What’s Wrong with the World

If a knife fight is the eventual conclusion, why not use the knife to threaten the auctioneer, steal his c note, and move on to a nice zero sum game like...chess...

Good suggestion. More generally, the only way to keep from accruing infinite losses is to stop playing the game.

I think I saw that movie.

I like you choice of names and magazine titles, Zippy.

Kyle,

I have this picture in my head of Keanu Reeves thumbing through Commonweal saying "whoa..."

Doesn't the irrationality of the players here have something to do with the sunk cost fallacy?

I'm not sure that is in fact the case, though, in the political analogue.

Doesn't the irrationality of the players here have something to do with the sunk cost fallacy?

Part of what is interesting about the dollar auction is that it doesn't involve the sunk cost fallacy. (Well, I don't think it does, but the point is controversial). There is always a real, tangible benefit to winning at each iteration; it is only when you look past that at the whole process that you realize it is a sucker's game. And even once you realize it is a sucker's game, you still have legitimate motivation to win over your opponent - thus the knife fight. And that is what makes it so similar to 'elect the lesser evil' politics of the Hegelian Mambo.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that our two party winner takes all system is straightforwardly a dollar auction. But I am suggesting (among other things - this little parable is dense with lessons) that the way most people of good will are thinking about it - as straightforwardly choosing governance for this round based on which current candidate is least harmful - is wrong.

Zippy,

I want to fall on your side of the argument, that voting either way is too much of a compromise, but them I recalled what Fr. Pavone wrote in his letter, "Voting With a Clear Conscience":

"One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not 'choosing the lesser of two evils.' We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.

You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don't agree.

But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes."

I'd agree that doing what we can to limit evil is good, and thus, we still have a real chance in this election to do so.

This post pertains mostly to this in particular:

Some may think it's not the best strategy.

Making another bid in a dollar auction is generally not the best strategy. A few election cycles from now it will be an Obama-equivalent we will be urged to vote for in order to prevent some even worse atrocity.

This statement, in my view, is not so much wrong as incomplete:

But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

As stated, it assumes that there is always and without exception a proportionate reason to vote for the less evil candidate over a more evil candidate. I don't agree. There may sometimes be a proportionate reason to do so, but there is not always a proportionate reason to do so. Furthermore, whether or not there is a proportionate reason hinges on non-theological non-moral issues -- for example, in the simplified terms of the parable, whether or not it is rational to increase one's bid in a dollar auction. I don't know if Fr. Pavone has studied game theory, of course, but even if he has it is disputable what kind of game - in the game-theoretic sense - our election process represents. If our election process is something like a dollar auction then electing the less evil candidate actually does not prevent the greater evil: it builds the foundation for the greater evil to such an extent that a few election cycles down the road, we will be turned into material supporters of it. Just as a few election cycles ago we were vocally opposed to fetal tissue research but then with George W. Bush we were converted into silent material supporters of it, and then we were opposed to ESCR but now with McCain have been turned into almost silent material supporters of it, etc etc.

When are we going to stop bidding?

I knew a guy who actually carried out a dollar auction once (with a twenty dollar bill). One guy bid a nickel, no one else bid anything, and he got it.

Anyway, the analogy to voting is, I think, flawed. It assumes that if people support the less bad of two candidates this will lead to candidates becoming worse and worse. I see no reason to make this assumption.

Zippy writes:

"...electing the less evil candidate actually does not prevent the greater evil: it builds the foundation for the greater evil to such an extent that a few election cycles down the road"

This is the most foolish statement I have read thus far --

As if having the more evil candidate in the highest office in the land won't actually build the foundation for the greater evil to not only prosper but to be the sole rule of the land!

Again, given how bad the country is, when Obama wins, he has such a low bar before him; he has only to make things relatively better than how they are now where even the smallest good perceived by the populace that show promise of improvement, Obama will be on the road to winning the hearts of the American people & perhaps even the next election cycle.

I have no doubt that it is very likely that Obama will win re-election if things turn out right during his presidency -- regardless if any of that good that occurs during his presidency was actually the result of actions taken by members of the previous administration.

