Gratuitous Snarkiness: Counterproductive
Atrios notes that Rick Santorum recently seems to have abandoned his position that "intelligent design theory" is respectable science and ought to be taught in schools. Instead of applauding this seemingly significant progress by Santorum, Atrios ridicules him for "flip-flopping".
Now hear this: realizing that you were wrong and admitting it is not flip-flopping. It's called "learning."
Jesus Christ. This is a GREAT idea. Every time somebody admits he's wrong, let's ridicule the crap out of him. That'll help us reach rational consensus.
Atrios notes that Rick Santorum recently seems to have abandoned his position that "intelligent design theory" is respectable science and ought to be taught in schools. Instead of applauding this seemingly significant progress by Santorum, Atrios ridicules him for "flip-flopping".
Now hear this: realizing that you were wrong and admitting it is not flip-flopping. It's called "learning."
Jesus Christ. This is a GREAT idea. Every time somebody admits he's wrong, let's ridicule the crap out of him. That'll help us reach rational consensus.
posted by Winston Smith at
2:34 PM
17 Comments:
I think Atrios might reply that Santorum knew he was wrong in the first place - no realizing involved, hence no "learning".
This has been my complaint about the whole "flip flopping" criticism since its been around.
I mean, the whole point of rationality is to alter your opinion in the face of new evidence or better argument.
This is good thinking and leads to good decisions.
If you decide to turn left onto a one way street, it is not a lack of character to turn around. In fact, it is insanity not to turn around.
Mike
http://bornatthecrestoftheempire.blogspot.com/
A key point to me is that Santorum made the comment mere days after all eight members running for re-election of a school board in his state that were pushing the teaching of ID were rejected by the voters. He's also up for re-election himself in 2006 and in a fair bit of trouble against his likely opponent.
So, you can doubt his sincerity going in (as rilkefan does), or his sincerity going out (as I am inclined to do, but not being a PA resident, I don't follow Santorum as much as, say, Atrios); and that's supposed to be the nature of the "flip-flop" charge.
Insofar as Santorum has not previously shown evidence of engaging in "reality based" reasoning, it's not unreasonable to hold that he's being insincere here, just telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
Insofar as it's about lowering the temperature of the debate a bit, I'm with you on this point. Even if Santorum is being insincere, it's a good thing to raise the profile of "reality-based" debate.
On the other hand, a thorough electoral rout of those most inclined to engage in empty demagoguery and appeals to irrationalism might contribute a great deal towards that goal as well.
[ Sadly enough for my "fightin'" side, I wouldn't regard a landslide Democrat victory in '06 as necessarily indicative of increased recognition of the value of reasoned debate ]
I have long since stopped giving Santorum the benefit of the doubt. This is simply a political or face saving move (or both).
If Santorum had read the transcript of the Dover trials he might have concluded that ID(iocy) is a sham, and that it's practitioners spend more time lying than in honest inquiry.
Then again, why didn't he say his statement until after the Republicans on the school board got swept out of office?
IMHO, flip-flopping is appropriate in this instance.
~AA over at braving-the-elements (can't seem to remember my Blogger account and password at the moment)
Yeah, you guys are right--given his record and the suspicious timing, I think the best explanation is political expediency and venality.
(Just for the record, "flip-flopping" isn't quite the right charge, then, is it?...but that's a mere technicality, even if right.)
Even I'm tempted to agree about Santorum, but I'm reminded of something Stephen Ambrose said about the difference between Nixon and Eisenhower (he was a biographer of both).
He said that Nixon was obsessed by people's motives, where Ike didn't give a damn.
I'm philosophically and a bit scientifically in sympathy with ID: when you run the numbers, our development and existence appear quite mathematically improbable.
However, as I've looked at the case presented by the IDers (as perhaps Santorum now has), I find many specious arguments thrown in even by its most authoritative proponents. (Darwin and the development of the eye, for instance, an apparent miracle even according to Darwin, but quite explainable by plain science.)
The ID argument itself has been highly personalized by adherents and critics alike. Ad hominem upon ad hominem.
My own judgment is that there might be something to ID, but as a cohesive thesis it's not ready for prime time. But I hadda wade through so much BS from both sides to arrive there that it was entirely exhausting, and something no sane person would do.
Anyway, my larger point is that ascribing motives to people is unhelpful, and probably usually inaccurate. I've recently run across some things that Santorum has written, and he's by no means a stupid man, contrary to my previously-held opinion.
Although it's probably a flaw, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to most anyone. Except Saddam. ;-)
tvd, you seem like a good guy, and "running the numbers" is a fine goal - but ID is an idea of the utmost poverty. It's question-begging in pure form, unless you want to get stuck saying "it's turtles all the way down". You have to have a sense of what an RNA molecule can do and how long 3 billion years is and maybe a few chapters of Ridley's college text on evolution before you can safely think about running the numbers.
