Rumination: The Problem Is Not “180ism”
What plagues our public discourse is binary partisan orthodoxy.
In a June 25, 2021 post entitled The Perils of 180ism, Persuasion Community founder Yascha Mounk describes how he had long “struggled to understand why so many of [his] old friends and colleagues” on the left “have embraced the reductionist worldview that is now taking over public discourse, in some cases even turning themselves into enthusiastic enforcers of the new ‘moral clarity.’” As the “key to the answer,” Yascha puts forward what he calls “180ism”: “the tendency of many participants in public debate to hear what their perceived enemies have to say and immediately [to] declare themselves diametrically opposed.”
He justly criticizes the charged political tribalism gripping our Nation, including the habit of some tribal doorkeepers to treat their members like “traitors” when they agree with positions taken by the tribe’s political opponents, and he bemoans the “dangerously narrow,” over-simplified arguments so often advanced in our public discourse. While he calls out his own “left-wing tribe” for falling prey to the “phenomenon” of 180ism, he makes it clear he believes the problem is “even more pronounced on the right.”
Yascha deserves praise for creating in Persuasion a welcome forum for reasoned debate on important public policy questions (though I’d like to see him open his aperture to a wider range of viewpoints, including conservative perspectives). Our society needs a multiplicity of accommodating discussion channels for the respectful sharing of different positions, and we could all benefit from more voices like Yascha’s. I’m optimistic that the rise of alternative media platforms like Substack will help promote the robust exercise of free expression.
But is Yascha right to tag the defects in our public discourse as symptoms of “180ism,” and is he correct to suggest that these pathologies are more prevalent on the political right?
No, I don’t think so.
Certainly, we do see a sharp us-versus-them partisan divide in today’s public forums that tends to block reasoned debate on important policy questions. There are examples of politicians on both sides of the aisle promoting their political agendas by reflexively opposing the positions expressed or actions taken by those on the other side simply because they’re associated with a political opponent.
I witnessed that phenomenon in 2013-2014, following the Edward Snowden leaks, when some Republicans on Capitol Hill opposed important national security programs that Republicans (in some cases, they themselves) had previously supported when the programs were initiated by President Bush just because the same programs, now in the public spotlight thanks to Snowden, were being continued under President Obama.
However, I don’t think “180ism,” as Yascha conceives of it, really captures the primary dynamic producing the debilitated condition of our public discourse today.
I grant him that political tribalists often indulge in the temptation to proclaim their disagreement with the views expressed by the tribe’s perceived opponents as a means of publicly reinforcing their own allegiance to the tribe. But, as I see it, that’s a weaker form of 180ism, a self-initiated reinforcement mechanism for tribal loyalty that can’t generate the powerful debate-suppressing force Yascha bemoans.
Relatedly, I also recognize, of course, that representatives of both political Parties in Washington engage in the time-honored practice of caricaturing their opponents’ positions in overly simplistic or black-and-white terms and then staking out the opposite position as their own. Quite often this caricature is false or distorted in significant respects. But that too is not the strong form of 180ism Yascha means, because it doesn’t depend on reflexively taking whatever position is opposite to the self-proclaimed (and, in material respects, accurately characterized) position of your opponent, regardless of the merits. Rather, it’s a simple rhetorical debate tactic meant to distinguish your own position or to force your opponents to get more specific in defense of theirs—often not a very effective tactic, to be sure, if it depends on an obviously distorted or strawman caricature.
Logically, the strong top-down force required to preserve the purity of partisan political positions could not be the 180ism described by Yascha.
To illustrate what I mean, think about four hot-button public policy issues of great importance to the current leaders of the Democratic Party—climate change, racial equity, gender identity, and abortion rights:
Regardless of what some progressives may think, Republicans are not monolithic on these four issues, in terms of how they talk about them, the views they express publicly, and the range of policy actions they’ll support. There are Republicans, including leading voices in Congress, who favor abortion rights in some circumstances, who espouse some version of affirmative action to address racial disparities and the continuing effects of racial discrimination, who support respect for the dignity and equal rights of all persons regardless of their sexual identities, and who advocate for some form of government action to address the risks of climate change. (They may not be the same Republicans on all four issues, but that only strengthens my point.)
