JD Vance speaks out on the issues Vexed: Ethics beyond Political Tribes
by James Mumford (Bloomsbury Continuum, £16.99 / €20.50 )
Politics are everywhere. We’ve had the British general election, currently the drama of the United States’ presidential election, and the prospect of our own general election in November.
As the tumult, the divisions, the competition fill our screens and the pages of our newspapers, one thing is clear: bullshit, that vulgarism of the American barnyard and legislative chamber, is a central element of democratic politics.
The US philosopher, Harry Frankfurt was the first to provide a precise analysis of this inelegant term in an essay published in 1986. This appeared as a best-selling book in 2005.
We suppose two possibilities when we write or speak. So, I can intend to tell the truth or to lie. Of course, I may fail in my intention, but these remain my only options.
Not so says Frankfurt. He explains that there is a third option: discourse in which truth or falsehood is not an issue. He calls it b*******. When we speak this way, we seek to impress, to bring you on board, to make you feel good about me (and yourself). It’s waving a flag.
(Many people rightly find the term offensive, and it is intended to be. As it arises from people “yakking” too much, we might substitute the term “yak-dung”, which is culturally less offensive, but equally effective.)
Politics
It is easy to see why such an expression plays so important a role in politics. Political parties with any chance of gaining power are necessarily involved in building coalitions among divergent views and conflicting interests.
Finding unity in reasoned compromises is difficult, maybe impossible. Finding it while portraying you and your party as good and your competitors as evil is easier. Insults beat arguments. Melodrama is the most attractive narrative, hatred the most potent political emotion.
Both are best served by this vile language. Think of the recent Republican and Democratic conventions. Supporters were energised, unity confirmed, good vibes generated, with no policies promulgated or positions argued.
Of course, tradition, culture, and socio-economic realities combine to give each nation’s politics its own distinctive shape.
Though published a little while, it is a book for today, for this very moment in fact, a sparkling antidote to these distressing trends”
Nonetheless, I reckon that trends we see in the US where such yakking , always an element in democratic politics, becomes the dominant one and partisanship increases at a cost to the solidarity that once contained divisions, are visible in all western democracies.
All this I find dispiriting. This is why I welcome James Mumford’s Vexed. Though published a little while, it is a book for today, for this very moment in fact, a sparkling antidote to these distressing trends.
James Mumford, now resident in England, lived for several years in the US when he taught at the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture. He undertook postgraduate studies at Oxford, where he was awarded a Ph.D, and later at Yale University.
He has been described as “one of the most exciting young ethicists working today”, a description warranted by this book.
Tasks
Mumford accomplishes two tasks. He reveals the incoherence of the packages parties put together to win votes. When he shows you that the belief that commits you to the party (for example its stance for or against abortion) is contradicted by other elements in its position, your temptation to strongly identify with it is weakened.
His examples resonate most strongly with US politics, though they are relevant wherever “progressives” contend with “conservatives.” The way he goes about this valuable task is just as important, perhaps more important. He demonstrates that it is possible to argue, in plain English, about important moral issues.
For example, progressives support assisted suicide. Focusing on the plight of individual cases, they find a “right to die” that only bigoted conservatives would deny.
The health system will come to see the dying elderly as an expensive burden. And the elderly themselves will all too readily agree”
Mumford observes that “inclusiveness” has been, and, is an important aim of progressives. We can thank them for the old age pension (since 1908) and, indeed, the post-war welfare state. Not to mention compulsory education.
He shows that if we widen our focus bringing into consideration the consequences of a regime where assisted suicide is accepted, matters become more complicated and questions of inclusivity come into play.
In a detailed argument he shows how it could, and most likely would lead, given evidence from countries where euthanasia is current, to the exclusion of the elderly and chronically ill from the care and compassion that was once considered their due.
The health system will come to see the dying elderly as an expensive burden. And the elderly themselves will all too readily agree. A movement that congratulates itself on its commitment to the care of all, is found to exclude those who are among the most vulnerable in society.
Traditional
Conservatives promote “family values” against progressives who see the traditional family as one setting , and not necessarily the best, for the rearing of children. They demand respect for “durable relationships”, praise the benefits of “blended families”, and decry the stigmatisation of single-parent families. Traditional family values for others belong to an out-dated, patriarchal, authoritarian culture.
Now, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conservative position: children reared in stable families with parents in an enduring committed relationship do best.
Conservatives, Mumford observes, see it as a matter of culture. Again, he invites us to widen the context, taking economics into account. “Living at the edge of destitution is no formula for a flourishing marriage”. As the balance of power is tilted even further in favour of the employers, more and more are brought closer to that edge, especially in the US.
He gives examples of how “zero hour” contracts make life precarious for those living at the bottom of the scale stymieing their efforts to form families. Conservatives are reluctant to address these problems and the damage they inflict on parents and children. They bring into question their reverence for capitalism and its supposed mechanisms.
They fail to recognise how the sexual revolution has brought sexual relationships into a market style regime”
The “sex positivity” facilitated by the contraceptive pill banished inhibitions, freed us from repression, lifted the burden of guilt, ushering in a sexual revolution celebrated by progressives.
Mumford, with well-chosen examples, argues that elements within the progressive tradition should, at the very least, temper the welcome. Progressives have resisted consumerism with its presumption that the good is to be found in having, not being.
They fail to recognise how the sexual revolution has brought sexual relationships into a market style regime where the satisfaction of desires is traded, love and commitment are out, consent is everything. The equality given by the market is superficial; in reality it serves male sexual proclivities.
Space does not allow me to indicate the illumination that comes when Mumford joins his case against abortion with consideration of gun law (especially in the US, or his account of how unreasonable is an emphasis on punishment that ignores forgiveness and rehabilitation).
In his last chapter he calls for a moral imagination that can move beyond a particular issue to the wider context in which it is embedded, that is capable of nuance, that respects the facts.
This book is a marvellous example of such an imagination at work on issues that roil our politics.