There's a lot more to it than its critics allow. But I'm not prepared to defend it myself and would do a crap job of even playing devil's advocate.
Found in the comment thread at Dilbertblog
"I can't work out how it happened, so it must have been God."
Good thing these people aren't detectives.
by Ed Morrish
Admitting it when you're wrong is one of the cornerstones of progress. And taking the high road when you don't have to (and when everyone expects you NOT to) calls attention to the incident. This (along with so many situations like it that are almost always squandered) is a grand opportunity to invoke the teachable moment and promote constructive dialogue. Plus, it's one of those rare gems in which virtue is clearly its own reward ;-)
-Canis Major
Amen, dawg.
This post of yours dragged me back, WS.
The unfortunate truth of human interaction is that you give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.
In a partisan situation, by definition a power struggle, multiply it by some factor of ten.
You got a mate or its equivalent, right, WS? Surely you can hear me on this.
If one is to pull the other to (their) side, forgiveness and encouragement of honesty is a lonely, one-way street, giving 100% at all times.
I hear ya Tom...I'm not sure whether you are addressing matters on this blog in particular or in the country in general...I rarely keep good track of who's given in on what around here...but...not to fan the flams...speaking of the national scene, that's why I've given up on the Republicans right now. I think they're the meaner, more dogmatic, and more brutal of the two sides. Lord knows the Dems are sub-optimal, but right now I think your party is ruled by something close to its worst element, not by its best. Bad will, snarkiness and dogmatism are rampant now as perhaps always in politics. But I can hold my nose and side with the Dems because they're, as I often put it, in the ballpark, even if they're on the warning track. The Republicans *right now*--the leadership--are, IMHO, close to being out of control.
And, yeah, once this kind of bad will is built up, it's hard to heal. The Dems are responsible for pushing the Republicans around in the house in relatively small ways over a long period of time. Then the Republicans seemed to just snap. I blame the Dems in large part for this, but the Republican reaction is, IHMO, an OVER-reaction.
Anyway, so long as this "don't give an inch" mentality prevails, there's little hope for progress. We've got to get beyond it or we're seriously screwed.
It's a weird position to be in, though--I want harmony and understanding...but I'm fairly convinced right now that your boys are almost completely wrong about the pressing issues of the day.
So what's a poor centrist to do?
Join me on my lonely, one-way street. ;-)
There is some nonsense up with which I will not put, but believe it or not, I'm not really this nice a guy. Convincing is much harder work than condemning, but that's the 100%er's Burden.
Well, you've piqued my curiosity again: what do you blame the Dems for? Allowing the Rep's no input in choosing judges? Ignoring Rep attempts at legislation? Freezing them out of House-Senate reconciliation meetings where they totally rewrote legislation?
Or are you blaming the Dems for the Reps "snapping"? Is that fair? If so, then the Reps better hope the Dems never regain their majority. (cough Ohio cough)
I think OVER-reaction is an understatement.
No, no, not what the Dems are doing NOW, but what they did in the 30-odd years they controlled the House. They basically used their majority power to gain advantages that were, let's say, of questionable fairness. They never did anything that I know of--with the possible exception of their actions re: the "Indiana 8th"--even remotely as heinous as the Republicans now do routinely. But a little bullying over a long period of time can make people snap and allow the bad guys to gain power. And then it's payback out of all proportion to the original offenses.
Maybe there's a lesson there about al Qaeda, too...
That's what I get for being sarcastic and elliptical. My point was that the Dems never did those things, but that the Reps are doing them all the time now.
I think you are using the word "Republican" equivocally. For 30-odd years the Republicans were unable to get enough people to vote for them in House races. That changed with Gingrich and the Class of '94. But this wasn't a case of the same Republicans snapping and somehow seizing power; it was a case of a whole new group of politicians with a whole new way of campaigning, now familiar as the school of Atwater, Ailes, and Rove, which wasn't concerned in the least about fairness.
The way they are acting now is a natural extension of the way they get themselves elected - sling mud, pander to small groups who will vote based on a single issue (such as gun nuts or the extreme anti-abortion types), make charges of un-Americanism, morph their opponent's portrait into a picture of bin Laden, etc. When you are convinced that you are on the side of the angels and that you have the gift of recognizing evil when you see it, lesser matters like fairness and legality are inconsequential.
My concern here is that when you say "Oh, yes, they're overreacting but it's understandable when you look at the way they were treated for years", you are effectively excusing them with your faint criticisms.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home