My friend Roy is a world-class computer wizard. Throughout the more than twenty years that we've known him, he has managed to solve numerous computer glitches that have had us totally baffled. In our business dealings with him he has been unfailingly dependable and honest.
But his politics are abominable! As often as not, when we visit his shop, Rush, or Hannity, or Savage are blaring on the AM radio. In 2000, and again in 2004, a "Bush/Cheney" sign was posted atop his shop.
Just once, I discussed politics with Roy. He let loose with the familiar complaints about how the immigrants were taking all the jobs, the welfare cheats were soaking up the tax money of honest citizens, the "wacko-environmentalists" were stifling growth with their dumb regulations, we had to fight the terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here – the usual, familiar, drill.
I immediately saw that the only sensible thing to do was to back out gracefully. Arguing with a Rushophile is as futile as attempting to talk a Catholic Bishop out of his belief in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or to convince Rev. Hagee of the scientific foundation of evolution.
Roy's closing comment, however, was worthy of note. "Look," he said, "I'm a conservative, and I like to listen to what you call right-wing radio. You're a liberal, and you read liberal magazines and internet blogs, and listen to Air America Radio. I'm convinced of my views, just as you are convinced of yours. So who's to say who is right or wrong?"
Quoth Jack Cafferty, "so here's the question:" What is the justification of the liberals' claim that their sources – The Nation, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, Democracy Now!, Bill Moyers' Journal, etc. – are more reliable than The Weekly Standard, FOX ("fair and balanced") News, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc., or even, for that matter, the mainstream corporate media?
And so, Roy, if you happen to read this piece, here is your answer.
Political arguments are not created equal, and do not all have equal merit. Even less so, political rants and diatribes. There are many objective criteria with which an unbiased spectator might judge whether or not an argument is strong or weak, and whether a position is well or poorly defended. Here, briefly, are just a few such criteria. Having taught numerous courses in Critical Thinking, I can testify that this list merely scratches the surface of a vast topic.
1. The Persistence of Memory – and of You-Tube and Google. Remember Saddam's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD's), and the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud"? Cheney's assertion that "there is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons"? Colin Powell's "proofs" before the Security Council of Saddam's WMD's and his evil intentions, along with the corporate media's unanimous and uncritical praise of Powell's performance? The welcoming in Baghdad with candies and flowers? The six-week, self-financed Iraq "liberation?"
The Busheviks and right-wing sycophants would prefer that you don't remember all this, and more. But the issue is out of their control. All the above claims and predictions are indelibly on the record, justly undermining the credibility of further assurances by the Bush Administration, the Republicans, and their loyal stenographers in the corporate media.
There was a time in recent memory, when a politician could simply deny that he had made an embarrassing remark, and demand that his accusers "put up or shut up." No longer. You-Tube and Google now provide instant "put-up" of such accusations for anyone with a modicum of computer skills.
The Google-ization of American politics is proving to be especially troublesome to the "maverick" and "straight-talking" John McCain. Virtually all of McCain's "maverick" votes and positions have been reversed and thus nullified, as the "straight-talker" has endeavored to set himself straight with his right-wing/regressive base. Count 'em: McCain on campaign finance reform, tax breaks for the rich, reproductive freedom, offshore oil drilling, windfall profit taxes to support alternative energy. Do any of McCain's original "maverick" positions remain "unflipped"? None that I can think of. The substance of McCain's "straight-talk" reputation has evaporated, leaving only an unsupported label.
In contrast, memory and recorded history have caused Barack Obama little lasting damage. The unauthorized recording of his "bitter" remark in San Francisco, and Michelle Obama's reflection that "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," immediately come to mind. And the latter is more than offset by the recently excavated video clips of John McCain saying ""I really didn't love America before I was deprived of her company."
Not surprisingly, the corporate media has amplified Obama's gaffes and downplayed McCain's. But media bias aside, an objective assessment of recent history is not supportive of right-wing dogma and rhetoric.
Santayana's famous maxim has a corollary: "Those who fail to own up to their own history, are clearly trying to hide something."
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. Partridge has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .
Ernest, this is really well thought-out and the thought patterns/modus operandi you have identified on both sides is right-on.
One suggestion I would have to add ,to anyone who says "it's just opinion, and who's to say who is right or wrong" is that it's not just about beliefs. In the end, it's about the impact on society. And that cannot be argued.
Example: The police breaking in to the homes of Iowan flood victims and arresting anybody who objects. That's the Patriot Act at work, allowing the police to enter without knocking, without warrant and without probable cause.
People on both sides, looking at the Patriot Act as it stands alone, absent any follow-through on the part of the police, might say "well, see, there's a reason for it having been drafted. They need it now to protect us from terrorists". And that could be their "opinion" and "nobody can say what's right or wrong".
But these people also aren't seeing ahead what the outcome will be. And whatever that outcome is would certainly "Never happen to me/you/here on my turf".
Witness the now nearly 1 million people on no-fly lists, including babies and Democrats in office, and mostly comprised of politically vocal people....because their name matches someone else's on the terrorist d-base.
Witness the FBI serving National Security Letters based on self-certified good faith (Patriot Act grants the FBI unilateral powers to subpoena, arrest and search)....200,000 of these NLS's were served between 2003-2006, 53% of them for Americans. Contrast that with the dozen or so per year, as the norm prior to passage of the Patriot Act.
Is this all just a matter of "opinion"? Can anybody argue that this is wrong?
Based on living next door to the Iron Curtain and having seen lives threatened for free speech, I have to adamantly disagree with anybody who is frankly wishy-washy enough to say "it's just opinion and nothing is right or wrong". There really is such a thing as black and white, and it's very important to have boundaries around it. Lacking such recognition of the red flags, we are doomed.
Such is the current history of post-911 America and the reason why We, the People are frankly allowing it to happen. Because of innocent assertions and thoughts in our heads, such as "it's only an opinion and there is no right/wrong", we lack assertion and hence the fascist stick-up of the Constitution and the American people.
Time to broadcast the concerns about the outcomes even more vigilantly than before.
by
Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM
but it avoids the primary question? What is the goal of the political argument. And the goal has nothing to do with logic. It is power and comfort. Ernest's antagonist does not care for the right answer because thaat answer does not make him comfortable and does not bring him power in his perception. Bush appeals to him. That is all.
I am sorry but logic avoids some people and that 'some' is an overwhelming majority and not only those who claim to be conservatives.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3454 comments)
on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM
I just had an argument with a friend last night on global warming. He said the science wasn't in yet...it was a natural occuring swing yadatada. The same old spin jpbs coming from oil funded research scientists and right wing whack jobs. He wasn't interested in the conclusions of the union of concerned scientists an org of 1,500 of the world's best scientist, etc.
I am beginning to learn that the best way to deal with these folks is not to argue and it may be prudent to be better armed when the time comes. They're whacko's.
by
The Fifth Horseman (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 28 comments)
on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 4:51:33 PM
A very fine article, indeed! But I fear you missed the fallacy most beloved by the right, and most effective: Argumentum Ad Hominem. This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. And it just feels so right! We should not believe Ralph Nader because he is a fringe candidate. We should not believe the 911 truthers because they are conspiracy theorists. We should not believe Ernest Partridge because he is a radical leftist. These arguments hold great sway over conservative voters, but they in no way address the arguments put forth by the people attacked. The idea of the argument stands upon its own evidence and premises, apart from the question of who made the argument, and it is the argument that must be rebutted, not the man. Even if the objectionable concept is proffered by a lying, thieving, murderous scumbag; those character flaws are irrelevant to whether the scumbag's idea is true or false.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 323 comments)
on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 10:00:11 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
