Brilliant Article- For the political posters

[Gordon B]

This came from the tech central station website. The Type M people aren't going to buy into Klings appeal to engage in type C discussions but I'm sure at least a few people will appreciate Kling's article. This is for them.


An Open Letter to Paul Krugman
By Arnold Kling Published 10/07/2003
E-Mail Bookmark Print Save

Dear Paul,

You might remember me from graduate school at MIT. I would like to ask you a question about what constitutes a reasonable argument.

For example, suppose I were to say, "We should abolish the minimum wage. That would increase employment and enable more people to climb out of poverty."

There are two types of arguments you might make in response. I call these Type C and Type M.

A hypothetical example of a Type C argument would be, "Well, Arnold, studies actually show that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. If you read the work of Krueger and Card, you would see that the minimum wage probably reduces poverty."

A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats."

Paul, my question for you is this:

Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments?

I see differences, and to me they are important. Type C arguments are about the consequences of policies. Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies.

In this example, the type C argument says that the consequences of eliminating the minimum wage would not be those that I expect and desire. We can have a constructive discussion of the Type C argument -- I can cite theory and evidence that contradicts Krueger and Card -- and eventually one of us could change his mind, based on the facts.

Type M arguments deny the legitimacy of one's opponents to even state their case. Type M arguments do not give rise to constructive discussion. They are almost impossible to test empirically.

Here are some more examples of issues where liberals could choose to use either type C or type M arguments:

Tax Cuts

Suppose that someone were to say, "The Bush tax cuts will increase long-term growth." You might raise various objections.

One possible type C argument would be that even if the tax cuts increase long-term growth, they will increase inequality. Thus, the consequences are not good. We could have a constructive discussion of that issue, although we may not come to agreement.

Another possible type C argument would be that the tax cuts will reduce national saving, thereby lowering the capital stock, thereby reducing economic growth. They will have the exact opposite of the consequence that is claimed for them. I think that this is an important argument. I have the discomfiting impression that many in the Bush Administration and its supply-side supporters fail to understand this argument.

A type M argument would be, "So what were the Bush tax cuts really about? The best answer seems to be that they were about securing a key part of the Republican base. Wealthy campaign contributors have a lot to gain from lower taxes, and since they aren't very likely to depend on Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid, they won't suffer if the beast gets starved." In fact, this is what you wrote in "The Great Tax Cut Con," which can now be found at The unofficial Krugman archive.

To me, this is not a helpful argument. Imagine that we could somehow prove that the motives of the supply-siders were pure, and that they really did want to improve economic growth. Would that purity of motive outweigh the argument that the higher deficits will actually have the consequence of reducing growth? I would hope not. Conversely, if the motives are wrong but the consequences are good, to me that would argue in favor of the tax cuts, not against them.

School Vouchers

Suppose that I were to say, "I believe that school vouchers would increase the quality of education and reduce the gap between the quality of schools attended by the poor and that of those attended by the rich."

A type C argument would be that there are other values that are more important, so that public education, whatever its flaws, should be maintained as it is. If you took such a position, we could have a constructive discussion, but we might end up having to disagree.

Another type C argument, which you raised in an essay in Mother Jones, would be, "Upper-income families would realize that a reduction in the voucher is to their benefit: They will save more in lowered taxes than they will lose in a decreased education subsidy. So they will press to reduce public spending on education, leading to ever- deteriorating quality for those who cannot afford to spend extra. In the end, the quintessential American tradition of public education for all could collapse." This is an argument about consequences. I believe that it is wrong, because I think that upper-income families would be happy to pay higher taxes to support an education system that works rather than one that fails. But at least we are talking about an empirical question.

A type M argument would be the one you made in the next paragraph of your essay. "The leaders of the radical right want privatization of schools, of public sanitation -- of anything else they can think of -- because they know such privatization undermines what remaining opposition exists to their program." This argument shuts off any constructive debate. It dehumanizes me to the point where I am not even given credit for knowing what my own motives are. Similarly, when I read the comments on Kevin Drum's blog post about vouchers, I see a lot of type M arguments.

The War in Iraq

Suppose that someone says, "The war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism." You would disagree.