Because their Republican opponents hold a range of views, rather than taking a single monolithic stance, the Democrats could never uphold the uniformity of their partisan positions on these four cardinal issues by simply relying on a reflexive 180ism.
Instead, I believe the fault lies more with the dynamic of enforced Party orthodoxy.
On issues deemed key to the Party, the tendency is to treat the issue (a) as though it were binary (black and white, without nuance, and not susceptible to a range of reasonable positions), and (b) as a litmus test of orthodoxy—in other words, to require the outward expression of adherence to the one acceptable position on the issue as a condition of Party support and favor.
This purity-forcing, debate-destroying dynamic is dictated not by the positional statements of the Party’s opponents but by the political needs and agenda of the Party’s own leadership.
Think again of the same four issues of paramount importance to the Democratic Party—
Climate change:
With regard to climate change, today’s Democratic Party leaders treat it as anathema, beyond the pale of what is acceptable (like being a flat-earther), to express any skepticism whatsoever about the asserted global warming emergency, including about the nature, predictability, and urgency of the threat, the human and environmental consequences likely to follow from it (all negatives and no positives), and the imperative (as impractical as it may be) to abandon as quickly as possible all reliance on coal, oil, and natural gas (fossil fuels).
There’s good reason to accept that releasing hundreds of millions of years’ worth of fossilized carbon into the atmosphere over a short period of several decades of industrial activity will produce significant environmental effects, including atmospheric effects, on the ecosystems of the Earth. There appears to be a near scientific consensus that human activities are causing gaseous carbon-based molecules, including carbon dioxide (a benign molecule, essential to the existence and growth of crops, forests, and other green vegetation and a necessary by-product of animal life), to build up in persistently higher concentrations in the atmosphere (beyond what the oceans and the green plants of the Earth currently recycle and process); that while suspended in the atmosphere, these gaseous molecules absorb a slight additional margin of infrared radiation (heat) from the sun (beyond what is already absorbed by water vapor, far and away the most abundant “greenhouse gas,” and the other gases comprising our atmosphere); and that this additional margin of heat is radiated down to the surface of the Earth and is associated with a measurable rise in average temperatures on land and in the oceans. The analysis supporting these basic conclusions is explained in simple (high-school-science-level) terms by Lawrence Krause in The Physics of Climate Change (2021).
But beyond these basics, the particular predictions of climate change theorists are either uncertain and debatable or appear to be manageable and less than truly dire, as detailed by Steven Koonin in his recent book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters (2021). The forecasting models used in UN and U.S. Government climate change reports don’t support the most extreme predictions often published in the press and depend on complicated variables that invite reasonable discussion among scientists and policy makers, including discussion about the best alternative approaches for addressing the problem and the smartest ways to adapt to the most likely environmental changes without sacrificing the economic dynamism that supports human progress and welfare.
Earth’s ecosystems have adapted naturally in the past to temperature rises in the range of those deemed most likely by the latest UN report, and the rate and scale of the predicted long-term economic impact is modest in relation to the expected rate of growth in GDP of the world’s leading economies. Climate change adherents also tend to ignore the likely benefits of a warming climate and increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the advantages for forestry, agriculture, and worldwide food supplies. Further, as explained by Bjorn Lomborg in False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet (2020), an analysis of the costs and benefits of different potential response strategies clearly shows that taking an approach of pragmatic adaptation to climate change will be far more sensible and beneficial than attempting an abrupt and radical shift away from fossil fuels—a shift that, if truly implemented, would inevitably bring calamitous economic hardships and dislocations. Coal, oil, and natural gas (especially the latter two) are the most efficient sources of energy we have (other than nuclear power), and they’ve made possible and continue to sustain the huge improvements we’ve achieved in recent decades in the prosperity and economic development of human civilization around the world, as described by Alex Epstein in his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014).
