Real debate is no longer possible when platitudes become indistinguishable from policies.
The problem with making a gross generalization is that it takes only one exception to invalidate it. So, let me be more precise in offering the major contention of this essay. It isn't that genuine debate in this country had become utterly hopeless 100% of the time. It's only utterly hopeless 99.99999% of the time.
Why have I drawn this conclusion? After more than three years of writing essays and participating in debates at the Intellectual Conservative — not to mention participating in other discussions and forums leading up to the 2008 presidential election — I can count on one hand the number of legitimate debates I've had with, shall we say, people of opposing political views.
At the IC, two individuals come to mind who exemplify the best in debate, Raymond Ingles and yonkel. I've disagreed vehemently at times with both of these men (particularly Mr. Ingles), but unlike other Liberals/progressives/moderates/non-conservatives who react to things I and others have written, they bring more than their emotions and feelings to the table. As a consequence, every time they enter the discussion the issue gets thoroughly explored and advanced. They may not convince me of their position, but at least they laid it out in an adult manner for others looking in on the discussion to judge for themselves. And that, after all, as Dennis Prager is fond is saying, is a key purpose of debate: to achieve clarity rather than agreement.
And what about the others? Exempting the utter fools and drive-by flamethrowers who only enter debates to see how inane they can be in supporting their candidate or position, there is only a small number of additional people who appear genuinely sincere — but completely confused — when expressing their opinions.
Again, this isn't about agreeing with what I say. If a guy who wrote a Catholic novel can compliment an atheist for his intellectual honesty, then we're way beyond that point. Rather, these are people who feel strongly about an issue, but otherwise have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. All of this came together in the perfect self-assessment from one of these folks whose name is unimportant, but whose sentiment typifies the new Obama-nation that's been years in the making. Thinking is hard. Studying is even harder. And putting the two together before offering an assessment is too challenging to consider. Therefore, simply express a feeling and call it an analysis.
Think I'm being too hard? Here's the exact quote. "Now, I could open another internet page and google whatever information I need to answer any questions you pose that I might not be able to answer myself, and do it with great skill and in very fine detail. That's one of the joys of modern technology and a forum such as this. Then it would be fact countering fact, rather than platitudes, sloganeering and irrational emotion vs. sound, unbiased, logical analysis and reasoning. (You see, I agree with you.) But the point is there's an incredible amount of information out there. The more you read, the more confused you get. And then you find yourself right back where you started."
My translation of the above statement: "I could actually try to educate myself on the matter, dig through conflicting facts, check the sources and underlying assumptions that give rise to them, try to separate the real issues and facts from the BS, but this is hard work. So, I'll just find the best sounding platitude and stick with that."
This is what has come to pass for informed debate by too many people on the Left. So, as a public service to those folks who actually want to know something before they offer a judgment, let me review a few things that we on the Right already know and embrace, and attempt to practice whenever we state a position.
A good debate consists of at least three main elements. First, the individual making a statement relies on something other than his/her own personal opinion to form a point, or moves beyond nice-sounding platitudes and slogans when offering a conclusion. Second, the debate isn't a series of competing facts and figures thrown back and forth, but rather facts and figures placed in some kind of relevant context. A 5% unemployment rate, for example, may be an accurate figure, but it matters greatly whether the previous year's employment rate was 1% or 20% before drawing any conclusions from this fact. Finally, even when we've moved beyond platitudes and out of context facts and figures, it's still important to consider a third element to informed debate. Namely, what exactly are the sources and assumptions behind this information?
Of the three, this component involves the most work. To pick a superficial example, I'm not going to rely on a Neo-Nazi website to educate me about the extent, or relevance of, crime statistics by minority offenders. In the same vein, I won't take at face value statistics about smoking-related illnesses from a tobacco company website. But similarly, I'll also treat with similar suspicion any statistics I get on global warming from the Natural Resource Defense Council, or any facts on animal cruelty from PETA.
While our friends on the Left seem to intuitively understand my hesitation about looking at Neo-Nazi and Tobacco Company sources, from what I've discerned these past few years by looking at the comment section to the Intellectual Conservative postings, the vast majority of them are shaking their head in bemused wonder at my mention of the NRDC and PETA as representative examples of the agenda-driven Left. I spent a lot of time discussing the agenda politics of the NRDC in the latter half of http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/, so I won't repeat it all here. And, for those interested in how PETA and other Left-leaning organizations compile their data and offer their judgments, there's always my Looney Liberal Chronicles.
But the real point here is that every side in a political debate begins its assessment with underlying assumptions, and these need to be clearly laid on the table to allow the resulting data to be analyzed and interpreted. The Right does a pretty good job of this, as evidenced in the IC comment sections. Rather than bombard an opposing view with an unending series of out of context facts, more often than not you'll see these facts discussed as part of Constitutional prerogatives and limitations, market-related forces in a capitalist economic system, personal responsibility, personal freedom, and a myriad of other issues and forces that give the data meaning.
Illegal immigration, as one example, is discussed from the standpoint of federalism, border security, its economic implications, its implications on free and fair elections, its impact on healthcare and education costs, and so forth. It's even been discussed by some on the Right as a matter of racial preference; and when it has, I and others have attacked these underlying assumptions as a legitimate means of challenging some of the conclusions their advocates have drawn.
Contrast this with the standard approach of the Left, which discusses illegal immigration from the standpoint of "fairness." I can tell you what's in the Constitution. I can tell you where interpretations of the Constitution differ based on strict construction or court activism. I can tell you how an uncontrolled border threatens the physical security of the country. And I can even show statistically the impact illegal aliens have on increased education and health care costs.
But I can't tell you what "fairness" is, because "fairness" is an emotion, not a policy. It means different things to different people at a very fundamental level. Arguing from a position of fairness is simply offering a personal opinion. As I've commented on this subject before, instead of relying on some consistent, definable (dare I say "legal") criteria, some people evaluate everything on their (or their group's) own subjective notion of "fairness." They apply one set of fairness criteria to judging elections, another set of criteria to international relations, another to domestic situations, and yet another to a different situation. Thus, any decision they arrive at is "fair," because it only has to be consistent insofar as that particular situation, since in the final analysis it's merely a subjective evaluation on their part anyway. "Fairness" is simply the process that supports the outcome they desire.
Why has it come to this? Why has the notion of intuitive reasoning supplanted the need to actually know something about a subject? It's a phenomena that's been decades in the making, and to quote the good Reverend Wright, its chickens have finally come home to roost. In fact, I wrote about this in my first essay at IC, and it bears repeating.
People who think with their emotions aren't bad people, or even consciously ideological. I tend to refer to them as idiots not to insult them personally, but rather to describe the utter lack of introspection and content to their thought process.
But to be perfectly clear, it isn't so much that they are incapable of real thought, as they have been conditioned not to think. They don't question the underlying assumptions that left-wing activists use to draw their conclusions, and they accept at face value the often draconian solutions these activists maintain are the minimum requirement for sound environmental policy.
Why is this? To use the example of man-made global warming, why would otherwise rational, intelligent people accept the notion that a car's exhaust is heating the Earth to a dangerous level, but never once ask how this conclusion was derived, whether there are other factors that better account for this phenomenon, or whether the Earth is really warming at a rapid rate – or getting hotter at all?
The answer, I believe, can be traced to our shared value system, which provides a common frame of reference to address these and other issues. It is the shorthand, connect-the-dot reasoning we all engage in to navigate through daily life. Critical thought is only needed when the matter at hand is something unique, and we've been talking about – and worrying about – global climate change for at least 40 years.
These values and reference points are not bestowed upon us at birth, like Moses receiving the Holy Tablets. Rather, they are taught to, absorbed by, and reinforced within each individual through a life-long process that begins with our earliest years and extends throughout the remainder of our life. For example, we're all taught from an early age that the environment is fragile. As children we write school papers on this subject and participate in community projects to "save the environment." When we get older, we get our news from journalism school graduates who show us pictures of melting ice caps or drought-stricken farmland and talk about the importance of driving hybrid cars, practicing resource conservation, and signing the Kyoto Treaty.
