The rhetoric of the “reasonable right”
Eve Fairbanks argues at the Washington Post that there is some overlap between the rhetoric of the dark web types and that of the “respectable” antebellum defenders of slavery.
My childhood home is just a half-hour drive from the Manassas battlefield in Virginia, and I grew up intensely fascinated by the Civil War. I loved perusing soldiers’ diaries. During my senior year in college, I studied almost nothing but Abraham Lincoln’s speeches. As I wrote my thesis on a key Lincoln address, Civil War rhetoric was almost all I read: not just that of the 16th president but also that of his adversaries.
Thinking back on those debates, I finally figured it out. The reasonable right’s rhetoric is exactly the same as the antebellum rhetoric I’d read so much of. The same exact words. The same exact arguments. Rhetoric, to be precise, in support of the slave-owning South.
If that sounds absurd — Shapiro and his compatriots aren’t defending slavery, after all — it may be because many Americans are unfamiliar with the South’s actual rhetoric. When I was a kid in public school, I learned the arguments of Sen. John C. Calhoun (D-S.C.), who called slavery a “positive good,” and Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s vice president, who declared that the South’s ideological “cornerstone” rested “upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man.”
But such clear statements were not the norm. Proslavery rhetoricians talked little of slavery itself. Instead, they anointed themselves the defenders of “reason,” free speech and “civility.” The prevalent line of argument in the antebellum South rested on the supposition that Southerners were simultaneously the keepers of an ancient faith and renegades — made martyrs by their dedication to facts, reason and civil discourse.
They had to, didn’t they. They couldn’t just say: “We can’t get rich by growing cotton any other way because the work is too horrible and the climate is even worse.” They had to make it sound convincing, and dignified.
It might sound strange that America’s proslavery faction styled itself the guardian of freedom and minority rights. And yet it did. In a deep study of antebellum Southern rhetoric, Patricia Roberts-Miller, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Texas at Austin, characterizes the story that proslavery writers “wanted to tell” between the 1830s and 1860s as not one of “demanding more power, but of David resisting Goliath.”
And they did it after the war, too. Mainstream America bought the story and helped promote it – Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind for instance. “The chivalry,” as slaveowners liked to call themselves. At the same time they talked a lot about “facts” and “science”…kind of like the people who keep saying we need to hear the kind of stale bullshit James Damore was so eager to force on his Google colleagues. “It’s not that men forget (at best) or refuse (at worst) to hire women, it’s that women would rather be teachers or nurses or mommies” – that’s such a new and original line of thought that males in the workplace must be allowed to share their manifestos on the subject in that mostly-male workplace.
The most important thing to know about them, they held, was that they were not the oppressors. They were the oppressed. They were driven to feelings of isolation and shame purely on the basis of freely held ideas, the right of every thinking man. Rep. Alexander Sims (D-S.C.) claimed that America’s real problem was the way Southerners were made to suffer under “the sneers and fanatic ebullitions of ignorant and wicked pretenders to philanthropy.” Booth’s complaint, before he shot Lincoln, wasn’t that he could no longer practice slavery, something he’d never done anyway. Instead, he lamented that he no longer felt comfortable expressing “my thoughts or sentiments” on slavery freely in good company.
The tyranny of opinion, in short. White men must be free to inform everyone of their superiority, or we will be trapped in 1984 forever.
All of this is there in the reasonable right: The claim that they are the little people struggling against prevailing winds. The argument that they’re the ones championing reason and common sense. The allegation that their interlocutors aren’t so much wrong as excessive; they’re just trying to think freely and are being tormented. The reliance on hyperbole and slippery slopes to warn about their adversaries’ intentions and power. The depiction of their opponents as an “orthodoxy,” an epithet the antebellum South loved.
…
Many reasonable-right figures find themselves defending the liberties of people to the right of them. Not because they agree with these people, they say, but on principle. Sam Harris, a popular podcast host, has released three lengthy shows about Charles Murray, a political scientist who is often booed at campus speeches and whose 2017 talk at Middlebury College ended when students injured his host. Murray argues that white people test higher than black people on “every known test of cognitive ability” and that these “differences in capacity” predict white people’s predominance. Harris repeatedly insists he has no vested interest in Murray’s ideas. His only interest in Murray, he claims, rests in his dedication to discussing science and airing controversial views.
