Though Experiment for Liberals and Conservatives: What If the Tables Were Turned, 7/27/07 Edition
So, it's surprising how often the simple table-turning test your mother taught you comes in handy--if you're at least moderately intellectually honest.
So...the question for both liberals and conservatives is:
How would you regard the president and the issue of impeachment if, say, Ted Kennedy were president and doing things that were similar to the things that Bush is doing?
The answer I predict most liberals will give:
"I'd be equally outraged!"
My prediction about this matter:
That's about right. Few liberals would still be supporting a liberal president who was even half as dishonest and incompetent as Bush.
The answer I predict most conservatives will give:
"Uh...I'd...I'd...um..."
See, as I started writing this I suppose I expected my hypothetical conservatives to say "I'd support Kennedy had he done what Bush has done!"
My prediction, of course, is that this would be false. Not only would conservatives NOT support a liberal president who had lied us into a war and then conducted it incompetently (not to mention who had fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, etc.)...but, to tell the truth, I actually think that a liberal president might very well have been assassinated by now. Needless to say, I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's a recurring worry of mine.
Anyway, in the actual writing I found it hard to believe that even the most unreflective conservative would really even say that he'd support a liberal president who'd been so dishonest, partisan, and incompetent. I really think that if the Bush dead-enders would just perform the table-turning test they'd do themselves--and the country--a world of good.
As you know, I think that liberals tend to have lots of failings, but give 'em credit for this: their support for Clinton flagged after the Lewinsky scandal. The scandal, of course, was the result of a long campaign by conservatives to bring Clinton down, it was blown as out of proportion as such a thing can be blown, etc., etc...but Clinton did, after all, lie under oath. He probably didn't deserve to be impeached given the prevailing standards...but it was good that liberals responded to his (quasi-)lies by at least supporting him less strongly.
The scary thing about the current insanity is that it's becoming clearer and clearer that there is nothing (short of being insufficiently conservative) that Bush can do to lessen his support among a certain segment of conservatives. He can be the biggest, lyingest asshole in the long, sad history of lying assholes...but as long as he's a really, really conservative lying asshole, these conservatives will back him.
This fact tells us something frightening about that segment of conservatives...and it acts as a cautionary tale about fervent political commitments in general...including or own.
So, it's surprising how often the simple table-turning test your mother taught you comes in handy--if you're at least moderately intellectually honest.
So...the question for both liberals and conservatives is:
How would you regard the president and the issue of impeachment if, say, Ted Kennedy were president and doing things that were similar to the things that Bush is doing?
The answer I predict most liberals will give:
"I'd be equally outraged!"
My prediction about this matter:
That's about right. Few liberals would still be supporting a liberal president who was even half as dishonest and incompetent as Bush.
The answer I predict most conservatives will give:
"Uh...I'd...I'd...um..."
See, as I started writing this I suppose I expected my hypothetical conservatives to say "I'd support Kennedy had he done what Bush has done!"
My prediction, of course, is that this would be false. Not only would conservatives NOT support a liberal president who had lied us into a war and then conducted it incompetently (not to mention who had fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, etc.)...but, to tell the truth, I actually think that a liberal president might very well have been assassinated by now. Needless to say, I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's a recurring worry of mine.
Anyway, in the actual writing I found it hard to believe that even the most unreflective conservative would really even say that he'd support a liberal president who'd been so dishonest, partisan, and incompetent. I really think that if the Bush dead-enders would just perform the table-turning test they'd do themselves--and the country--a world of good.
As you know, I think that liberals tend to have lots of failings, but give 'em credit for this: their support for Clinton flagged after the Lewinsky scandal. The scandal, of course, was the result of a long campaign by conservatives to bring Clinton down, it was blown as out of proportion as such a thing can be blown, etc., etc...but Clinton did, after all, lie under oath. He probably didn't deserve to be impeached given the prevailing standards...but it was good that liberals responded to his (quasi-)lies by at least supporting him less strongly.
The scary thing about the current insanity is that it's becoming clearer and clearer that there is nothing (short of being insufficiently conservative) that Bush can do to lessen his support among a certain segment of conservatives. He can be the biggest, lyingest asshole in the long, sad history of lying assholes...but as long as he's a really, really conservative lying asshole, these conservatives will back him.