And after the success of Obama's administration, just what kind of candidate will become more appealing to the American people?

Such a successful presidency under such a liberal will only make similarly liberal (or even worse) candidates (and those policies they have endorsed -- including their Pro-Abort platform) the Golden Standard for future elections where the American people!

If you don't think things will get worse as far as Abortion & the fate of Conservatism in America is concerned; just wait until you get a load of Obama as President!

Corrigenda:

Such a successful presidency under such a liberal will only make similarly liberal (or even worse) candidates (and those policies they have endorsed -- including their Pro-Abort platform) the Golden Standard for future elections [as far as] the American people [are concerned]!

If you don't think things will get [any] worse as far as Abortion & the fate of Conservatism in America is concerned; just wait until you get a load of Obama as President!

It assumes that if people support the less bad of two candidates this will lead to candidates becoming worse and worse. I see no reason to make this assumption.

Have our candidates been becoming worse and worse, in terms of their support for murdering the innocent?

This is the most foolish statement I have read thus far...

Unless it is, you know, true. Labeling a statement foolish is not an argument.

Have our candidates been becoming worse and worse, in terms of their support for murdering the innocent?

Are you familiar with the phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Yes. And? Did I claim a logical deduction somewhere? That our election 'game' has been behaving like a dollar auction is suggestive. Quack quack. Look, ma, no fallacy.

That our election 'game' has been behaving like a dollar auction is suggestive.

If one confines oneself to the last couple of elections, and to a particular side of the spectrum on a single issue, then it has been behaving in this way. Once one looks beyond this rather narrow set of data the comparisons tend to vanish. In every American election in modern history, there have been people who have thought both of the candidates were insufficiently conservative but who nonetheless voted for the more conservative of the two and there have been people who have thought both of the candidates were too conservative but who nonetheless voted for the less conservative of the two. Were the dollar auction analogy correct, it would follow that candidates were becoming simultaneously more conservative and less conservative, an impossibility.

The goal of a candidate in an election is to get more votes than the other guy. For this reason, the political positions of candidates tend to stay fairly close to those of the median voter. If a large number of people supporting a particular political position choose not to vote for a candidate because they feel him insufficiently pure on their issue, the result is to make the median voter someone less in line with their own position than if they had participated in the process.

ESCR is a horrible policy. It is also popular with voters. Having those who oppose ESCR decline to vote won't keep it from being popular from voters, but will only increase its popularity.

A guy walks into a bar.

He slaps a $100 bill on the table and says "I'm auctioning off this $100 bill. Bidding starts at a dollar. The only rule is that the next highest losing bidder has to pay me too."

Bill and Ted confer a moment.

Then Bill gives Ted 50 cents. Ted places a dollar on the bar. Bill refuses to play. Ted picks up the hundred and they split the profits outside.

Of course, if they don't play, they don't win.

Neither do voters who don't vote.

Were the dollar auction analogy correct, it would follow that candidates were becoming simultaneously more conservative and less conservative, an impossibility.

Yeah, because in a dollar auction the bid becomes simultaneously higher and lower. I guess. Not seeing the sequitur here.

So, can I summarize the counterargument as "Things are complicated, nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and vote McCain"?

Then Bill gives Ted 50 cents. Ted places a dollar on the bar. Bill refuses to play. Ted picks up the hundred and they split the profits outside.

Good luck getting Catholic Answers fans to collude with Commonweal readers with nobody breaking ranks.

...if they don't play, they don't win.

If they don't change the game, they definitely lose. Continuing to play the game is madness.

Zippy Said:

If they don't change the game, they definitely lose. Continuing to play the game is madness.

This assumes inter alia:

1. The game can be changed
2. The game can be changed to how we want things to be
3. Not Playing the game will produce different results
4. Not Playing the game will produce positive results

Aristocles:
I knew I could count on you to once more claim that supporting McCain is exhaustive of all possibilities.

"You're a Catholic. You have principles. You're pro-life all the way. You know John McCain is not. John McCain doesn't deserve your vote. Show him what you think him. Stay home on election day.

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

So, can I summarize the counterargument as "Things are complicated, nothing to see here, move along. Oh, and vote McCain"?

