Has the Left Abandoned Reason?

Date: August 24, 2024

Author: Tim Platnich

I am not a fan of the 'left' and 'right' dichotomy. These days, the media typically express the dichotomy as 'far right' and 'left'; or more rhetorically, 'far right' and 'progressive'. One rarely hears the term 'far left'.

My theory is that there is no dichotomy: rather, there is a spectrum from far left to far right. The spectrum is like the light spectrum from ultra-violet to infra-red. However, unlike a normal spectrum, I suggest that the political/philosophical spectrum forms a circle where the far right and the far left come together under the heading 'authoritarianism'.

The use of reason is both a value and a process. First, let's deal with it as a value. Do left-leaning people value reason or reasoning? Based on their express statements, certainly some do not. It has been expressed that 'reason' and 'reasoning' are white supremacist tools of oppression. For example, in the context of math, there are those who maintain that the notion of a correct answer is a tool of oppression. I am not making this up. For example, see here; here; here; and here

What about reasoning as a process? Reasoning is a process that leads to a conclusion. By comparison, rationalizing is the explanation of a conclusion already drawn or an action already taken. Reasoning is forward looking; rationalization is backward looking. I submit that rationalizing is not a form of reasoning at all. This is not to say that reasoning cannot consider the past as part of a forward looking process. The past is like a data-set. In reasoning, this data-set may be used to devise theories for how things work and predicting how things will work in the future.

Reasoning has many purposes. It is used for problem solving. This is a classic component of mathematics. It is used in decision making. This is the core of decision theory. It is used in science for theory building and testing. Many argue, including me, that it should be used in policy making.

Policy making is a hybrid of problem solving, decision making and theory testing.

Policies are made to solve a problem. The problem first must be identified using reason. The problem cannot be mischaracterized so as to create a pre-determined solution. This is a form of rationalizing.

Next, all potential solutions to the problem need to be reasonably identified. In other words, all viable options must be considered. These options must be analyzed. What are the costs; what are the chances of success; what are the potential downsides including unintended consequencces; what trade-offs are required. In accessing options, what data is available? Have these options been used in the past by others and how did they fare?

Next, a decison is made and a policy is implemented. Now comes the 'theory testing' part. Is the policy performing as predicted? There needs to be metrics associated with the policy in order to gauge success or failure.

The above process is a product of reasoning.

Is this how left-leaning politicians and judges operate?

An alternative process to reasoning is where untested values drive policy with little or no regard to costs, chances of success, downsides or unintended consquences. When the policies fail, there is no acknowledgment of failure and the failures are rationalized, typically by an appeal to compassion or some similar emotional lever.

A good example of an 'unreasoned' policy and its failure is the legalization and safe supply of narcotics by governments. I will focus on the Canadian experiment.

The safe supply policy identified the problem as the death of drug addicts through the use of tainted street drugs - for example, see here. Note that the problem was not identified as drug addiction. If we had no drug addicts, we would have no deaths from tainted street drugs. Nor was the problem framed as overdosing on drugs that were not tainted. The problem was framed in a way to dictate the solution. Problem: tainted supply; Solution: safe supply. Easy peasy.

The policy just gave up on or ignored drug addiction. The continuance of drug addiction was just assumed. The policy ignored the human and societal costs associated with drug addiction. Better to have thousands of continuing addicts then to have one dead addict from a tainted narcotic. As such, the policy ignored a policy alternative - treatment for drug use and addiction.

Why was the problem identified as toxic drugs and the solution labeled as safe supply? In media reports it is suggested that the problem and remedy were framed this way, at least in part, to avoid the stigmatization related to people being called addicts. It was argued that the stigmatization associated with being labeled or seen as a drug addict would keep drug use 'in the dark' causing higher risks of drug overdoses; or that the fear of stigmatization would prevent addicts from seeking treatment or help. This concern about stigmatization is also the basis for allowing safe supply drug use anytime, anywhere - see here. I am shooting up on the sidewalk outside of an elementary school. Nothing to see here. Don't stigmatize me!

