On Dogmatism and Support for Bush
So, support for Bush is fairly low (though not as low as one might expect), but--and tell me if this is just me--when I surf around on the right wing of the blogosphere...well, I suppose I have to wonder whether or not those folks are living in the same world I am.
After six years of relentlessly terrible leadership--including what even many on the right acknowledge to be possibly the worst strategic error in American history--Right Blogistan still seems to be unwilling to admit what is obvious to everyone else in the world: that George W. Bush is a very bad president.
In fact, I have to admit that I find it fairly alarming that it took until recently for certain elements of the right to admit that Bush was not a great president. "Churchillian," they were fond of calling him. If it takes this much dishonesty, incompetence and disaster to force an admission that the guy isn't sublimely heroic, then what, I ask, would it take to force them to admit that he's below average? And God only knows what it would take to prompt an admission of the awful truth...
Admitting that you're wrong can be hard. The longer you've been wrong, the harder it is. The more important the issue you've been wrong about, the harder it is. The more impassioned the debate, the harder it is. The more ardently you've argued for your position, the harder it is. The more you dislike your opponents, the harder it is. I understand the social and psychological forces working against Bush supporters in this case. But that doesn't make the phenomenon any less alarming.
One thing this case seems to do is to reveal the true strength of partisan dogmatism. Or at least the true strength of partisan dogmatism in America. Or at least the true strength of partisan dogmatism on the American right. We might hope that this case is exceptional, but that might be too optimistic. The better bet, I'm afraid, is that this kind of dogmatism is always in action in American politics--it's just that most political issues are cloudy enough to make it seem plausible to attribute the relevant disagreements to honest differences in opinion or principle.
That right there is what we call a scary thought.
So, support for Bush is fairly low (though not as low as one might expect), but--and tell me if this is just me--when I surf around on the right wing of the blogosphere...well, I suppose I have to wonder whether or not those folks are living in the same world I am.
After six years of relentlessly terrible leadership--including what even many on the right acknowledge to be possibly the worst strategic error in American history--Right Blogistan still seems to be unwilling to admit what is obvious to everyone else in the world: that George W. Bush is a very bad president.
In fact, I have to admit that I find it fairly alarming that it took until recently for certain elements of the right to admit that Bush was not a great president. "Churchillian," they were fond of calling him. If it takes this much dishonesty, incompetence and disaster to force an admission that the guy isn't sublimely heroic, then what, I ask, would it take to force them to admit that he's below average? And God only knows what it would take to prompt an admission of the awful truth...
Admitting that you're wrong can be hard. The longer you've been wrong, the harder it is. The more important the issue you've been wrong about, the harder it is. The more impassioned the debate, the harder it is. The more ardently you've argued for your position, the harder it is. The more you dislike your opponents, the harder it is. I understand the social and psychological forces working against Bush supporters in this case. But that doesn't make the phenomenon any less alarming.
One thing this case seems to do is to reveal the true strength of partisan dogmatism. Or at least the true strength of partisan dogmatism in America. Or at least the true strength of partisan dogmatism on the American right. We might hope that this case is exceptional, but that might be too optimistic. The better bet, I'm afraid, is that this kind of dogmatism is always in action in American politics--it's just that most political issues are cloudy enough to make it seem plausible to attribute the relevant disagreements to honest differences in opinion or principle.
That right there is what we call a scary thought.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:58 AM
25 Comments:
Mr. D., that appears to be predicated on the proposition that the "more liberal alternatives," in this case Gore and Kerry I suppose, would have been more able to meet the challenges of this age. Perhaps, perhaps not---in any case, that cannot be taken as fact.
(A quick look at the menu for 2008 shows a similar dearth of obvious yumminess. We as a nation have a problem here.)
It also intimates that the slim majority who re-elected him and the now-minority of Bush supporters (and what with his dovishness on illegal immigration and other issues, it would be difficult to find more than a handful of Americans in complete agreement with him down the line) are stupid and/or brainwashed.