The U.S. enjoys sufficient oil and gas reserves to maintain America’s energy independence and to power the continued growth of our economy for many decades to come, and it’s precisely that economic growth that will generate healthy investment in technological innovation to achieve a cost-beneficial transition to non-fossil-fuel energy sources in the not-too-distant future.
In the meantime, anti-fossil fuel policies won’t advance the economic interests of wage workers in the U.S. (whose interests the Democratic Party ordinarily champions). Indeed, these policies will retard the potential for a strong U.S. economy, eliminate many valuable wage jobs in numerous industries like the automotive industry, constrain the supply and increase the cost of electricity for all producers, and exacerbate America’s national debt and our dependence on foreign-controlled supplies of critical resources, including the rare metals needed for widespread conversion to battery storage of energy. And some of these policies actually worsen environmental concerns in the short term, including global warming concerns: For example, the U.S. is already achieving a remarkable decrease in the Nation’s annual carbon dioxide emissions (and is seeing improvements in air quality) because of the ongoing transition to natural gas in lieu of (higher-carbon-emitting) coal and oil as a source of energy; unfortunately, a policy (as the current Administration is pursuing) that opposes any expansion in the production and distribution of North American natural gas will only stall these historic achievements, so long as nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy generation cannot make up the difference.
In light of all these complexities, cost-benefit tradeoffs, and debatable outcomes, why have Democratic leaders chosen to convert the scientific theory of global warming into a black-and-white political dogma and to make promotion of anti-fossil-fuel policies a litmus test of Party orthodoxy?
I theorize it’s because the vision of an environmental catastrophe caused by carbon dioxide emissions offers the master key to the broadest possible scope of regulatory power for the Federal Government, regardless of the limitations of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution:
Virtually all productive activities (nearly all traditional means of production), no matter how small in scale and no matter how localized, generate carbon dioxide, and since carbon dioxide disperses into the global atmosphere without regard to national borders or State lines, the release of a single unit volume of carbon dioxide from one source has the same effect on human life and health as the release of an equal volume from any other source anywhere in the world. In theory, then, the Federal Government’s power to regulate the effects of carbon dioxide emissions under the Commerce Clause could be essentially unlimited—almost any release of any amount of carbon dioxide from any source anywhere in the U.S. could potentially fall within the regulatory control of the EPA, for example, or other agencies of the Federal Government, provided Congress by statute has granted the agencies the necessary administrative enforcement authority.
Thus, an argument for urgent regulatory action to address climate change carries the potential for a nearly unbounded centralization of power in Washington and near-total “government control over the means of production”—yes, that’s the right term for it: an expansion and concentration of coercive government power beyond anything the Founders could have imagined, even in their nightmares, and with the most profound implications for human freedom.
There are alternatives: There are ways to accelerate the already impressive national decline in carbon dioxide emissions without requiring a colossal expansion in the regulatory power of the Federal Government—for example, by imposing a Federal tax on the consumption of fossil fuels or by offering tax incentives or other monetary inducements to encourage consumers and producers to switch to non-fossil-fuel options. To be effective in scale, these policy alternatives would require legislative action from Congress, where the political will may not currently be present to support the necessary majorities in both Houses. Or we could stay the course, allowing market forces—shifting preferences among consumers, greater demand from producers for more efficient fuels and innovative new technologies—to continue to drive the growing national trend toward reduced carbon dioxide emissions.
But these alternative approaches wouldn’t advance the political objective of pumping up the regulatory muscles of the central government. So, instead, we see the Biden Administration, like the Obama Administration before it, relying on existing laws (which were not enacted with global warming in mind) to adopt regulations designed to force or engineer dramatic shifts away from fossil fuels in major industries, such as energy and automotive—industrial transformations that Congress never contemplated and has not approved. The statutes that granted the administrative authorities being employed for these new market engineering programs were originally enacted by Congress for very different purposes, based on background assumptions about the continued importance of fossil-fuel technologies to America’s economy and prosperity.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court may be called upon to rule that these pre-existing statutory schemes don’t support the weight of the far-reaching, industry-transforming rules now being promulgated under them, just as the Court did in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000). The continued viability of our Constitutional structure of Federalism—in which general power is retained at the State and local levels and the central government in Washington is granted only limited and specifically enumerated powers by the consent of the People—may depend upon it.