It's not an accurate summary, but don't let that stop you.

"You're a Catholic. You have principles. You're pro-life all the way. You know John McCain is not. John McCain doesn't deserve your vote. Show him what you think him. Stay home on election day.

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

Hehe. I have to admit, that's a good one.

Then again, as is often observed, democracy is not a political system conducive to planning for the long term, or for any sort of efficiency, for that matter (of course Chesterton said that an inefficient government is the first sign of a healthy democracy, since it proves that all of the people are doing it). But there is always a clear and present danger to the Republic, and an election is always happening, right now. What are you going to do now to stop Candidate X from ruining the country and cutting us off from our heritage? The tyranny of the present moment prevents political reform, and so it's always just a matter of time before we are forced to yield to the Juggernaut, to "the way things are headed." With Candidate X, the Juggernaut wins sooner, with Candidate Y, later. Either way, the Juggernaut is what it is, and we continue to Slouch Towards Gomorrah. This will sound like fatalism to many, but the present trends are going to play themselves out before things can be turned around.

The question: Is the ascendency of John McCain a sign that social-conservative activism has failing, or is the ascendency of Sarah Palin a sign that it is succeeding? I have yet to make up my mind on the answer.

"...is the ascendency of Sarah Palin a sign that it is succeeding?"

Lets see, our foreign policy is in shambles, domestic policy is in financial receivership and only cable T.V. satirists remind the GOP it stands for small government and managerial competence. So let's ask; where would the Republicans be without being able to push the hot buttons of social conservatives every election cycle? An electoral coalition of Tory Socialists, defense contractors, "energy-entrepreneurs", "bio-tech innovators" and culturally left-wing big business interests couldn't carry more than several polling precincts encircling the Beltway. The next question is; do pro-lifers in particular, get a fair return out of an arrangement where they prop up a host of unpopular policies and personalities for potential appointments to the federal bench? Or, put more starkly; can one supplant the culture of death while forging a political partnership with many of that culture's ancillary enterprises?

Kevin,

The real question is:

Is Our Nation in Better Hands When Obama takes Office & Becomes President?

Seriously, have you gone over several of the social projects that Obama proposed and, subsequently, advocated during his campaign trail?

The Modern Welfare State is nothing compared to the behemoth he proposes.

The guy even sought to extend welfare programs not only around the globe but, more specifically, even to suspected terrorist nations (this is going back to a "Meet the Press" interview with Brokaw) in the hope of some vain peace effort.

The real question is: Is Our Nation in Better Hands When Obama takes Office & Becomes President? [sic]

That is not 'the real question", unless we've already begged the question: that is, it is not the real question unless (1) what I propose to do (cast my individual vote) is actually effective in determining whether or not Obama becomes president, and (2) our electoral system does not in fact function in any way similar to a dollar auction.

Just taking the latter, since we've beat the former to death: if our electoral system functions in any way like a dollar auction, that question is like asking "are we better off bidding again?" The answer to that question is that there is no answer: that we are heading down a self-inflicted death spiral which we cannot escape by playing this game, but only by refusing to play it and insisting on a different game. Whether we appear to be "winning" in this next round of bidding is irrelevant. When Bill bids $200 against Ted's $190 ostensibly to 'limit his losses', limiting his losses is illusory; and his act, though subjectively an attempt to limit his losses, has the effect of making things even worse.

do pro-lifers in particular, get a fair return out of an arrangement where they prop up a host of unpopular policies and personalities for potential appointments to the federal bench?

No, we don't. We aren't voting for Miss America where vague platitudes, meaningless hopes, and imprudence of thought can be endearing adn even good. We are voting for President where policies will be either furthered or regressed. McCain doesn't further the anti-abortion cause and probably causes it to regress. Obama doesn't cause significant regression in the anti-abortion cause and isn't crazy.

"You're a Catholic. You have principles. You're pro-life all the way. You know John McCain is not. John McCain doesn't deserve your vote. Show him what you think him. Stay home on election day.

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

Prof. Bauman:

That's pretty much my take, and Fr. Pavone's. A vote for McCain is not a vote for cannibalism. It's a vote to limit a very common form of cannibalism at the cost of allowing a less common one that's also showing itself to be of less and less utilitarian value.