What values or beliefs are in operation here? It seems one belief is that a life of drug addiction, with the lifestyle that goes with it, often including homelessness, is better than death by a tainted drug overdose. Another interesting belief, often held by the same people, is that death by MAID is better than a life of suffering from pain or disability. So, in the one case, death must be avoided at whatever societal cost, while in the other case, society should promote and, through medicare, pay for death by drug overdose. Hmmmm.... . I guess the distinguishing feature is that MAID is voluntary and death by street overdose is not. Or perhaps that painful suffering is involuntary but addiction is not involuntary. Huh? Aren't addicts involuntary victims of genetics and social injustice?

Another belief is that being stigmatized as a drug addict is a very bad thing in itself. Imagine the effect on self-esteem! Interesting that in the treatment of alcohol addiction, the first step is to acknowledge the addiction, often publicly. What about the stigmatization? Sometimes a spade just needs to be called a spade.

The treatment and recovery approach, like that used by AA, has decades of data regarding its effectiveness. Was this approach, adjusted for context, seriously considered for drug addiction? Alcohol is available through safe government supply but this hasn't stopped deaths from alcohol abuse. Oh boy, don't go there.

The option of safe supply was chosen despite decades of evidence gained in Portugal using an alternate system. That system largely de-criminalized illicit drug use but, using a carrot and stick approach, encouraged treatment and re-habilitation. The program was lauded as a success story until recently. Recent data suggests that, for a variety of reasons the program has been less effective. One reason cited is a reduction of government funded treatment. The Portuguese experience, steeped with 20 years of data, was ignored in favour of an experimental approach using both addicts and the general population as guinea pigs.

Safe supply involves free prescription hand-outs of drugs including the narcotic hydromorphone. Being a narcotic, also known as an opioid, this drug and other opioids are addictive. Under safe supply, narcotic addicts can, theoretically, remain addicts forever being supplied with free drugs for life.

What could possible go wrong with prescribing government paid-for addictive opioids to drug addicts, no strings attached, combined with a policy of allowing the use of these drugs anytime, anywhere?

Let's see. Maybe there is some data on that. Oh, yes. Remember oxycontin. That was a prescription narcotic for pain relief. Although originally believed to be, or at least marketed as, non-addictive, it turned out otherwise particularly when used outside of prescription parameters. People became addicted. It was a popular drug, especially when used in different ways than originally packaged. People with prescriptions wanted more of it; people without prescriptions wanted it. A market was created. Some people legally on oxycontin prefered other drugs so they would trade their prescription oxycontin for something better/stronger. Prescription oxycontin was being 'diverted' for illicit use. For more information regarding oxycontin abuse and diversion, see here.

Well, lo and behold, some people being prescribed and provided with free hydromorphone were selling it. There was a market for it. Imagine, a market for an opioid. The people selling the safe supply drug were using the sale proceeds to buy their illicit drug of choice - often street fentanyl. Hydromorphone was being diverted for illicit purposes. Who saw that coming? Uh, did any of the policy wonks read anything about the oxycontin debacle?

Now, hydromorphone, having a cost of $.00 to the prescribed recipient, can sell that drug pretty cheaply for a profit. The purchaser, being either a dealer, or an end-user, gets a pretty good price. This is attractive for entry-level narcotic users like high-school kids. Who saw that coming?

Guess what happened with the policy of drug use anytime, anywhere? Well, addicts were using their drugs anytime and anywhere. Take hospitals for example. Why not light up your drug of choice and smoke it anywhere you please? Too bad for pregnant nurses, or whoever may be exposed to the toxic smoke. Don't stigmatize me, man!

If not so devasting on addicts and society generally, this crazy experiment with 'safe supply' would be quite laughable - funny really.

Yet, when challenged with the results of this 'whacko' policy, as some politicians have called it, the true believers double down. Don't let reality get in the way of a brilliant policy.

The safe supply drug policy is but one of many policies implemented by people who have abandoned reason in favour of, in their words, compassion.

Another example, as alluded to above, relates to math being branded as racist. This is how the problem is defined. The problem, more reasonably defined, is underperforming kids in math. Many of these underperforming kids are from certain racial minority groups. This is a legitimate problem. There is ample data to support it. By misdefining the problem, the solution becomes useless - teach social justice as part of a math curriculum. Or, dumb down math so everyone 'succeeds'. What will these policies accomplish? Will those struggling with math be more successful in career paths where math is fundamental and required like engineering? Will students be better able to use math in day-to-day applications like home budgeting, personal finance and understanding basis statistics? What are the metrics for success for these policies?