There are those (30% of us or so, according to the polls) who are with him more than 50% of the time, which, by poll reckoning, marks us as "approving" of his presidency.
I appreciate the exposition of the current conventional wisdom that Dubya is a very bad president, but as we know, Harry Truman left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it's indisputable that Bush's presidency has another 2 years to run.
Had Iraq turned out as well as the high mediocrity of the Afghanistan situation, those of us who are judging Bush on his results (few know his motivations or reasoning, and he's at fault for that himself with his philosophy of PR) are packing up our seat cushions with the home team behind in the bottom of the 8th inning.
Our team is losing, and the manager's patently an idiot.
I'd stipulate both for the sake of argument, discussion, or just in the hopes of moving forward. But we don't really have the luxury of packing up our seat cushions, and going home, which is just now occurring to the victorious congressional Democrats.
This isn't quite an original thought, as I'm seeing it form spontaneously in our public discussion, but one of the other lessons of Vietnam was that well after our last helicopter departed from the roof of our Saigon embassy, congress withdrew all support, every dollar, from the South Vietnamese government.
The fall to the barbarians, not just in South Vietnam but Cambodia as well, dwarfed the horror of the actual Vietnam War, and the moral responsibilty cannot easily be shifted to Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, or whoever was "responsible."
Speaker Pelosi, in a mostly softball interview with Diane Sawyer, when pressed about where to go from here, could only respond (multiple times) that it's Bush's war.
That's not how it works. Pontius Pilate had nothing to do with any of it, but still he could not wash his hands clean.
We're all in this, everyone of us bearing moral responsibility, and playing American Idol on Bush cannot change that fact.
BS, Tom. This is NOT my moral responsibility. I fought it tooth and nail every step of the way. Playing American Idol on Bush? Why the hell not? He's the man. They're his deeds.
This is his war. Not mine.
I've heard enough BS that those of us who were against the war were "not serious." I was as serious as a heart attack. I'm not going to argue about WMDs. That's been done ad nauseum. But before this war started I told everyone I knew that this administration could easily win the war but was doomed to lose the peace. Why? Because they have the cultural sensibilities of the "wild and crazy guys" from SNL. They don't know a Sunni from a Shiite and don't know why it makes a difference.
That said, the pro-war people do have a point. No one could have predicted--I certainly didn't--the breathtaking incompetence with which this war (or peace, whatever you want to call it) has been executed. I was pretty sure that it would be botched, but it has been botched well beyond my expectations.
And none of this mentions the rape of the American taxpayers' wallets. Sure the Democrats are in charge now, but there have been 3-1/2 years of an orgy for defense/reconstruction contractors. Schools have been painted (rah, rah) but people are too terrified to let their children attend. Utilities have been rehabed, but we forgot to tell the Iraqis how to maintain them. We've trained the army and the police, but they keep forgetting they're the army and the police. Hundreds of millions of dollars are simply missing, and no one seems to be looking for them. I read in the paper the other day that adjusting for today's dollars, we have already spent almost as much on Iraq as we did in Vietnam for the duration of that war. Pretty f'ing scary, since the Bush Admin tells us now that we'll be there for another 10 or so years.
If you want to shoulder some of the blame for this fiasco, go ahead. You probably should. But don't put it off on me. I've never wanted to have the first thing to do with it.
Tom, I must say that you sound like a '60s liberal telling the camera at the end of an American Internation production that "Society is to blame for the .......".
The current malAdministration got the Dems support by selectively releasing classified data that supported their conclusions, so the Pelosi response is 'don't get fooled again'.
Exhibit A:
"We know where they(WMD) are."
With 3,000 American dead from the Iraqi adventure, I know which side deserves comparison to a certain governor of Judeaea.
Yup, that BS just isn't going to fly, Tom.
