Don’t Personalize the Political
It's the system.
A rhetorical trap that many people, including libertarians, fall into is blaming individuals for problems that are ultimately attributable to the political-economic structure. You see this when people (though usually not libertarians) say that things will be much better if we “clean house” and get the “right people” in office. As I and others have argued, imagining that new politicians will lead to any substantial change is like trying to prevent the sinking of the Titanic by rearranging the deck chairs. It is a superficial change that will not solve a deeply structural problem.
Although most libertarians would recognize the problem with the “changing politicians” argument, some of them do something similar with other issues. I have heard libertarians criticize the public school system on grounds that teachers and administrators are either lazy and incompetent or are ill-intentioned statists out to indoctrinate our children into their evil worldview. First, note that they cannot be both! If they are that incompetent, it’s hard to imagine they are capable of hatching an effective plan to indoctrinate. The same contradiction was at play in the O. J. Simpson trial, when his defenders called the LAPD both incompetent and engaged in a sophisticated plot to frame him.
In addition, blaming teachers for the very real failings of the public schools is much like blaming individual politicians for the structural failures of the political system. Just as most libertarians rightly believe that it is not individual politicians who cause politics to fail systematically, but rather the incentive and knowledge problems faced by politicians and bureaucrats thanks to the institutional structure in which they operate, so is it the institutional incentives and knowledge problems of the public schools that lead to administrative bloat, skewed curricula, “teaching to the test,” and lack of engagement by some portion of teachers. It’s not that teachers are lazy people or scheming statists; rather they operate in an institutional environment that rewards certain kinds of behavior and punishes others.
Systemic Incentives
Unfortunately, the behavior that’s rewarded does not advance educational goals very well, and choices that do so get punished. One need only think of Jaime Escalante, the math teacher in the Los Angeles public schools immortalized in the movie Stand and Deliver, to see how the very structure of the public schools can frustrate a gifted teacher’s attempts to do the right thing for a group of students in desperate need of a good education. To hope that we could fix education by just having more teachers like him ignores the fact that the systemic incentives of the institution tend to push out innovators and rule-challengers and attract and reward those willing to play the game as it is currently structured. Fixing education requires changing that institutional structure by empowering parents with meaningful competing choices.
But notice that at the outset I referred to this sort of argument as a rhetorical trap. It’s not just that blaming teachers or politicians for the failings of the system is an incorrect argument; it’s also that doing so can often push people away from seeing the libertarian alternative. Everyone knows a public school teacher. When our argument relies on incompetence or malevolence, those we are trying to persuade are likely to respond with something like, “Well my aunt is a teacher, and I know she tries to do her best for her students.” Now the libertarian is in a difficult position: Do we really want to be calling people’s friends and relatives incompetent and malevolent, especially when we don’t need to in order to make our argument? This is a rhetorical trap because it’s a good way to lead others to close themselves off to our arguments.
Instead, we should continue to keep the focus on the structural problems and avoid personalizing the failures of government. Personalizing things is less risky rhetorically with politicians and lawyers, whom many folks already hold in low regard. But when we target with public school teachers or medical practitioners or, yes, college professors, we run a bigger risk of alienating those we are trying to persuade. The more we can maximize our focus on systemic problems that require structural change and minimize our demonization of particular groups of people, the more theoretically correct and rhetorically persuasive our arguments will be.
Comment by Curtis J on 14 October 2010:
Good article. I actually came across this article interestingly enough looking for a libertarian critique of that new Banksy Simpson’s intro.
Comment by Libertarian jerry on 14 October 2010:
Mr.Horwitz,your premise is spot on.The problems in America are systemic. What has happened in America,over time,is that all 10 planks to the Communist Manifesto have been structured into our society. Blaming individuals for a system that has been foisted on them will not change anything. The socialists,both left and right,as a drive for power have used Cultural Marxism and other mechanisms to change the basic roll and function of government in America.As long as the premise continues,among most voting Americans,that the proper roll and function of government is to solve social-economic problems than nothing will change. Concepts like individual liberty,self responsibility and self reliance will be,unfortunately,consigned to the dustbin of history.
Comment by Jameson Graber on 14 October 2010:
Really good points, although it begs the question, what exactly can be done to fix structural problems, if not a change in people who operate those structures?