This fact tells us something frightening about that segment of conservatives...and it acts as a cautionary tale about fervent political commitments in general...including or own.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:37 AM
25 Comments:
My problem with your argument, put simply,
Im a conservative...i haven't supported Bush for some time now--A sentiment that i would easily apply to the hypothetical Kennedy. Furthermore, its my feeling that most "reasonable" conservatives would say the same (however few there are).
A,
I agree about reasonable conservatives...and, note, I was limiting these claims to only a subset of conservatives.
I really do think that there are reasonable people on both the left and the right...but the right has a larger population of dogmatic partisans than the left...or, I should say, the "left" in America...what passes for a left, that is.
Now, once you get a leftier left (as in Europe) you get more wackos (or so it seems).
I think exercises like this are quite liberating, mentally, personally.
Once you do it and you sort of take a breather and reinstate your goals of the pursuit of truth and rational inquiry, you stop yourself from sliding into partisanship even if that slide is instantiated due to a horrendous opposing party.
It's still not a cool place to be, and exercises like these are valuable even if they only serve to sort of recalibrate you.
It's like hitting the DeGauss button on the monitor, or cleaning the windshield on your car. You never realize how crappy the picture is until you do it and can see more clearly thereafter.
the right has a larger population of dogmatic partisans than the left
Maybe true. They did impeach Bill Clinton, which was unwise and bad for the country.
But maybe they're just better organized. I see Obama called Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite." Jacobins tend to eat their own first. Perhaps we should just impeach her now and save ourselves a lot of trouble down the line.
Welcome back, Tom.
Um...Obama calling Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite" is like impeaching Bill Clinton instead of backing him in his efforts against OBL? And he's a Jacobin?
C'mon, Tom. Try a modicum of perspective. It'd be good for you.
I dunno, if Bush = Hitler then they're sharpening the National Razor for Hillary already.
Is Obama a Jacobin? No, I don't think so, but this is an overt appeal to that wing of the party, altho lately they're acting more like sans-culottes. The true Jacobins throw subpoenas around like candy then send out emails to the rabble saying, keep those checks to the DNC coming in, folks.
But if you think the allusion is too close to, say, comparing evangelical Christians to Islamofascists, then I'll withdraw it.
As for Clinton's "efforts" against OBL, perhaps another day.
WS posted:
"Clinton did, after all, lie under oath. He probably didn't deserve to be impeached given the prevailing standards...but it was good that liberals responded to his (quasi-)lies by at least supporting him less strongly."
In fact, many, many liberals joined a group that called on Congress to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation". I, for one, believe that this would have been the correct response to "Clinton's non-lies". (Nice phrase, that!)
Ah, Tom, we missed your hyperbole...
Who said that Bush=Hitler? No one here.
Who's "throwing subpoenas around like candy"? Sadly, no one now.
I know you're sore about the fact that your boys are finally being called on about 1/10th of their authoritarian bullshit...but toughen up. You guys never, ever get as good as you give. So, really: I think you should learn to take it if you're going to dish it out.
Candy. From a conservative blog:
Executive Branch Investigations or Inquiries: 300 PLUS
Requests for Documents, Interviews, or Testimony: 400 PLUS
Officials who have testified: 550 PLUS
Oversight Hearings held: 600 PLUS
Hours spent responding to oversight requests: 87,000 PLUS
Pages made available to Congress for oversight: 430,000 PLUS
Guess how many appropriations bills Congress has passed after 113 days of Senate sessions and 103 days of House sessions?
ZERO
So you got what you want. Rock on.
Another blog says that 70% of the Democrat strategists surveyed think that Russ Feingold's idea for a censure of Bush will hurt the Democratic Party. So if you want to make the same mistakes as the GOP did in going after Clinton (which lost them seats in 1998), that's fine with me.
Tom posts:
"Guess how many appropriations bills Congress has passed after 113 days of Senate sessions and 103 days of House sessions?"
Ah, yes, proof that Republican obstructionism in the Senate is working.