As adults we happily segment our garbage to cut-down on environmental pollution, and set our thermometers at uncomfortably high or low levels to "save energy" – thereby reducing the nasty, dirty fossil fuel emissions needed to produce our electricity. The world, and our role in it, is put clearly in focus, as are the notions of "good" or "bad" behavior regarding our treatment of the environment.
This common frame of reference allows us, as a group, to make certain judgments that are universally accepted. Windmills are good. Solar energy is better. Conservation is best. The internal combustion engine, to quote Al Gore, is an example of man seeking to "artificially enhance our capacity to acquire what we need from the earth . . . at the direct expense of the earth's ability to provide naturally what we are seeking." By manufacturing "millions of internal combustion engines [that] automate the conversion of oxygen to CO2, we interfere with the earth's ability to cleanse itself of the impurities that are normally removed from the atmosphere." [Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore, p. 207]
No one laughs at the main theme of this passage which presumes to know intrinsically what man "needs" from the Earth, and what is an "artificial enhance[ment of his] capability" to acquire natural resources "at the direct expense of the earth's ability to provide naturally what we are seeking." No further justification is required to support these value-laden judgments, because they're not seen as expressing anything controversial. They're just obvious statements about obvious matters that are plainly obvious to any thoughtful, thinking individual.
From this basis it's a logical conclusion that cars are "interfering" with the natural state of affairs of Mother Earth, which leads to an equally obvious policy objective to deal with this cancer. As for the finite supply of fossil fuels that are mined, drilled, and otherwise gouged from the Earth to feed these poison-producing internal combustion engines, they serve only one purpose: to make Dick Cheney richer, and help George Bush justify an illegal, immoral war against Saddam Hussein whom we're all glad is out of power, even though Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction and ought to be impeached.
Because our schools, celebrities, TV anchorpersons and other opinion leaders accept these observations as fact, who are we to disagree? Since 1975 (my earliest memory on this subject) I've been told repeatedly that the world is running out of oil. There's only so much dead-dinosaur juice in the ground, and it will all be gone in 20 years or less. Thirty years later, the same 20-year prediction is still being made. If we don't switch to hybrid cars, solar-powered electricity, or wind-driven generators, we'll use up all the world's oil by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, or [pick a date] sometime in the near future. And when all the oil is gone, and coal is too dirty to burn, and nuclear power is too unsafe to produce, where will we be? Ergo, we need to start changing our lifestyles NOW!
At no point in this conventional wisdom analysis does anyone stop and say, "but wouldn't there be plenty of oil if we're willing to pay $100 a barrel to recover it?"
The Earth isn't running out of oil. It's running out of easily-acquired $20 a barrel oil. There's plenty of oil off the shores of California and Florida, in Alaska, Mexico, the Middle East, the North Sea, Russia, and a whole bunch of other places in the world, including oil locked in shale. It's harder to get, and therefore more expensive to acquire. But it's there.
This doesn't argue against practicing conservation or pursuing alternative means of energy production. A solar power car would be great – if there's a strong enough market demand to justify the billions of dollars of research and development needed to expedite its arrival. Windmills are a fantastic source of cheap, clean energy, unless they happen to spoil Ted Kennedy's oceanfront view, at which point good old fashioned gas guzzling cars will do just fine.
If Al Gore's prescription for responsible environmental management makes sense, he should be able to propose it without the intellectual legerdemain of over-hyped, value-laden judgments disguised as impartial analysis. It's one thing to illustrate a point with a dramatic example. It's quite another to have the example itself stand as a substitute for any further thinking about the matter. If the issue is real, the evidence will support it.
But to get the evidence, one first has to collect all the relevant data. When dealing with an issue as monumental as global climate change, 10, 20, 50, even a 100-year "trend" is nothing more than the blink of an eye in geological terms. If global warming actually exists, and further, if man is the principal cause of its existence, there should be clear, convincing evidence of this before we begin substantially rearranging important chunks of our current way of life. Why spend thousands of dollars to place your house on stilts so it won't be flooded if you're living in the middle of a desert? Such an expenditure may be perfectly reasonable for those homes along Gulf Coast beaches. But before I dip into my life savings to retrofit my house, I'd like to see a little evidence that central Utah is about to get inundated with water.
When confronted with this question, the typical answer we get from the Protectors of the Planet is that we can't afford to wait until all the data is in. By then it will be too late, so we must act now! That's why it was so important in the 1970s to take strong measures against a fast-approaching ice age – that is, until global warming became the problem. So, now we're told that we need to work just as quickly in 2006 to stop the warming of the earth, except recent studies have indicated that we may be in for a mini-ice age after all.
Apply this same reasoning to any subject — illegal immigration, universal health care, name the subject — and genuine debate becomes possible. Ignore the assumptions and sources of the data used to promote those assumptions, and all that's at stake are opinions.
And as I've said more than once, opinions are like the exit point of the human digestive system. Everybody has one.
Phil
I can appreciate your preference for logical thinking and writing, but I think you mis-underestimate the value of shooting from the hip. Somehow the percentage with 9's to the fifth decimal shows a lack of critical thinking. Since you have already admitted there are 2 good posters, that would indicate that the dummies, like me, number 20 million. I don't know how many people read the posts here, but there are certainly not that many who comment.
Again, I don't have data, but I would estimate the reasoned response here to be over 50% and adding in those who, like myself, precede there comment with "I feel" or "I think" we have a pretty good bunch. It's true we get comments from some who confuse feelings with fact, but cheer up! It ain't so bad.
Ivan. Good point about the extra nines. But I was referring to positions argued in that sentence, not individuals who conduct themselves with distinction in the following paragraphs.
Unfortunately, for every Ingles and yonkel, there are thousands of others for whom inanity is the theme of the day. Where yonkel might offer 2 comments, these people offer thousands upon thousands. It’s like the movie “Idiocracy”. It only takes a small number of idio-crats to raise the number of idiotic statements to exponential heights.
And by the way, since I tend to agree with a lot of what you, Mountain man, Sedona, etc. say, you folks don’t hold “opposing political views” of the kind this article is about, and therefore my comments are not directed toward you. Agreement does not require a unanimity of views. What I cringe at are people whose views are emotion-based and devoid of any interest to address the specific challenges others raise to their positions.
I engaged in an email debate several months ago, not too terribly unlike the exchange in the "Looney Liberal Chronicles." What astounded me was the complete lack of thought behind the statements coming back to me. The general gist of the debate was like this:
Crash: state a position
Opponet: Bush Lied!!!
Crash: State position
Opponent: Haliburton!!!
By the end, my head was spinning like in the exorcist.
Crash, you know it really is too bad it has to be this way. Neither side of the political spectrum has an absolute lock on the "truth" of an issue. But my experience is that while we on the Right try to support our statements with in-context facts, the Left spends most of its time in a parallel universe where to feel stongly about an issue is equivalent to actually understanding an issue.
Some of the best stuff I've written academically, and in essays, I gave drafts of it to people who didn't necessarily agree with me. It made my work better by doing this. My point-counter point with Raymond Ingles ("The True nature of Human Morality") was invaluable in fine- tuning and solidifying my thoughts.
The purpose of an intellectual debate is clarity, not victory. But it's impossible to achieve clarity when one side argues their feelings, won't respond to specific challenges with anything other than their personal opinions, or won't stick to the subject at all.
I read an article recently that asserted that we are all born liberal (emotion-based, self centered, unable to think rationally), and as we grow up we learn to become adults (logical, rational, altruistic… a conservative!).
A quote from that article: "Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered, he wants what he wants when he wants it: his bottle, his mother's attention, his playmate's toys, his uncle's watch, or whatever. Deny him these and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness which would be murderous were he not so helpless. He's dirty, he has no morals, no knowledge, no developed skills."
