“When the details change, I alter my thoughts—what do you do, sir?” That well-known riposte was offered by John Maynard Keynes, the British mental who revolutionized financial considering within the twentieth century, in response to the accusation that he was being inconsistent in his coverage suggestions. There are every kind of variations on Keynes’s perception, one of many easiest being that an individual who recommends carrying an umbrella on a cloudy day is completely proper to suggest leaving our umbrellas at dwelling on a sunny day, however the total level is that this ubiquitous adolescent retort—“However you used to say one thing totally different!”—is all too typically a meaningless gotcha.
Vice President Kamala Harris is at the moment being accused of such inconsistency on various fronts, with the press—not solely the right-wing media however the supposedly impartial press as nicely—zealously lobbing accusations of “flip-flopping” in opposition to her, with the thought being that Harris is someway being sketchy or too-clever in her solutions. This framing has grow to be so automated {that a} video clip from a latest “Meet the Press” phase was titled, “Pete Buttigieg defends Kamala Harris’ flip-flops on coverage,” despite the fact that neither the interviewer nor Buttigieg stated “flip-flop” even as soon as throughout the 9-minute dialog.
The press has, in different phrases, moved previous the “elevating a query” a part of its narrative to the lazy “everybody is aware of and dares to not problem” the brand new typical knowledge in attacking the Democratic nominee.
As I’ll clarify right here, these accusations in opposition to Harris are foolish on a elementary stage. That’s, they don’t seem to be flawed within the narrowest sense of misrepresenting a reality as a lie, however they’re meaningless within the sense that nobody ought to care about these accusations in any respect.
In immediately’s Half Certainly one of this column, I’ll give attention to the accusations of flip-flopping that the mainstream press has echoed and amplified concerning Kamala Harris’s coverage stances. In Half Two tomorrow, I’ll clarify that that is a part of a broader misunderstanding about what even counts as an argument, a misunderstanding that provides an unearned free cross to Donald Trump and Republicans generally.
From Coverage Discussions that Ignore Coverage to Arguments with No Argumentative Content material at All
Final week, in a two–part column right here on Verdict, I famous that Republicans declare to need Donald Trump to “speak coverage” however in actual fact could be distressed if he had been ever to attempt to clarify their proposed options to coverage points. They solely need him to say inflammatory issues about issues that persons are already offended about (particularly immigration and client costs) with out even coming near providing and defending something resembling a coverage agenda that would clear up any of these issues.
As I famous in that column and in a follow-up column final Thursday on Dorf on Legislation, the mainstream press is greater than prepared to affix Republicans to “outline down” the very concept of coverage dialogue, transferring from demanding {that a} politician provide a proposal, clarify it, after which present how it will clear up (or at the very least assist to unravel) the issue in query to being happy when Trump says with out supporting particulars that he’ll merely make one thing “nice” occur.
And that carries over from the coverage realm to the straightforward incapacity of mainstream journalists and pundits even to acknowledge a foul argument for what it’s—or typically that there is no such thing as a argument on provide in any respect, only a blur of phrases that add as much as nothing.
Is that dangerous for democracy? As I’ll argue—truly argue—sure it’s.
The Flip-Flopping Accusation and Being True to One’s Values
Final month, in her first main interview after changing into the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Harris was confronted with the accusations that she had modified her positions on varied issues within the 5 years since her unsuccessful 2019 presidential run. Earlier than exploring her key response, it will likely be useful to know what a real flip-flop is and isn’t.
In and round 2016, J.D. Vance stated some scathing—and correct—issues about Donald Trump, one of many extra memorable of them being that he (Vance) “go[es] backwards and forwards between considering Trump is a cynical asshole … or that he’s America’s Hitler.” Vance later stated that he modified his thoughts about all of that due to Trump’s nice presidency.
That clarification is past implausible, as a result of Vance by no means in actual fact tried to defend with details and logic the concept that Trump’s presidency was something however a catastrophe. If something, the folks in 2016 who had been hoping that Trump would possibly develop up and grow to be much less erratic as a substitute noticed their final remaining hopes dashed. Regardless that there’s nothing loopy about the concept that an individual can change their thoughts—even by 100 eighty levels—after receiving new data, Vance’s clarification doesn’t cross the snigger check. Vance’s sole function is to offer himself larger energy, and in that, he has not flip-flopped, which I suppose is a type of minimal stage of mental consistency.