Racial equity:
On the fraught issue of racial equity, Party leaders today demand that Democrats (a) swear allegiance to the notion that America’s institutions are characterized by “systemic racism” (that’s the mantra unfailingly mouthed on the Democratic side of the aisle these days), and (b) reject the notion of “color-blind” policy solutions and merit-based tests on the ground that they are inherently racist in their effects. Both concepts claim proof of racism from demographic outcomes or effects that are asserted to be “disparate” (usually by reference to the demographic breakdown of some larger community, whether city- or county-wide, region-wide, or nationwide), rather than from any evidence of discriminatory intent or racial animus.
It’s right to recognize and honor the unique contributions, struggles, and experiences of black Americans and of every racial and ethnic group comprising America, and our Nation must confront and overcome the continuing legacy and effects of slavery, racial and ethnic hatred, bigotry, and resentment, and the repression, discrimination, and persecution of people based on race and ethnicity. We have a moral and social imperative to maximize opportunities across society for the many who’ve long felt suppressed by racial injustice and detached from influence, and we must strive harder than ever to achieve a reality that reflects the fundamental tenet of America’s pluralist creed, as declared by Martin Luther King, Jr., that all persons are free to rise according to their character, ability, and work ethic and shall not be judged, mistreated, or held back because of the color of their skin or racial and ethnic background. There’s no doubt we’re still far from fully realizing that goal.
Unfortunately, though, the racial equity positions now required of Democrats run directly counter to this national creed. By judging and labeling all people and all social and institutional relationships, traditions, and viewpoints based on race and ethnicity, and by seeking to abolish any test or other objective measure of merit that doesn’t produce a certain presumed racial and ethnic outcome, these positions perpetuate false and pernicious assumptions about the abilities of different individuals to compete and excel, and they breed fresh resentments by denigrating accepted standards and institutions that large numbers of well-meaning people of all backgrounds in America have invested in and rely upon to achieve advancement and self-fulfillment in their lives. Not surprisingly, these positions are widely unpopular with the general electorate, especially with suburban parents of school-age children. So what’s up?
Here, again, I believe, the political imperative for the extreme litmus-test positions demanded by Party leaders goes beyond the merits: It comes from the fact that the sizable cohort of activists for whom these “racial equity” positions are of prime importance is a key faction within today’s Democratic coalition, and favoring the priorities of this faction is considered essential to the political support and success of the Party and its candidates.
Gender identity:
Similarly, on gender identity, current Democratic orthodoxy requires conformity to the revolutionary proposition that sex and sexual identity are (or must be treated as) matters of individual choice and are not (or should not be) determined by biology (a person’s chromosomes) or societal convention.
People are either male or female depending upon the sex chromosome (the 23rd chromosome pair) they carry in their cells (XX or XY). Humans, like other mammals, are divided biologically into male and female sexes because sexual reproduction carries the species forward in a way that ensures genetic diversity of offspring, which promotes the strength, resiliency, and vitality of future generations and the population as a whole. As a social and political matter, moreover, recognizing the male/female distinction is essential, among other things, to ensuring equal rights and equal dignity for women and to overcoming the traditional conventions of the past that confined and narrowed the roles of women in the family and in society.
