By: Samir Chopra
Moral disputes seem intractable....With some exceptions, political disputes are not like this. When people disagree about politics, they often agree about ends, but disagree about means to attain them. Republicans and Democrats may differ on, say, health care policy, but share goals — a healthy American population. They differ on fiscal policy but agree on the goal of economic growth for the nation....this is often a matter of degree. Political disputes can have moral aspects, too. The two sides in the debate over abortion rights...clearly don’t agree on the ends. There is an ethical disagreement at the heart of this debate. It is safe to say that the more ethical a political dispute is, the more heated and intractable it is likely to become.
These claims misunderstand political disputes and thus mischaracterize the nature and quality of the disagreements they give rise to.
Political disputes generate as much heat and light as they do because, very often, their participants do not share goals--opponents on either side of a political divide are well aware of this. I remain entirely unconvinced Republicans have a 'healthy American population' as a political goal, as opposed to 'maximizing profits for the healthcare businesses - insurance, hospitals, doctors etc.' Nothing in their actions and pronouncements suggests such an ascription would be remotely plausible. Only a commitment to shoehorn their views into some predetermined template of 'acceptable political views' could animate such an understanding of their political goals. Similarly, I do not think Republicans share the goal of 'economic growth for the nation' with me. Their concern appears far more limited, only extensible to a privileged--economically and morally--subset of the population. In these circumscribed political spaces, I find moral and metaphysical principles at work: that there exists a category of people termed 'undeserving', the members of which are not entitled to the benefits of the nation's social and economic arrangements. These are not the principles that animate my political viewpoints.
A 'political goal' is not a simple scheme for power sharing; it speaks to a possible arrangement of social, economic, and moral goods, and the animating premises for the arguments made on its behalf rest invariably on some larger vision of how the world should be. In short, political goals are infected with normativity; they seek to conform to the ordering of some table of values their proponents have in mind. It might be that in a particular sphere of politics, some goals have to be artfully disguised in order to make their realization more plausible; this can generate the illusion of 'agreement on goals-disagreement on means' which Rosenberg so charitably ascribes to contemporary political conflict.
Rosenberg makes a concession to the intractability of political disputes by admitting the moral nature of some subset of them, but he has mischaracterized them sufficiently to not notice the glaringly obvious conclusion we can draw instead: political disputes are just as intractable as moral ones; the reason for this is that at heart, that's what they are.