“I’m voting for the Democratic candidate to stop the Republicans from harming [members of marginalized group]. If you’re not voting Democratic, you must have the luxury not to worry about this.”
Stop me if you’ve heard that argument.
In theory, it’s a variation on the ‘harm reduction‘ argument I’ve criticized previously. But there are enough differences that I’ll call it the ‘privilege argument.’ Those differences concern its niche use among upper middle class, highly educated progressive moralists.
Another difference is that it’s a worse argument than the harm reduction argument.
What’s Wrong with the Privilege Argument?
Why? Because we can use it against anyone to get them to do nearly anything.
Consider this version: “I voted third party in 2024 because both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supported the genocide in Gaza. If you’re voting Democratic, you must have the luxury not to worry about Palestinians.”
Structurally, it’s the same argument as the earlier one. And it succeeds or fails for the same reasons. Both arguments depend on the claim that you should look to those less privileged than yourself and vote based on their well-being. But the arguments arrive at contradictory conclusions.
Now, let’s consider this version: “I voted for Harris in 2024 because Trump sounded even worse on Israel’s war on Gaza than Harris. If you’re not voting Democratic, you must have the luxury not to worry about Palestinians.”
Here we see how the privilege argument falls into a cesspit of incoherence and contradictions. We can use the same argument to derive contradictory decisions, depending on how we interpret political conditions.
The point works just as well for other issues, like health care.
Argument 1: “I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because Obamacare would improve some people’s lives. If you voted for John McCain, you must have have the luxury of having health care access.”
Argument 2: “I voted for the Green Party in 2008 because their candidate was the only candidate on my ballot who supported universal health care. If you voted for Barack Obama, you must have the luxury of being included in Obamacare.”
Why Do People Use It?
So, what should we saw about all this?
First, the privilege argument is a terrible argument. Harm reduction arguments, in limited form, are defensible. But the privilege argument isn’t defensible at all. Upon even cursory examination, it falls apart. It almost always leads to contradictory conclusions under competing, but reasonable, interpretations of political conditions.
Furthermore, the people I see using the privilege argument have a specific profile. They’re highly educated progressives, often progressives with graduate or professional degrees. They’re also people whose politics are highly moralistic and more than a tad obnoxious. And their progressivism often comes with an identitarian flavor.
Most of them know, at some level, that the privilege argument isn’t very good. And so, whether explicitly or implicitly, they’re using it less for persuasion than for moral signaling and manipulation. They’re using it to send a message of their own moral superiority. And they’re attempting to use shared moral commitments to manipulate the target of the argument into voting for a candidate they’d prefer not to vote for.
Responding to the Privilege Argument
The privilege argument therefore calls for a different approach.
I’m willing to engage with the harm reduction argument. I don’t think it’s a good argument – at least not in most of its versions – but it’s good enough to discuss with an open mind. That’s not the case, however, with the privilege argument. It’s too bad – and too obviously bad – to warrant serious engagement beyond pointing out why it’s so bad. When a person uses the privilege argument, it’s a mark of unseriousness, obnoxious moralism, and/or manipulation.
And so, when I hear the privilege argument, I call it out. I point out to the person that it’s not an acceptable argument and that I won’t engage with them on it. If they want to use it to determine their own vote, that’s none of my business. But it won’t affect my vote. If they have better arguments, I’m happy to engage with those. But not the privilege argument.
Life is too short to waste your time with people who are crowing about their moral superiority or trying to manipulate you into doing things you have good reasons not to do.
Leave a Reply