Tom also posted stats that support the claim that the Congress, after 6 years as a lap dog, is beginning to exercise its obligation to oversee the Executive.
Yes, I want Congress to oversee the Executive.
I would also like for the Executive to co-operate with those investigations, and for the Executive to obey Congressional subpoenas. Sadly, neither of these have yet to happen. But, with a Democratic majority, Congress is now at least trying.
I wonder if Tom prefers a lap-dog Congress and a President above the law only when it's a Republican President, or if he thinks Clinton should also have been above the law?
I'm pretty easy on Clinton. I was just backing up "candy." Many or most of these matters are beyond Congress' purview.
If you want to see a power-hungry executive branch, brush up on your FDR. His usurpations were so obvious that the Supreme Court jumped in with such regularity that he wanted to "pack" it with his own appointees.
As for obstruction, I love it. I have a sympathy for FDR liberalism, but the pendulum has swung enough that most "new" ideas, especially Democrat ones, tend toward the statist and the economically restrictive and will do more harm than good.
But congress is invited to try to pass them. Instead we get charges of wrongdoing and indeed, criminality. This is Kos-ian cant, and outside the RBC, the proof required hasn't been remotely met. It's noise & fury for the netroots.
Mebbe they'll get poor Alberto Gonzalez; he's an embarrassment even his own side can't be bothered to defend. But the US Attorney thing is constitutionally none of congress' business in the first place, and well they know it.
Interesting theory of Constitutional law, TVD, but incorrect. Congress has the power of oversight and investigation of the Executive Branch, as well as the power of the purse over branches of the Executive.
Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff
Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.
Link
Here's an example of what such oversight has turned up so far:
Goodling(Monica) appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement[18], and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.[19][20] In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.[21] [22]
Link
Dialogs with TVD tend to turn out as below, YMMV.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
Point to DA. Excellent comment!
I think Jim also hits the nail on the head: you can't argue that this congress is obsessed with investigation just by pointing to the number of investigations.
One more point here:
Since we have one of the most criminal administrations in memory (worse that the Reagan administrations even! Who'd'a thunk it possible!!!), the high number of investigations shows that Congress IS doing its job, not that it ISN'T.
C'mon, Tom. Now is the time for all good men...well, you see where I'm going with this.
It's time to put country over party , acknowledge that we're in dire straights, and become part of the solution. The time for partisan bickering is past. I can guarantee you that if a Democratic president had done half of this shit I'd be on your side by now.
All of these worthless arguments with Tom (not that all of his points are worthless) always come down to the fact that Tom holds contradictory positions so that he can maintain that he knows we're right, but wants to also show us that we're wrong:
"Instead we get charges of wrongdoing and indeed, criminality. This is Kos-ian cant, and outside the RBC, the proof required hasn't been remotely met. It's noise & fury for the netroots.
Mebbe they'll get poor Alberto Gonzalez; he's an embarrassment even his own side can't be bothered to defend. But the US Attorney thing is constitutionally none of congress' business in the first place, and well they know it."
So, you don't believe there's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing for Congress to engage in its oversight duties (so we're wrong), yet you then claim that Gonzalez is an "embarassment even his own side can't be bothered to defend" (so we're right?).
To me, that sounds like exactly what you do in most of your argumentation - you do recognize that there's way more than sufficient evidence to believe that WS is correct (for instance that Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, etc., is a lying, corrupt bastard). However, you like to seemingly admit this and then say little things on the side of your main (badly thought out) arguments about how Democrats suck that indicate that you don't believe that, after all.
If someone catches you with one of these, like I just did, or WS does all the time, you either ignore it, semi-try to obfuscate what you're saying until it's not understandable, or you mumble about something and carry on with your arguments about how Democrats suck. 99% of the time, your counter-argument to a Republican being a piece of shit is "No he's not, because..blah blah obfuscate blah..so are Democrats! Listen to all this bad stuff THEY do!" - which is a gigantic Red Herring, of course.
So it seems to me that the process you engage in when it comes to argument is thus:
1) Claim others are wrong about Bush, Gonzalez, etc.