But Harris’s claim is implausible. Hundreds of scientists produce controversial work in the fields of race, demographics and inequality. Only one, though, is the social scientist nationally notorious for suggesting that white people are innately smarter than people of color. That Harris chooses to invite this one on his show suggests that he is not merely motivated by freedom of speech. It suggests that he is interested in what Murray has to say.
…
If you hear somebody lament, as Bret Stephens does, that political “opinions that were considered reasonable and normal” not too long ago now must be “delivered in whispers,” it might be antebellum reasoning. If somebody says — as Harris has — that our politics are at risk of ignoring common sense, logic or the realities of human biology, it might be antebellum reasoning. If somebody such as Nicholas Kristof says they don’t like noxious thinkers but urges us to give them platforms for the sake of “protecting dissonant and unwelcome voices,” it might be antebellum reasoning. The truth is that we have more avenues now for free expression in America than we’ve ever had.
If somebody says liberals have become illiberal, you should consider whether it’s true. But you should also know that this assertion has a long history and that George Wallace and Barry Goldwater used it in their eras to powerful effect. People who make this claim aren’t “renegades.” They’re heirs to an extremely specific tradition in American political rhetoric, one that has become a dangerous inheritance.
Jonathan Haidt misrepresents the argument:
Here’s a bad kind of argument: If you favor X and some very bad people favored X, then you are wrong and, by association, bad. Here is @evefairbanks in WaPo likening me & others who favor “facts, reason, and civil discourse” to defenders of slavery:
But that isn’t what she says. She likens the rhetoric Haidt and others use to the rhetoric defenders of slavery used.
Jason Stanley (whom I don’t always agree with) replied:
Not how I read this piece at all. The point is rather tha[t] defenses of reasonableness, civility, and free speech often function to normalize greed and self-interest, sometimes intentionally sometimes unintentionally. It’s a vital lesson of history; relevant eg for climate change
Haidt refused to get the point.
This is the line that is being used to explain why we need to pay more attention to the midwest, as well. The oppressed midwest, held down by people who have less power per vote, by people who are getting less back in taxes because so much goes to the midwest, the people who are deemed “nice”, even though they are some of the most sexist, homophobic, racist, angry assholes in the country.
And Harris needs to get a life. He was born with a silver spoon in his white male mouth; he didn’t get to the head of the line by working harder than women and people of color. He was born at the head of the line.
As Big Name Skeptics like Sam Harris love to piously remind us, science involves the testing of hypotheses, and discarding the ones that don’t pass the test.
If any subject of public discourse is based on anything other than personal taste/opinion, then we should expect that, over time, bad ideas will be rejected and considered discredited. Making the same kinds of arguments that slave owners made, that anti-Reconstructionists made, that pro-Jim Crow segregationists made, should be about as respectable as making arguments based on alchemy or astrology or creationism.
It isn’t “censorship” or “political correctness” to scoff at someone who is pushing phrenology, or to speculate that they’re motivated by something other than sincere scientific curiosity. That’s how a fact-based public dialogue should work: certain ideas should become discredited, and the people who continue to raise them without some new evidence or rationale should be regarded as potentially acting in bad faith.
If “over time, bad ideas will be rejected and considered discredited,” and these ideas haven’t been rejected and considered discredited yet, does this mean they’re not bad ideas?
Joking, but I don’t know that accuracy of an idea is vital to its longevity.
This reminds me of a saying from Upton Sinclair: “It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.”
Retooled justifications for slavery work just fine to justify Jim Crow or whatever the current state of inequality should be called.
What am I supposed to conclude from this? That I should be dismissive (or at least suspicious) of anyone who defends reasonableness, civility, or free speech? That’s absurd, as I would then be committed to suspecting every philosopher who signed this open letter in support of free speech, civility, and reasonableness. So that can’t be the lesson. So what, then?
That people can and often do use things that are usually considered good in pursuit of pernicious ends? Well, that’s trivially and obviously true. Nothing so banal could need so many words to describe, so that can’t be the lesson. So what, then?
I don’t know, honestly. No other meaningful interpretation comes readily to mind.
I am not too sure on this one.
I mean take trans issues for example. I don’t think it is wrong to say that some feminists have been subjected to harassment and deplatforming due to their skepticism around a lot of the ideology behind trans activism.
We look at the vandalism against Vancouver Rape Relief, and yeah that’s a free speech and civility problem. We look at Antifa and sure – it is not as bad as far right extremism, but at least up until a year ago there was a definite argument being made in favour of violence in order to intimidate political opposition.