A type C argument would be to suggest that in fact the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism. One view might be that if we had backed down, we would have had broader support in the world and more resources to deal with terrorism elsewhere. It is a difficult question to settle empirically, but we can have a reasonable argument.

A type M argument would be to write, as you did on September 9, that, "It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election." This is not a constructive argument. My opinion is that it requires an implausible degree of complicity among highly dedicated civil servants. Would Colin Powell not have resigned if the purpose of the war were to win an election? Furthermore, I still care far more about consequences than about motives. If the consequences of the Iraq war are that it leads to increased terrorism and conflict, then even the purest motives would not make it a good war, and vice-versa.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Krugman

Paul, your columns consist primarily of type M arguments. Either you do not see the difference between type C arguments and type M arguments, or you do not care.

I am not going to try to guess your motives for relying on type M arguments. However, I can tell you some of the consequences.

One consequence is to lower the level of political discourse in general. You have a lot of influence with those who sympathize with your views. When they see you adopt type M arguments, they do the same.

Conversely, many of your opponents are stooping to your level. I see type M arguments raised by many of your enemies on the Right. As horse manure draws flies, your columns generate opposition that is vindictive and uninformed.

Another consequence is to lower the prestige and impact of economists. We are trained to make type C arguments. Instead, you are teaching by example that making speculative assessments of one's opponent's motives is more important than thinking through the consequences of policy options. If everyone were to use such speculative assessments as the basis for forming their opinions, then there would be no room for economics in public policy discussions.

You could express your point of view using type C arguments and still take strong stands for what you believe is right. In fact, you might find that doing so would make you more effective. Even if that is not the case, even if there is a sort of media version of Gresham's Law in which specious reasoning drives out careful analysis, then that is a challenge for all of us who are trained as economists. I believe that we have a professional duty to try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[Brian Olewnick]

Unfortunately, it's a Type M world, especially in the Alley.

[Uli]

I think it's a fair article. Calling it brilliant in itelf is lowering the standard of discourse. It's relly nothing more than 101 of reasonable discourse.

[Monte Smith]

What an excellent perspective, Gordon. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. All sides of the debate in America have their C's and their M's, but God knows Krugman is a class-A M. Critique of the administration these days is almost exclusively M-oriented.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Critique of the administration these days is almost exclusively M-oriented.

An M-statement par excellance.

[RBS]

A very interesting article, Gordon.

Thanks for posting it. I think perhaps part of it comes down to what you feel the Bush's adminstration intentions are in regard to their actions.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally posted by RBS
Thanks for posting it. I think perhaps part of it comes down to what you feel the Bush's adminstration intentions are in regard to their actions.

But that's the thing. Even if you think they have the worst of intentions (or, conversely, if a conservative thought the same of the Clinton administration), you can still take proposed policy X and argue its merits in a reasonably objective manner. The problem is, this leaves open the possibility that one side or the other will be proven mistaken and, generally, neither side wants to take that risk.

[GoodSpeak]

So according to this article, there are only two basic types of arguments?

Hmmm.

I would say, given the past political posting history of Gordon, there is a clear attempt by the article to sway argument away from fact based dictums and move everyone into automatically accepting the conservative view.

The mere mention in the article of what the "Liberals" might use suggests bias and is a clear indicator that the author is attempting to debunk any and all arguments fom the Left by setting up a specious scenario wherein no "Liberal" argument [C or M] is plausible.

Further, to even suggest that there are only two ways to argue ANYthing is, in itself, showing a biased point of view and, therefore, suspect.


But a very nice try any way ;-)

[bluenoter]

Furthermore, I still care far more about consequences than about motives. If the consequences of the Iraq war are that it leads to increased terrorism and conflict, then even the purest motives would not make it a good war, and vice-versa. --Kling

It's another form of "The end justifies the means," where "motives" replaces "means." But an accurate ascription of motives can illuminate broader consequences--the consequences that might ensue if the motive-holders' views are allowed to dominate.

Ascriptions of motives ought to be not eliminated but supported by reasonable evidence--say, additional examples that would indicate the same motive. Motives may be no harder to prove than consequences. In fact, motives may be easier to prove than consequences if the ascribed consequences have yet to occur--if they're predicted future consequences, as they are in most of Kling's examples.