Even so, Zippy's point—i.e. that, by playing that game to minimize losses in the short run, we would be maximizing them in the long run—is not obviously false. I don't find his analogy convincing, but a cynical case could be made that if Obama wins, we'd get policies that would in turn cause a backlash in favor of the pro-life cause. That's certainly more cynical than voting for McCain as a pro-life Catholic, but is it less cynical than just opting out of the game? I don't think so. Opting out is only useful—for something beyond preserving one's sense of purity—if enough people do the same. But circumstances where it's distinctly possible that enough people would do the same would be circumstances in which the culture of death is already in retreat for other reasons. And such a reality could just as well be taken account of by the Republicans.

Best,
Mike

Opting out is only useful—for something beyond preserving one's sense of purity—if enough people do the same.

One can say precisely the same thing about voting, of course. This cuts both ways. And of course the issue of whether it is possible to build a culture of life while constantly endorsing cannibals and minimizing the evil of cannibals in order to keep everyone in the Republican corral is an eminently practical question.

(I've agreed many times that a vote for McCain is not a vote for cannibalism, BTW. It is a vote for a cannibal, not a vote for cannibalism).

Ari, Obama will be able to truthfully say, about all of his deranged proposals -invade and/or subsidize Iran, Darfur, Venezuela, nationalize the auto, airlines or oil industries, and provide funding for genetic pioneers; "this project is in the best bi-partisan tradition of our nation and a continuance of Republican policies". Take-down the "Win One for the Gipper" poster in your bedroom. This isn't 1980 America anymore. Any evil Empires are likely to be found within our own borders and guided by men drunk with desire to master both man and nature.

Please put down the McCain "We're Number 1" foam-fingers. The neighbors are starting to talk.

"Obama doesn't cause significant regression in the anti-abortion cause and isn't crazy."

That's what Roman wags were saying about Nero; "he's the nephew of Claudius and just more of the same old, same old."

I do concede, however that an Obama- Biden Adminsitration will get pro-lifers off their couches and the Catholic Bishops Conference is buzzing with proposals to defeat FOCA making it into to law. Biden is going to wish he never took this job.

Kevin,

"Obama will be able to truthfully say..."

You actually claim Obama speaks truth in his current smear campaign?

Kindly consider:

Find Me a Demon By Mona Charen

EXCERPT:
In 2006, McCain had called for more stringent oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose failures underlie today’s unraveling. In a press release at the time McCain declared, “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

...

McCain would have been better advised to aim his fire at Democrats in Congress who declined to regulate Fannie and Freddie adequately because they favored making questionable loans to so-called “underserved” populations. A bill to more strictly regulate the mortgage giants passed the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. But as Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute explains, “Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote.”

Wall Street, whether McCain likes it or not, is identified in the public mind with Republicans (though, as the Center for Responsive Politics reports, the finance, insurance, and real estate industries gave more contributions to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama earlier this year than to McCain). Still the perception endures that Republicans are the party of the rich. Railing against “greed and corruption” won’t get McCain very far. But pointing up the Democrats’ role — their cozy public/private partnerships, the multimillions made by Democrat bigwigs like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick — would certainly confound the image the Obama campaign is attempting to paint.

As for Obama, he has used the financial crisis as the pinup for Republican approaches to the economy generally, proof he says that “too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store” and plucked a couple of McCain quotes out of context for good measure. Obama heaped scorn on McCain’s comment that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong,” omitting the next words, which were “but these are very, very difficult times.” Obama (remember him? the fellow who was going to run a different kind of campaign?) also trotted out McCain’s old quote “I’m always for less regulation” without clarifying that McCain had specifically called for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie, the two quasi-governmental entities that are at the heart of the current meltdown.

Obama seems to have dropped any pretense to running an honest campaign. Virtually all of his charges against McCain now dabble in deception. Noting that McCain wants to increase competition in the health care insurance market, Obama says, “So let me get this straight — he wants to run health care like they’ve been running Wall Street.”

