Three sides to every story

Have you ever imagined yourself as the hero in a story where, against all odds, you take on the villains to save the world? Feels good doesn't it?

Politics provides an opportunity to take part in such a story. The villains consist of those that conspire to thwart your team's noble cause, either by their actions or their indifference.

For conservatives, the battle is between civilization and barbarism. Conservative themes that fit this narrative include terrorism, socialism and moral issues like abortion.

For progressives, the struggle is for oppressed or marginalized groups and include concerns such as inequality, racism and corporate power.

For libertarians, the conflict is coercion against liberty, particularly with respect to the role of government in the lives of individuals and communities, such as the extent of trade regulations, taxes and legislated personal morality.

Any political issue can be described in terms of these axes.[1] For example, illegal immigrants can be regarded as experiencing oppression, importing barbarism, or seeking freedom depending on the chosen framing narrative. In a particular election cycle, the party that tells the most persuasive story around the political issues of the day will win the election. It is not the facts and policies themselves that matter for winning the vote but, instead, how those facts and policies are framed.

In the upcoming US election, Donald Trump's slogan is "Make America Great Again". This fits particularly well with the civilization/barbarism narrative and taps into people's sense that things aren't so great right now. It also makes it easy for anyone to create their own vision for what America's greatness means. It's a difficult slogan for Democrats to attack. So they instead need to challenge Trump's credibility for delivering on it.

Hillary Clinton's slogan is "Stronger Together". This strikes a solidarity chord with progressives. But it doesn't speak to people's aspirations or struggles. So Clinton's challenge is to find a message that emotionally resonates with people.[2]

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson's slogan is "Live Free". This fits the libertarian narrative. But, as with Clinton's slogan, it will miss the mark with most voters. Libertarians need to inspire independents who are not enamored by either of the major party candidates. So how would freedom lead to a more civilized, safe and just society or improve their day-to-day lives?

Terrorist threats and economic hardship feed into Trump's story that there are systemic problems that only he, the uncompromising Washington outsider, can solve. Unless his opponents create a persuasive alternative story, Trump wins in November.

--

[1] See Arnold Kling's Tribal Politics in the 21st Century.

[2] See Scott Adam's Battle of the Campaign Slogans.

Perspectives on Islam

I watched an excellent Richmond Forum discussion exploring whether Islam is a religion of violence or peace. The first speaker was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a well-known activist who is critical of Islam. The second speaker was Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic radical who now promotes democracy in the Muslim world. The final speaker was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who leads a mosque in downtown Manhattan and works at improving relations between the Muslim world and the West. A few years ago I read his book, "What's Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West".

Ali's view is that Islam is fundamentally a religion of violence and subjugation and that this is the natural interpretation of particular passages in the Quran and hadith literature. She believes that extremists provide a compelling and inspiring case arguing from the Quran and that this is the main reason why they find ready and devout followers. For her, the only viable solution is for an Islamic reformation to occur where such passages are fully repudiated. Without this, a political and authoritarian Islam will continue to threaten the world.

Nawaz makes the case that Islam is not intrinsically a religion of either violence or peace.  Rather, there are competing interpretations that promote political violence and social discrimination on the one hand and liberal and democratic ideals on the other hand. What is important is to support people who are looking to reform the discourse and open up the debate in Muslim countries. He also points out the widespread problem of half-truth narratives. This occurs when religious texts or world events are cherry-picked to create false or misleading perceptions. For example, many Muslims think that Americans are anti-Muslim because certain events are played up in the Muslim world (e.g., the burning of copies of the Quran in Florida or the US president claiming that God told him to invade Iraq). Conversely, many westerners learn about the concepts of jihad or sharia from extremist sources and assume that these are the commonly-held interpretations of Muslims.

Rauf makes a different case again that Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace with its roots in the Abrahamic faith. His view is that Islamic jurisprudence has a venerable tradition, often exemplifying religious tolerance, progressive views for women, and intellectual achievement. He notes that Islamic fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomenon that is discontinuous with the tradition of Islam, particularly with its insistence on an exclusive Islamic nation state which he sees as an incoherent concept. He also sees the need to change the cultural discourse around Islam. Instead of portraying terrorism and fundamentalism as an Islam versus the West battle, to rather understand it as a religious moderate versus religious extremism battle.

One point that especially struck me during this discussion is the problem of half-truth narratives. It's almost always possible to interpret events and textual sources in ways that support conflicting narratives. The real challenge is to form the most likely conclusions from the data that is available. In this case, the two narratives are "Islam versus the West", which Ali argues for and "Extremists versus Moderates", which Nawaz and Rauf argue for.

Liberalism's divide

In the US, a wedding photographer was found to be in breach of New Mexico's anti-discrimination law, and fined $6,600, when she refused (on religious grounds) to be the photographer for a same-sex wedding. It follows a similar case where a baker was fined for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The cases raise several issues. For example, does the ruling infringe the business owner's right to free expression (or free association or religious belief)? Also to what extent should the state be involved in deciding these matters? In the US, religious pastors are exempt from performing same-sex weddings. But how does that differ in principle from the above cases?

In the liberal intellectual tradition, the conventional divide has been between classical (free market) liberalism and welfare (redistributionist) liberalism. In recent decades, with the collapse of socialism and the shift toward market-based reform around the world, that division is no longer quite as fundamental as it was.

However there is another historical division regaining prominence, which is between pluralist and rationalist liberalism. Pluralist liberalism is skeptical of the central state and friendly towards local, traditional and voluntary communities and associations. Whereas rationalist liberalism is committed to intellectual progress, universalism and equality before a unified law and is keen to disrupt what it sees as local tyrannies in religious and ethnic groups.

The anti-discrimination cases are examples of disputes across the pluralist/rationalist divide. On the one side, liberal rationalists are arguing that the state should ensure equal treatment before the law, on the other side liberal pluralists are arguing for religious diversity and autonomy (for various reasons, while I support same-sex marriage, I side with the pluralists for the two described cases).

Jacob T. Levy (Professor of Political Theory at McGill University) has written a book that explores this liberal divide since the Enlightenment (entitled "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom", 2014 - the first three chapters are here). He points out that many of the problems we find today about multiculturalism, religious freedom and freedom of associations are really just the recent manifestations of this deep and perennial divide. That is, one side is inclined toward the use of state power to protect individuals from local group power, the other is inclined to see groups as the results of individual free choice and the protectors of freedom against state power. It's also worth noting that both groups and the state have some general tendencies to impair freedom and the book seeks to identify the patterns.