Light Reading

I just read Steven Pinker's recent bestseller Enlightenment Now.  In it, he argues that the principles that came out of the Enlightenment--such as reason and science--have worked in the past and should continue to work in the future if we choose to use them.  As such, this is a continuation, or really an enlargement, of his previous book The Better Angels Of Our Nature, which deals with how violence has been declining for a long time.

In his latest, he looks at numerous trends in addition to violence.  By almost every standard that can be measured, people, worldwide, are considerably better off than they were two centuries ago.  He uses numerous graphs to show the trends and many pages to explain how and why it happened with Enlightenment values.  He also gives us good reason to believe the best bet is such trends will continue.

You would think his argument is unimpeachable, but, in fact, both the left and the right are very opposed to this view of progress.  Conservatives, almost by their very nature, claim the past was better, while progressives, as Pinker notes, hate progress (especially when it's achieved through democracy, free markets and science).

Overall, a fine book, laying out calmly--and voluminously--the basic liberal argument for progress (even if many who call themselves liberals today don't support it). There is a major weakness, however.  Though I'll discuss it at some length, it doesn't really take away from the overall excellence of the book.

The problem is when Pinker gets too much into contemporary politics, which one would think are not quite settled as to where they fit into the overall arc of history.  Pinker, though he often stands against the modern, liberal academic worldview, is nevertheless a modern, liberal academic and sees today's world through that lens.

For instance, he understands that socialism doesn't work, while free markets and private property do; that capitalism and technological advances created enormous wealth which societies could put to use to ameliorate various social problems--crime, health, etc.  But once Pinker is satisfied that a modern society offers a ground floor of capitalism, it would seem almost any amount of social spending will do, the more the better.  The higher the taxes, the more progressive the tax rates, the better Pinker likes it. One might think at a certain level, and in certain places, limiting taxes and pulling back on government programs could be helpful, but it's hard to conclude this from Pinker.  In other words, Pinker seems to have lost his historical perspective and gotten mired in modern politics.

For example, does Obamacare improve health care in America?  There are arguments pro and con, but Pinker seems to assume the overall effect is positive.  Or what's the best way to deal with race--treat people differently based on the color of their skin, or treat everyone the same?  Once again, Pinker, like a modern liberal, seems to prefer the former, without spending any time proving that's the better path.

Or look at Brexit.  Pinker almost always has positive feelings about international agreements, but does that mean the EU has to be a good thing for all nations?  I have no idea what's best for the UK, or for Europe, but just because Brexit is a symbol of reactionary nationalism to Pinker, must it be a bad thing?  Isn't it at least possible a particular authority that sets regulations for Europe might not be the best arrangement, and a nation that wants to get out from under, for whatever reasons, is moving in a positive direction? (Pinker wants us to be responsive to new evidence--so let's have different experiments among countries to see what works better.)

The worst thing in Enlightenment Now is Pinker's treatment of Trump, who was elected while he was writing the book.  I understand Pinker's problem--these days, any academic who doesn't wholeheartedly condemn Trump is asking for trouble.  In fact, Pinker notes his friends would have liked him to end each chapter with "of course, all this progress could suddenly end due to Trump." So Pinker probably thinks he's letting Trump off easy.

However, instead of taking an historical perspective, which one would hope all his research would lead him to do, Pinker comes across as a crazed Trump hater.  Trump seems to represent an historical break for him, moving us in the wrong direction in almost every way.  His argument, then, is not that we should try to understand what Trump actually means.  Rather, it's don't worry--Trump might cause trouble, but it'll be temporary and minor, and besides, he's not that popular anyway.

Pinker is too busy throwing invective to attempt to fathom Trump. (As is often said about Trump critics, Pinker takes him literally but not seriously.) While it's true, no matter what he does, Trump (like most leaders) is probably a blip, it's hard to say what effect he'll have regarding Enlightenment values.

In fact, it's easy to argue that, when it comes to actual policies, Obama was far more radical than Trump is. (I'm talking about policies, not style.) And you could also say that George W. Bush was more radical, or Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would have been more radical.

It can be argued--with actual facts, not partisan rants--that Obama (or the others mentioned above, or the Democratic party in general) is worse than Trump in a number of ways--health care, education, free speech, race relations, international relations, even climate change, free trade and how much he likes Putin.

In any case, at this point, these are judgment calls. No one can know yet, since not all the data are in, and we certainly don't have any historical perspective.  But that doesn't stop Pinker.  I don't expect, or even want, Pinker to say Trump is great, just to admit there are pro and con arguments, and no one can be sure how things will turn out.

Pinker spends a lot of pages in his book discussing various cognitive biases which color our thinking. Maybe he should have thought more about such factors and given his book one last rewrite.