And we look at, for example, the Covington Catholic scandal. Those kids were protesting to take away women’s rights, and that was wrong.
But it didn’t make it right when somebody splashed their faces across the internet with lies about them confronting and mocking a native American elder, nor did it make it right when some people took it upon themselves to play detective to find out who the lead kid was, find the wrong kid and start contacting universities to try and ruin that kid’s future.
Even the kid in question – was still a kid. Most guidelines for ethical journalism are very clear on the need for sensitivity when dealing with minors, as well as the need to ascertain the facts before publication, but that went right out the window in the name of having a tribal battle.
Maybe I’m conflating these issues in my head, I’m not that bright myself, but I think there is an issue right now around the acceptance of people having the right to disagree.
And I don’t think it is a thing that really divides the left and the right. Most of the “reasonable right” argument is really just another argument against free speech, in that it essentially tries to shut down opposition to objectionable speech rather than focusing on the reasoning itself.
It tries to conflate having the right to say something, with saying that something being right. I think if you come up with bullshit that we know is bullshit due to a lot of work being done to figure out why its bullshit, then people will call you a bullshitter and unlike your original bullshit it isn’t a matter of them having the right to do so – they are right to do so.
What I’m saying isn’t don’t call sexists sexist, or racists racist, it isn’t don’t call it as you see it, but that there does seem to be an issue about how far one can really go in these things.
Is violence against people who say things that we find reprehensible acceptable?
Is harassment acceptable?
If we say no to both of these things, are we being “reasonable right” in saying so?
To me before we can even get to who we agree or disagree with, we need the ability to have the discussion without you know, baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire entering the picture.
Fair points.
I suppose I’m thinking of people like Michael Shermer who claim to be All About The Rational but really aren’t. The Ayn Rand branch of “Rationality.” Sam Harris. Guys whose claimed rationality is transparently self-serving and incomplete.
Political arguments which include “Women are adult human females” and similar sentiments might fit into both categories, and I can easily imagine Trans Rights Activists using the essay to prompt a comparison between Gender Critical Feminism and antebellum reasoning.
I think Nullius makes a good — a reasonable — point. “People can and often do use things that are good in pursuit of pernicious ends.” Fairbanks provides yet another example; she’s not revealing a hidden “tell” illuminating the reasonable-right. The comparison doesn’t strike me as eerily similar.
Everyone thinks they’re the good guys.
Yes but. There’s an element of insisting – of protesting too much, to adopt Gertrude’s phrase.
That’s why I dropped the slogan “Fighting Fashionable Nonsense” as soon as I had sole control of this place; I never did like it.
Sam Harris does it, Michael Shermer does it, Neil Tyson does it.
I know what you mean (Sastra and Bruce and Nullius) but I still think there’s something to it. Maybe not as much as Fairbanks claims, but something.
Color me unconvinced that an excess of reasonableness and civility is among society’s urgent problems at the present time.
As for the piece itself, it struck me as not much more than a particularly blatant instance of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
I understand, I think — but I’ve always held a soft spot in my heart for those pseudoscientists, conspiracy mongers, bigots, political extremists, and general crackpots who insist that reason, logic, and evidence is their guide because reason, logic, and evidence ought to be everyone’s guide, following that with the professed belief that there is no shame in changing one’s mind. That’s because I’ve had far too many encounters with the other sort: those who readily admit that reason, logic, and evidence are deceptive snares and when you KNOW something then by crackee you KNOW it. And they DO and you literally CAN’T.
That first group you can sometimes get a tiny little grip somewhere and begin a tiny little discussion. The second sort … well, you’re done. There’s no level of this that’s even supposed to make sense to a reasonable person. It would be a point against it. That’s just gruesome.
Fideism, in short. Brings me out in hives.
I guess the way I see it is that civility is a good thing, reason is a good thing, but…too many people are positing that as the end point, the goal. It should be a means to the goal. And we should be able to pick apart arguments that are civil and point out that they are vacuous. We shouldn’t be blinded by civility (or even incivility, of which I think we are all guilty at times, getting pushed beyond the bounds of where we can remain civil). We shouldn’t say “Hey, that guy is so civil and nice and reasonable, so we should accept his argument that women are stupid and inferior, while that other person over there, well, she has blue hair and shouts a lot, so she must be wrong”.
In short, it isn’t civility (or incivility) that is the issue, so much as seeing civility as the end rather than the means. That’s my take on the subject, and I could be wrong.