The obvious conclusion is that liberals are simply in a stage of arrested development in some part of their personality.
Somehow I saw this article coming as the inane comments grew past 100 and we had feel good discussions on why healthcare had to be improved.
Excellent article clearly outlining the differences in argument although I do like to get arguments going just to see if people will unveil real positions and how they came to hold them.
I suspect this article will not reach my magic 100 comment level simply because it is difficult to articulate your feelings about the content.
Oh well.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that people – all people, of every political persuasion – passionately believe that they have battled their way to objective truth through rigorous logic, empirical observation, and dispassionate analysis, all hardened in the fires of reasoned debate and fearless self-examination. And they believe that their opponents are wooly-headed, irrational doofuses who are thinking with their emotions.
I read your article eagerly looking for evidence of your contention that emotional reasoning is a peculiarly liberal foible, but no joy. Most everything you say seems just as applicable to America’s contingent of right-wing boneheads as it does to its admittedly large contingent of left-wing flakes.
Take this, for example:
“As I've commented on this subject before, instead of relying on some consistent, definable (dare I say "legal") criteria, some people evaluate everything on their (or their group's) own subjective notion of "fairness." They apply one set of fairness criteria to judging elections, another set of criteria to international relations, another to domestic situations, and yet another to a different situation.”
Once again, this is another example of where everything you say can simply be altered slightly and turned right back against a certain fairly predominant type of conservative. Eliminate the word ‘fairness’ and replace it with ‘morality’ or ‘family values’ or whatever, and you’d get this:
“As I've commented on this subject before, instead of relying on some consistent, definable (dare I say "legal") criteria, some [conservatives] evaluate everything on their (or their group's) own subjective notion of "morality."
And then you say:
“People who think with their emotions aren't bad people, or even consciously ideological. I tend to refer to them as idiots not to insult them personally, but rather to describe the utter lack of introspection and content to their thought process.”
Agreed. The world is teeming with idiots, who think with their emotions, cannot introspect, and remain blissfully unaware of their many unexamined assumptions. I can point to a number of liberals of this stripe. What makes your entire column so risible, however, is your implication that it is only, or even predominantly, liberals who reason in that manner. Did you ever listen to the callers on a right-wing talk show, or the posters on a religious fundamentalist web site? Many of those people are blithering idiots (to use your term). They have swallowed whole the religious ideation they were fed from birth, never bothering to ponder if any of it is true, yet basing their political policy positions upon it. Some of them still seem to think Iraq was involved in 9/11. Quite a few don’t understand science well enough to debate the merits of Intelligent Design on anything but the most child-like level, yet they loudly bray their opinion that it must be allowed into schools on a par with evolution. Why? Because people told them stuff and they believed it without reflection. No capacity whatsoever to examine the issues involved. No understanding of what science is and is not.
I’m sorry, Mr. Jackson, but what you are describing here is a famous human tendency, not a liberal or conservative one.
And finally,
“But I can't tell you what "fairness" is, because "fairness" is an emotion, not a policy”
Fairness is not an emotion. It’s an intellectual construct. It clearly is not well-defined, and your version of fairness may differ from mine, but it’s not just a feeling. Fairness and equity can be operationally defined and analyzed, not that everyone necessarily bothers to do that. However, if you are accusing liberals of being kind of concerned with issues of fairness and justice, I’m going to just go ahead and plead guilty there. I’d rather defend a preoccupation with justice, however vaguely defined, than scoff at the notion entirely, as you seem to do.
Best regards,
Travis Thomas
Phil-
You are an extremely talented writer! And very knowledgeable. I mean that sincerely. (I would say so even if you hadn't quoted me!)
Let me explain WHY I wrote: "Now, I could open another internet page and google whatever information I need to answer any questions you pose that I might not be able to answer myself, and do it with great skill and in very fine detail. That's one of the joys of modern technology and a forum such as this. Then it would be fact countering fact, rather than platitudes, sloganeering and irrational emotion vs. sound, unbiased, logical analysis and reasoning. (You see, I agree with you.) But the point is there's an incredible amount of information out there. The more you read, the more confused you get. And then you find yourself right back where you started."
I should have written, " … and google whatever information I might need to effectively counter your position … " At any rate, I wrote what's above NOT because I'm confused or I've been too lazy and complacent to do the research myself, but because this type of "debate" (posting comments on an internet site) easily lends itself to cheating. (Not that it was a real debate, but can you imagine … McCain to Obama: "Hang on a second, senator. I'll have to google Limbaugh for my response!) Kinda like letting your students access the internet for answers while taking an exam. If you're demonstrating your surfing skills for a "How to use the internet" test, I guess it's OK.
For the 98.9% of us 18 and over who don't hold PhD's (I calculated the percentage myself using 2007 U.S. Census Bureau data), who perhaps have only average analytical skills and limited experience with the various issues we confront and then VOTE on, and who suspect the game itself may be a little bit rigged, elevating oneself beyond a very subjective conservative "idiot" level can be a difficult, if not impossible task.
Idealogues in particular (some, not all) have developed the power of persuasion to a fine art. Newspapers, magazines, television, and the internet provide information that is often inaccurate and biased, the sources questionable. Facts and statistics can be (and usually are) presented out of context by both sides, simply for the purpose of winning, rather than for exposing the truth. And when you consider that even the Bush administration, the most powerful leadership in the world, took our nation into war based upon information from the intelligence community concerning Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles that turned out to be flat wrong, well … you have a very skeptical electorate.
When you've done the research, gathered the facts, weighed the evidence, considered the alternatives, listened to the polical craptrap, and you discover that moment of enlightenment still remains elusive … what do you have left?
My gut feeling tells me …
I'd like you to know that I've developed the habit of learning something new from every person I encounter (well educated or not), from every situation, and every verbal and written exchange I find myself in. I've been learning much here.
>“I read your article eagerly looking for evidence of your contention that emotional reasoning is a peculiarly liberal foible, but no joy. Most everything you say seems just as applicable to America’s contingent of right-wing boneheads as it does to its admittedly large contingent of left-wing flakes.”
*** Have a look at the Looney Liberal Chronicles under my name in the IC archives for more on this. As for the Uber Right, you’ll see that I take on agenda-driven arguments on the extreme right as well.
Of the two, though, the main difference as been that the Uber Right will attempt to justify their bilge with a convoluted theory of “kith and kin based natural hierarchical social order”, while the Left normally begins with “I feel”, or “Bush Sucks”.
>“Eliminate the word ‘fairness’ and replace it with ‘morality’ or ‘family values’ or whatever, and you’d get [the same thing].”
*** You are mixing the use of the word “morality” with “religion or religious values”, which is not the same thing. See http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/. Agree or disagree with my conclusions in this essay, but I challenge you to state that it’s simply an opinion or emotion-based feeling.
>“The world is teeming with idiots, who think with their emotions, cannot introspect, and remain blissfully unaware of their many unexamined assumptions. I can point to a number of liberals of this stripe. What makes your entire column so risible, however, is your implication that it is only, or even predominantly, liberals who reason in that manner.”
*** The Left does not have a monopoly on idiocy. I said as much in my original essay and in one of the comments above. And I’ve highlighted clear cases of this on the Right http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/11/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/
But arguing from feelings or emotions and an unwillingness to address competing arguments IS a clear sign of idiocy, and this is where the Left shines.
People can see a connection between Al Queda and Iraq without believing that Saddam personally ordered the 9/11 attack. But only an idiot would conclude that 9/11 was an inside job.
People can hold religious beliefs without being idiots. It simply involves understanding the proper connection between religion and science. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/
Disagreement is not a sign of idiocy in and of itself. It’s a specific assessment I assign to people who refuse to address the substance of an issue with anything other than feelings or emotions.
