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
==================================================
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 governmentâ€).
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 institutionâ€.
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