You deployed one of my absolute favorite desperation moves currently so popular on the right: the laughable "Kerry and Gore would be worse" move. Of course one can always SAY that...one can always SAY anything. But all evidence available to us points to its falsehood. The evidence suggests that Gore would have been an above-average president, and Kerry at least an average one. There is no reason to believe that either man would be a *terrible* president. Bush is a *terrible* president. The odds of either Gore or Kerry being *worse than terrible* are vanishingly small.
Here one imagines die-hard communists in the Gulags arguing against liberal critics of Stalin that Kerensky would have been even worse...
I also love the Homer Simpsonesque "Look, we're all in this together...let's not go into who got whom into an immoral and disastrous war by calling them unpatriotic and feeding them lies..."
If conservatives really believed that "we're all in this together" bullshit they'd admit that Bush is a disaster, fess up to their mistakes, apologize and so forth.
Such an admission is needed not only because it's right but also because it will help make such dumbass mistakes less likely in the future. As it is, conservatives are spending most of their words and effort trying to cover up their mistakes and make Bush out to be a hero.
Those of us who are fans of truth and justice simply aren't going to let that happen. So you might as well give it up.
Yup, that BS just isn't going to fly, Tom.
You deployed one of my absolute favorite desperation moves currently so popular on the right: the laughable "Kerry and Gore would be worse" move. Of course one can always SAY that...one can always SAY anything. But all evidence available to us points to its falsehood. The evidence suggests that Gore would have been an above-average president, and Kerry at least an average one. There is no reason to believe that either man would be a *terrible* president. Bush is a *terrible* president. The odds of either Gore or Kerry being *worse than terrible* are vanishingly small.
Here one imagines die-hard communists in the Gulags arguing against liberal critics of Stalin that Kerensky would have been even worse...
I also love the Homer Simpsonesque "Look, we're all in this together...let's not go into who got whom into an immoral and disastrous war by calling them unpatriotic and feeding them lies..."
If conservatives really believed that "we're all in this together" bullshit they'd admit that Bush is a disaster, fess up to their mistakes, apologize and so forth.
Such an admission is needed not only because it's right but also because it will help make such dumbass mistakes less likely in the future. As it is, conservatives are spending most of their words and effort trying to cover up their mistakes and make Bush out to be a hero.
Those of us who are fans of truth and justice simply aren't going to let that happen. So you might as well give it up.
I can always tell I have a good point when it's so thoroughly missed, either willfully or because of its novelty.
WS met your points, and you ignoring his response(and, implicitly, imputing his good faith and/or understanding) demonstrates the chronic problems in attempting to have a reasoned(not necessarily reasonable) dialog with you.
Nice to here from you again, Mr. Pilate.
Nice to see you keeping up the tradition of 'drive-bys' that you've so freqently complained about in the past, Tom.
What kind of thymos is at work here, folks? America wants to know.
Aw, guys, can't we all just get along?
I DID try to answer your points, Tom...though I was too snitty about it.
I have no doubt you tried, WS, but aside from asserting my assertion is wrong about Gore (evidence?) and Kerry, you restated your original and customary position. (Bush = bad, and I owe you an apology.)
Since I wasn't in the mood for a reprise, I simply pointed out that now that Democrats are in power (I won't ask for an apology) (yet), they and you have assumed moral resposnsibility for what happens next, just as Bush did for his decisions on what to do about the Iraq mess Clinton handed him. (And to be fair to Clinton, he was handed a mess by Bush 41.)
I had hoped we'd all be in this together, but the past weeks and months have proven that an unfulfilled wish. However, we are all in it now, albeit separately.
And that's what I meant by invoking the Pilate Principle.
You're the one with the burden of proof here, Tom.
Kerry and Gore are both smarter, more knowledgeable, and more intellectually honest than Bush. Both seem to know more about policy.
Since there is every indication that both men would have been at least average presidents, you've got to come up with some reason for believing that they'd be worse than terrible (that is, worse than the current president).
Mere regression to the mean suggests that we'd be better off with either of those guys.
In fact, we'd probably be better off with the first name in the Boston phone book, to stay with our example from elsewhere.
You've been given lots of reasons here, and you've offered none in response.
