open thread for paper-related matters

Something about the paper unclear to you?  Have an idea you want to try out on others?  Want to share something interesting you've learned?  Frustrated and want to vent?  Whatever it is, if it's paper-related, here's your opportunity...

Belated question about Haidt

Haidt is worried about the level of acrimony in political debate. He voices his concerns throughout the book and uses a plea as the title of his final chapter: "Can't we all disagree more constructively?"

But he doesn't really put forward a positive case for why he's so anxious. He presents little data or evidence on why the current state of politics is such a cause for worry. Where is his evidence for why vigorous disagreement is so harmful?

Two thoughts:

• The most I saw of an attempt of real analysis was in the last chapter, starting here: "... Many Americans feel that they're on a ship that's sinking, and the crew is too busy fighting with each other to bother plugging the leaks." And then he immediately presents the case of the difficulties of extending the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011.
• But the debt ceiling debate was crisis entirely self-made by the politicians. That ceiling is not a natural economic constraint, but a political one constructed by Congress. What's sinking Haidt's ship isn't say an iceberg, but the crew itself. If this is Haidt's best example, should we naturally defer more power to the hands of a group of people who have stirred up this trouble?
• If we indict the politicians in this case then we may ask how well they perform on average. If in general one views the acts of Congress as more mischievous than productive, then we can celebrate the lack of bipartisanship because we'll have fewer new statutes. We can ask whether a new law is on net worse for society than its absence; if it is worse, then Haidt's plea for less partisanship should be less welcome.
• Haidt might also contend with the rich history of partisanship and dissent doing good in America. Ill motivations may, in an invisible hand sort of way, make society better off. Our intuitions (the elephant) may lead us to seek out the worst ideas of the other side; on net there may be better discovery of truth if people are reflexively trying to prove the other side wrong. Consider that some of the best pieces of journalism have been motivated by a deep, fundamental disdain for power; the absence of that attitude may let more abuses to be covered up, and thus less pressure for change.

So what exactly is Haidt's case that partisanship is so bad?