>“Fairness is not an emotion. It’s an intellectual construct. It clearly is not well-defined, and your version of fairness may differ from mine, but it’s not just a feeling.”
*** You’re not being fair to me. Please tell me that isn’t an emotion.
As for “justice”, I can tell you what is in the US constitution. And, you and I can debate the meaning or interpretation of specific constitutional passages. But you can’t define justice in and of itself in similarly precise terms. It’s a “vague notion” that engenders feelings of fairness or unfairness in people who discuss it without grounding it in some specific system (Western Justice, Islamic Justice, Kangaroo court justice, battlefield justice, vigilante justice, etc.).
Verba and Nie dealt with this about 50 years ago in their seminal study of cross cultural comparisons where they found that concepts like “pride in one’s country” could not be measured with any degree of accuracy. In the US, it engenders a feeling of patriotism. In Italy, the word for pride engenders an image of carnal relations.
Making policy using value laden (which I’ll accept as a substitute for the word “emotion”, since it’s actually a more precise way to say what I mean) imagery like “fairness”, “justice”, etc are meaningless, unless the practical definition and application of these terms are grounded in specific legal, economic or social constructs.
Regards, Phil
TravisT makes an a priori assumption that "religious fundamentalists" and "blithering idiots" are synonymous, and they are not. That would be known as a "stereotype," an anti-intellectual technique.
He errs further by citing unnamed right-wingers as if the existence of idiots on the right makes everything all even.
This all makes TravisT a textbook example of the lack of critical thinking skills Phil was writing about. The irony is complete.
John: I deliberately didn't identify you because it wasn't my intention to pick on you personally, just examine your ideas. It's the same reason I use pseudonyms in my Looney Liberal Chronicles.
To my knowledge only a couple of other contributors to the IC have Ph.D.s. Raymond Ingles doesn’t, neither does yonkel. A Ph.D. is not a requirement for clear thinking [in fact, it's often a detriment]. As I've stated before, I've learned more useful things from people with a high school education than with an advanced degree.
The point is, there is a lot of confusing, contradictory, and just plain wrong information out there — which is why you must always ask who is giving you this information, and what is their agenda? This requires additional thought and investigation before you reach a conclusion. It may take days, months, even years for a specific individual to reach this point, but until that point is reached, only an idiot comes to a conclusion about an issue.
By the way, you are one of the few people who, though somewhat misguided in how you’ve approached thinking about things, seem genuinely sincere — and I’ve said as much in the past. So, don’t take any of this personally.
I’m going to give you a rather long passage below from http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/, which will help illustrate what I mean about using reason rather than emotions to analyze an issue — particularly one that involves potentially restructuring key aspects of the US economy.
Though I’ve touched here and there on the duplicity of environmental activists as they promote their theory about global warming, this matter bears further exploration because it provides the missing piece of the puzzle to understand why opinion leaders on the Left act the way they do; denying the obvious and/or ignoring contradictory evidence to promote the fiction that man, and man alone, is primarily responsible for global warming.
Three interrelated reasons explain why they do this: power, prestige, and money.
Power: As Defenders of the Environment, these individuals occupy a unique position of power and importance. Their words shape the public debate, and through that debate they try to influence public policy. The more their policies are put into practice, the more power they garner. They don’t need to be an elected official, because if they are successful, elected officials will look to them for their policy direction.
But the quest for power doesn’t automatically mean that an individual must lie (or to be more generous, refuse to put forward a completely honest view) in order to occupy this position of influence. I will argue, however, that the unique nature of the global warming debate requires them to promote a singular world view regardless of the evidence to support it, and in spite of the growing evidence against it. The decision tree looks something like this:
If global warming is only a theoretical concern, and not a concrete, existing problem, then there is no reason to make new policy and/or divert current resources to this crisis. Thus, it must be an existing problem that is significant, and growing, or other competing problems will take center stage.
Moreover, the solution to this existing, significant, and growing problem must involve a restructuring or redirection of society’s resources. If existing policies, processes and/or institutions can take care of the problem, there is no need for an outside entity to lead the effort or participate in any meaningful way. Thus, the solution must, by definition, demand a “new way” of doing business, led by individuals who are closely attuned to the unique new dynamics surrounding that issue. In short, their view must be that the very nature of the problem, as well as the unique features of its solution, requires individuals like them to play strong central roles.
If the facts at hand don’t conform to this scenario, then they must be massaged, distorted, or disregarded all together in order to preserve, protect, or expand their power.19
Prestige: Closely related to the quest for power is the importance of prestige. It is certainly possible to define a problem and/or manufacture a solution that is entirely within the political mainstream. Rather than supplant existing processes and institutions, a group or individual could seek to “reinvent” them in a more efficient form. The goals and objectives might remain the same, but the manner in which they are pursued would be altered. Or, the process and/or institution could remain unchanged, but the goals could be tweaked so that resources are divided differently among its constituent parts. In either case the effort is designed to strengthen the existing system, not replace it.
For radical environmentalists, however, such an option would never be seriously considered. In addition to seeking power, they are also part of a social fabric that views itself as separate and distinct from the individuals managing current institutions and processes. Gaining the respect, approval, or admiration of these current leaders would alienate them from their peers and call their own motives into question. If Big Oil, supported by mainstream Republicans and other ROWG’s (rich old white guys) embrace their ideas, then there is either something intrinsically wrong with their proposals — or worse, their peers will conclude that they’ve compromised their principles and joined the enemy.20 Big Oil, Republicans, and ROWG are the problem. Bringing them down as they save the environment will not only enhance these activists’ power, it will elevate their personal prestige within the only group that matters; their fellow Left-wing radicals, and the Hollywood groupies who hang on their every word.
Money: Last, but certainly not least, is the issue of money. Those without power don’t get the funding. That is the ultimate, self-reinforcing goal.
It takes money to run a think tank, operate a website, travel around the country or pay one’s own personal bills. Those with power can persuade (read: extort) elected officials to help subsidize their activities with federal funds, either in an attempt to buy off more aggressive opposition that could threaten these officials’ own power base, or as a way of stoking the flames if the party in power is sympathetic to their cause and wants to create political mischief for their opponents.
Also, the more perceived power and prestige an organization has, the more likely it is to attract private donations from like-minded individuals or sympathetic foundations. Either way, money is the fuel that keeps things going, and raising more money is always a primary concern of every social activist on either side of the political spectrum.
For those who seek power and prestige but have not yet attained it, money becomes the driving force in shaping their message. To illustrate this point by borrowing from the political arena, if a group arises in opposition to the policies of President Bush, it will not serve its own best interests by conceding major points in that debate even if the evidence is overwhelming. The Bush tax cut policy has swelled the public coffers beyond even the most optimistic projections, just as the Administration said it would. Organizations formed in opposition to Bush cannot concede this point, or they will alienate the red meat radicals who viscerally hate the president and will tolerate no praise for him whatsoever. Their funds will then go to another competing group that remains true to the message that everything Bush does is corrupt, incompetent, or stupid,21 and they’ll be left panhandling for dollars to pay the light bill.
Which brings us back to the issue of global warming. To illustrate my point about the inherent dishonesty of the Left-wing activists who address this subject, I have to look no further than a document from the Natural Resources Defense Council that was last revised on January 9, 2006.22 As Defenders of the Environment, they had access to the same NASA, U.S. government, and other material I previously cited — and more. The information they convey on their website is, in their opinion, the most accurate and balanced view of the global warming issue presently available.
Below is a sample of their work in the form of questions and answers they posed, accompanied by my observations. The questions and answers are direct quotes from the NRDC; the observations and occasional “translations” are entirely mine.
Q: What causes global warming?
A: Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution — they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.
