Pictured in the MAGA cap is Blaise Pascal, whom Wikipedia tells us was "a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and Catholic writer." Pascal's "dates" are as follows: June 19, 1623 to August 19, 1662. Among other things, Pascal is remembered for "Pascal's Wager," which is explained this way:
Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian. This argument posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God.
Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven ... while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.
Axios Markets suggests that some business-oriented people seem to be supporting the presidential aspirations of Donald J. Trump using a similar logic (emphasis added below; the article was published before President Biden decided not to run for reelection this year):
Business leaders who support Donald Trump for president might be doing so because they think he'd be better for business — or they might be supporting him because they want favorable treatment from any future Trump administration.
Why it matters: A key question in any presidential election is which candidate would be better for the economy. One problem with asking CEOs is that they have an incentive to support Trump even if they think Biden is the better candidate.
Between the lines: Trump, more than any other U.S. politician, is open about the way he favors individuals who publicly demonstrate personal loyalty to him, through statements, donations, fundraisers, and the like. Business leaders who support Trump do not need to fear being punished should Biden win in November. Biden's team of economic technocrats don't play favorites.
Conversely, however, any leader who endorses Biden for president can reasonably assume that Trump might carry a grudge against them into the White House.
How it works: Trump has not laid out detailed economic policies, but tariffs in general, and much higher tariffs on China in particular, are emerging as a central part of his vision. Because tariffs can differ markedly between industries and even between products within an industry, CEOs with the ear of the president would be well placed to garner a competitive advantage by lobbying to minimize the adverse effects on their own companies.
Flashback: Pascal's Wager, developed by 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal, is an argument for believing in God because (oversimplifying massively) believing in God is a good thing if God exists, and makes no difference if God doesn't exist. A similar argument exists for supporting Trump: that it will prove helpful if he's elected, and it won't be harmful if he isn't...
The bottom line: When a business leader says that they're supporting Trump because he'd be good for business, it's not easy to tell whether they're saying that because they believe it — or whether they're saying that because they want to be able to cozy up to Trump in the event he's elected.
There is a fallacy in the logic just outlined by Axios Markets. I thought I should draw it to the attention of any business leaders who might be reading this blog posting - though I know that it is pretty unlikely that any business leaders are actual subscribers to or followers of "We Live In A Political World."
Still... Here is what is wrong with the Axios logic, suggesting that it makes sense for business people to state their support for Trump, even if they don't actually think he'd be the better president.
Whether someone believes that God exists, or doesn't - and makes that belief or non-belief public - doesn't actually change what happens in the world. As Pascal makes clear, your belief, or not, may make a difference in the "next world," if there is one, but your statement that you believe in God, if there isn't one, doesn't have any immediate impact in the world of here and now. That is the reason that "Pascal's Wager" is such a good bet. If you bet that there is a God (and you're wrong), nothing in this world, or the next, is made worse for you.
The same thing is not true if you, as a business person, tell people that you prefer Trump (even though you may not actually believe that). Why? Well, your statement of support for Trump might actually help elect him. That then does affect the world of here and now. In fact, since stating support for the election of Donald J. Trump as president will likely help to elect him, that statement by any "gambling" business leaders, who don't actually think Trump is better, could turn our very "mixed bag" existence in this world into a real Hell.
If you are a "business leader," and don't think that this is a real possibility, you're not thinking clearly. If you don't think that stating your opinion in support of Donald Trump will have real impacts in this "real world," where we face challenges to everything from "democracy" and "self-government" to the survival of human civilization, as we confront the dangers of Global Warming and thermonuclear war, think again.
In political terms, in the context of the 2024 presidential election, saying you support Trump, thinking you can have it both ways, is a really bad bet.
Image Credit:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!