Valid feelings, flawed foundations

[steuard]

The comments on my last post have helped me better understand my reaction to the mosque protests, so I thought I'd promote some of that to a followup post. (But this will be the last one, really!)

First, an important point that I hadn't thought about when writing my last post: whatever their ultimate cause, some people have very real feelings of pain and anger at the thought of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero. Sure, the basis for those feelings is probably an irrational but very human generalization of negative feelings toward "Muslim terrorists" to "all Muslims" (much as I described before), but we all find emotions clouding our logic at times. Looking at it that way, some of my earlier comments were harsher than they ought to have been.

And in fact, I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.

What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem is not of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (to the extent of driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to be Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."

That is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I don't accept the word "offensive" as remotely appropriate in this context). If there is a valid reason to ask that the mosque not be built near Ground Zero, it must be made clear by everyone that even making such a request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project. But I don't think that's the spirit behind these protests. (And backing that up, the NY Times just published an article about opposition to new mosques all over the nation, most in "far less hallowed locations" than the general vicinity of Ground Zero.)


As a final thought, it's important to remember that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too. We have to balance two types of undeniably real pain: the feelings of those for whom Muslims evoke the specter of terror, and the feelings of those innocents who face daily suspicion because of it. I don't know the best way to handle that. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.

False associations like "the terrorists were Muslim, so all Muslims are terrorists" are responsible for some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I think it's healthiest for everyone if we as a society work to recognize and reject them. And that's why I find it so upsetting when public figures who make these statements are taken seriously by society and the media rather than being condemned.

Comments

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Right now, the two things which make me most angry with various members of the government right now are the existence of Guantanamo Bay, and the continued whack-a-mole game being played among senior military and civilian leaders who keep asserting that we are at war with Islam, which is also the devil, and we need to win this war for Jesus (and then these people are eventually fired - but what kind of messed up culture could make them think that was okay in the first place?). Domestic problems can be fixed, but foreign relations mixed with fundamentalist christian bullshit starts wars, recruits terrorists, and leaves wounds which take decades to heal.

Domestically, the continued existence of the TSA makes me angry (have they EVER stopped ANYONE?), and every time I see a sign saying "no photographs" I get furious. Laws about marijuana and other drugs are stupid, but I don't think they are unconstitutional, although if you asked me to point out the exact hack on the constitution which makes them okay, I doubt I could. Probably something involving "blah blah blah interstate commerce blah blah". Our treatment of immigrants bothers me muchly, too, as does our treatment of gay people (although less, because we don't have prison-without-trial for gay people like we do with immigrants). Also, the existence of secret laws or laws you must pay to see makes me froth at the mouth.

Basically, I think government should look out for the little guy to make sure they get a square deal, and you don't. You think of me as some radical communist because I only chime in when I disagree with you, and then I vigorously defend myself instead of walking away with my tail between my legs. If I agree with something you express or simply don't care, then I don't bother joining (or reading) the circle-jerk that usually results when people start praising your stuff on the Internet. I will point out again that you blog in an echo chamber, however. Everyone does (blog in an echo chamber), but it's important to be aware of it and to actively take steps to counter its negative effects on your own thinking.

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

basically, I think government should look out for the little guy to make sure they get a square deal, and you don't

Note that one of the main reasons I don't is I think the government is ineffective at ensuring square deals - it is much better at giving more privilege to the privileged, because the political marketplace is a marketplace of influence just like any other, and as many smart economists have argued both empirically & theoretically, in the political marketplace poor people are usually at an even greater relative disadvantage than in the economic marketplace. I also don't think pointing guns at people to tell them what kinds of deals they have to offer or accept is moral, but I would be much less bothered by it if I thought it actually achieved it's purported aims. It is easy to stigmatize libertarians as uncaring and ignore their substantive critique of whether government actually helps poor people. Just look at Social Security, which taxes the poor to give retirement benefits to the middle class to see how government programs redistribute in practice rather than in theory.

