39 ms·

There is a framework I recognize as similar put forward by Arnold Kling that I think of often, the Three Languages of Politics, that suggests part of what makes

by trts 3y ago

There is a framework I recognize as similar put forward by Arnold Kling that I think of often, the Three Languages of Politics, that suggests part of what makes political discourse so often fruitless is that the primary value axes differ for three major political interest groups: Conservatives: Civilization vs. Barbarism Libertarians: Freedom vs. Coercion Progressives: Oppressors vs. the Oppressed His thesis was that polarization has been increasing because there is often no natural policy alignment across these axes, even while many would probably agree on some fundamental Western tenets of rights and justice.

skinnymuch 3y ago
Does the framework cover capitalism, socialism, or the economic left? The Overton window is bigger than the three interest groups listed. The groups are all centre[-left] or right wing. There is policy alignment historically. We can look to how the Nordic countries or Mass and then America dealt with health care in modern times. The right was cool with Mass “universal healthcare”. Liberals were not. Then when Obama did what Romney did in Mass, it suddenly became a liberal viewpoint and the Overton window moved to the right. This has issues with “no natural policy alignment” imo.
- trts 3y ago
  I didn't read the book; it was written prior to 2013 when I heard him on a podcast conversation. Parts of it stuck with me, and I remember there being a more recent followup: - https://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-politics/ https://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-pol... - https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages-of-politics-revisited/ https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages...
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    Ah. I’m viewing all this in 2023. I tried skimming the talks. It doesn’t cover leftism. It covers liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. I see the site, Cato Institute, and the author are all libertarians. The topic is missing 1/3 to 1/2 of the Overton window and regularly conflates a made up “left” that doesn’t exist. Of course the left exists. Liberals are not the left. I searched a few basic topics and many results [and comments] lacked awareness of socioeconomic knowledge. Sometimes defiantly so. Meanwhile when I go and look at the [far] left, they are likely to be honest with their good faith intentions of agitation and propaganda. Thanks for the links. Edit: the problem isnt leaving out the left. The problem is leaving out the importance of the left and how “progressives” can’t be used alongside conservative and libertarian. It would be similar to giving a thesis on basketball with a “3 position” stance. Small forward (progressive), guard, guard (the other two). Crude example but this sort of sports book would be utterly trashed for being anti-intellectual and pedantic.

by trts 3y ago

skinnymuch 3y ago

Does the framework cover capitalism, socialism, or the economic left? The Overton window is bigger than the three interest groups listed. The groups are all centre[-left] or right wing. There is policy alignment historically. We can look to how the Nordic countries or Mass and then America dealt with health care in modern times. The right was cool with Mass “universal healthcare”. Liberals were not. Then when Obama did what Romney did in Mass, it suddenly became a liberal viewpoint and the Overton window moved to the right. This has issues with “no natural policy alignment” imo.

trts 3y ago
I didn't read the book; it was written prior to 2013 when I heard him on a podcast conversation. Parts of it stuck with me, and I remember there being a more recent followup: - https://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-politics/ https://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-pol... - https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages-of-politics-revisited/ https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages...
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  Ah. I’m viewing all this in 2023. I tried skimming the talks. It doesn’t cover leftism. It covers liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. I see the site, Cato Institute, and the author are all libertarians. The topic is missing 1/3 to 1/2 of the Overton window and regularly conflates a made up “left” that doesn’t exist. Of course the left exists. Liberals are not the left. I searched a few basic topics and many results [and comments] lacked awareness of socioeconomic knowledge. Sometimes defiantly so. Meanwhile when I go and look at the [far] left, they are likely to be honest with their good faith intentions of agitation and propaganda. Thanks for the links. Edit: the problem isnt leaving out the left. The problem is leaving out the importance of the left and how “progressives” can’t be used alongside conservative and libertarian. It would be similar to giving a thesis on basketball with a “3 position” stance. Small forward (progressive), guard, guard (the other two). Crude example but this sort of sports book would be utterly trashed for being anti-intellectual and pedantic.