This contrasts with former Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley, who has modified her thoughts about Trump so many instances that it’s tough to maintain observe of her blatantly contradictory statements. She is like Vance in caring solely about her personal political development, however she is just not pretty much as good at it. Vance isn’t any extra admirable than Haley, as a result of he nonetheless helps Trump, however he’s attempting to say one thing that may be true: I believed one factor, then issues modified, and now my opinion has modified. He shouldn’t get a free cross for now supporting the tip of American democracy, however whereas “fascist or fascist-enabler” is an correct method to describe Vance, “flip-flopper” is just not. Which one is worse?
So Republicans haven’t any drawback with folks altering their minds when it fits them. The press likes to seize onto labels like “flip-flopper,” nevertheless, as a result of they will current such an accusation as a impartial, nonpartisan evaluation. “She did change her place, and I’m not saying that’s essentially good or dangerous,” a reporter would possibly take pains to say, “however it’s true.” However in fact, the implication is that “folks don’t know what this candidate actually believes,” which makes it very a lot a destructive judgment. And so the assaults on Harris proceed.
The actual fact is that anybody who’s paying consideration is aware of greater than sufficient about Harris to have sense of what she would do as President. She is a center-left Democrat who will certainly disappoint progressives like me on a couple of event. She is evident on abortion and reproductive rights, labor rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and so forth. Oh, and she or he is just not Donald Trump. The concept we don’t but “know her” as a result of she has modified her thoughts about ways (reminiscent of one of the simplest ways to take care of border safety) through the years is fatuous. This can be a made-up story.
But the media pushes onward, apparently in a futile effort to parry Republicans’ assaults on the press, making a giant deal out of the straightforward actuality that Harris has up to date her considering over time. Throughout the interview that I discussed above, the interviewer identified that the now-Vice President had stated in 2019 that she was in opposition to fracking, however now she now not opposes it. Harris’s response was that her “values” haven’t modified. That was in actual fact an excellent reply—the proper reply, one would possibly say—despite the fact that the interviewer and the post-interview spin from different reporters dismissed Harris’s reply as mere wordplay.
Why is Harris’s reply so robust? I can reply that query by referring to how I type my very own views about coverage stances. All through my profession as an economist, I’ve opposed tax cuts for the wealthy. I achieve this as a result of the proof exhibits that the Republicans’ threadbare trickle-down story—that wealthy folks will use their tax cuts to create jobs for everybody else, so the advantages is not going to keep on the prime—has been thoroughly and repeatedly disproven by cautious econometric evaluation. Tax cuts for the wealthy profit the wealthy, whereas everybody else does worse. And I oppose that.
However what if I had been to grow to be conscious of a brand new type of regressive tax coverage that may certainly assist the center class and the poor by first serving to the wealthy? Would I oppose that coverage? Ought to I oppose it, to keep away from being referred to as a flip-flopper? In fact not. Like Keynes, I might say {that a} new scenario requires an sincere appraisal of what to do subsequent, even when it appears to be inconsistent with what I as soon as stated. Have been that new scenario to come up 5 years from now, 5 months from now, or 5 minutes from now wouldn’t matter.
The explanation that I might really feel snug “altering my thoughts” is strictly what Kamala Harris was speaking about in her reply about fracking. My deeply held worth is that inequality is a social evil, not {that a} specific tax coverage proposal is dangerous per se. It’s true that I may change my bigger coverage objectives—deciding that Social Darwinism is just not immoral, for instance—however that would actually be a change in my values.
How can Harris be prepared to simply accept fracking with out having modified her underlying values? That’s simple to know, as soon as we drop the “however she flip-flopped” mindset that’s at the moment polluting (no pun supposed) the dialogue.
As a threshold matter, one can readily concede that the fracking query does differ from my instance in a single categorical manner. In my hypothetical world, I may help a trickle-down coverage if one might be discovered that reduces inequality, which is my value-driven coverage purpose. Against this, nothing has modified previously 5 years to make fracking much less dangerous for the setting, and pro-environmental objectives are what Harris holds out as her true values.
Even that, nevertheless, doesn’t finally matter to the bigger query. In any case, there are conditions through which I might be prepared to simply accept (nevertheless reluctantly) some insurance policies that worsen inequality, as a result of there are different issues at play. In 2018, for instance, I argued that the Republicans’ cap on the state-and-local tax deduction for the federal earnings tax ought to be repealed, as a result of despite the fact that doing so would assist richer folks in blue states, the cap constitutes unconstitutional unequal remedy of states primarily based on their residents’ and leaders’ political viewpoints.
