On who's protectionist, who's racist, and who's just plain dumb

Not long ago in American history accidents of birth were considered legitimate grounds for employment discrimination. Political platforms contained phrases like: "Federal contracts, whenever possible, should be performed by white workers." Politicians demanded tax incentives to reward firms for hiring whites instead of blacks or showing other kinds of favoritism. Those same politicians endorsed "Right to Know" legislation to alert consumers when products were produced by the "wrong" kind of workers. They embraced slogans like "Buy white!"

When I say this kind of thing was commonplace "not long ago," I really mean not long ago. Except for one minor and morally insignificant difference, I got all of the above from John Kerry's Web site. The only change I made is this: Where Kerry said "American," I substituted "white."

(...)

I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. Of course we care most about the people closest to us-our families more than our friends and our friends more than our acquaintances. But once you start talking about total strangers, they all ought to be on pretty much the same footing.

This is economist Steven Landsburg's argument from his great book More Sex Is Safer Sex. I happen to agree with it; but, agree with it or not, I don't think it's all that hard to understand. Apparently it is, however, if you're John Gibson of the Fox News Network. Here, via Landsburg's blog, is a clip showing an interview that Gibson had with him about this very argument. It is an absolutely breathtaking display of stupidity on part of the interviewer. Now I know it isn't exactly news to say John Gibson is an idiot, but just listen:

First, Gibson says something to the effect that the Detroit workers whose jobs he cares about aren't all white, they're also black and Hispanic--and thinks this is a counterargument to what Landsburg is saying. In other words, Gibson reveals on national television that he doesn't understand the concept of an analogy: he simply cannot comprehend that statements "Protectionism is racism" and "Protectionism is just like racism" actually mean different things. (He also suggests that the difference between those statements is insignificant. This again clearly indicates that he doesn't understand it; if he did, he couldn't possibly think it was insignificant. Suppose Gibson were presented with the following two statements: "John Gibson slept with John Gibson's wife" and "A man just like John Gibson slept with John Gibson's wife." Would he think those were different? Would he think the difference was an important one?)

Then, when Landsburg asks him to clarify the moral difference between discriminating based on race versus discriminating based on nationality, Gibson is unable to answer, and says he's not answering because the question "doesn't deserve an answer."

Rewind and listen to this phrase again. It doesn't deserve an answer. Gibson seems to honestly believe that "because I say so" is a legitimate argument in a discussion.

Now you may say that Landsburg holds his belief that it's equally ugly to discriminate based on nationality as it is based on race as "self-evident," so he's really no better than Gibson here: he doesn't have a supporting argument, either. But you'd be wrong; the difference is that Gibson is making an existential statement. Gibson is of course entitled to think it's self-evident that nationality and race are morally different categories; but if that's the case, he is still required to be able to explain exactly what he thinks that difference is. Not only is he unable to do so; he seems to be unaware that it's even necessary.

I am going to make an analogy now, so if you happen to be John Gibson, you should probably stop reading now. Suppose I tell you that I hold it as self-evident that there is no such thing as elephants. If you think otherwise, you won't be proving me wrong by saying "Well, I think it's self-evident that there is." You'd be proving me wrong by taking me to the Bronx Zoo and showing me an elephant.

To sum it up, I am fairly sure that I've talked to six year olds who could argue better than this guy.

If you wish to depress yourself further, read Landsburg's post in its entirety, especially emails that he got from some Fox viewers after that interview. What's especially amusing to me about those is how often Landsburg is called a liberal (meant as an insult). Anyone who knows his political writing knows that Landsburg is actually very far from being a liberal. To people writing those emails the thought that someone may oppose trade protectionism and not be a liberal seems an impossibility. Why? Because, since protectionism is a conservative value and liberals oppose conservatives, then if you're against protectionism you must be a liberal... or something. I don't know; you tell me.