There is a rational difference between “crimes (or inequality) has gone up and we need to do something” and “crimes (or inequality) has gone down, but we still need to gain more” : diminishing returns/feasibility issues.
If crimes (or inequality) was indeed lower 10 years ago, it means that reaching a lower point in crime/inequality was possible with a reasonable cost. Of course, it might be impossible now (because of a change in technology, in the environment, in whatever external things we don’t really control), but the fact that it was lower before is valid evidence (even if not proof) that is possible to get it lower with a reasonable effort.
On the other hand, if crime or inequality is at an absolute low, it’s harder to know if it’s possible to get it even lower, or how much effort that would require.
Of course, that doesn’t change the core of your reasoning, but it does make the “Argument from Crisis” more than just a rhetorical device—at least, when it’s used accurately, ie, when the things are actually getting worse.
Good. I actually gave one reason that shows that there is a rational difference between “crimes (or inequality) has gone up and we need to do something” and “crimes (or inequality) has gone down, but we still need to gain more”:
“Another reason for why the Argument from Crisis is rhetorically effective is of course that we believe that whatever trend there is will continue (rightly or wrongly). Hence if we think that crime or inequality is increasing, we believe that it will continue do so unless we do something about it.”
You point to another important such reason, however.
Still my hunch is that loss aversion is a major reason why the Argument from Crisis is so effective.
There is a rational difference between “crimes (or inequality) has gone up and we need to do something” and “crimes (or inequality) has gone down, but we still need to gain more” : diminishing returns/feasibility issues.
If crimes (or inequality) was indeed lower 10 years ago, it means that reaching a lower point in crime/inequality was possible with a reasonable cost. Of course, it might be impossible now (because of a change in technology, in the environment, in whatever external things we don’t really control), but the fact that it was lower before is valid evidence (even if not proof) that is possible to get it lower with a reasonable effort.
On the other hand, if crime or inequality is at an absolute low, it’s harder to know if it’s possible to get it even lower, or how much effort that would require.
Of course, that doesn’t change the core of your reasoning, but it does make the “Argument from Crisis” more than just a rhetorical device—at least, when it’s used accurately, ie, when the things are actually getting worse.
Good. I actually gave one reason that shows that there is a rational difference between “crimes (or inequality) has gone up and we need to do something” and “crimes (or inequality) has gone down, but we still need to gain more”:
“Another reason for why the Argument from Crisis is rhetorically effective is of course that we believe that whatever trend there is will continue (rightly or wrongly). Hence if we think that crime or inequality is increasing, we believe that it will continue do so unless we do something about it.”
You point to another important such reason, however.
Still my hunch is that loss aversion is a major reason why the Argument from Crisis is so effective.