I won’t quote much from the article as it’s better read in its entirety, but I will excerpt a fairly incensed critic of the article in Matt Yglesias:

I have a condescending attitude toward this op-ed. Of course I think my views are correct and based on fact and reason. If I thought my views weren’t correct and based on fact and reason, I would adopt different views—correct fact-and-reason based ones. Does Alexander really think that conservatives don’t think their views are correct? Does Alexander not think his own views are correct? Not based on fact? Not based on reason? I’m not sure it’s possible to be condescending enough to this op-ed.

Look, Matt’s point in isolation is impossible to disagree with, but it also completely misrepresents what Gerard is saying.  At least to me, it seems Gerard is pointing out that by-and-large leftists aren’t seriously entertaining the right’s positions simply because they aren’t the left’s positions, and then finding post-hoc excuses to avoid thinking more critically about them.

And by the way, I don’t want to put Matt into this category directly.  Pompous as he is about his own views, he takes the right’s arguments about as seriously as any mainstream leftist pundit, and he deserves credit for that.

Gerard’s article reminds me of a different but nonetheless excellent point by Will Wilkinson in a debate with Ezra Klein over the use of the filibuster:

I may be mistaken, but I could swear that Ezra has portrayed Democratic support for health-care reform as grounded in a good-faith desire to secure social justice, reduce suffering, and save lives. Well, whatever that incentive is, that’s the one congressional Republicans have to help Democrats reduce unemployment and avoid fiscal disaster.

[I]t is not really surprising, is it, that Democrats and Republicans disagree about the policies that would best achieve these aims? Indeed, these differences help explain why the Democratic and Republican parties are different parties. If the Democrats tomorrow announced support for the kind of employment-stimulating and deficit-reduction policies generally favored by Republicans, we’d suddenly see once “difficult” legislation sailing through the Congress. But given the reality that the Democratic Party and its supporters think these are the wrong policies, what incentive does the majority party have to help the minority party lower the unemployment rate and sign on to painful decisions that will avert a fiscal crisis?

…

When Lieberman effectively nixed the public option, Ezra suggested that callous indifference to mass death was at work. If supermajoritarian rules are bringing this kind of monstrous pathology into play, then by all means let’s get rid of them! But, as it is, those rules aren’t even capable of preventing the congressional majority from imposing massive unpopular institutional changes on a reluctant public. That Ezra sees these evidently manageable constraints on the majority party as a positive danger to the public interest suggests that he sees opposing views as unworthy of respect.

If Gerard is correct, one problem leftists will run into in holding these kinds of views about non-leftists is that they will tend to accept their arguments as self-evidently true by any coherently-thinking person, and they won’t focus their energy on strengthening the intellectual foundations of their arguments.  Indeed, Gerard suggests that conservatives may be gaining ground in this area:

Some observers have decried an anti-intellectual strain in contemporary conservatism, detected in George W. Bush’s aw-shucks style, Sarah Palin’s college-hopping and occasional conservative campaigns against egghead intellectuals. But alongside that, the fact is that conservative-leaning think tank scholars, economists, jurists and legal theorists have never produced as much detailed analysis and commentary on American life and policy as they do today.

(I would have called that scholarship more libertarian than conservative, but whatever.)

On the question of who’s proposing a more rigorous intellectual defense of their principles, I have to side with Gerard here — and hopefully not because I’m sinister, stupid, prejudiced, or driven by emotion at the expense of reason.

I’d never support this as a mandate, but I’d gamble that if every public official elected, appointed, or hired was required to test competency in ten books relevant for the office — five chosen by the left and five chosen by the right (or three by each and four by libertarians if you want to go with the Boaz and Kirby data) — you certainly wouldn’t see subsequent intellectual movement toward the left.  Notwithstanding how public choice theory could very seriously undercut the results of my experiment, of course… but if you buy public choice, you’re probably already on the way to proving my point.

Regardless of how you normally vote, if you vehemently opposed the Republicans’ agenda in this example, how would you feel right now?

Seems to me the Brown victory is this, in reverse.

I’ve heard that the view differs depending on which user is viewing the page, but if so, I understand that even less.

Anyway, I’m engaged.  Go me.

This seems to happen most often once someone has concluded that a particular side is disingenuous.  For example, I don’t get the sense from Paul Krugman’s writing that it’s possible to engage him in a reasonable discussion about Republicans, because he’s decided they are monolithically evil.  I suspect many people encountered doctrionnaire conservative or leftist family members like this over the holiday break.  And I wonder about which issues I’ve become this extreme myself; if one issue stands out more than others it’s probably my position toward soft paternalists, whose alleged selflessness I find myself increasingly calling into question.  Maybe I have others?  I dunno, you tell me.

My distaste for this behavior is one reason why I enjoy associating with moderate libertarians.  It’s definitely not that I always agree with them (although I seem to agree much more than I used to), but rather because the ideological foundation of their positions combined with their persistent minority political status necessitates advancing their views through reasonable debate.  Although this certainly doesn’t mean all libertarians are immune to the dilemma I presented; take, for example, the challenge of debating some anarchists who choose to draw the argument toward the “government as armed robber” analogy as quickly as possible.

This is really not a trivial issue.  I don’t believe taking a relativistic position, or no position at all, is all that useful in advancing an argument.  I much prefer the person who takes a side, attempts to defend it coherently, and revises her position should she find herself at some point unable to hold the line without reducing her argument to absurdity.  But to argue in this manner persistently without coming off as hostile or closed-minded is something of an art form that can be difficult to master.

