitable", etc.
"You can have a free market only if the result of the free market is what we find acceptable, and quite frankly we are rarely satisfied."
re: Q5, you are dead on. If 40% of the left supports markets, how could rent control ever exist anywhere?
I think the existence of rent control, and it existing in primarily leftist controlled cities, is a pretty strong piece of evidence in Bryan's favor.
Salience.
On the most salient issue, people on the left are consistent.
But the most salient issue is not constant over time, place, or even individuals.
Wokeism is the replacement of race as more salient than class. In part because "class warfare" died with the Soviet Union.
Do you guys read what leftists actually right on this stuff???
"why did the left (more than the right) tend to oppose the War on Terror"
The War on Terror was racist against non-white non-Christians, so the left opposed it.
Also, the left would rather have spent the money from the War on Terror on leftist social programs.
"why does the left currently want more of a “market” in laborers from foreign countries?"
Immigration control is racist.
Also, more immigrants would mean more leftist voters, which is a good thing.
Obviously once the immigrants are here they should be shielded from the "exploitation" of the market economy. Hence why illegal aliens should immediately get citizenship and qualify for the welfare state, which should be enlarged.
"why is the left currently more in favor of free markets when it comes to drugs, prostitution, and gambling?"
The left is pro-vice, though it does not acknowledge these things as vices.
Exploitative versions of these things should be regulated away, subsidized addiction treatment options should be available for anyone who wants them, and anyone that has negative experiences related to these items should be cared for by the state.
Also, nobody providing these services should get particularly rich doing so. Things like gambling should be heavily taxed for fund schools and such.
"why was Trump’s proposal to control the “liberal” private-sector tech companies considered “right wing”? "
Tech companies censor and promote information in order to increase the power of leftists, because leftists are correct about everything and misinformation must be fought. Any attempt to stop them from controlling misinformation is an attempt to bring dangerous right wing propaganda into the public sphere which will cause harm.
"The Market" might not police information properly. We are lucky that our socially responsible tech CEOs are choosing the social stance over the market stance.
"why is Mitt Romney considered to be more moderate"
Leaving aside the idea that Mitt Romney got all the same venom during the actual campaign, the difference is that Mitt Romney is polite, not racist, and would never do anything that would really derail the leftist march. He's not a threat, which makes him "moderate".
"“social justice warriors” reject markets because"
They reject markets because they lead to unequal outcomes, which is "socially unjust". Duh.
On drugs...the left doesn't favor a free-market approach to drugs. They want a tightly controlled legal market.
Which state has said, "pot is legal, grow it, sell it, whatever." Nope, they want a tightly controlled system.
Drug legalization is not being done in a pro-market way, so no points in lefts favor on that.
My comment below was supposed to be in response to this comment
I think it is really disingenuous to use Donald Trump as an example showing that there is no consistency to conservatism. If the authors would choose, say, George Will or Paul Ryan, they might have a more difficult time coming up with mocking "How is that conservative?" rhetorical moves.
To say about Hitler that
"he’s considered the quintessential right winger—the purest, most perfect embodiment of the right-wing essence taken to its logical conclusion."
means one has already accepted the essentialist theory . Otherwise how could Hitler (or any other person) be quintessential right-winger?
It is wholly another matter that Hitler is far from being a right-winger. So this kind of error leads me at least to discount anything Hyrum says about left or right wing.
One exhibit in support of the Lewis thesis is Bush Jr and Obama. I lived in California under both presidencies, surrounded by leftists. They hated Bush and thought he was evil incarnate. Then came Obama and pursued the same policies, but those leftists thought Obama was the greatest president at least since Kennedy.
In their defense, when I confronted my friends with this discrepancy, they pointed out that Obama had better appointments. Which is something I agree with, but I still don't see how that supports the Evil vs Great dichotomy between the two. (For the record, Evil and Great are not my adjectives. I've often seen them used about Bush and Obama, respectively).
A very comprehensive rebuttal, great to see everyone agrees that everyone in government is Anti market.
Michael Malice has a simple question to divide people into left and right: “Do you believe that people are equal?” If you’re on the right your answer is a quick No. If you’re on the left your answer is either Yes or No followed by three paragraph elaboration.
So, Caplan's "simplified view" was: left - anti-market / right - anti-left. And the "Lewis-elaborate view" is: right - anti-left / left - anti right. Right? - Hitler and Trump are NOT "right-wingers": Hitler's party was the National-SOCIALISTS German WORKERS party, saw themselves as very progressive and revolutionary; modern historians do acknowledge the "modernising, anti-feudal, anti-old-elite" effects of the NSDAP's actual politics (if you look for true reactionaries: their party was the DNVP ). Trump is mainly a populist, used to be closer to the Democrats, but found it easier to take over the GOP. A smart New Yorker. - That said, the Lewis main thesis seems accurate and - who knows - maybe even more helpful. In our parliament there were three parties once, now six - this makes "left-right" a much less interesting concept anyway.