Extra to the purpose, I may discover myself supporting a multi-part tax invoice that features some regressive parts as a result of it additionally consists of progressive parts that make the general affect of the invoice progressive. Query: However Professor Buchanan, you’ve at all times stated that you simply’re in opposition to trickle-down tax insurance policies. How may you?! Reply: Simply. Coverage is difficult, and piece-by-piece acceptance or rejection of a invoice ignores the fact of legislative tradeoffs.
Because it occurs, essentially the most notorious accusation of flip-flopping was not a flip-flop in any respect. In 2004, the Democratic presidential nominee (then-Senator John Kerry) was roasted on the Republican Nationwide Conference by delegates waving rubber footwear within the air. Why? When requested why he had voted in opposition to a selected navy appropriations invoice, Kerry had answered: “I truly did vote for the $87 billion, earlier than I voted in opposition to it.” Silly, proper? In no way. He had voted for a model of the invoice that included a provision to pay for the price of the brand new navy spending by decreasing Republicans’ regressive tax cuts, and when that offset was eliminated, he modified his vote. Briefly, this was not even a scenario through which an individual modified his thoughts however not his values, as a result of the second vote was on a substantively totally different invoice. That’s the reverse of flip-flopping.
Concerning my instance above concerning the cap on the state and native tax deduction, I ought to state unambiguously that I might even help a clear repeal with no offsetting progressive ingredient(s), despite the fact that I might in fact attempt to embrace issues that would scale back inequality. Once more, nevertheless, that may not be flip-flopping on my values, as a result of despite the fact that I favor tax progressivity and decreasing inequality, I additionally worth the concept that Republicans shouldn’t be in a position to punish states that elect Democrats. Typically two core values come into battle.
In the case of Harris and fracking, nevertheless, the story is just not even that difficult. In some unspecified time in the future within the final 5 years, she may have determined that she was prepared to help an power coverage bundle that trades off fracking for some inexperienced initiatives that may add as much as a net-beneficial coverage that achieves objectives which are constant together with her values.
That’s true of Vance as nicely, by the best way, however within the worst manner potential. He was and is dedicated to a reactionary, sexist, bigoted set of values. In 2016, he thought that Trump was not going to advance that agenda, so he opposed Trump’s candidacy. Now Vance has modified his thoughts about Trump’s usefulness, however his repulsive values are intact. I suppose that counts as a “two cheers” second.
In any occasion, and to be very clear, the type of tradeoff that I mentioned above would even be in keeping with the cynical suspicion that Harris is merely refusing to acknowledge the apparent political syllogism: “Pennsylvania is a key state to grow to be President; candidates who oppose fracking will most likely lose Pennsylvania; ergo, I now not oppose fracking.” She clearly has each good motive to not say that out loud, however she additionally is just not someway dishonest for being politically sensible.
Harris needs the U.S. to scale back the environmental injury that it creates, and she or he is a part of the presidential administration that handed a historic bundle of inexperienced insurance policies as a part of the Inflation Discount Act. Lowering or eliminating fracking would have been a part of a first-best coverage bundle, however we don’t dwell in a first-best world. Typically, we accept much less for scientific causes, typically for financial causes, and typically for political causes. Recover from it.
To return to my views on tax coverage, I typically shock individuals who ask me whether or not I help or oppose one type of tax or one other, even in a context the place we’re solely discussing a menu of progressive insurance policies. For instance, despite the fact that the Social Safety system is just not going bankrupt, I imagine that our retirement program ought to be supplemented with progressive taxes to permit advantages to extend. Which progressive taxes ought to we impose? I’ll truthfully inform those that I don’t care. If political opposition makes property tax will increase poisonous however upper-bracket earnings tax will increase potential, wonderful by me. If we may enact a tax on unrealized gains however would hit a brick wall on enacting a wealth tax, why would I quibble?
In the long run, nevertheless, the insta-conventional knowledge that Kamala Harris is “not but identified” is a dodge, and the concept that her modifications in ways and methods—however not her objectives or values—make her a flip-flopper can’t be taken significantly. She is an imperfect human being, as all of us are, however she apparently is just not imperfect sufficient for Republicans or journalists to seek out one thing non-imaginary with which to assault her.
In Half Two of this column, I’ll transfer past this “However you modified your thoughts” mindlessness and take a look at another examples of what at the moment passes for argumentation in U.S. political dialogue. It seems that Donald Trump and the Republicans don’t even trouble to attempt to make coherent arguments, however far too many reporters and commentators nonetheless act as if bare assertions and non sequiturs rely as devastating arguments. The outcomes are all too predictable.
