non-rhetorical questions and out of control abstraction

[n2doc]

One thing that I hope the Ryan budget opens up a dialogue about is my old formulation of the fundamental liberal question: what comes next? In other words, let's say the Ryan budget were to pass. What would it mean, concretely, in terms of programs cut is an interesting and important question. But the really important question is, what then? And the difficulty is that when asked specifically, this question is either taken as rhetorical (and frequently as emotional or unfair), or is answered with a great deal of abstraction.

Here's what I mean. Consider cutting SNAP benefits. Cutting SNAP benefits leads to more hungry children. Yet pointing out that consequence is consistently regarded as a blood libel, or crossing the line, or not engaging in substantive! respectful! debate! This is why I talk so much about the tyranny of social relationships in political commentary. It's considered out of bounds to say things like "your proposal leads to hungry kids," but cutting SNAP benefits leads to hungry kids. It just does. The thing is that when you're stamping around talking about the unfairness of the question, you aren't answering it.

The other alternative to treating such a question as rhetorical and insulting is to wax abstract. "Ah, well, getting our financial house in order means shared sacrifice...." And their eyes sort of roll back and they are lost in the world of abstraction. But hungry kids are strikingly non-theoretical. Just like, for example, homeless senior citizens or seniors who can't afford medical care without which they will die are strikingly non-theoretical. So, what will we do about them in the future? Let's complete remove any moral considerations here. Let's not even consider what these people deserve and what we think they should get. Let's just get to practical concerns. Look, letting Grandma live in the alley is an option. That could happen. Just like hundreds of thousands of kids not getting nearly the nutrition they need is an option. I'm just asking if we're cool with it. When you have the dorm room conversation with the Randian about whether we should literally let people die in the street, you've got to insist on the practical problems (do we just let the corpses pile up? do we pay teenagers to push around a cart?) as well as the moral problems.

more (good read)
http://lhote.blogspot.com/2011/04/non-rhetorical-questions-and-out-of.html
Final paragraph:
But abstraction will survive. The pundits, journalist, politicos, bloggers, and so on who advocate these cuts aren't the people who will live with the consequences. It's one of the most persistent and most vexing problems with our democracy: both the politicians in our country and the people who report and comment on them live in an entirely different economic station from the average American. David Brooks will never go to some poor hungry child's home and look the kid in the eye and praise Paul Ryan's toughness. He's not going to be forced to live with the day in, day out consequences of cutting unemployment benefits for millions of people. Nobody's going to be calling him, begging him to watch their kids for a couple hours because they can't afford day care anymore. Meanwhile, he and others like him will live in the world of abstraction, where the pleasant lies of metaphor shield them from a cruelly literal world.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[phantom power]

2. In my experience, the argument then proceeds something like this:

liberal: "Your policy will lead to hungry kids"

conservative: "No, it will force their parents to make better decisions."

...

And from here, you really can't argue with them. Well, you can, but you won't get any traction. Conservatives think that preventing kids from starving, or taking care of old people, leads to moral hazard, and for whatever reason they see this "moral hazard" as more dangerous than, well, actual hungry kids and homeless old people.

I think the best you could hope for is to get them to admit that they don't care if the kids go hungry. I've actually gotten similar admissions in private conversations, but I doubt that most politicians would be dumb enough to admit that on camera, where it would do the most good. Because they really don't care -- the only benefit to getting them to admit it might be for voters to see it.

:shrug:

[n2doc]

3. I guess it comes down to this:

"You made a wrong decision when you were born to a poor person, and another when you didn't become a multi-millionaire later in life. Too bad for you, just go away and die. "

[nashville_brook]

4. the only reason this is an issue is b/c liberals don't frame using VALUES anymore...as if our values

are abhorrent.

look, when someone takes issue with calling upon the real effects of hungry children or elders dying without doctors, YOU'RE WINNING. that's why they whine. let them. let them cry to high heaven. that's how you know you're effective.

[n2doc]

5. kick n/t