Was watching Fox News Channel last night. (I never paid much attention to Fox until just this year. Thank the presidential election of 2008. I will never trust the mainstream media again.) Turns out three actors from “The Left Wing” television series – including Martin Sheen who played the president – came to Washington DC to support the grossly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.
Fair enough.
But this is what caught my attention. A bunch of liberal actors wants to support a bill that allows a place of work to be represented by a union if a majority of people sign a card supporting that – publicly. So if you do not sign that card it will be known. And theoretically you can be pressured to sign. And/or face consequences for having failed to sign after the fact.
Again – fair enough. I think the bill is dreadful. The highest court in Mexico ruled that workers in that nation have the right to a secret ballot – a right that Congress is trying to take away from American workers. Of course how people vote for anything should be secret. And although unions are not always a bad thing it is true that generally increased unionization threatens the health of the economy. (Just visit New York State if you do not believe me.) But that is not the point here.
The point here is that Sheen complained that “people against this are not members of unions and have never been members of unions”.
That seemingly innocuous statement is one of the most pernicious fallacies to poison public discourse. I call it rhetorical (or moral or ethical or political) solipsism.
It goes something like this. “You are not allowed to have an opinion about issue x unless you are a member of a group that is most directly connected to issue x”.
You cannot have an opinion about same-sex marriage unless. You cannot have an opinion about abortion unless. You cannot have an opinion about affirmative action unless. About human embryonic stem cell research unless. And so on.
It is a despicable line of anti-reasoning. Its purpose is not to engage the issue or to argue the issue on its merits. In fact it asserts unilaterally that you are not allowed to engage or argue the issue on its own merits. Well – and this is the dirty little hypocrisy lurking in political solipsism – that is if you take the “wrong” position on said issue.
What Sheen and those who follow his line of anti-reasoning wish to do is neutralize and dismiss all principled opposition to this bill.
Citizen: “This bill is unfair and unjust. And this is why. Reasons x y and z”.
Sheen: “Sorry – irrelevant. You are not a member of a union. You never have been. What you have to say no longer matters”.
Sheen does not address or engage the specific objections to the “Employee Free Choice” Act. Rather he impugns the authority of citizens and politicians to oppose it.
And how exactly – think about this – does being a member of the directly connected group give you more insight or authority regarding issue x? Because you have a natural inclination to benefit from issue x? Well of course. I understand that. “I am a member of a union. I like unions. I think it would be great if forming unions was ten times easier that it is now – because if I know who is not signing that card I can put pressure on that person”. “I am a gay man. I would love to have the social approval and legal benefits that come with same-sex marriage”. “I am a white man. I think it would be great if 50% of spaces at the local magnet school went to white people”. Granted this is a form of selfishness – we want to change public policy in a way that benefits us - but that is understandable.
What is not to understandable is denying others the freedom to raise principled objections. Because they are not us.
About that dirty little hypocrisy.
See – here is the thing. Political solipsism seems to work in only one direction. Toward political statism and social liberalism.
So if I am a member of a union and object to the “Employee Free Choice” Act – will Martin Sheen suddenly listen to me? Will he suddenly say “oh gosh yes of course I take your opposition seriously”?
We are told only women can have opinions about abortion. Okay. Solipsism. But what happens when women object to elective abortion? Are their opinions taken seriously?
Only gay and lesbian persons can have opinions about same-sex marriage. Okay. Solipsism again. So if you have a gay man say “same-sex marriage is a dreadful idea” what happens to that person?
What happens to black conservatives. They are reviled and dismissed as “Uncle Toms”. Their views are dismissed because they are infected with “self-loathing”.
As if there is something wrong with taking the position that just because some change in public policy might benefit me does not make it wise or just.
And if I say “look I am small business owner and I oppose Obamaism strenuously because of how his policies will hurt me my business and my children” – solipsism! - does that mean my views should prevail automatically? Just asking.
We should point out recognize and confront aggressively the depicable practice of rhetorical solipism.
Martin Sheen and others – either engage the issue on its own merits or please do us the courtesy of shutting up.