Yeah, we all wanted to be in this together, too. But you guys nominated and then elected the most divisive president anyone can remember.
Nice job.
And you won't even admit that he's divisive. Nor that he's a bad president. You just want everybody else to keep pretending you were right, and that it's all somebody else's fault.
Jeez christ man.
Not what I said.
As for Gore and Kerry, they aren't provably smarter than Bush, and you're well aware of the examinations of their SATs and grades.
As for "bad" president, I think they're all bad, because the job is impossible. There is no reasonable benchmark of good. You think Carter was good, for crissakes, so we can't even get started on that.
As for your recent flirtation with consequentialism, I'd rather have the Iraq war on my conscience than Clinton's starving of tens or hundreds of thousands of women and children during the sanctions, but that's just me.
Which isn't to say Clinton was a bad president...
Gore is obviously smarter than Bush. Kerry probably, but it's debatable.
But, of course, it's inquisitiveness, intellectual honesty, and knowledge of policy that are more important than sheer intellectual firepower, and both blow W's doors off in that regard. It's willful ignorance and dogmatism that got W to get us in our current predicament.
Ah, yes, new ploy: ALL presidents are bad, so...what? So W isn't worse? Sophistry.
Differential goodness metrics? Again, just a smokescreen. Use any halfway-sensible metric you want and Bush is terrible.
Jimmy Carter? Yeah, what a terrible president. Advanced peace in the Middle East, told us that we had to get off the fossil fuels and, in particular, oil from the ME, returned our ill-gotten gains of the Panama Canal to its rightful owners...jeez, what a monster...
Also initiated the funding of the Mujahadin in Afghanistan that ultimately was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Empire... Oh, but he foolishly only helped the *less radical* factions...it took Reagan to start funding the real nutjobs, ultimately resulting in the blowback of 9/11...
Christ on a crutch. You're living in a fantasy world, man.
The bottom line is this, and there's no denying it:
We and the rest of the world would likely have been better off with either Kerry or Gore in office. Neither would have let Afghanistan go to hell, and neither would have invaded Iraq.
I enjoyed your hagiography of Carter very much, and it illustrates the power of editing. You would find such an attempt on Bush's behalf risible, so let's not bother.
I was sincere in my mellowness towards presidents past and present, especially the demonizing them as persons part. A closer look at Carter's record shows the courage to let Paul Volcker administer his harsh economic discipline---Jimmy was a fan of sweaters and hair shirts, after all.
And he also fomented the Soviet-Afghan war, which was pretty cool. That he unleashed all that carnage and still preserved his halo, and for that achievement alone, I admit he's smarter than Bush.
You mean: Because he did something smart and right and didn't get criticized for it, he's smarter than Bush?
That doesn't make any sense, since one *deserves* respect when one does something smart and right.
Bush, of course, hasn't done anything significantly smart *or* right, so I guess it's hard to compare...
I note that you try to divert attention from the very important fact that Carter was:
(a) Right about the Panama canal
(b) Right about Afghanistan
(c) Right about energy policy
(d) Right about ME peace
(e) Right about energy independence.
And note that subsequent Republicans were wrong about all those things.
I know your strategy is to just keep typing words until people get worn out...but typing words isn't the same thing as addressing points.
Bush gets Iraq; Carter gets Iran.
The mullahcracy is a far bigger threat to world peace (and the middle east in particular) than Iraq.
I come not to bury Carter, but it's impossible to praise him.
If you can adduce any noble reasons for supporting, or continuing to support, an oppressive autocrat, I'd believe that Carter should bear responsibility for what happened in Iran.
Then again, if he'd been a real man, he would have dealt with the hostage situation by trading a few Stinger missiles for them. That would've shown those Islamists.
Is that a moral or a political demurral, or the Carter mush of both?
In either case, to make judgment in a vacuum heedless of the alternatives, in this case a tyrannical and dangerous Islamic state, has neither political or moral virtue.
