Kling on Krugman
Arnold Kling takes Paul Krugman to task in this piece at Tech Central Station: An open letter to Paul Krugman. Kling distinguishes between two types of arguments: “Type C” arguments, which are about the consequences of a proposed policy, and “Type M” arguments, which are about the inferred motivations of the people advocating that policy. Kling makes the eminently reasonable point that Type C arguments are inherently preferable to Type M arguments. He even makes his case in the form of a Type C argument. Good job.
If there were a way to restrict both sides in the public debate in this country to using only Type C arguments, well, we’d have a much higher quality of debate. Unfortunately, there isn’t, and we don’t. And what Paul Krugman’s willingness to engage in Type M amounts to is an acknowledgement that restricting yourself to Type C when the other side is relentlessly hammering away at you with Type M is a good way to lose an argument.
This is exactly what happened in this country over the last 30 years. (See? I’m talking about consequences. It’s a Type C argument. Woo!) Right-wing politicians and media figures launched an all-out assault on liberal policies and those who advocated them, using Type M arguments as their weapon of choice. The response from the liberals consisted mainly of high-minded Type C stuff.
Well, guess what? We liberals lost the debate, and the current Bush presidency is one of the more horrifying results. So we’re done with the self-imposed limitations. We’ll go back to the Type-C-only arguments when the other side demonstates a willingness to do the same. Until then, forget it. It’s a sucker’s game.
October 10th, 2003 at 10:08 am
What planet are you from? Do you not remember when your liberal buddies in Congress accused theRepoublicans of attempting to starve little children and rid the wolrd of clean air?
High minded indeed.
JK
October 10th, 2003 at 10:14 am
Arguing that Republican policies will starve little children or rid the world of clean air are classic Type C arguments: they deal in the consquences of those policies. Thank you for making my case for me.
January 23rd, 2004 at 9:44 am
Having read the Kling piece, the obvious flaw is that without type M goals (improving the economy, accomplishing regime change, etc.) there is usually no way to know whether a policy is successful. Whenever an action is taken by government (raising taxes, cutting spending on a program, invading another country) the reason for the action (M – motive) is vital to determine if the policy is a success.
(Example: Ronald Reagan did not cut taxes in 1981 with the purpose of septupling the national debt. Reagan claimed the policy would improve the economy (which it did) and result in so much new tax revenue as to eliminate the deficit (which it didn’t). Using a type M analysis is just another way of putting context around a type C figure – 7 trillion in debt.)
Conservatives are now complaining that their actions are being judged unfairly, since their stated type M goals didn’t pan out and we liberals have the gaul to point this out.