Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Paul Krugman on Belief Systems
Though I often disagree with Paul Krugman on issues, he gives a fun interview here. I particularly enjoyed his views on “belief systems”:
I’d also disagree with Krugman’s assertion that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. I think it comes down to the times and how events can stir up trouble. Liberalism had become mighty adamant and narrow-minded by the late ‘60s and ‘70s, insufferably so, and liberals were ultimately punished in the ‘80s by voters, who had become sick of their dogmas and political correctness. During roughly the same time period, conservativism was more dynamic, flexible and, for lack of other words, reality based, culminating in the ’80 election of Reagan. The two sides eventually flipped positions. Power ultimately corrupted conservativism, which eventually morphed into a mean-spirited form of tribalism by the ‘90s. Being out of power (or favor) forced liberals to reassess at least some of their basic assumptions, such as the role of capitalism in economics etc.
Though I often disagree with Paul Krugman on issues, he gives a fun interview here. I particularly enjoyed his views on “belief systems”:
… I was at that stage, a college sophomore or thereabouts, when you’re searching around, looking for belief systems. I think it’s actually a point when you’re quite vulnerable, because you are looking for someone who is going to offer you all the answers. Some people turn to religious orthodoxy, other people turn to Ayn Rand. One of my favourite lines – and I haven’t been able to find out who came up with it – is that “There’s an age when boys read one of two books. Either they read Ayn Rand or they read Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. One of these books leaves you with no grasp on reality and a deeply warped sense of fantasy in place of real life. The other one is about hobbits and orcs.”Of course, many would say Krugman indeed has his own adamant belief system. But it’s still an interesting read. I went through a similar intellectual/political odyssey, albeit one that fell well short of eventually winning a Nobel Prize, damn it. I just have a hard time listening to ideologues on either side. I already know their views on issues without even talking to them. …
Then I read Hume’s Enquiry, this wonderful, humane book saying that nobody has all the answers. What we know is what we have evidence for. We do the best we can, but anybody who claims to be able to deduce or have revelation about The Truth – with both Ts capitalised – is wrong. It doesn’t work that way. The only reasonable way to approach life is with an attitude of humane scepticism. I felt that a great weight had been lifted from my shoulders when I read that book.
... I felt the pull of the (belief systems). You look at people who are very certain, and have these beliefs of one form or another and you think, “Maybe they really know something!” And what Hume says is, “Actually, no. They don’t.”
I’d also disagree with Krugman’s assertion that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. I think it comes down to the times and how events can stir up trouble. Liberalism had become mighty adamant and narrow-minded by the late ‘60s and ‘70s, insufferably so, and liberals were ultimately punished in the ‘80s by voters, who had become sick of their dogmas and political correctness. During roughly the same time period, conservativism was more dynamic, flexible and, for lack of other words, reality based, culminating in the ’80 election of Reagan. The two sides eventually flipped positions. Power ultimately corrupted conservativism, which eventually morphed into a mean-spirited form of tribalism by the ‘90s. Being out of power (or favor) forced liberals to reassess at least some of their basic assumptions, such as the role of capitalism in economics etc.
