Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Good and Evil
Is there something in the human condition that makes us yearn for epic battles between good and evil? Are we as a species driven to ignore obvious facts if they contradict the narrative that our political choices are between heaven and hell rather than about picking the least bad option from a lot of less than stellar choices?
I ask this because a dear friend who is otherwise thoughtful and rational became extremely upset over Congressman Mo Brooks’ statement regarding pre-existing conditions during an interview with Jake Tapper. He said, “…we need to take into consideration all those people who have lived good lives, they’re healthy and they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. Those are the people who have done the things the right way and they’re having their costs skyrocket and it’s not fair…”
Of course this lady who survived cancer a couple of years ago is rightly concerned about being priced out of the market by proposed changes to our healthcare laws. The Congressman’s statement was inartful and horribly stated, but the offending quote also leaves off the end where he said, “…in fairness, a lot of the people with pre-existing conditions have those conditions through no fault of their own, and I think our society under those circumstances needs to help…” But, she can’t accept that he was merely daft rather than evil. Her amen chorus on Facebook is right there passing judgment on the representative (and by extension all the people who elected him to office) as ignorant and cruel.
Obviously what Brooks attempted — and failed — to convey is that we cannot afford to subsidize poor life choices. The problem is that coverage for pre-existing conditions is a wide net which catches those like my friend who should not be penalized for a spate of rotten luck as well as the obese, diabetic smoker and the recreational meth user. This is not a matter of good versus evil. It is a problem of tradeoffs where no right answer exists. When we collectivize the costs associated with health care (and that is what our current insurance system does) then we will always be presented with certain problems like free riders and help for people with pre-existing conditions being gamed by the irresponsible.
Below is the bit of the interview that created the angsty outbursts.
.
Published in Healthcare, Politics
If your complete quote is correct, there is nothing daft about what he said. If we aren’t allowed to discuss things like this, then it’s over.
It’s not that we’re not allowed to discuss them, but rather than people selectively carve out the bit that creates the most rage. It inhibits rather than prohibits rational, productive discussion. This lady is a sweetheart and a good friend, so it confounds me that even in the face of facts she chooses, for whatever reason, to view the problem as one of good and evil rather than bad and worse choices between which we must select.
Carving out the bit that creates the most rage is a problem. I notice that Drudge does this a lot, too. I’ve learned not to trust his headlines any more than those of the WSJ.
Both sides do it, hence the initial questions. It seems we’re hardwired to be this way. It takes deliberate effort to have a rational discussion.
Short answer? Absolutely.
Jonathan Haidt, as usual, has much to say on this subject, the short version is that we’re neither as rational nor as moral as we imagine ourselves to be, and the sensation of righteousness can be wholly separate from actual righteousness…given the choice, most of us will choose the sensation over reality. (It has to do with dopamine and the ventral striatum…). Since “good” and “evil” are extremely prone to becoming mere synonyms for “us” and “them,” the moral sensation is closely linked to the sensation of belonging, that is, to tribalism. We form tribes by exclusion as much as by inclusion; what your friend is experiencing and expressing is “that guy is NOT US.”
This can be a generalized disability; there are people (and tribes) who give themselves over to the sensation of righteousness—perpetual, aggrieved moral indignation—wholly, but most of us probably have at least one issue on which we are extremely and irrationally reactive. Mine, as you know, is law enforcement and Black Lives Matter. I’m not saying that I’m wrong about this subject. Indeed, I am firmly convinced that I’m right, but I can be right about other things without feeling quite so gut-level invested or quite so angry with those who are wrong, or those who seem willing to entertain the possibility that #BLM might have a point.
I was thinking, today, about my father who served as a Marine in combat and later as a war correspondent during the Vietnam War. I wish I could tell him, now, that I understand how fiercely partisan he was about “his” Marines, how much he admired his Vietnamese friends, interpreters and assistants. I wish I could tell him much I admire his ability to maintain his cool during conversations about Vietnam in which soldiers were vilified, or the dangers posed by the communists to the Vietnamese people airily dismissed, by people who had never met (let alone loved) a soldier or a Vietnamese person.
I hope to someday be able to emulate him. (Semper Fi, Dad!)
Something Klavan often says is that “Anger is the Devil’s cocaine”. Humans have a tendency to like their “righteous” anger, whether it is real righteousness or not. Being arrayed against something feels good if you think that thing is evil or worth being angry about. The left is practically a junkie now just looking for it’s next hit. It’s not that the right doesn’t do it, but we haven’t hit stage where we’ll riot and break stuff to get our next high.
(I started writing this before Kate’s comment above this was there. Disregard this one, read that one.)
I disagree. Both her comment and yours are worth reading. So I recommend that everyone reads both comments. I’d give each of you double likes if I could!
Fantastic comment. This topic is acting as a mirror for me to examine myself. Where do I get righteously angry or indignant where the righteousness is feigned? Have I rooted out all my own hypocrisy in this area?
Howdy, KP! As one of the ‘through no fault of their own’ bunch. I *do* have a responsibility to maintain my general well-being – and be as proactive about it as I can. Both my spiritual commitment (and my recent adoption into the Marine family) require it. Yes, death comes to us all, but until I’m called, I’ve gotta be active and vigilant. (Not making this call for anyone else; not so sure we can ‘legislate’ good choices, as enticing as that sounds.)
Is the Greater Son of Barsham on Ricochet, too?
