Political Masochism

We’re often tempted to think that if something feels right, it’s got to be, at some deeper level, wrong. And the corollary: that if something feels wrong, it’s got to be right.

I think this way of thinking pervades a certain strand of centrist, “responsible” politics, and I think it’s a damaging way to think. I’ll call it political masochism.¹

It’s a virtue, according to political masochism, to make tough choices and not to give in to simple moralism. What would society look like if we just let in everyone who wanted to come to our country? What would happen to society if we made it too easy to access social benefits without jumping through all sorts of expensive and degrading hoops? Surely many things that make intuitive sense are too simple, there’s a catch somewhere, and responsible politicians shouldn’t be fooled.

I think part of the appeal of political masochism is that it allows its practitioners to take the more rational and detached stance and to project a sense of seriousness and responsibility.

Another part of its appeal is taps into something true. You shouldn’t have candy for breakfast every day even if it feels good in the moment. You should go to the gym even if you would prefer, right now, to stay on the couch. So political masochism is linked to a theory of human psychology whereby we’re often tempted to take one marshmallow now instead of waiting for two later, and where it’s the role of politics to pull us out of this intuitive, type-one mode and into the rational realm of type-two thinking.

It’s a Freakonomics, TED-talk, Tversky-Kahneman style of politics (airport book politics if you will) that I think has completely overtaken political centers as well as large parts of the left in many countries.

My point is that self-denial in itself has no inherent value. It’s clearly only an instrumental value—its goodness comes from the goods it brings about, weighed against an analysis of the current pain it inflicts. But it’s all too simple to forget this and to start pursuing political masochism for its own sake. I think posing as responsible, willing to make tough choices, et cetera, is meaningless without an analysis of the first-order value you’re trying to bring about. As well as an analysis of whether the current pain is worth the future gain.

Let me illustrate with a childcare example. There is one strand of childcare ideology that is clearly steeped in the kind of masochism I’m describing. Economist-turned-childcare-guru Emily Oster is probably the prime representative.

When I had an infant, I so often read the advice that I need to let my son cry himself to sleep, from a very young age, if he’s ever going to be able to “self-soothe” and fall asleep by himself. Set a timer for five, then ten, then twenty minutes so you won’t be tempted to rush in, and listen to your offspring’s cries on the other side of the door. (A process that often goes by the fittingly sinister name “Ferberization”.) And by all means never let your newborn son fall asleep on your chest! You’re giving him bad habits and he’ll never be able to fall asleep in any other way.

Part of me was so drawn to this masochistic proposal. Surely it must be right when it feels so bone-achingly wrong! This is what a responsible parent is supposed to do. But another part of me wanted to ask: And so what with the bad habits! Life is short and beautiful and the best feeling I’ve ever felt is my little son falling asleep on my chest! And I’m supposed to deny myself that—to deny him that—for what? The chance to work for an hour at night?

There’s a certain insanity in refusing to listen to your instincts because of something you read in a little book. But it’s oh so tempting, because it feels like you must be doing the right thing.

Adam Gopnik calls this the causal catastrophe: the idea that “the proof of the rightness or wrongness of some way of bringing up children is the kind of adults it produces.” But, as Oliver Burkeman writes in 4000 weeks, this saps childhood of any intrinsic value. There’s surely something valuable with feeling, right next to you, your little son’s breathing turn slower and slower and more peaceful, in the darkness of his room, for a little while every night. Fixating only on potential future benefits of some sleep training regime or other is an impoverished analysis. A full analysis would need an idea of how valuable this future self-soothing child situation really is and an idea of how much pain you’re willing to endure in the moment to get there.

It’s the same in the political realm. The stance of political masochism is only valuable insofar as it brings about good things, and only insofar as the current pain we choose to endure is worth it. Otherwise we’re just torturing ourselves because we believe that’s what we’re supposed to do. And that, I think, is bad politics.