I See Monkeys

A thought provoking article. Please, don't dismiss it automatically just because it is published by Cracked.

The monkleysphere (the sphere of individuals around us that we actually care about) fits into a lot of thoughts I've been having lately.

For instance, I think it explains why both expansive liberalism and individualized libertarianism ultimately fail. The former requires us to think of everyone as being part of our monkeysphere while the latter requires us to think of our monkeysphere as only being ourselves. Human beings, sane human beings, just don't work thatway. We care about other people, but we can't care about everyone equally.

I don't like it when politicians use phrases like the common good. We place to great a burden on people when we expect them to weigh their actions based on how it effects everyone. It's just to big.

It is better to think in terms of what is the greater good for your circle of acquaintances (your monkeysphere) and then expand on the idea of what the monkey is. The monkey devotes itself to advancing (1) its family, (2) its neighborhood, (3) its community, (4) its state, (5) its country, and finally (6) its world at increasing levels of abstraction. At each level the monkeysphere expands, but the monkeys are no longer individuals. They are the equivalent units at the same level.

When you think about helping your family, it is the family members helping out other family members. When you think about helping out your neighborhood, you think about it in terms of families helping families. When you think about helping your community, you think about it in terms of neighborhoods helping neighborhoods. When you think about helping your state, you think about it in terms of communities helping communities. And so on, all the way up to the world being a monkeysphere where countries help countries.

The monkey gets around its limited ability to empathize with the monkeys on the other side of the world by thinking instead of its country as one monkey (a monkey-country) caring about other monkey-countries.

We're all in this together, but I don't have the time or the inclination to save everyone in the world.

Missing the goal for the means

We all want the same goal: affordable, effective, universal, now.

Many are convinced that single payer or, barring that, a public option, are essential for that. These are the means.

Not everyone is convinced of that yet. When you assume that the means are required in order to meet the goal it is easy to conclude that those who are unsure on the means are unsure on the goal.

That is insulting (unnecessarily so).

This is the mistake I see many making when they cry "Give me Public Option or Give me Death!"

They might just get it.

Don't assume you have won the argument

The problem I see with some of the advocacy in the health care debate is the assumption that we have already won the argument on the effectiveness of a public option. We already know health care reform won't work without it. So, naturally, we assume that any squishiness on the public option must be because of cowardice or simply selling out the the insurance companies.

The reality is that not everyone is as convinced as you are that the public option (let alone single-payer) is the way to go. It's bad strategy to insist that those who are on the fence commit their political futures to a policy that they haven't bought into (yet). It is nearly guaranteed to force them to choose against you (because that is where the institutional momentum is).

Effectiveness

Chris Bowers uses a rhetorical trick instead of engaging in an honest debate.

Via FDL, Carolyn Maloney sums up the progressive mentality that has made Blue Dogs, conservodems, and Arlen Specter the overlords of us all. Or, perhaps more accurately, the mentality that has made us all into Blue Dogs:

To NYCEVE, Jane and the blogging community fighting to make sure health care reform includes a public option: (...)

In terms of how we achieve universal health care, I believe the best way is a single-payer health care system and I've long been a co-sponsor of that legislation. But, if single payer isn't on the table, then we must give all Americans the option of enrolling in a public health insurance plan and I will fight to make sure the public option is included in any health care reform bill.(...)

So, while I agree health care reform must have the public option and I will fight for it; I also believe health care reform is too important to maintain the status quo and, even though I won't like a bill that doesn't include the public option, if that happens, the principle of getting people health care who don't currently have it must come before any one particular method to achieve it.

Shorter Maloney: I will vote for any health care reform bill, no matter how watered down. I will give in on single-payer. I will given in on the public option. I will give in to every demand made by every conservative Democrat, and vote for whatever our Blue Dog overlords tell us to vote for in the end.

Shorter Bowers: Carolyn Maloney is "effectively" a Blue Dog.

Didn't we knock back this nonsense when wingers used it to paint all anti-war people as "effectively pro-Saddam"?

Look, I understand the argument that some Democrats are insufficient in their push for effective progressive policy. I understand the point that Democrats will own whatever the results are of this process, so the smart money would be on making it as strong as possible (because you won't get a second chance if it fails).

But trying to shame those on the fence by painting them as fellow travelers of Blue Dogs and ... shudder ... Republicans is reprehensible (and worse, counter-productive).

Didn't we leave Manichean "with us or against us" attitudes behind when we kicked out Bush?