But, less critically, I think your point about intra-group discipline extend to points about trust. For example, public health proclamarions during COVID were made with the appearance of certainty, but then changed, which make the establishment look untrustworthy. Better for trust, in my opinion, to be upfront about the possibility or chance of error than portray yourself as certain and then be wrong.
Sorry to be a critic, Daniel, because I love your pieces, but what I don’t get here is why you think deBoer is an illustration of your point. I take him to be criticizing Barro because Barro is pointing to labor unions as the culprit in keeping prices elevated (a) at a time when labor unions are in massive danger and their membership has been decreasing drastically and (b) without any background support for them in his general outlook, even when they play a massively important role in improving worker wages and conditions. I don’t see anything in what deBoer says that indicates the kind of infallibility or immunity to critique that you are discussing here—a point with which I completely agree. I am certain that if you asked deBoer he would have a long list of criticisms of unions!
Wait, I didn’t say people should give ME negative feedback!
But yes, on reflection, I didn’t do enough to defend my interpretation of de Boer. The way I read him, he was dismissing Barro’s criticisms on the grounds that unions are doing important work. But this is like what Lyons was saying about law enforcement!
As evidence for de Boer being dismissive, rather than substantively arguing that unions *aren’t* behind the problems that Barro’s pointing to, I’d point to two things:
1) de Boer doesn’t grant that people might have legitimate complaints against unions in the event of a conflict of interest
2) his main argument against Barro is merely that Barro doesn’t “like” that unions fight domination
Put those together, and you have a get-out-of-criticism free card. To me, it does sound a lot like Lyons:
1) he doesn’t grant that people might have legitimate complaints against law enforcement
2) his main argument is that law enforcement are doing important work and that the critics are stopping it and upsetting/endangering them
Which also amounts to a “I don’t have to listen to this” attitude towards critics of his agency. No need to take specific complaints seriously since law enforcement is playing a massively important role (to borrow a phrase from your comment).
I see your point, and we can certainly both agree that the Lyons plea is silly. But I think you have to dig pretty deep to interpret deBoer as doing anything analogous. Note that he doesn’t even say that Barro’s criticism is misplaced! What he does do is criticize Barro for not supporting unions in his overall worldview. He is criticizing him for criticizing unions without paying attention or noting the “massively important role” they play.
This points to a way that someone might turn your argument around on you. You are concerned to make sure that no one portrays their side as infallible or immune to criticism. Great. But you also shouldn’t portray another side as wholly bad! So when you criticize, you should also acknowledge the ways in which your criticism might be incomplete or outweighed by the important functions performed by the object of criticism. Just as your own views are not infallible and your own camp is imperfect, the other camp is never wholly evil and should not be portrayed as such. Barro fails this reverse condition.
During the "phony war" in 1940, a British soldier was told "don't shoot at the enemy, they might shoot back!"
That’s like the concentrated version of the Axelrod story. I love it
But, less critically, I think your point about intra-group discipline extend to points about trust. For example, public health proclamarions during COVID were made with the appearance of certainty, but then changed, which make the establishment look untrustworthy. Better for trust, in my opinion, to be upfront about the possibility or chance of error than portray yourself as certain and then be wrong.
Sorry to be a critic, Daniel, because I love your pieces, but what I don’t get here is why you think deBoer is an illustration of your point. I take him to be criticizing Barro because Barro is pointing to labor unions as the culprit in keeping prices elevated (a) at a time when labor unions are in massive danger and their membership has been decreasing drastically and (b) without any background support for them in his general outlook, even when they play a massively important role in improving worker wages and conditions. I don’t see anything in what deBoer says that indicates the kind of infallibility or immunity to critique that you are discussing here—a point with which I completely agree. I am certain that if you asked deBoer he would have a long list of criticisms of unions!
Wait, I didn’t say people should give ME negative feedback!
But yes, on reflection, I didn’t do enough to defend my interpretation of de Boer. The way I read him, he was dismissing Barro’s criticisms on the grounds that unions are doing important work. But this is like what Lyons was saying about law enforcement!
As evidence for de Boer being dismissive, rather than substantively arguing that unions *aren’t* behind the problems that Barro’s pointing to, I’d point to two things:
1) de Boer doesn’t grant that people might have legitimate complaints against unions in the event of a conflict of interest
2) his main argument against Barro is merely that Barro doesn’t “like” that unions fight domination
Put those together, and you have a get-out-of-criticism free card. To me, it does sound a lot like Lyons:
1) he doesn’t grant that people might have legitimate complaints against law enforcement
2) his main argument is that law enforcement are doing important work and that the critics are stopping it and upsetting/endangering them
Which also amounts to a “I don’t have to listen to this” attitude towards critics of his agency. No need to take specific complaints seriously since law enforcement is playing a massively important role (to borrow a phrase from your comment).
Full disclosure: it could also just be that I’m a Freddie deBoer stan 🤷♂️
He adds a ton of value imo. Great writer, honest, and principled. I don’t always agree with him but I’m glad I started following him.
I see your point, and we can certainly both agree that the Lyons plea is silly. But I think you have to dig pretty deep to interpret deBoer as doing anything analogous. Note that he doesn’t even say that Barro’s criticism is misplaced! What he does do is criticize Barro for not supporting unions in his overall worldview. He is criticizing him for criticizing unions without paying attention or noting the “massively important role” they play.
This points to a way that someone might turn your argument around on you. You are concerned to make sure that no one portrays their side as infallible or immune to criticism. Great. But you also shouldn’t portray another side as wholly bad! So when you criticize, you should also acknowledge the ways in which your criticism might be incomplete or outweighed by the important functions performed by the object of criticism. Just as your own views are not infallible and your own camp is imperfect, the other camp is never wholly evil and should not be portrayed as such. Barro fails this reverse condition.