The talk-show host Sean Hannity had a segment the other day about the â€œexploitativeâ€ nature of rushing in after mass shooting events to score â€œpoliticalâ€ points. You can watch a video of him here:
And here’s a link to an NRA lobbyist saying the same kind of thing.Â Though Iâ€™m skeptical of the sincerity of these sorts of arguments, (see hereÂ for a sort of rebuttal), if not for the sole fact that running a spot on how others have violated norms in a time when weâ€™re not supposed to be scoring points seems like an attempt to score points, I think itâ€™s worthwhile to take a closer look at what might be a reasonable version of taking things on too soon.
The first question is this: what does it mean to â€œpoliticizeâ€ something or to â€œscore political pointsâ€? My guess is that the events are going to be used as a premise in a policy argument. Something like this:
â€œthe events of the other day have policy implications a, b, and c.â€
Simple enough, but thereâ€™s more to this. Much hinges on what we mean by â€œpolitical,â€ as in â€œpolitical pointsâ€ or â€œpoliticize.â€ My guess is that what makes these particular issues â€œpoliticalâ€ is that those policy implications are (1) already well-known, (2) the subject of intense dispute, and (3) unresolved or in a kind of argumentative stalemate. By â€œargumentative stalemateâ€ I mean that the positions of each side are well known and well defined, not that the sides have exhausted the possibility for resolution. The dispute is still live. Oddly, the only example I can think of is gun violence. Maybe readers can suggest different cases.
Now consider by way of counterexample that the injunction does not apply to one-off events where most people have not occupied ideological positions. Should there be, for instance, some kind of random event tomorrow with casualties, Iâ€™m going to guess that weâ€™ll immediately discuss the policy implications. Weâ€™ll do so before anyone is buried or all the wounded are accounted for. The injunction against politics is not universal. It only applies to certain debates.
Thereâ€™s a second thing to notice about such debates: the side that invokes the injunction will typically be the side that has the most to lose by the added evidence. This was covered (satirically) here.Â Â Or, if not invoked by them, it will be invoked by others on their behalf.
Their concern might not be an entirely unreasonable one, but it underscores the somewhat limited scope of the injunction. They might fear rhetorical disadvantage by the tendency of people to run with latest piece of evidence adduced in deciding a question (by, in other words, availability bias). The politicization of the debate, or the â€œcheap points scoringâ€ is therefore winning rhetorical advantage without working for it or by taking advantage of the temporary set-back of the other side.
This brings us to the key feature of such arguments: the invocation against talking â€œtoo soon.â€ Itâ€™s a temporal restriction rather than a content one. The presumption is that we can talk about it later, just not now. This can take a couple of forms. One argument is that the â€œthe bodies are not in the ground, and the people have not had time to mournâ€ among other claims. This is a sensitivity claim. Arguing about the policy implications are alleged to be (1) insensitive to the people affected and (2) bad form for the participants, as their thoughts should be directed elsewhere. These donâ€™t seem to be entirely unreasonable.
A second, and I think more problematic, version of the â€œtoo soonâ€ injunction concerns the management of evidence â€œtoo soon.â€ This is an epistemological concern: we havenâ€™t had time to learn the relevant facts or mull over the meaning of the evidence. Besides, as weâ€™ve already noted, remarkable new evidence might bias us. Our haste will undermine the quality of our discussion.
Neither of these concerns is essentially unreasonable. We do care, after all, about the quality of our evidence and there is something to be said about hitting the pause button on civic disputes to focus on the needs of the large numbers of people affected. But, I might add here in closing as this has gone on longer than I meant, thereâ€™s something of a conflict between the state of the argument (stalemate) and the regularity of the need to hit the pause button. I think, furthermore, this takes concerns about making hasty decisions or corrupting our evidence off the table. Weâ€™ve seen all of this before. And our requiring frequent pauses to bury the dead seems to underscore the need to bring this thing to a resolution. If anything, this suggests that the â€œtoo soonâ€ argument has an expiration date.