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Gordon B


The War in Iraq

Suppose that someone says, "The war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism." You would disagree.

A type C argument would be to suggest that in fact the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism. One view might be that if we had backed down, we would have had broader support in the world and more resources to deal with terrorism elsewhere. It is a difficult question to settle empirically, but we can have a reasonable argument.

Who would we have been backing down to? Were we being attacked by Iraq? Oh wait,I must be forgetting about 9/11. How stupid of me!!

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Uli
An M-statement par excellance.

But if you look at where liberal critique of the administration is most strident--the humor section of the bookstores (Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al), or Krugman's column--you will find that almost all the argumentation is over motives: Republicans, bad, greedy, oily, lying.

Now that may be T or it may be F, but it is most certainly M and not C.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
But if you look at where liberal critique of the administration is most strident--the humor section of the bookstores (Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al), or Krugman's column--you will find that almost all the argumentation is over motives: Republicans, bad, greedy, oily, lying.

Well, Monte. I am not necessarily disagreeing with that. But then so are the supporters of the admin's policy:

Republicans, good, freedom loving, christian, liberating, tough, well armed.

[walto]

FWIW, I like BN's post, which I think makes an important point. We dismiss dissection of means (or motives) only at our peril.

Republicans, good, freedom loving, christian, liberating, tough, well armed.

Christian?

[Uli]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Christian?

Yes, defending the world against the threat of evil Muslims.

[Rob C]

Motives matter because they have consequences for the WAY in which policies are implemented. Being, for instance, in favor of war in Iraq--well, what does that mean? What does "war in Iraq" really mean, anyway? Those three words describe thousands, probably millions, of smaller aspects, smaller decisions--where to drop bombs, what areas to secure, what policies to implement after the war--any or all of which will be affected by the motives of the decision-makers. Conservatives (and economists, for that matter) love to put a problem in a bubble, limit the variables, and reach an unassailable verdict. Similarly, in my experience, conservatives are usually more sure of themselves than liberals, for the same reason, that they only choose to consider a limited set of variables. Such certainty can pass for "moral clarity" or "logic" or whatever self-congratulatory term is in currency, but it really just means deciding not to consider the whole world of implications.

I guess it's a little type-M to point that out?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Christian?

OK...pseudo-christian.

A huge chunk of the conservative right's support comes from the christian coalition, hence, christian is a correct term to use when speaking of the current republican party. That's the important point I think Uli is making here.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by walto
FWIW, I like BN's post, which I think makes an important point. We dismiss dissection of means (or motives) only at our peril.

Thanks, Walt. I wish I'd said it that clearly. You can say that again!

Originally posted by walto
We dismiss dissection of means (or motives) only at our peril.

Yes, defending the world against the threat of evil Muslims.

A huge chunk of the conservative right's support comes from the christian coalition, hence, christian is a correct term to use when speaking of the current republican party.

You know, this is something that I fully believed when I was a libby too. Thing is, since moving towards the conservative side, I really haven't seen any kind of evidence to back up this claim whatsoever. I do not deny that a majority of Christians are republican, but as for the huge chunk part about the CC, I'd love to see some kind of proof to back up that claim. I personally just haven't seen any. From either side of the fence.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
But if you look at where liberal critique of the administration is most strident--the humor section of the bookstores (Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al), or Krugman's column--you will find that almost all the argumentation is over motives: Republicans, bad, greedy, oily, lying.

Now that may be T or it may be F, but it is most certainly M and not C.

[ahem]

The same can be said of your Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, et al.

This article is "brilliant" only in its tranperency.

[GoodSpeak]

I would also question the choice of letters to represent these two types of arguments. Why C and M? Why not, say, C and L?

"C" obviously stands for conservative; there can be no doubt.

"L" would be too obvious a link to "Liberal or Left" since the author is clearly attempting to suggest that ALL Liberals argue this way.

"M", as chosen by the author, would mean, what? Moronic, misguided, mistaken, medeval, Machiavellian...?


It's a farce, ladies and gents.


Figures.

[Monte Smith]

"C" stands for consequences and "M" stands for motives.

As for the contention that both sides use M-oriented arguments, I agree one hundred percent. So does the author of this article.

As for the use of "Christian" as a slur: funny the aroma of complaint never attaches itself to the persons (or the motives) of the Reverends Sharpton or Jackson, yet it clings to Falwell and Robertson. Separation of Church and State except in liberal constituencies, I guess. Or am I being M?

[Al in NYC]

I'm with BN and RobC here, and don't see why suitability of motives shouldn't be included in any rational political argument, since motives are usually at the very core of political decisions. Political decisions are not normally based on the likely empirical outcome of a policy, but rather on the likely electoral or campaign funding outcome of that policy. And, as all politicans know, voting and contribution decisions are almost always made by people on an individualistic Type M basis, based on perceived advantageousness to themselves and their interests. Kling's "Type C" formuilations are far too mechanistic for political arguments in the real world, and smack of the worst tendencies of the abstractions of economists (and other "quant" types in the social sciences). Krugman, in his role as a political writer and columnist, while he certainly brings his formidable credentials as an economist to bear, has to engage with the real world in which politics takes place and in which policies are formulated and implemented. A world that very much includes the politcal and personal motives of the participants, and a world that concerns itself much more with the perceptions and illusions of the public than those of the economists' academy.

[Pete C]

"Brilliant" indeed. I applaud Gordon's enthusiasm.

[Tom Storer]

I think it's important to distinguish between C and M type arguments, but both are (or at least can be) pertinent. What's sloppy is to say "This policy is wrong because the Republicans are assholes" or "That policy was wrong because Clinton is a liar." Better would be: "This policy is wrong because of X, Y, and Z, and not only that, the Republicans are assholes; the two intersect in this way or that way"; "That policy was wrong, and since Clinton is a liar, we should have known he was intentionally misrepresenting it." Etc.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
"C" stands for consequences and "M" stands for motives.

As for the contention that both sides use M-oriented arguments, I agree one hundred percent. So does the author of this article.

"C" also stands for crazy and "M" for magnificent.

The point I was bringing up is the obvious attempt at turning the reader's head away from Liberal concepts, arguments and ideologies and replacing them with conservative ones. To even suggest that the "C" argument, as we are led to believe, is an open minded way to go about arguing then associating it with conservative thought should raise a red flag in all our minds.

Why, you should ask yourself, why doesn't the author use the conservative arguments as his examples with regard to the "M" argument?

I think it is fairly obvious where this author is headed...beisdes, there is a myriad of ways to argue a point beyond base consequenses vs. motives.

Originally posted by Monte Smith
[BAs for the use of "Christian" as a slur: funny the aroma of complaint never attaches itself to the persons (or the motives) of the Reverends Sharpton or Jackson, yet it clings to Falwell and Robertson. Separation of Church and State except in liberal constituencies, I guess. Or am I being M? [/B]

I disagree.

NObody with half a brain considers Al Sharpton anything more that a sham preacher, a political clown.

On that basis, you are being "M".

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally posted by Al in NYC
I'm with BN and RobC here, and don't see why suitability of motives shouldn't be included in any rational political argument, since motives are usually at the very core of political decisions.

Because the arguments then take on the qualities of religious wars wherein each side KNOWS it's right (any evidence to the contrary is the work of Satan--or Cheney--poisoning your mind) and can never be proven wrong.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
Because the arguments then take on the qualities of religious wars wherein each side KNOWS it's right (any evidence to the contrary is the work of Satan--or Cheney--poisoning your mind) and can never be proven wrong.

I disagree.

ANY argument can be proved wrong or incorrect, or [more to the point] incongruent.

I think what you may mean is will the belief always be changed by the suasion. The asnwer to that is, no.

[bluenoter]

Originally posted by Pete C
"Brilliant" indeed. I applaud Gordon's enthusiasm.

I can't tell whether Pete was being serious about the brilliance or not, but "not" seems like a safe bet.

[Pete C]

Originally posted by bluenoter
I can't tell whether Pete was being serious about the brilliance or not, but "not" seems like a safe bet.

Regardless, I can still applaud his enthusiasm.