Observation: What causes global warming, according to the NRDC? Not the sun. Not the Earth as it moves through its natural cycles. The only factor worth mentioning is coal burning power plants and cars. But not just any power plants or cars — only those operated in the good old U.S. of A. China, India, Western Europe, Latin America, Russia and the remainder of the world don’t rate a mention. One can only conclude that their power plants and cars must be cleaner and more efficient than the smokestack belching, gas guzzling monsters blighting our country, making them the model technology the NDRC challenges us to adopt.
Q: Is the earth really getting hotter?
A: Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.
Observation: Not only is the data ignored showing that average temperatures have actually stabilized over the past few decades rather than increased, we are now threatened with the possibility of a 3 to 9 degree temperature increase by 2100. If a one degree increase doesn’t get the public’s attention, make it 3-4 degrees.23 If 3-4 degrees isn’t scary enough to foster the desired policy changes to curb global warming, suggest that 6.5 degrees is a real possibility.24 If a 6.5 degree temperature increase doesn’t do the job, toss out 9 degrees to get your point across. …
There's more of this in the article if you're interested. Phil
'Twas not I, but Mr. Jackson who initiated the use of the word 'idiot' in the discussion. Not that I disagree with the term, personally, although others here seem to find it offensive. But only if it is directed at THEM or their fellow travellers, I gather.
I do not personally consider religious fundamentalists idiots, merely by virtue of their religious faith. I suspect some have higher IQs than me. I purposely said in my post that 'many' of the callers and posters are blithering idiots. According to Mr. Jackson's definition of idiocy, it would only include that proportion of religious fundamentalists who are reasoning from unexamined assumptions, using their emotions versus higher-level cognition and logic. I suspect I might find a specimen or two at a fundamentalist meeting, but I would certainly not tar them ALL with that brush, and I didn't.
Mr. Jackson, you point out that you have some criticisms of right-wing 'idiots' elsewhere, and I'll take your word for it. Such even-handedness just didn't shine through overly much in this particular post. While no doubt you elsewhere acknowledge the idiocy of right-wing nuts, you still seem to be claiming (with no evidence that I can apprehend) that liberals are much more prone to these cognitive errors than conservatives. I'm afraid I can't take your word for that, because I personally see no evidence for it and you've presented none.
TT
Phil, TravisT is accusing you of not being fair! You didn't call out right-wingers in your article, so that means you are not even-handed.
Then he takes issue that his example (religious fundamentalists) and his words (that they are idiots) were misunderstood, and he didn't mean ALL of them!
Amazing.
'He errs further by citing unnamed right-wingers as if the existence of idiots on the right makes everything all even. '
"As if" ? It's not 'as if' it makes it even, it is exactly that it makes everything all even. That was kind of my point. Unless someone can substantiate to me the contention that there are more liberal idiots than conservative idiots. I can't swing a dead cat without hitting an idiot, but as to their particular political ideology, I've not taken a survey but suspect it's about a wash.
Mr. Man,
Fundamentally, I am simply accusing him of being mistaken in his implication that emotion-driven reasoning is more prevalent on the left than the right. I typically would not harp on 'fairness' in the context of political argumentation. But the level of discomfort around here with the concept is fascinating. Are we all against fairness now? Why, I wonder?
TT
TravisT,
I think Phil made the point adequately. Fairness is a moving target. Fairness is what children insist on when dividing a candy bar in half. Fairness is what leftists think the world should be ruled by. Fairness is a feel-good concept that has no basis in law, the Constitution, or real life. Fairness is not the same as justice.
Demanding fairness as the highest good is a manifestation of immaturity. Phil's thesis, based on years of experience, is that leftists dominate that arena. I agree with him.
No one has denied that idiots are found everywhere. The assertion is that it is shifted leftward. TravisT, you are just as capable of research as anyone else. Why do you demand that someone "prove" it to you when you can do it yourself.
Just wander over to dailykos or huffington post or the democratic underground. There you will see the most astounding demonstrations of idiocy.
Travis, the best way to determine whether emotion-driven reasoning is more prevalent on the left is to do the following:
1. Read newspapers, particularly the editorials. Neer a fact to be found but lots of poor left behind illegal immigrants, or poor (oops isn't that a 52" tv in the background of the picture?), or failing polar bears (in spite of an increase in their numbers).
2. Watch TV NBC, ABC, and shudder CBS. Don't expect facts or at least facts that come in the way of a good story.
3. Take a course at your local college or university then listen to your professor wax enthusiastically about areas far outside their expertise…and again no facts get in the way of a good story.
If you would like I can cut in multiple examples from any day you choose to illustrate but I suspect you get the point.
On the right side arguments seem to deal with issues and facts to support a position. We don't seem to see a great deal of "feel good" positions. Again I can pull examples if you wish to read them. Take energy for example. How much could we reduce energy consumption simply by deporting the 20 million illegals? Hmmm seems like around 6% off the top and it would reduce medical costs, significantly reduce K-12 education costs, and reduce other transfer payments.
So if you want to play pick a topic, lay out your argument, support those positions with facts and we will play too.
>Mr. Jackson, you point out that you have some criticisms of right-wing 'idiots' elsewhere, and I'll take your word for it.
*** Travis: You don't have to "take my word" for it. Look under my names in the IC archives. Or follow the links I already gave you in Comment 9 . http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/11/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/ [This leads to links to two previous articles I wrote. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/02/off-to-the-races-the-perplexing-politics-of-political-correctness/
and http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/08/the-%e2%80%9ctrue-conservative%e2%80%9d-racial-purity-quiz/ ]
There’s also couple of subsequent ones attacking paleoconservatism as a pseudo-religion http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/02/20/who-are-you/ and simple race-hating bilge http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/21/paleo-bilge/
You don’t have to simply "take my word" for something that I show you a direct link to. Or, if you still doubt me, you can just have a look at what the Right Wing nuts say about me at http://www.ninehundred.com/CalNews/wwwboard/messages/2581.html
It’s always interesting to see how someone confronts a person’s claim to be even-handed in assigning criticism to people who are clearly in the idiot category. I made the claim that I’m even handed in my approach, and given you evidence to support it. You won’t look at the evidence, instead saying you’ll merely “take my word” for it, then based on not examining the evidence, you then conclude you can no longer take my word for it.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that prompted me to write my article about the hopelessness of real debate.
Mickey G — we may get to 100 comments anyway.
Mountain,
Citing Mr. Jackson's undisputed 'years of experience' is simply reasoning from authority, a classic logical fallacy.
You make numerous claims, such as 'fairness is what leftists think the world should be ruled by'. Can you support those with any evidence? After all, leftists would probably dispute that formulation
Fairness is not confined to children, although I suspect we are quibbling about semantics. On the football field, in the workplace, in our marriages, and in the courtrooms, we expect things to be roughly fair. People seem to have a built-in expectation that they will be (mostly) treated fairly, and most of us have the goal of avoiding unfair treatment of others. Don't we? What is childish about that?
Perhaps the devil is in the details of your distinction between justice and fairness. Maybe you can elaborate on that. Of course, I suffer from a premonition that you might arbitrarily define 'fairness' as something dumb and unreasonable, and then ascribe it to liberals. Which is the classic 'straw man' logical fallacy. But maybe you'll exceed my expectations in this regard.
TT
Travis: By the way, I have 13 articles on my conversations with Looney Liberals that illustrate the common themes of liberal-think. Do I need to give you an exact link to each one of these too, or can you trouble yourself to go to the IC archives and look under my name?
The combined articles are about 60,000 words. You said that you want to see my "evidence that … liberals are much more prone to these cognitive errors than conservatives." Here it is for you to "apprehend". Now all you have to do is actually read it, if in fact you really wanted to know the answer to your own question.
Mr. Jackson, when I said I would take your word for it, I meant just that. I wasn't being ironical. I take you at your word that in other places and in other times, you have criticized right-wing idiots. I trust and believe that you are being entirely honest, and saw no need to verify it by reading your other works. Not sure why it seems so important to you that I click on all those links.