2) When asked why, obfuscate and waste time for a long while. Also, bring up lots of Red Herrings that "show" that Democrats suck as proof as to why Republicans don't.
3) Eventually, after saying there's no evidence for the idea that Republicans suck, say you agree, that Republicans suck.
4) Continue arguing (poorly) that Democrats suck and throwing in little statements about how Republicans don't really suck.
This is just partisan hackery, Tom. You will hold ridiculous contradictory positions in order to continue arguing against Democrats purely because they are Democrats. It's clear from the contradiction you just made, among the many MANY others, that this is the case.
I think the best thing about this blog is its committment to ratiocination and the fact that WS is clearly non-partisan - never holding an opinion about political ideologies without having a good, reasoned argument for or against it. Sure, he does side with the Democrats usually, but it's more convincingly due to rationality and not due to waking up in the morning hating every word that starts with a "R".
Are you EVER going to actually try to find the truth, or is it just going to be you riding your pompous attitude and arguing for unfounded beliefs for the rest of your life?
That's a rant, Mystic. I accept your surrender.
WS, the RBC has certain self-declared truths ("lied us into war" being the chief one, "corrupt," I suppose being the second) that beg every question. How can you support such criminals, Tom? Um...
Did Goodling violate civil service rules by taking politics into consideration? Is there gambling going on here? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.
The RBC's main contention is that its side is morally superior. I submit there's plenty of moral inferiority to go around.
Characterizing my arguments as worthless is not the same thing as engaging them. One needs to earn his victory dance. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but to try out certain arguments and look for worthy rejoinders. Everytime an argument is ignored, I know it's a strong one, and there have been quite a few ignored on this very thread.
Just checking.
k, I return to my previous policy of giving up on you, wonderful as though it is to watch you label something "a rant" and then ignore it, and then accuse me of ignoring your arguments.
But, I can't resist - I'd just like to illuminate the following:
1) Tom never addressed the contradiction he made that I pointed out (see previous post of mine), he just said it was a "rant" and therefore he didn't have to acknowledge any part of it as true...which is bizarre.
My guess, the argument method will be completed by Tom - next step, mumble about it and move on, then insult Democrats and point out any flaws you can possibly find, completely off-topic, of course.
2) I said "or is it just going to be you riding your pompous attitude and arguing for unfounded beliefs for the rest of your life?"
Tom's response:
Pompous Attitude and Bizarre Claim: "That's a rant, Mystic. I accept your surrender."
So, somehow, what I said was qualified as a "rant", exempting it from containing any truth - like the fact that Tom contradicts himself in order to further his own agenda, dishonestly.
Bizarre Claim: "WS, the RBC has certain self-declared truths ("lied us into war" being the chief one, "corrupt," I suppose being the second) that beg every question."
Self-declared truth? Is he suggesting the reality based community just said these claims were true with no evidence? That earns a WTF. We've been over it countless times with Tom, and he just won't accept it.
Pompous Attitude: "I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked."
Bizarre Claim: "The RBC's main contention is that its side is morally superior."
The only thing I can think of that he could mean by this is that those who consider themselves part of the RBC believe that relying on facts about the universe when it comes to forming one's beliefs are wrong in thinking that this is a morally good thing to do (as opposed to, say, making up random beliefs with no basis in reality). If he really believes this, maybe we've found why there are so many arguments and disagreements.
And lastly, Pompous Attitude: "Characterizing my arguments as worthless is not the same thing as engaging them. One needs to earn his victory dance. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but to try out certain arguments and look for worthy rejoinders. Everytime an argument is ignored, I know it's a strong one, and there have been quite a few ignored on this very thread."
No, characterizing worthless arguments as worthless after finding them to be so IS engaging them. The presumption that an ignored argument is a good one is also false. Lots of people ignore those guys who shout out Bible verses on the street corner, but that doesn't mean it's because their beliefs/arguments are strong or good - it means the passers-by have realized that it's worthless to engage them.
So, my bad, I should've changed "unfounded beliefs" into "bizarre claims" - he transcends the unfounded and goes directly into the strange and twisted. Or maybe that's just a subcategory of unfounded, I have no idea. Nevertheless, clearly wrong.
