During our Soho Forum debate, Mark Krikorian claimed that the Democratic Party and the “corporate” wing of the Republican Party were the “Mensheviks to my Bolsheviks.” While I forthrightly advocate immediate open borders, both Democrats and Republicans are furtively and gradually working for the same goal. Though near-zero mainstream politicians ever say “I favor open borders,” that’s what they ultimately want. When I characterized this as a “conspiracy theory,” Mark denied the existence of any conspiracy. It’s just a “hive” all working for the same aim without central direction.
Since I try to sell open borders to anyone who will listen, I’ve got to say that Mark’s claim is totally crazy. When I talk to Democrats or immigration-friendly Republicans, they virtually never favor anything close to open borders – even in the longest of long-runs. When our conversation is absolutely private and off-the-record, the vast majority of Democrats and immigration-friendly Republicans continue to repeat a bunch of Center for Immigration Studies talking points: unemployment, low-skilled wages, terrorism, cultural harm, crime, etc. Many seem angrier about the evils of immigration than Mark himself! Given human nature, you would expect people to avoid conflict by privately feigning agreement with me. Even so, only a tiny handful of people with mainstream political views express sympathy for my position when we’re alone. I’ve barely even heard a conciliatory, “In an ideal world, I’d agree with you.”
Mark lives and breathes the American immigration debate. What would lead him to have such bizarre beliefs about what his fellow American think about immigration? Here are the top possibilities.
1. He’s lying or trolling to get attention. I can’t read minds, but I really doubt it. I’ve now talked to Mark about ten times. He seems at least as sincere as my dad, who is definitely on Mark’s side of this debate.
2. He thinks his opponents are much more logical than they really are. Many Democrats sympathize with welcoming immigrants in every specific story. Some “corporate” Republicans sympathize with allowing immigrants to work in every specific situation. If these Democrats and Republicans were logically consistent, they would therefore favor open borders. If Mark were prone to overestimate people’s commitment to logic, he could mistakenly identify them my “Mensheviks.” The problem with this story: This is an extremely naive error, and Mark has repeatedly displayed a properly jaundiced view of human beings’ intellectual standards.
3. He’s an extreme believer in the slippery slope. Since Mark knows about Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, he might be familiar with another arcane Marxist distinction. Marxists often distinguish between people’s “subjective” goals and their “objective” goals. Their subjective goals are what they are consciously trying to do; their objective goals are what they are ultimately working to accomplish. During the heyday of Stalinism, for example, sophisticated Stalinists might say, “Subjectively, Trotsky is a Marxist, but objectively he is an agent of Hitler.” Mark, similarly, might think that the slippery slope of politics is so steep that anyone who subjectively wants “more immigration” is objectively paving the way for open borders. Isn’t this a naive error for Mark to make? No, I’d say it’s actually an error with great appeal to sophisticated intellectuals.
4. He’s yielding to hyperbole. Politics is full of over-the-top, hyperbolic claims. Sometimes people are self-aware of their own hyperbole. But hyperbole feels so good that even smart people often start taking their own hyperbole literally. Indeed, controlling political hyperbole requires puritanical effort – and Mark doesn’t strike me as a puritan.
5. All the music he dislikes sounds the same to him. If you like reggae, you readily identify many different qualities and genres of reggae. If you don’t like reggae, it all sounds about equally terrible. Similarly, if you favor immigration liberalization, you readily identify many different degrees and perspectives on liberalization. If you don’t like liberalization, however, it all sounds about equally terrible. Maybe that’s going on here. Again, while this sounds naive, this error is so tempting that you’re likely to lapse into it unless you puritanically strive not to.
6. He thinks there’s a massive gap between party elites and their rank-and-file members. The most charitable story is that Mark thinks that only Democratic and corporate Republican elites are secret believers in open borders. Rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans agree with Mark; they’ve just been deceived by their globalist leaders. There’s a kernel of truth in this story – elites are less opposed to immigration. Still, it’s crazy. Almost all of the Democrats and Republicans I’ve talked to about immigration are at least moderately elite. And I repeat: Almost all of them strongly disagree with me, even in the longest of long-runs, and even when our conversations are totally private.
Closing question: Does it really matter why one person has one crazy belief? It does to me. Understanding why smart, sincere people persistently disagree is one of the great puzzles of the universe, and I yearn to get a better handle on it.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
May 19 2020 at 9:57am
I’m very conflicted about this topic. On the one hand, I think that diversity of beliefs is much more extreme than most people are willing to recognise or even contemplate. Like, among your close friends and family, you would find really fundamental beliefs about life that are totally inimical to your own, and have radically different implications. In a world like that, it seems kinda reasonable to impute bizarre beliefs to whole groups.
On the other hand, I believe Caplan’s story that in fact, very few people share his view on open borders, and so Krikorian is a bit crazy.
I don’t really know how to reconcile these two thoughts.
KevinDC
May 22 2020 at 3:14pm
I’m pleased to be able to say that isn’t even remotely reflective of my own experience. And not because I shy away from controversial conversations with people on any particular topics. And this isn’t just a result of me having those conversations with a carefully curated selection of friends. This is true of friends, family, causal acquaintances, and people I don’t particularly like but still strive to be nice to. I don’t think I’ve found any real fundamental differences – although there is much disagreement about the implications of those fundamentals. But fundamental differences as such? To me, those have been as common as lips on a chicken. (You’re welcome for the mental image.)
