A Talented Synopsis Provides a Framework for Sound Political Thinking — Philosophical Counselor Andrew Taggart Summarized Columnist David Brooks’ View of Society in a Concise Fashion that Simultaneously Provides an Analytical Benchmark for Comparative Political Philosophy

© 2011 Peter Free

 

17 April 2011

 

 

This is what analytical political intelligence looks like —  a rarity in our times

 

According to Andrew Taggart, the key points to “conservative” David Brooks thinking are:

 

[In regard to human nature]

 

1. We are social animals through and through. We are not . . . individual atoms who later adopt on certain social identities.

 

2. The modern world is irreducibly complex. Inasmuch as this is the case, we need to train ourselves to fix our attention on particular items and keep in mind that we won't have the last word.

 

3. Moral intelligence is contextual and empathic.

 

4. The best kind of education is grounded in virtue.

 

5. In order to lead meaningful lives, we seek forms of transcendence.

 

[In regard to government]

 

1. The spirit of good government is tradition. The best sort of government builds off the best traditions embedded in American culture at the same time that it resists utopian thinking.

 

2. Smart governments are good administrators. Better yet, they're good shepherds.

 

3. Policymakers should be modest, not overly confident.

 

© 2011 Andrew Taggart, Who Is David Brooks?, Huffington Post (12 April 2011)

 

 

“Why should we care what Taggart and Brooks think?”

 

First, here are my premises regarding what’s wrong with American political culture at the moment:

 

Hidden assumptions and unidentified, untraced emotions are killing American democracy.

 

Profoundly unintelligent — unrealistic, usually angry, shouted, or purely manipulative — blather has become the norm.

 

We are drowning in a tumult of opinions that lack analytical thought, logical foundations, ties to reality, and examined first principles.

 

David Brooks matters because he is a conservative in the way History defines the term.  History’s definition of Conservatism differs markedly from the distorted ways in which today’s Republican and Tea parties abuse the label.

 

Andrew Taggart matters because he insightfully articulates these traditional, history-based conservative principles in a way that we can see their logical progression.

 

The Taggart/Brooks political framework begins (as it has to, if it is to be realistic) with who we are and how we act.  Only then does it proceed to how we should govern ourselves and how government itself should work.

 

The Taggart/Brooks framework is significant because its precisely articulated connections between who we are, how we act, and the proper role of government is almost always missing from today’s political talk.

 

Skipped whys and wherefores make for silly arguments.  Political thinking is of no value when it lacks:

 

(a) an understanding of how the real world appears to work,

 

(b) a willingness to work under Reality’s most obvious constraints,

 

(c) articulable goals,

 

and

 

(d) workable means to achieve those endpoints.

 

For example, do you see the difference between simply saying “we need small government” and explaining:

 

(i) why smaller government would be good,

 

(ii) what it should do,

 

(iii) what it should not do,

 

and

 

(iv) whether this vision actually has a prayer of working toward a desirable end point in the Real World?

 

There is a profound difference between emotional catch phrases (“big government is bad”) and workable thinking (which almost always consists of more than a paragraph).

 

The nation’s Founders engaged in defensibly thorough political thinking.  We, today, do not.

 

Today’s politicians and political parties are almost entirely about provocative sound-bites.  These sound bites do not address the irreducible complexity that Brooks (and presumably Taggart, and certainly I) think is Reality’s defining element.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Taggart/Brooks Premises gives us touch points with which to walk ourselves through the whys and wherefores of our own political thinking.

 

Andrew Taggart’s essay is worth reading.  See it here.