This was the best reply email Bryan has posted from previous interviewees! I loved reading Hyrum’s answers - clearly a super intelligent and thoughtful guy. I want his book even more now I’ve seen his writing style.
There is no such thing as an essential right or left ideas neither ideology, it all depends on who is against who
“ falsification…is what separates rationality from dogmatism and science from religion. All scholarly theories must be, in principle, falsifiable”
It is disappointing to see otherwise thoughtful writers include something so crude.
Falsification is not what separates science from religion- the functions of these endeavors is are what makes them distinct. Science is the attempt to understand how nature works. Religion is the attempt to bind a community together.
Furthermore falsification is not a reliable demarcation of what a legitimate scholarly theory can be. Among other problems, the statement is self refuting (like asserting there is no truth). That falsifiable predictions are useful does not entail that the only way to arrive at truer understanding of the world requires falsifiable statements. A Bayesian approach is better. Other criteria such as parsimony are important to. Such views about falsification, religion, science, and rationalism are…dogmatic.
I am glad that I learned to speak spanish, because it gives me more insight in to at least some of the immigrants culture, and as far as I can tell they are extremely socially conservative, much more so than Americans are. Many go to chhurch weekly, oppose gay marriage, and I assume that eventually there w ill be some sort of conflict when the left realizes that they've actually made the country more socially conservative by bringing in Democrat voters.
For example, every single Hispanic person I know strongly disapproves of abortion. And I don't know any out Hispanics. I'm sure they exist, but they're definitely not a huge percentage.
My impression is that all political issues are complex and can be seen from multiple perspectives. It's not that there is no issue that is essentially left or right wing but there is an approach which favours a left or right wing 'flavour'. For example, abortion - both the left and the right could formulate good arguments in favor or against, but they would not be the same arguments. While the left and right could find defensible reasons for opposing or agreeing with any single policy issue they will do so for different reasons (although there may be crossover). Opposing immigration could be a left wing position if the emphasis is on the effects on low paid workers but supporting it would have to focus on ethical reasons to help those wishing to immigrate. The right could oppose immigration due to concerns about cultural homogeneity and problems with assimilation but support it for market reasons. The war on terror could be seen as left or right - depending on the focus of attention, as could the war on drugs, prostitution, gambling and censorship. I suspect that because all of these issues are multidimentional, whether an issue is perceived as right or left is only in the context of which part of it is being prioritised at any given moment. And of course this is context specific (will be quite different depending on the social, economic, geopolitical context).
Excellent points. That Hitler is perceived today as a man of the "right" is because the many progressives that he impressed in the early thirties had to distance themselves from him certainly after he broke the non-aggression pact with the USSR if not earlier. Today we call that political projection. Most "progressive" western nations today are closer to Mussolini's model of fascism than liberal democracies. Left and right are indeed meaningless. Statism vs Liberty, individualism vs tribalism, makes more sense, particularly when viewed in 2 dimensions.
“What if the next president of the United States (with the help of a congress from his own party) was the most anti-market president in a generation…”
Would it make sense to define Bryan’s simplistic theory, not as a single-axis essentialist position, but a two-axis position? One axis is anti/pro-market, the other axis is anti/pro-left.
1) anti-left/anti-market quadrant - What we would typically consider “right wing”.
2) anti-left/pro-market quadrant - Also what we would typically consider “right wing”.
3) pro-left/anti-market quadrant - What we would typically define as “left wing”.
4) pro-left/pro-market quadrant - No one exists here, as this is a metastable state. If you’re pro-market, leftists will reject you, thus making pro-leftism difficult.
Pointing to examples of 1 aren’t a very good rebuttal to Bryan’s theory. What you should really be doing is trying to find stable and persistent examples of 4.
For stable and persistent examples of 4. I nominate the Swedish Social Democrat Party, which has pretty much run things in Sweden for 100 years. This party is not a normal political party, it is rather the political wing of the trade union movement. And the trade unionists like market solutions because prosperity is dependent on our export-driven economy.
Market socialists?
Perhaps. The ideas that come to my mind are bleeding heart libertarians (e.g. Matt Zwolinsky), and perhaps true neoliberals (e.g. Matt Yglesias).
But even then, I kind of get the feeling that many of these people are either pretending to be leftists but aren’t, or are leftists and are just signaling pro-market attitudes as a way to be different, but have no strong attachment to them.
I think there is something to Bryan’s theory, but I’m unsure if I would use the term “market”. But I also can’t think of anything better. “Status egalitarianism”, perhaps.