My point was that your post put forth an argument. Clearly, that argument seemed to be that liberals base their views and arguments on a priori assumptions and feelings, whereas conservatives tend to rely upon facts and logic. I pointed out that I think the tendency to think emotionally, based upon unexamined assumptions, is pretty well evenly distributed, and that for every feather headed flake on the left, I can point out a bone-headed nutcase on the right, both using the same poor cognition, just in favor of a different ideological tendency.
I'm still awaiting any reason to think I'm wrong on that. All I see so far from the various posters is something like this:
Liberals are unreasonable and emotional. Just read the papers, and you'll see a variety of liberal positions expressed. Therefore liberals are unreasonable and emotional. Or something like that.
I mean, really, I don't think it's terribly persuasive to argue that liberals are wrong and over-emotional when you are arguing from the assumption that liberalism is by definition wrong and over-emotional. You're doing what's called 'begging the question', if I recall my principles of logic. Which I rarely do.
TT
TT
*Sigh*
I did not appeal to authority. I simply stated that I agree with Phil's conclusions. This is based on my experience with leftists, not Phil's.
Here we go, Mickey G. The downward spiral begins as TravisT, like a typical leftist, starts quibbling with every detail, no matter how tangental. We are now debating the meaning of words, and soon will be parsing syllables.
TravisT, if you doubt something that someone says, bring your evidence that they are wrong. If you think the left is not obsessed with fairness, cite your evidence.
Try this website: http://www.socialjustice.org/index.php?page=key-issues
That is Dr. Jackson, by the way.
Well, Phil, when you say this:
"The combined articles are about 60,000 words. You said that you want to see my "evidence that … liberals are much more prone to these cognitive errors than conservatives." Here it is for you to "apprehend". Now all you have to do is actually read it, if in fact you really wanted to know the answer to your own question."
Before I read 60,000 words, will those 60,000 words demonstrate your thesis that liberals are MORE prone, in general, to emotionally-based reasoning than conservatives, or are those 60,000 words simply an exposition of what all is is wrong with liberal thinking? Because I'm already aware there are plenty of problems with doctrinnaire liberal thinking, and hardly need to read 60,000 words about it. There are also plenty of problems with religious fundamentalist thinking, neoconservative thinking, and far-right apocalyptic gun-nut survivalist thinking. I could point you to 600,000 words on those topics, but not sure there'd be a point.
TT
It is also Dr. Thomas, by the way. Although I only make my wife and children call me 'Doctor.' Teaches 'em respect.
:-)
TT
"TravisT, if you doubt something that someone says, bring your evidence that they are wrong. If you think the left is not obsessed with fairness, cite your evidence."
So now I am directed to prove a negative? As you so poignantly say: "Sigh". Extraordinary claims require evidence. If I say to you, the world is secretly ruled by that silly gnome from the travel commercials, I'd be 'unfair' to demand you prove me wrong.
I simply asked for evidence, and I am directed to numerous websites which appear to boil down to "Liberalism. Bad. Illogical."
TT
And if I have precipitated a steep downward trajectory in the quality of the discussion, Dr. Mountain Man, my sincere apologies. I'll try to do better.
TT
Sure, let's split some more words. You are being asked to prove your negative. You are being asked to sustantiate your arguments.
You have made the charge that Phil is wrong. Now, give your evidence.
I provided a link to a idiot left website. They are obsessed with fairness.
You are a Doctor, hmm? Good for you. Did you previously identify yourself as such, or is it something to trot out as a zinger? Phil is already identified and acknowledged by you as a PHD, yet you diminish him by calling him Mr.. And that marginalizes him and reveals your motives as well.
At the risk of becoming one of those tiresome and perseverative cranks who just can't let go, allow me to respond to at least one of the blizzard of allegedly enlightening webites to which I've been directed.
Mountain, you directed me to the Center for Social Justice, or something like that. Parenthetically, why is it not named the 'Center for Social Fairness', if fairness is their creed instead of justice? Oh well. I see as evidence for the pervasive illogic of the left, pages entitled 'Racial Inequality' and 'Gender Inequality'. Pardon me if I don't collapse with embarrassment over such stark and dramatic evidence that leftists are all illogical fools. How does that prove your point? Are you against those things?
As for a discussion of semantics, I merely asked you to illuminate me about the apparently oh-so-crucial distinction between fairness and justice, since you ascribe one exlusively to the right and the other to the left.
TT
>“Not sure why it seems so important to you that I click on all those links.”
*** Well, you seem to reach conclusions based on whether or not you can take my word for it. If there’s uncertainty in believing what I say, then I’m happy to substantiate it. Having done that, I expect the person to then concede the point (there was no reason for doubt, or the doubt has been removed). Or, if specific questions still persist, then focus on the specific issues still in dispute. This is the essence of real debate, as opposed to opinion swapping.
You seem to have backed off on your original intuition that I treat liberal idiocy somehow differently than right wing idiocy. But there still remains your statement “you still seem to be claiming (with no evidence that I can apprehend) that liberals are much more prone to these cognitive errors than conservatives. I'm afraid I can't take your word for that, because I personally see no evidence for it and you've presented none.”
I’ve now pointed you towards the Looney Liberal Chronicles as evidence in support of this claim. There’s also a boat load of commentary in various posts from people like taguba, omcgubs, Dr. Kilovolt and others. After you’ve read them, I’d be curious to see if you still maintain that there is “no evidence” to support my contention.
If your point is that I didn’t summarize the LLC in this article, I’ll concede. But I didn’t summarize a lot of things I’ve previously written about. The reason is that in a forum like this, where I’ve been participating as a contributor and commentator for years, there is a long history of things I’ve written about. It’s why I began my essay with “After more than three years of writing essays and participating in debates at the Intellectual Conservative — not to mention participating in other discussions and forums leading up to the 2008 presidential election — I can count on one hand the number of legitimate debates I've had with, shall we say, people of opposing political views,” clearly referencing this history.
It’s legitimate to ask me to substantiate claims I make. And I’ve now done so several times by pointing to those links. But it is not a legitimate criticism to label my article deficient simply because I didn’t re-summarize about 500,000 words (this is not an exaggeration) of previous articles in this article. I picked a representative quote from a self-described member of the “non-conservative” line of thought process to ground my initial observation, then drew from several past articles I’ve written to show how this thought process arrived. All this is stated in the article.
There’s nothing a priori about my conclusions. I didn’t pull them out of thin air, and I didn’t just state my feeling-based opinion. I even quoted extensively from http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/ both in the article and one of my responses that illustrated how I arrived at this conclusion.
You, by contrast, have shared an opinion that “ I think the tendency to think emotionally, based upon unexamined assumptions, is pretty well evenly distributed, and that for every feather headed flake on the left, I can point out a bone-headed nutcase on the right, both using the same poor cognition, just in favor of a different ideological tendency.” But you’ve offered nothing to support this feeling — no direct statements, no links, no empirical evidence of any kind. You’ve just told us how you feel.
You profess to summarize my position with the tautology that “Liberals are unreasonable and emotional. Just read the papers, and you'll see a variety of liberal positions expressed. Therefore liberals are unreasonable and emotional. Or something like that.” This is pure sophistry, given everything I’ve pointed you towards to support my contention. And again, unfortunately, it’s exactly the kind of thing that too often typifies a debate with the Left.
I don't know whether you consider yourself a liberal, progressive, independent, moderaste, or whatever label you prefer, since this article was not about any single person. It was about having a real discussion. You've been respectful toward me, and not wholly emotional in expressing your thoughts, and I readily acknowledge that. But as for discussing the merits of my argument, other than raising a couple of generic issues I addressed through subsequent links, the only thing that stands out from your posts is that you disagree with some of what I've said.
Disagreement is not debate.
You have mis-read my motives, Mountain. I intend no disrespect, then or now. I stumbled on the article more or less at random, and really paid no attention to the writer's name. If I offended Dr. Jackson, I apologize. I also intended no 'zingers' nor any appearance of arrogance over my rather meaningless academic degree, and if it appeared so, I regret it.
