1/6/2024 0 Comments Takenote agendasThe “everyone would agree with me if they heard my arguments” fallacy Let’s begin by reviewing three common political fallacies that will help us understand Prasad’s essay. Prasad’s essay is worth examining closely for what it can teach us about COVID policy, and because it illuminates the dangers posed by moralistic political thinking more generally. More ominously, his disappointment that the world does not live up to his standards leads him to use rhetoric that encourages polarization and dissatisfaction with democratic political institutions. His moral certainty prevents him from thinking about how to make progress in an imperfect world and how to deal constructively with people who disagree with him. He swings back and forth between assuming everyone will agree with him about what should be done, and assuming that legalistic restrictions can magically prevent people from doing things that he thinks are wrong. But I do think he is led astray by moralistic wishful thinking about politics and policy. I do not think all of his criticisms of COVID policy are wrong. Vinay Prasad has an essay up on his substack and at the Brownstone Institute that illustrates the challenges here. But getting reform right will be difficult if we succumb to the temptation to substitute the false clarity of moral outrage for the murkiness and ambiguity of careful policy analysis. Figuring out what went wrong and how to do better next time should be at the top of our list going forward. The American policy response to COVID left a great deal to be desired.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |