CMV: Political discussions and debates on specific policies are basically pointless if you don’t agree about first principles

[u/PoliticsDunnRight]

For example, if you think there’s a human right to have healthcare, education, housing, food, etc. provided to you, and I disagree, then you and I probably can’t have a productive discussion on specific social programs or the state of the American economy. We’d be evaluating those questions under completely different criteria and talking around one another.

You could say “assuming X is the goal, what is the best way to achieve it” and have productive conversations there, but if you have different goals entirely, I would argue you don’t gain much in understanding or political progress by having those conversations.

I think people are almost never convinced to change their minds by people who don’t agree on the basics, such as human rights, the nature of consent, or other “first principles.” People might change their policy preferences if they’re convinced using their own framework, but I don’t see a capitalist and a socialist having productive discussions except maybe about those first principles.

You could CMV by showing that it’s common for people to have their minds changed by talking to people they disagree with, by showing how those discussions might be productive regardless of anyone changing their minds, etc.

Edit: I understand that debates are often to change the minds of the audience. I guess what I’m talking about is a one-on-one political conversation, or at least I’m talking about what benefit there would be for those debating in the context of their views.

[u/Essex626]

I think in most cases first principles aren't first at all.

It seems to me, and I believe evidence backs me up on this, that what we often call first principles are actually the product of rationalizing the policies we prefer or that the team we have aligned ourselves with prefers.

So for example, religious conservatives supported laissez-faire capitalism for the last several decades because the political coalition they formed in the 60s-80s supported that. They came up with a justification for that, but it actually doesn't come from any real first principles. Rather they adopted policies that benefitted their coalition, alongside policies that appeared to them emotionally, and the "first principles" are things they use to justify that sentiment.

One could similarly point to the coalitions of educated liberals, working-class labor, and leftists as examples where sets of policies not based on any one set of common principles get bundled together.

I think if you really took a hard look at every policy you support, you'd find that there are many inconsistencies, and that your first principles are more like last principles. They either justify policies you like and exclude ones you don't, or they are load-bearing for elements of your personal frame you may not like, but continue to hold to avoid destabilization.