Comment by Steven Hankin on 14 October 2010:
Dr. Horwitz, I applaud you for writing this article. Examining any economic or social problem by focusing primarily on the ethical or moral intentions and short comings of the actors plays into the mentality of both progressives and social/religious conservatives. Both groups want to view most things as a morality play. Implicit in that way of thinking is that the government ought to impose the moral beliefs of the progressive’s or the conservative’s on everyone. Both groups are statists. To them, the economic costs, benefits and unintended consequences from any proposed government program or action are of only minor importance compared to their desire to have their moral beliefs imposed on everyone by the government. My point is that when we focus on the work habits and the intentions of teachers, we, libertarians, are allowing the liberals and the social/religious conservatives to set the conversation with respect to public education from a statist point of view.
Comment by Guillermo Barba on 14 October 2010:
Focusing in the system is a good strategy to try to improve things. However it is evident that a substantial proportion of teachers do not have the commitment or the capabilities to do good work. Besides, many have the mental structure and values to promote government intervention in order to fix moral and social problems; and dismiss the creative power of entrepreneurship and personal responsibility.
In relation to: “Well my aunt is a teacher, and I know she tries to do her best for her students.”, a sensible reply is: And how many teachers do you think have attitudes as your aunt?
Comment by Jim Mahoney on 14 October 2010:
I agree with the premise of systemic problems in all government enterprise and the pitfalls of personalizing criticism. However, if we ignore the source of those systemic problems we wind up deluding ourselves into thinking that we can perfect the people if we just fix the system.
Therefore, I disagree author’s teacher-indoctrinator argument. It’s very possible for incompetent teachers to be effective indoctrinators if we recognize that what we see in both the system and the players reflects mankind running in default mode. There is far more to fix than just a system. By disregarding fundamental and obvious truths, libertarians fall into more than just rhetorical traps.
Comment by Gus S. Calabrese on 14 October 2010:
#1 Failing , Authoritarian , Force-based organizations are supported and staffed by individuals. Will you fail to blame the guards at Auschwitz ?
#2 Teachers can be lazy AND indoctrinate students to be government clones. I would expect nothing else since it is easier to follow conventional wisdom than to teach critical thinking.
#3 I don’t want to “clean house”. I don’t even oppose government. Just get rid of any organization that uses FORCE to impose their will.
Gus in Denver
Comment by John Powers on 14 October 2010:
Takes a really long time to fix structural problems, and the oppositions will litigate and talk you to death while another generation gets written off.
Why not expect individuals to use their own common sense and quit worry about the system…or make quit worrying so much the system in itself?
Comment by Joshua Farrell on 14 October 2010:
The Problem of not worrying about the system that governs you, means that those using that system will do anything they can to limit your actions, and the actions of others.
I agree that we need to have both the system changed back to where it was at first, and to get people to actually think about who is running the system, and either kick them out if they don’t do what you want, or put new leadership into play.
Comment by Frank on 15 October 2010:
Gus, you said…
“I don’t even oppose government. Just get rid of any organization that uses FORCE to impose their will.”
Do you see the contradiction? Government only exists through the use of force. That’s what government is. Force.
You, my friend, are an anarchist. Be proud.
Comment by Troy Camplin on 17 October 2010:
Here’s an article you might find of interest regarding education:
http://popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2423
It only coincidentally happens to be by me.
Comment by Pasquale on 17 October 2010:
Yuri Bezmenov on YouTube explains why the system is designed to cause society to fail.
Comment by michael a metz on 17 October 2010:
What I have seen during my lifetime, government mostly behaves against liberty. My lack of perfect clarity is: were those fighting against King George III anarchists? What was so important to those involved in the Declaration of Independence that some ratified the Articles of Confederation? Was not the Constitution one more step against liberty compared to the Articles of Confederation? From the history I am studying more and more the answers are yes, I do not know, and yes. I suppose the first question and answer depends on the definition of anarchist.
Comment by Skeptic on 25 October 2010:
“Really good points, although it begs the question, what exactly can be done to fix structural problems, if not a change in people who operate those structures?”
I think the point was changing the people doesn’t change the structures.
Pingback by Don’t blame individuals for systemic problems. on 24 November 2010:
[...] my friend and fellow Rush fan™ Steve Horwitz, on The Freeman Online: A rhetorical trap that many people, including libertarians, fall into is blaming individuals for [...]