TT
Travis: I've taken no offense at anything you've said. The points you raised (at least with me) are legitimate, and I've tried to address them. They helped to further and refine the discussion, instead of detract from it. I hope you continue to participate. Phil
Dr. Jackson, when you say:
You profess to summarize my position with the tautology that “Liberals are unreasonable and emotional. Just read the papers, and you'll see a variety of liberal positions expressed. Therefore liberals are unreasonable and emotional. Or something like that.”
I would just like to clarify that I was summarizing some other fellow's position, not yours. I can't be bothered to find it right now, but I was responding to the post urging me to 'just read the papers and watch the TV', as proof that liberals are a soft-headed and fatuous breed. That just doesn't do it for me, as proof.
I read your previous post, and perhaps I'll take a look. I'm still puzzled by the necessity to do so. I assume I'll find there what the magazine title promises: a lot of conservatism, including plenty of claims that leftists are wrong, wrong, wrong.
I do have work to do, and didn't intend to be drawn into anything, really, I was just killing time. So I'll exit the discussion. Feel free to kick me around, I don't mind :-)
TT
I'm glad you glanced at the titles of the sections. Now, did you read their contents?
Those titles, and the issues they represent, are carefully chosen so that the casual observer will say exactly what you just said: "Are you against those things?"
There it is. Who could be against fairness, or equality, or justice? No one wants to be thought of as against such noble things. Yet those words are chosen to elicit an emotional response, not to inform.
Of course, they depend on people just reading the titles and saying, "Yup, I'm for that."
Ok, I give up. I guess that there are people out there who just don't want to take the time to figure things out on their own. Fairness = equality of outcome. Unfairness, therefore, must be fixed. Government, therefore, is the default choice to make sure everyone comes out the same. Justice = Equality under the law. Justice is blind. And color-blind. Do the crime, do the time. There are no free lunches. No guarantees. You are what you achieve.
"Travis: I've taken no offense at anything you've said. The points you raised (at least with me) are legitimate, and I've tried to address them. They helped to further and refine the discussion, instead of detract from it. I hope you continue to participate. Phil"
Thanks, I appreciate that very much. It was fun…
TT
Mountain, as Rhett Butler was fond of saying, "I apologize again for my shortcomings." Peace be wit' ya.
TT
Travis,
There is no problem here, either. Make your points, supply your evidence, and we will do so in turn.
At least you haven't called anyone names. Well, unless your perjoratives regardin religious fundamentalists count.
>“I would just like to clarify that I was summarizing some other fellow's position, not yours.”
*** I did realize that, but it was a general enough statement that I thought it pertained to the basic theme of my essay. I stands corrected if I overreached.
>“I read your previous post, and perhaps I'll take a look. I'm still puzzled by the necessity to do so. I assume I'll find there what the magazine title promises: a lot of conservatism, including plenty of claims that leftists are wrong, wrong, wrong.”
*** Never assume! The LLC is a series of email conversations over a multi-year period with self-professed liberals in the US and abroad with whom I’ve discussed many policy-related issues. It shows how they think about the same issues I do. It’s their words and mine, with some analysis by me. But for the most part each point of view gets to express itself in its own way.
And again, drop back in when you have a chance. It’s always nice to have a respectful debate (or even a disagreement) with someone who can answer a charge with something other than “Bush Sucks”.
Phil:
Re: “What causes global warming, according to the NRDC? Not the sun. Not the Earth as it moves through its natural cycles. The only factor worth mentioning is coal burning power plants and cars. But not just any power plants or cars – only those operated in the good old U.S. of A. China, India, Western Europe, Latin America, Russia and the remainder of the world don’t rate a mention. One can only conclude that their power plants and cars must be cleaner and more efficient than the smokestack belching, gas guzzling monsters blighting our country, making them the model technology the NDRC challenges us to adopt.”
While that’s a logical conclusion, it’s not the only thing. We can also conclude that it is not politically correct to criticize “The Other” [as in Not the U.S.] There is a relationship between political correctness, liberals/Leftists, and truth: As Duke points out, liberals/Leftists do not reject their ideology when it conflicts with truth, but reject truth when it conflicts with their ideology. This why the concept of “political correctness” is necessary, to conceal and/or deny truth, and for truth to get redefined, as in something interior to the individual. Again, we dwell on the issues when the issues are not the issue; the revolution is the issue.
Mountain Man:
Re: “TravisT is accusing you of not being fair! You didn't call out right-wingers in your article, so that means you are not even-handed.”
I have never met a Leftist who didn’t think he was “moderate” “objective”, “even-handed”, “fair”, etc. even though he could hold any cockamamie position without a blink.
Phil:
"…why would otherwise rational, intelligent people accept the notion that a car's exhaust is heating the Earth to a dangerous level, but never once ask how this conclusion was derived, whether there are other factors that better account for this phenomenon, or whether the Earth is really warming at a rapid rate – or getting hotter at all?"
What I think you have touched on here is guilt — guilt that the vast majority of Americans have the luxury of owning automobiles while the rest of the world's population don't for whatever reasons. And that's not "fair". The same guilt can be seen in such profound statements as, "The U.S. consumes 25% of the world's energy." Put in the context that the U.S produces 25% of the world's food would knock the wind out of the sails of their guilt-trip, so it goes ignored by the Left.
cockamamie? Been a long time since I've heard that word!
You flaunt yourself as an objective and logical person. But in the very same breath you pretend that people on the "Right" are the only ones capable of clear-thinking; you attack the ENTIRE "Left" as a bunch of emotional unthinking drones. Doesn't this seem hypocritical to you? Generalizations and platitudes run a very similar vein. It has been my experience that people are emotional and irrational regarless of their political affiliation.
Let's also define "fairness" the way that it is moving in our schools…equality of outcome. Consider a race on the track: equality of outcome = dead heat.
Equality of outcome in education = everyone performs poorly because some are unable to function at a higher level
Mickey G:
IOW, the whole is less than sum of its parts.
Mountain Man, thanks for giving me a definition of ‘fairness’, reproduced below:
“Fairness = equality of outcome. Unfairness, therefore, must be fixed. Government, therefore, is the default choice to make sure everyone comes out the same. Justice = Equality under the law. Justice is blind. And color-blind. Do the crime, do the time. There are no free lunches. No guarantees. You are what you achieve.”
I now realize that contrary to my previous statements, I am DEAD SET AGAINST FAIRNESS.
In fact, I am now so incensed and passionate about the issue, I’ve been trying to seek out people who are in favor of this lame and illogical concept, so that I can issue them strongly-worded letters.
I’ve run into some difficulty, though—I can’t seem to find anyone who is in favor of ‘making sure everyone comes out the same’. I’d like to request a little help finding them, so I can jump on this bandwagon. Any ideas?
Please don’t suggest the Social Justice website I was previously directed to. Unfortunately, they only talk about trying to reduce some of the inequalities in society, and nowhere make reference to ‘making sure everyone comes out the same’.
Maybe it’s in the minutes of their last meeting, but they haven’t posted them yet.
Or, I suppose it’s theoretically possible that your definition of fairness is kind of a straw man that nobody really endorses except in the wilder-eyed exaggerations of political conservatives. But I’m fairly naïve about these issues, and would welcome examples. Or maybe you were just exaggerating for effect. Nuance is not well-communicated on message boards, I find.
Thanks for any assistance you can offer…
TT
Travis, go read the Community Reinvestment Act, then read today's news where the hue and cry is that foreclosures may affect minorities and the poor disproportionately.
Hmmm, since foreclosures only happen if you don't pay your mortgage why should it matter who is affected? Must be that "fairness" stuff again. Examples abound but this one is from today's news and guess who is pushing it…conservatives? No!