Now, make no mistake, Bush is open to the same criticism, which is why I compared the two.
The ONLY possible justification for support was a political one, and Carter, being an actual moral man (one of the few to actually occupy the Oval Office recently) chose the correct moral path.
The fact that he paid the political consequences is beside the point. And the comparison to Bush is absurd because Bush took positive action of the most destructive kind; by contrast, Carter cut loose a monster from American support. Had Carter unleashed war on Iran to rid it of Palavi, without regard to the consequences, without international support or legitimacy, and without giving a single moment's thought to how to handle the aftermath, THEN there might be some sort of valid comparison.
If termites from my shed infest your house, I might have a valid reason to remove my shed and offer some kind of remediation for your house; however, I don't have the right to bulldoze your house without your permission and promise to build you a new one.
Are you speaking politically or morally?
Because the result sucked. I'd rather Iraqis killing each other over whatever they're killing each other over than Iran hanging gays and fixing to nuke Israel.
I have a morality, too, as hard as that is to believe, especially when I'm willing to forgive people their mistakes, although you might not respect it.
I think Carter's morality is perverted. You wanna talk politics, we can do that, too. Either way, Iran is far more perverted than Israel, and Carter to this day shows no recognition of that fact.
I don't seriously believe that it's Carter's fault that Iran has an oppressive government; non-intervention in another nation's affairs is perfectly moral AND politically palatable in the absence of wholescale genocide, IMO.
And if Iraqi's wanted to be free to kill each other, as seems their wont, they could have made that decision for themselves. All Carter did regarding the Shah was to withhold the support that helped make it possible for him to prevent Iranians from controlling their own destiny, for better or worse.
It's also worth noting that Iran as a nation, or Iranians as a people, should not be judged by the idiot who currently occupies their presidency. I maintain the hope that other nations don't judge us on that basis either.
http://www.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/news1/11767/
And while I agree that, politically, Iran right now is far more perverted than Israel, it doesn't logically follow that Israel is not politically perverted AT ALL.
I've also learned, by watching both our own leaders and those of other nations, that it's far more important to watch what they DO, rather than what they SAY. I'm-mad-in-the-head occupies mostly a figurehead position in Iran, which isn't to say that the real powers aren't even scarier - they may be - but, just like here, what he says must be viewed as possibly posturing solely for domestic political purposes.
Let's not forget, too, that after 9/11, there was an opportunity for some rapprochement with Iran, and Bush did nothing but give them the back of his hand and include them in his Axis of Evil(TM) for domestic political consumption, negating any chance of thaw in relations.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/what_we_wanted_to_tell_you_about_iran_4550
Ah, it's to be the moral argument, then, unless it's the political one.
If the former, there are sins of omission as well as commission. Both carry moral responsibility, unless one falls back on the legal perception of morality.
If the political one, one must ask if the mullahs are worse than the Shah.
But things are too muddy to argue either case, which is why it's best to stir them into the same narcissistic and morally confused Carteresque soup, and we are where we are today with Iran. Which sucks.
Nonsense. It's not for US to decide whether the Mullahs are worse than the Shah, morally OR politically.
We backed the Shah for political reasons for forty years. How'd that work out for us?
The fact of the matter is there is no good justification, morally OR politically, for supporting such a monster.
I'm not saying there can NEVER be any justification - we had sufficient justification supporting Stalin, but there was nowhere near the same justification for installing and supporting the Shah.
Ah, now the political argument. Trying to sort you out, sorry.
I disagree there, too. In fact, if you look up Solzhenitsyn, he was far less tolerant than you of the west's realpolitik in making a deal with the devil Stalin to fight Hitler, because communism was a far more virulent ideology.
And in the end, he was right in that it killed far more people than Nazism, which applied only to Germany, really. Islamism has the same capability as communism, tho.
But we're about to sink off the mainpage, anonymous, so I fear we'll have to take this up at some future time. I won't be returning to this thread, just because I like a colloquy to be a colloquy, not a private pissing match. Cheers.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home