There is no problem at all with Krugman's goal, be objective first, then choose a political conclusion based on the facts as you find them. It certainly is a prime RC principle.. Yet, maybe it takes an additional operating principle simply to actually approach objectivity in any meaningful sense. Namely : Both R & L are guaranteed to be wrong at least as often as they may be right. That is, deep skepticism about the "truth value" of all ideologies is a prerequisite for objectivity. "Deep skepticism" means exactly that. Visceral skepticism, skepticism as Faith in the fallibility of political ideologies. Not always easy. Year to year, the political winds blow. In the Bush years, especially after 2005, the tendency was to be anti-Republican, at least it was for me. This did not mean being all that much pro-Democratic, but it certainly meant disillusionment with the GOP. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Most of us are generally anti-Democrat and probably will be for the coming year, anyway. No great love for Republicans, just very sour on the Democratic party. Even if the Republicans win in 2012, to expect any miracles from a new WH seems to be unrealistic. No ideological party is capable of "getting it right." This leaves us with the need to try our best to be objective despite the difficulty involved, and to be philosophical about it. Radical Centrism = a form of Zen Buddhism ? Billy ================================================== 11/25/2011 11:17:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I just wish I could reliably tell which economics were empirical and not political... E http://www.mattrichman.net/post/13302185252/math-has-become-politicized Math Has Become Politicized Russ Roberts on Paul Krugman: Krugman is a Keynesian because he wants bigger government. I’m an anti-Keynesian because I want smaller government. Both of us can find evidence for our worldviews. Paul Krugman, responding: Russ Roberts may choose his economic views because they support his political prejudices. I try not to. Maybe I sometimes fall short — but I try to analyze the economy as best I can, never mind what’s politically convenient [ …] Roberts’ comments perfectly exemplify what I’ve been thinking for a while now. As I see it, there are two types of economists: political and empirical. Political economists start with their political beliefs and then “find evidence” to back up their ideologies. Empirical economists look at the numbers objectively and then figure out what’s best. They don’t don’t start with pre-drawn conclusions (e.g. “smaller government”). They start with an open mind and aren’t afraid to recommend an economic policy that runs antithetically to their political beliefs. That we have certain economists who put politics ahead of math isn’t a problem in and of itself. The problem is that most of our politicians surround themselves with like-minded political economists. Now we’ve come to the point that when a group of empirical economists publishes numbers that don’t align with a politician’s political views, said politician derides the organization as a “reactionary socialist institution”. If we want to get out of the mess we’re in, numbers need to come first — not politics. Posted at 11:26 AM Permalink ∞ -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
