Friday, March 14, 2008
Spiral
This post over on Kim’s site, and this comment in particular, by Weetabix, got me thinking.
Albert Jay Nock posited three laws of human behavior. These are to be considered sociological observations on the behavior of mankind, not laws governing the necessary behavior of individuals. Groups of people largely tend to act this way, and exceptions do exist.
The first, Gresham’s Law, is the one mentioned by Weetabix. The cliff notes version of it is that a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. It was originally developed in relation to economics. It was observed that when two competing currencies are in circulation at the same place at the same time, the less valued one ends up in domination over the more valued one, as people hoard the one that they believe to be a better store of value. That is, good money drives bad money out of circulation.
However, Gresham’s Law is applicable in many more situations than this. This post by Mrs. du Toit addresses Gresham’s Law in two contexts. The first is literature, where as soon as publishers realized that they had a large uncritical audience available, tabloids and trash novels were published en masse, driving quality literature out of the public discourse nearly virtually completely. The second is the internet, where as the barrier to entry grows smaller, the market becomes dominated more and more by lower quality content.
Gresham’s Law also applies in the business world. A company that is willing to bend or even break ethical boundaries gains an advantage over it’s competitors. The competitors then have a choice between engaging in similar activities or losing ground in the market. Politics too - as one party or politician panders, so must the rest in order to remain competitive.
Nock’s second law is called Epstein’s Law, named after a friend of his from whom he got the idea for it. Simply, it is this - mankind has the inherent tendency to satisfy their needs and desires through the easiest possible means. This makes obvious sense, as there is no reason to work harder than is necessary toward an end. What happens though when the political realm is open to satisfying one’s needs and desires? Clearly if it is easier to get something via the government rather than through one’s own efforts, many people will chose the route of using the government.
Nock’s third law is the law of diminishing returns. It is not immediately relevant to the issue at hand, so I’ll address it at a later time.
What are honorable people supposed to do in a situation where the other side is willing to stoop to dishonorable acts to achieve their goals? Epstein’s Law manifests itself in people subverting the system to achieve their own ends, and Gresham’s Law guarantees that given enough time, all parties must stoop to that level to remain competitive. According to Nock, such behavior is virtually inevitable given enough time.
In the context of crossing party lines in primaries purely for the purpose of sabotaging the other party, I can’t condone it. It smacks of cheating, of manipulating the system, of stooping to trickery to achieve one’s ends. It is entirely different from a compromise where one chooses to support a candidate more to the center than we would like. In that case, we are recognizing the fact that our views are out of the mainstream, and we are choosing to bend to the will of the majority by supporting the centrist candidate most compatible with our beliefs. In the case of sabotaging primaries, we would be working to actively thwart the will of the majority and the intent of the voting process. The people deserve their say, and it is our duty to respect it.
However, it is true that if one side is willing to stoop to dirty tricks, the other side is at a definite disadvantage. Does this make it acceptable for our side to do the same?
I can’t get there, even once it is pointed out that we would be subverting the will of the majority to better uphold the constitution. That is ends-justifying-the-means logic that can be used to justify all all sorts of bad actions. No thanks.
So is a sense of honor a suicide pact then?
I would hope not. Part of me says that a society is already lost when bad actors so dominate the political process that there is no alternative but to join them in their underhanded tactics. In that case, we might as well just check out of the process and wait for the edifice to crumble as it inevitably tears itself apart. Another part of me says that through reasonable regulation and people encouraging others to do what is right, some sense of decency will be maintained, and the impact of the malefactors can be minimized.
I’m hoping the second case is true. In either case, no amount of tit-for-tat or ends-justifying-the-means logic will convince me that cheating in our political process is acceptable. Is voting twice acceptable if the other side does it? No, certainly not. The difference here is that voting multiple times is explicitly against the law, while crossover voting in primaries for the purposes of sabotage is not.
The law should not have to address each and every detail of our lives. That is what a conscience is for.
Comments
-
My thought on the matter is as long as both sides follow the rules everything is fine, but once your opponents start playing rough you need to run roughshod over them.
The point being if they’re not punished for their misbehavior it will lead them to believe they can get away with it wherever and whenever they can.
Let them know breaking the rules will be painful to them.rlhunter | 3/15/2008 02:49 PM CDT -
I don’t know exactly where I stand on the crossover thing.
On the one hand, I agree with your statment about honor and about sabotage’s being unfair.
But, if you cross over to vote (but only vote once in the primary) can’t you choose how to use your vote? Maybe you’re voting against someone on the other side because you believe the danger they represent is more worthy of your vote than the good the guy on your side represents. Kind of like your vote’s throwing itself on a grenade to save its buddies.
And I don’t think the cross over people are breaking the rules. They’re definitely breaking the spirit of the primaries.
If we don’t like it, we need to change the rules, so it can’t happen. I liked TS’s suggested rule change.
I don’t condone the cross overs, but I can’t find it in me to condemn them either. I feel like a Picasso where the laws of perspective have been repealed, I can see too many sides of the issue, and I can’t decide. (h/t Bill Watterson)
And sometimes, I do believe honor is a suicide pact, but I need to be able to live with myself even if the world kills me. I just can’t figure out where honor resides in this issue.
Weetabix | 3/18/2008 10:14 AM CDT