But the dichotomy of the sexes certainly does NOT mean that all males do or must exhibit the same stereotypical traits of masculinity and all females the same traits of femininity. Within each sex, there occurs naturally a wide (and, to some extent, overlapping) spectrum or range in how individuals present themselves and how they express their sexuality, including in terms of their personalities, their physical characteristics, their hormone levels, who they love, their language, their preferred dress and mannerisms, and just about every other attribute, including all the tapestry of ways that people may seem “masculine” or “feminine.” Throughout history in different cultures and traditions, this range of characteristics within the two sexes has manifested itself to one degree or another, though many people who express non-conforming sexual identities have been denigrated and often cabined or ostracized—think, for example, of the Taliban. We should acknowledge that individual choice and personal preference can and do play a significant role and that the spectrum of attributes of the sexes need not be dictated by the conventions of the larger society. Human freedom and individuality cry out for this acknowledgment. More than most populations of the world, the American people understand this, I believe, and are increasingly recognizing a moral imperative to respect the dignity and self-worth of all individuals, regardless of individual sexual identities and expressions.
The Democratic Party, though, has decided that respecting the basic dignity and self-worth of every individual American is not enough: The Party must embrace and police strict adherence by its members to the new morphology of sexuality that rejects the reality of two sexes, male and female. Evidently, the Party leaders believe they must espouse this biology-denying proposition in order to maximize support from the growing number of activists who prioritize the needs and desires of a proliferating rainbow of LGBTQNIA+ people. Or, perhaps more simply, they’ve concluded they must do so to retain the allegiance of the younger generation of voters who tend to care greatly about fostering autonomy, individuality, and personal expression in general and in matters of sexuality in particular. (Of course, young voters don’t stay young for long, and people’s attitudes about sexuality tend to modulate as they become parents themselves, but the Party’s leaders are betting that the current shift in the definitions of sex and sexuality will be permanent.)
Abortion rights:
Finally, on the longtime priority issue of abortion (which these days may seem like an older-generation issue), Democratic Party leaders enforce a no-exceptions-allowed litmus test of orthodoxy that favors unrestricted abortion rights all the way through the final trimester of pregnancy—a position that goes beyond what a majority of the electorate is comfortable with. Again, in addition to the merits and popularity of a less extreme pro-choice policy generally, we can only suppose that this uncompromising political imperative is based on the view that maintaining the loyalty of the staunchest abortion-rights faction of the Party is critical to the electoral success of the Democratic Party and its candidates.
* * *
My point is that on none of these core issues of Democratic Party political orthodoxy did the binary litmus-test position now enforced by Party leadership emerge in reaction to policy proposals advanced by Republicans. It’s more accurate to say these partisan positions arose as insistent demands for progressive change vice traditional social norms from among activists championing the avowed interests of important grassroots blocks within the Democratic Party.
I’ve focused on the Democrats in these examples both for ease of analysis and also because I think the Democrats these days are much more consistent and systematic in enforcing a binary litmus test of orthodoxy on the key public policy issues they care about the most. The Republicans do it, too, to some degree. But the key issues for Republicans tend to be more abstract and more matters of general principle—like:
Staying true as a general matter to the original understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (though with differences of approach on specific applications);
Promoting individual liberty and personal responsibility through opposition to centralized government control and excessive regulation;
Putting faith in free enterprise, market-based private investment incentives, and liberal capitalism;
Protecting religious liberty, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience;
Emphasizing the importance of law enforcement (including immigration enforcement, though on immigration there’s definitely a range of policy preferences among Republicans);
Respecting due process and private property rights;
Supporting judicial nominees who’ll exercise restraint in deciding court cases and won’t substitute their personal policy preferences for those of the People’s elected lawmakers or the Framers of the Constitution;
Insisting on low taxes and tight fiscal responsibility (with varying degrees of strictness);
Refusing to cede U.S. sovereignty to foreign interests and international bodies (again with some variation);
Favoring less restriction on the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms (with variation on the details); and
Ensuring strong national defense (close to unanimity here, but still with some issue-specific dissenters).
While the famous Will Rogers statement from the 1920s, “I’m not a member of an organized political party—I’m a Democrat,” doesn’t fit perfectly with either major Party in America today, it’s now definitely much closer to the reality experienced by Republicans than Democrats.