I will point out again that you blog in an echo chamber, however

Definitely. Although I like & encourage people who disagree with me while speaking my language and sharing my values. That is in itself a filter which removes many people and some true points of view, but it's not like I just filter for agreement. I am not open-minded enough to be able to communicate effectively and learn from people who don't speak my language and have very different values, so I am fine with filtering them out.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Just look at Social Security, which taxes the poor to give retirement benefits to the middle class to see how government programs redistribute in practice rather than in theory.

The most successful of the great society programs? The one which has single-handedly largely solved the problem of extreme poverty among the elderly? Yeah, I think it sucks. No. Wait. The opposite is true. I think it rocks! The only problem, near as I can tell, is that only the first X amount of income is taxed as social security income. That's a stupid loophole for the rich. Other than that, I am a big fan.

Of course the government helps poor people - not enough, and not in the right ways, but it helps them nonetheless. Government help for the poor and government rules are a large part of why poverty in America is distinct (and better than) poverty in, say, Mumbai or the large cities in the -stans. We have a better rule-set, better infrastructure, less corruption, and we have a strong enough safety net that people feel safe in taking risks. Nobody starves to death in the USA. They go hungry sometimes (and that's a bad thing which should be fixed), but starvation is a non-issue. The reason people don't starve to death is, in large part, government programs to prevent starvation. Food stamps, WIC, and many other programs have helped many people and saved many lives. Unfortunately for your point of view, the lives it saved were those of economically unproductive citizens - those people are often still a drain on the system. The question is whether we have a duty to help others not starve simply because they are human and we are human - I say yes, and I have never met a libertarian who says anything other than no.

Government also helps rich people! More than it should, but one of the main reasons for having a civilization is that it allows rich people to keep their toys. Protecting the haves from the have-nots has always been the point of government - that's what rules *are*. Rules don't protect people who have nothing. The amazing thing is not that government helps rich people, but that in America we first figured out how to make it help everyone else some as well.

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

The only problem, near as I can tell, is that only the first X amount of income is taxed as social security income. That's a stupid loophole for the rich. Other than that, I am a big fan.

Nope, that's just part of the problem. Also, it is not means-tested, so the rich get paid. Also, it is based on lifespan, and the poor (particularly the poor & black) live shorter lives. The overall result is that Social Security is a HIDEOUSLY bad deal for poor blacks, who pay much more in taxes than they get in benefits. It's a miserably bad implementation of the desired goal, even if you don't count the whole generational ponzi scheme collapsing under shifting demographics time bomb.

This is an objective fact that economists agree on, not an ideological statement. If we had the goal of "stopping extreme poverty among the elderly", and you submitted Social Security as a proposal, it would get a D.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

The rich getting paid is important if we want to keep the program. It's stupid economics and good politics. You are also correct that it is a bad deal for people who die young. This is why national health care is important - it helps prevent poor people form dying young, and helps correct these imbalances. The "generational ponzi scheme" rhetoric is just dumb, however. This is how it was designed to work, and it is working well. This coming "generational crash" which we have heard so much about? Near as most people can tell, it amounts to about 1 trillion dollars in liabilities. Which is a lot, but not a lot if spread over many years. Medicare is screwed (although less so than before, thanks to Obama says the CBO ), but social security is pretty much solvent.

The bigger issue, however, is that by saying "blacks and the poor die young" you are stating it as if *Social Security* is the problem. The problem is that these people are *dying young*. Let's fix *that*.

As far as I have heard from economists, I have never heard of another proposal which actually provided a guarantee the way social security does. There certainly are ways to make more money. But not any which provide guaranteed security. It's a matter of goals. Social security provides extremely low returns and extremely low variance. This is a *good thing* for a program which is the last resort for many many people. If it gets an economics D, in the absence of a creditable alternative I'll blame the economists. This D-grade program is working well, and looks like it will keep working. Let's keep it.