So, do you pretty much stop arguing with someone once you realize it would take too long to find common ground?  Do you just keep your mouth shut and “agree to disagree?” Do you take pot shots whenever you can?  Or perhaps you seize every opportunity to reengage the argument until you’ve become “those guys” whose friends always have to change the subject?

Most importantly, do you ever call people out when their line of argumentation is unreasonable compared to how they approach other issues?  And if so, how does it usually turn out?

To be sure, the GOP doesn’t want to hand Congressional Democrats or the Obama administration anything resembling a legislative victory that they could campaign on in the next election.  Their obstructionism is absolutely a unified political strategy.  It’s also worth noting that in this climate it’s politically safer for a Congressional Republican who only agrees with 40% of a bill to vote against it, because right now the media is reporting on the GOP as a monolithic bloc whereas they’re writing long stories about the individual Democratic senators who are basically selling their votes.

But I disagree with the more general insinuation that a strategy of obstructionism is only pursued by people who have no interest in improving America.  The problem is that in this climate and for the issues currently on the table, the Overton window of political possibility has shifted away from more universally palatable ideas.  The GOP saw this firsthand when they did present a rival healthcare plan and were roundly laughed out of the room.  It’s a PR challenge, but not necessarily an intellectual or moral deficiency, to respond by attempting to hold the line until the political climate turns more favorable.

By the way, I do not mean to in any way suggest that I agree with the GOP’s healthcare plan, or that Republicans would actually focus on palatable ideas were they to return to the majority.  Most likely they’d find some dumbassness of their own to propose.  I’m simply saying that as a general rule, I think it takes a pretty narrow mind to claim that the absence of a politically feasable alternate plan, and the subsequent decision to be obstructionist, represent either a willful desire to be unproductive or an absence of legitimate ideas.

1.  At the end of the day, passing a minimally-palatable health care bill is more important than what the bill actually says, because the primary objective is to establish a permanent government entitlement program while we have the votes.  Once it’s passed, it’s a part of our lives, and no one will ever have the votes to get rid of it.  Besides, it’s not like Congress won’t come back later and fix anything that goes really wrong.

In your camp: Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and anyone quoting Yglesias, Klein, or Krugman favorably regarding health care.

2. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what health care bill gets passed as long as it can be spun as a victory for Obama and Congressional Democrats.  There’s nothing worse in this world than Republicans in power, so anything that makes it less likely for the Democrats to lose seats–or God forbid, the presidency–in 2010 or 2012 is more important than quibbling over particular provisions in the legislation.

In your camp: the DNC, the DCCC, Obama for President 2012, anyone who sang along and/or cried to that celebrity “Yes We Can” YouTube video.

3. You simultaneously hold all of the following positions to be true:

• Health care is a human right and it must therefore be afforded to all, pretty much irrespective of the costs to anyone else to provide it.
• The absence of additional regulations (the so-called “free market” health care system), rather than excessive or inefficient regulations, is responsible for the current situation.
• The current health care system is not an unacceptable framework upon which to lay new regulations.
• Forcing everyone to buy health insurance, including very healthy or very wealthy people who would prefer to take their chances uninsured (a.k.a. the individual mandate), is an acceptable tradeoff if it generally keeps premiums lower.
• The individual mandate is constitutional, rather than unprecedented and unconstitutional.
• Granting massive concessions to certain industries at the expense of others, in particular the very insurance companies that all parties condemn and that Harry Reid demonizes in every speech, is a less important concern than passing this health care bill.
• Continued healthcare-related annual deficits, or the national debt, or really any respect for the reason the CBO is consulted in the first place, are all less important concerns than passing this health care bill.
• Allowing only three weeks to read a 2,100 page bill and 24 hours to read the definitive 400-page compromise amendment, even though the majority of the legislation doesn’t take effect until 2014, is less important than passing this health care bill.
• Persuading at least one senator outside your political caucus that the bill is a good idea is less important than passing this health care bill.
• Persuading a majority of the public to support the bill is a less important concern than passing this health care bill.

In your camp: without trying to be sardonic, in all honesty, I don’t know.  I’m not sure I can think of anyone who would know and agree with all the points in #3 who isn’t already covered by #1 or #2.

Accepting that my tone may not appeal to everyone, I’m pretty sure this covers it.  If you support this bill and I have either misrepresented your position or I have failed to list it here, I expect you to let me know so I can amend my post.  And if you can’t defend your position on intellectually honest grounds, I hope you will seriously consider reevaluating it.

Not familiar with the mechanics of the health care issue?  Here’s a pretty brief explanation, at least from where I’m sitting.  The most devastating critique I’ve read is courtesy of the WSJ.

Otherwise, I suppose that’s about all I have to say about health care until the reconciliation process begins.  Merry Christmas.

On the sandwich front, Ray’s Hell-Burger is relocating this spring from 1725 Wilson Blvd. into larger digs at 1650 Wilson Blvd. in Arlington. Landrum says the newly acquired 4,000 square-foot space solves the current problems of “over-crowded [and] over-stressed facilities.” The move will also allow him to beef up Hell-Burger’s menu with beer and wine, milkshakes and sides such as fries and onion rings. The long-promised Ray’s: The Catch, Landrum’s fish house idea, will take the place vacated by Hell-Burger around the same time.

Joining Glass next month will be Ray’s: The Game in the original, “pre-Obama” home for Hell-Burger (1713 Wilson Blvd.), with cooks grilling burgers made from custom-ground venison, wild boar, elk, antelope, wild duck and ostrich.

Can’t wait!