As is often the case, I’m reminded of a post by Scott Alexander. You very much remind me of the character of “Sophisticus” in that dialogue. And I think that Scott in general is right that “most people err on the side of being too quick to dismiss others as fundamentally different, and that a little charity in assessing their motives can go a long way.”
Floccina
May 19 2020 at 10:51am
These 2 sentiments resonate with me:
Understanding why smart, sincere people persistently disagree is one of the great puzzles of the universe, and I yearn to get a better handle on it.
Politics is full of over-the-top, hyperbolic claims. Sometimes people are self-aware of their own hyperbole. But hyperbole feels so good that even smart people often start taking their own hyperbole literally.
James
May 19 2020 at 11:49am
Your music analogy is the right answer here.
You and Mark have differing definitions of open borders. Your definition of open borders means anyone who wants to enter the US may do so as long as they are peaceful. That is indeed a minority view.
But there are many top income people who would agree with a statement like “Anyone who wants to come to the US to live and work should have the opportunity to do so as long as they fill out the application, meet some list of requirements, wait their turn, and enter through a specified entry point.” That may seem so open to Mark that he regards it as equivalent to open borders.
Mark Z
May 19 2020 at 1:53pm
That’s a good point. Maybe Bryan would consider that position to be 40% of the way to open borders, but to Krikorian it looks like it’s 80% of the way there, there’s sort of a metaphorical parallax.
Wouter Stekelenburg
May 19 2020 at 12:38pm
In a democracy, it makes sense for activists to exaggerate how far from mainstream their rivals are. Generally, ‘they’ will be made out to be more pro-market, pro-foreign, radical, and job-killing than they really are. Therefore the Republican party is painted as a party of market fundamentalism and nazism and the Democratic party as a party of open borders and communism, for example. Hyperbole covers this, but because it is goal-directed hyperbole, Mark can easily find many who go along with his hyperbole, which makes his claims seem less hyperbolic to him.
Mark Z
May 19 2020 at 1:47pm
In general, I think there may be something to the slippery slope or ‘objective/subjective’ goal theory (which I see as fairly similar). Public policy seems to vary pretty widely over the span of a few decades, and yet there doesn’t seem to be much defection between sides. It seems very few people who were Tories at the beginning of Margaret Thatcher’s tenure had, by the end of it, decided ‘ok, that’s far enough, I’m satisfied’ and ceased to be Tories at the margin or switched to Labor because they believed she had ‘overshot the mark.’ Many people who supported the ACA 10 years ago and explicitly opposed nationalizing healthcare now favor the latter (I expect in a few years it will be a majority as this seems to be the emerging consensus on the left).
So, when political reality changes, most people seem to change their positions at the margin along with it. Why this may be is anyone’s guess. I’m inclined to think people’s views are amorphous and more determined by mood affiliation than by conscious reasoning, but maybe extreme positions are the only internally consistent positions and people are ultimately swayed by the internal logic of them even if they are consciously more moderate, just because of status quo bias. In any case, I think it’s difficult to tell what a person’s ‘ultimate beliefs’ are from their ‘marginal beliefs.’ But I think you’re right on this issue, I don’t think many people would even subconsciously let things go all the way to open borders before tempering their views.
Phil H
May 20 2020 at 4:58am
“most people seem to change their positions…amorphous…more determined by mood affiliation”
I agree with this, but I think I take a more postive view on it. There are lots and lots of issues on which I’m certain I don’t know the right answer (healthcare, education, crime… really anything), but I have a vague sense of which direction we ought to be moving in. If that’s right, then I think it’s OK to vote for/support that “direction” rather than for some specific position. Badly supported certainty can be as bad as complete ignorance.
John Alcorn
May 19 2020 at 6:17pm
Does talk of crazy talk test the limits of Dale Carnegie’s advice?
Anonymous
May 26 2020 at 1:32am
I was just thinking the same thing. (2)+(3) deserves more consideration, particularly if instead of hypothesizing an overestimate of logical consistency and a slippery slope, they instead considered the consistent direction of change highlighted in the text. I agree with Bryan that the centrist Democratic elite does not favor open borders, but increasingly the left wing of the party supports policies that lead to open borders in all but name (and legal status). Given a specific choice, many leftist Democrats will in “every specific story” as Bryan says move in the direction of open borders and in the direction of more welfare programs for everyone in the US, regardless of legal status. Taking the denial literally fails to take the decisions made when faced with a choice seriously. Of course you can’t get there from here by walking in both directions, but that’s precisely the point of using the label. Bryan may think that true Open Border advocates know that the path to open borders actually denies immigrants welfare benefits while granting legal status, but this is a bit like socialists saying who is and is not a true socialist.
The polite thing to do of course is to use the labels people use for themselves and even progressive Democrats by and large do not self-identify as open borders. So perhaps their opponents would be better served by earnestly asking them what interests them in letting anyone who is here live in the country illegally (or giving everyone in the US citizenship), but does not interest them in open borders. From everything I hear though the line is ironically still drawn at the border.
Comments are closed.