Now let me get this straight: the sub-prime mortgage disaster, created in Washington by politicians who wanted to increase home ownership and, yes, perpetuated by unwise gambling in the financial markets undermines the validity of competition? It really makes you wonder, when Obama invites voters to fire the “whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who (have) led us down this disastrous path” whether he really means capitalism itself.

SOURCE: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWEzMDVmMGI5MDVkMGNhY2Q2MDRkYjVhNTBlMWEzZDI=

Opting out is only useful—for something beyond preserving one's sense of purity—if enough people do the same.

May I ask what is meant by "sense of purity?" Because if it means not violating my conscience by doing what I consider to be morally illicit, then "preserving [my] sense of purity" seems to be a pretty good reason to opt out of voting for one of the two main Presidential candidates.

"Opting out is only useful—for something beyond preserving one's sense of purity—if enough people do the same."

Zippy said: "One can say precisely the same thing about voting, of course. This cuts both ways."

I made the very same point before, noting among other things that it would take a notable portion of the voting public in order to even make such a statement heard and for it to be deemed of any significance.

However, I am rather glad though that Zippy has, at least, acqueisced to the notion that:

'voting is only useful if enough people do it'

...in his statement: "One can say precisely the same thing about voting, of course".

Ari, the foreign and economic policy differences between the parties is in their rhetoric, not records.

As George Will noted; "The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain’s party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html

Brendon:

Because if it means not violating my conscience by doing what I consider to be morally illicit, then "preserving [my] sense of purity" seems to be a pretty good reason to opt out of voting for one of the two main Presidential candidates.

It is an interesting feature of discussions of voting that striving for moral purity is generally seen as a vice. Two of the other very common criticisms I encounter are that I am too cynical, and that I am too idealistic.

Aristocles:
Of course it is true that in large aggregates voting has real effects. What is true in addition is that it has a larger effect on the population itself than on outcomes: that as the negligible effect of an individual vote scales up to become non-negligible, the already non-negligible larger effect on the persons who do it scales up; that all other things are not equal as we scale from negligible effects on outcomes to non-negligible effects. That has been a central claim of mine all along, to which I have devoted at least one post.

So let's ask; where would the Republicans be without being able to push the hot buttons of social conservatives every election cycle?

I see your teenage crush on Sarah "Smiles" Palin has worn off.

"I see your teenage crush on Sarah "Smiles" Palin has worn off."

I think she needs a real man around to protect her from the lecherous neo-cons. One day, maybe around the debates, she'll see these Republican rakes for what they are and finally realize who it is that really loves her. I hope.

Brendon:

May I ask what is meant by "sense of purity?" Because if it means not violating my conscience by doing what I consider to be morally illicit, then "preserving [my] sense of purity" seems to be a pretty good reason to opt out of voting for one of the two main Presidential candidates.

Roughly, the teaching of the Church is that a Catholic may vote for a candidate who pledges formal cooperation with intrinsic evil if (a) the voter is not doing so because the candidate thus supports the evil, and (b) there are sufficient "proportional reasons" to vote for the candidate despite the candidate's support for the evil. Presumably, we both accept that teaching and thus let it form our consciences. The question then becomes whether there are sufficient proportional reasons to vote either for an Obama or a McCain.

One could settle such a question a priori by denying that there could ever be sufficient proportional reason to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. But that position is not something one is obliged to adopt as a Catholic; it's more rigorous than the Church's position, and as such seems to me too scrupulous. So presumably, all you mean by saying that you'd be "violating my conscience" by voting for either Obama or McCain is that you just don't see sufficient proportional reason to vote for either.

If that's what you mean, I have no quarrel with you, even though I don't share that view myself. The only problem I would have is with the idea that such a view is somehow required by principle, rather than principle in conjunction with an empirical judgment that others are not obliged to share. Many people, even more on the Left than on the Right, seem to feel morally obliged to make the empirical judgments they do in controversial political matters. I can't help thinking there's something wrong with that, something which I tried without much success to characterize as defending a sense of purity.

Best,
Mike

...rather than principle in conjunction with an empirical judgment that others are not obliged to share.

What if the empirical facts in question happen to be true?