I don’t see that these things are between good and evil or even that difficult. There is no collective redemption and people must be accountable for their own actions. Moreover others are not responsible for people they do not know who have made bad decisions but if they know them and can help that is being good. Then there’s that thing call randomness, luck of the draw, fate, accidents. For that we have insurance. Insurance companies always want to find ways out of obligations. For that we have laws and tort. Insurance companies sometime go bankrupt, for that we have reinsurance. If people get their health insurance from their employers and change jobs, or lose their jobs and end up uninsured or don’t buy insurance in the first place they’re vulnerable to having pre existing conditions. Pre existing conditions can’t be insured against, we can force tax payers or insurance companies to pay but that isn’t insurance its welfare. For these situations we need transition to personally owned insurance that begins when one is young and continues and is obligatory and if not obligatory then they aren’t covered, end of story.
People label things evil for a number of reasons. They’re lazy: who wants to be bothered with details? They are emotionally charged: if something is evil, it validates they’re reaction (which is often overreaction). It stops debate or discussion (as you indicated, KP): no equivocation allowed. It demonizes the other, and therefore dehumanizes, too. It’s the ultimate step to discrediting: there is no saving one who is evil. I am careful in using the terms good or evil, frankly. Someone I call good is beyond reproach, in my mind. Someone who is evil is beyond redemption. Pretty powerful words, either one. Most of us do live in that in-between place where we do our best, make mistakes, resolve to do better, and live honest lives. At least that’s where I live.
I agree with the friend who is upset with Brooks’s statements about preexisting conditions.
Assigning blame for illnesses and disabilities is a can of worms.
The preventive medicine movement has a been a good thing, but it would be the height of foolishness and arrogance to use it as a pretext for judging fault in people’s physical troubles. In a few cases, fault is pretty clear cut, but in most, it is not.
We should work to lower the cost of healthcare rather than pursue blame.
Sorry, this is a little off topic; but, I just noticed this is KP’s 1000th post. That’s a lot of posts! Does anyone know if anyone has more? Are there other members of the 1000 post club? Anyway, seems like there should be some sort of prize for making it to 1000 posts. What the prize should be – I don’t know. Maybe a free weekend camping trip in Rob Long’s backyard. Or, better yet, all your posts from now on start off with six likes.
Maybe instead of thinking in terms of “blame,” think in terms of risk. I can assure you that some people will behave very differently toward taking care of their health if they don’t have the backstop of insurance. That includes dealing with things like smoking and weight loss. It’s not healthy to ask people to deny what they’ve seen with their own eyes, or what they’ve observed about their own behavior. People who are upset about that are asking us to be dishonest about reality. No good will come from that.
There is no need to turn Brooks’s statement into a morality play.
I think part of it is that evil is something we can fight. When people hear about something bad, they want to believe that we can do something about it. If evil is a force, good can be a stronger force.
But for me, part of conservatism is the levelheaded acceptance that we live in an imperfect world. Bad things happen, even in cases where this no evil agency at work, and often there is nothing we can do about it. Not, at least, without unintended consequences that might be worse.
Liberals mistake this for coldness, but that’s not it. My heart breaks for someone who, through no fault of their own, suffers a catastrophic illness or other misfortune. But while I feel the pain, I do not deceive myself into thinking that we can prevent such things from happening, nor into believing that government would be the way to do so if we could.
I should add that the left will be glad to put these discussions off limits to intimidate people into giving them the totalitarian-payer system they keep talking about. After that’s done, they will be glad to talk about and regulate these health-related behaviors. You can’t have a welfare state without a police state.
This is what I was going to say. He’s right on the money. The people in FB land like to have their fist in the air and their heads in the sand. They want to get angry. They want to take it wrong. Because he’s old and white, so of course he is evil.
It’s a name due for a little update I’ll admit. Originally I was going for the “lesser son of greater fathers” from Lord of the Rings but thinking more along the lines of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. The fact that it takes this much explaining though should have been a tip off I should have gone with something different. I thought about just doing Son of Barsham, but then my initials would go from LOB to SOB. Still might do it, just for kicks :)
If we are talking about preexisting conditions, then we are talking about blame. In some cases, whether or not the blame for the preexisting condition lies with the patient or someone else will not be clear.
Ben Shapiro weighs in with the exact point I’ve tried to make and been accused of being evil for:
If Socialized Medicine is to come then mandatory preventative check ups have to be a part of it. And that’s something no American will ever sign up for.
I still don’t know why his comments are idiotic. I understand why they inflame the left. Is that why they are idiotic?
The comment was inarticulate, inartful, and could do nothing but inflame the left. They don’t need any more help with that, and we certainly don’t need to be providing it for free.
So we can’t espouse conservative positions, nor truths about how the world works, is what you are saying…
We can, but we must do it skillfully.
I have no issue with that. Let’s do it skillfully. But not doing so is not idiotic. And even if you did it skillfully, the left would call you evil.
To answer your real question, we demonize those we disagree with when we cannot or will have a rational conversation about policy and outcomes. I think this happens on both sides. Most people aren’t us. You and I, I mean. They don’t want to have a reasoned, nuanced conversation about these things.
So only skillful discussions are allowed now? That is an invitation to bullies.
My take, and I don’t know if it’s conservative or not, is that I don’t care what you are. I care what you do.
You can be evil. You can be racist. You can be any race, religion, sex, age, whatever, and I’m going to meet you as an individual. I’m going to love you as part of God’s creation.
And I’m never going to love or hate you, or what you do, just because of what you are. “By you fruits will you be known.”