Wow...I thought the Mystic was being too hard on you, Tom, but then you went and *immediately* left a comment that fit his template!
It makes it hard to defend you when you do stuff like that...
I'll only pick out one point from your comment and say something about that, since you've made similar points several times.
Tom wrote:
"WS, the RBC has certain self-declared truths ("lied us into war" being the chief one, "corrupt," I suppose being the second)"
What on Earth is a "self-declared truth"?
I suppose you might be trying to say that they merely assert the truth of these claims without proof, or take them as axioms, or take them to be self-evident, or some such thing. That would be false, of course. The case for those claims has been made...over and over and over and over and over and over again. You may disagree and think that the claims are unproven--though in that case, of course, one wonders what on Earth you count as proof (if I'm ever on trial I certainly hope you're on the jury...)--but that's a far cry from the RBC taking such claims as axiomatic.
It's hard to know how to proceed in a discussion like this. From my perspective, it's like arguing with a creationist or a flat-Earther. I *can* do it...indeed, I *have* done it. But I've learned that it does no good. It just seems to me that, good-hearted though you may be, you've made up your mind to defend these bastards to the bitter end.
Now, I acknowledge that there's *always* *something* that can be said in defense of *any* position. And I'm willing to consider arguments on the other side way, way past the point at which most people call the case closed.
Hell, I'm not even sure that Gonzales, Cheney, or Bush ought to be impeached...for one thing, I just don't know the technical details about impeachment.
But here are some things that seem as clear to me as just about anything in politics: these guys are no good, and they're up to no good, and outrage and suspicion are called for in response to their actions. There is, in short, a *prima facie* case against them. They may turn out to be innocent of legal wrongdoing--I have no expertise in such matters, so I can't say.
But anybody who ISN'T fairly alarmed and pissed off about what they've been doing either isn't paying attention, or isn't very smart, or doesn't care, or is letting partisanship interfere with their judgment.
Now, I know you're paying attention, and you're smart, and you care...but I also see that you're neither alarmed nor pissed off about the actions of the executive branch... The drawing of the conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.
In a recent poll, 57% still think Bush is a good guy. The idea he is not is a creature of the RBC, a truth you have just declared self-evident. And to drag a disputation of his morality into what is a constitutional issue (and an unsettled one at that, by mutual agreement between congress and the executive) illustrates my point.
Red Herring: "In a recent poll, 57% still think Bush is a good guy."
Bizarre Claim: "The idea he is not is a creature of the RBC, a truth you have just declared self-evident."
Again, what do you mean by "self-evident"? Why do you keep saying things like this? It makes no sense, and when asked what you mean, you ignore, mumble, produce red herrings, and move on...like I predicted.
Bizarre Claim: "And to drag a disputation of his morality into..."
Remember, the question being asked is whether or not Liberals would tolerate a Democratic president acting in a similar manner as Bush is acting. WS is saying that it is clear that Bush and his allies are no good, and up to no good. So, if a Democratic president was no good and up to no good, he'd not support him either.
Do you think that this is irrelevant to whether or not one should support a president? That's the only sense I can make from this apparent claim that "dragging morality" into the issue is wrong (as the term "dragging" insinuates that the morality of the president should not be in question in this issue of whether or not to support him).
Bizarre Claim: "...what is a constitutional issue (and an unsettled one at that, by mutual agreement between congress and the executive) illustrates my point."
WHAT on EARTH are you talking about? I'm presuming you're referencing the problem with Gonzales and the firings of the Attorney Generals. I have no idea when Congress and Bush agreed to this being an "unsettled constitutional issue".
But really, the worst part is that you refuse to explain why you keep saying the RBC, and now WS, are putting forth "self-evident" or "self-declared" truths. This is VERY strange. I don't know what you think will happen - maybe people will just forget that you keep saying it and move on to something else? Do you think if you say them enough, people will stop contesting your use of the terms?
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.”---Ronald Reagan
Red Herring Appeal to False Authority: "'Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.'---Ronald Reagan"
Tom's like a perpetual font of exercises for critical thinking class.
Anyway, that quote is a juvenile corruption of a Twain quote.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home