I have a sense that your description of why forclosures happen is a little over-simplified. I'm no expert in the area, but I've heard that in a large proportion of cases, it is related to the impact of catastrophic medical bills. Yes, they 'didn't pay their mortgage', but if you are poor you are much less likely to be able to survive an avalanche of medical bills and keep your house.
Does being concerned about that impact mean that liberal policy-makers want to just make everyone equally wealthy so nobody is disproportionately affected? I doubt it, although that's what your caricature of 'fairness' would seem to imply.
I suspect the 'hue and cry' is rooted in simple concern for the plight of the poor, and a hope that better ideas can improve their lot – somewhat – while acknowledging that, as Jesus was rumored to have said, There will be poor always… I haven't read the Community Reinvestment Act, though, and you obviously have. Can you point to the provisions about making everybody equal to eliminate any unfairness.
Assessment of discrepant outcome, to my mind, is merely a rough proxy for the measurement of discrepant opportunity, because opportunity is a lot harder to measure than outcome, in most cases. But it is an exceedingly rough measure, highly imperfect, and the myriad other factors that contribute to outcome (beyond 'fairness') must be considered.
>Fairness = equality of outcome.
>"I can’t seem to find anyone who is in favor of ‘making sure everyone comes out the same’. I’d like to request a little help finding them, so I can jump on this bandwagon"
I hate dishonest debate. It took about 5 minutes to find some examples Travis desperately searched for but couldn’t find. [It took more time to cut and paste them into this comment than find them. One wonders where exactly Travis was searching when he was unable to find any example of or references to equality of outcome.
Equality of outcome is a fairly common political/philosophical model (embraced by socialists and Marxists to the greatest degree) that tries to “level the playing field” for people who are presumed to be “unequal” (socially, economically etc.). Try reading this as an introduction http://books.google.com/books?id=IdjogsQwXMgC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=court+cases+equality+of+outcome&source=web&ots=NU8H3qUNia&sig=kcsvNNNHmBgjPg20FvHla96jCNo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
As for the specific examples Travis desires, here’s a few that immediately come to mind.
1. US Policy in General: “Over the past half century EQUALITY OF OUTCOME has increasingly affected government policy in the United States.” Oxford University Press http://books.google.com/books?id=tu8GWqFxQhwC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=judicial+equality+of+outcome&source=web&ots=VIbmBOU2nR&sig=GOMSlo6BQgz8FHx0H57PZtaygR4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
2. Quota systems in general. "Affirmative action" and "quota systems" were never meant to be synonymous. Affirmative action began as a way to reach out to people who had been discriminated against in the past. The idea was to inform them of job availabilities and help them get training, while requiring employers to give them fair and impartial treatment during the hiring process. Nothing more. Over the past 30 years, the focus changed. Lawmakers and regulators started basing education and employment rules not on equality of opportunity, but on EQUALITY OF OUTCOME.“ http://www.scvleon.com/signal/lw020195.htm
Also, “The problem of perceived racism and discrimination perpetuates itself when minority leaders and groups complain of UNFAIR TREATMENT. The equal rights movement spawned good intentions: to ensure equal opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or sex. Ideally, the goal of non-existent discrimination would be achieved when people are thought of as merely themselves, with none of the above qualities attached to their evaluations. As it stands, however, quotas have been incorporated into many institutions where acceptance is required -- for instance, the work industry and higher education. Because quotas have been established into such structures, the obligation of hiring or accepting people partially on the basis of their sexual, religious, or ethnic background has undoubtedly entered the psychological approach of those responsible for candidate placement. Due to these EXPECTATIONS OF EQUAL OUTCOME in such walks of life by minority groups, two things have happened. …” http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N44/chung.44o.txt.html
Also, “EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES is a substantive conception of equality, as it attempts to provide substance to the concept of equality. Unlike formal equality, which dictates behaviour through applying rules and procedures consistently, equality of outcomes seeks to invest a certain moral principle (namely social redistribution) into the application of equality. This concept of equality manifests itself through a spectrum of policies and legal mechanisms in various jurisdictions. Reverse discrimination, positive discrimination and affirmative action are just a few which have been put forward to represent this concept.” http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:8cOa3FS5KBQJ:www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/The%2520Ideas%2520of%2520Equality%2520and%2520Non-discrimination,%2520Formal%2520and%2520Substantive%2520Equality.pdf+quota+systems+equality+of+outcome&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
3. Grading systems: “At public schools in Grand Rapids, Mich., high school students will no longer receive "F"s but instead will earn the letter "H" when their work falls woefully short. … Alan Kazdin, a professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University, believes that schools that veer away from giving children the grades they have earned – even when it's a zero or an "F" – aren't doing anyone any good. "Children aren't going to gain from ambiguous information regarding their grades," said Kazdin. "The fact is children are failing yet we don't want to call it that," said Kazdin. "It's this whole notion that EVERYONE’S A WINNER and everyone gets a trophy." http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=6395403&page=1
4. Court cases have been brought against criminal justice systems for prosecuting a disproportionate number of criminals from one socio-economic group. If Group X (say, African Americans) has 3% of their population in jail for murder, and Group Y (say, Anglo Americans) has 1% of their population in jail for murder, then the outcome is unequal and unfair, and court-directed action is taken to “correct” it. The emphasis is not on whether murders were actually committed, but whether one ethnic group has more people in jail for murder than others. So either white people commit more murders to keep pace, or murders in certain minority groups need to be released from jail. See “RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL PROCESSING: THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODEL SELECTION ON CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT” Abstract http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=court+cases+equality+of+outcome&start=10&sa=N
5. Standardized Testing: “Some parents [who favor outcome based education] object to the use of standardized tests (all students take the same test under the same conditions) because they think it fundamentally UNFAIR for schools to require the same level of work or to use the achievement tests for impoverished or racially disadvantaged students as they do for more advantaged students.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education
Phil, I've got maybe ten minutes, and I can't respond to all of that. I'll just pick on a couple of your points that I think are wide of the mark.
On the education one, you say:
Grading systems: “At public schools in Grand Rapids, Mich., high school students will no longer receive "F"s but instead will earn the letter "H" when their work falls woefully short. … Alan Kazdin, a professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University, believes that schools that veer away from giving children the grades they have earned – even when it's a zero or an "F" – aren't doing anyone any good. "Children aren't going to gain from ambiguous information regarding their grades," said Kazdin. "The fact is children are failing yet we don't want to call it that," said Kazdin. "It's this whole notion that EVERYONE’S A WINNER and everyone gets a trophy."
Alan Kazdin is a good guy and I respect him. But I don't see anything in this practice about making people equal. I suspect all involved would acknowledge that there will always be a distribution of grades, because nobody is silly enough to claim that even given equal opportunity, everyone would (or should) get A's. I suspect that what this is about is avoiding stigmatizing students, due to the fact that the 'F' for failure is harsh. I have a learning disordered son, and the F's on his report card are not terribly meaningful (I already know, and he already knows, he can't do academics and didn't pass the class–why stick a big red 'Failure' mark on him). But that's a side issue–not sure I disagree with Kazdin at all, in terms of the sugar-coating issue. But the people who want to stop using the label "Fail" to help encourage troubled or disabled students are not implying that everyone should get an A. At least not that I can see in what you put above.
Regarding the Crime stuff, you say:
4. Court cases have been brought against criminal justice systems for prosecuting a disproportionate number of criminals from one socio-economic group. If Group X (say, African Americans) has 3% of their population in jail for murder, and Group Y (say, Anglo Americans) has 1% of their population in jail for murder, then the outcome is unequal and unfair, and court-directed action is taken to “correct” it. The emphasis is not on whether murders were actually committed, but whether one ethnic group has more people in jail for murder than others. So either white people commit more murders to keep pace, or murders in certain minority groups need to be released from jail
I've read only news articles on this issue, again I am no expert, but my understanding is that the major concern with the legal process and 'fairness' is discrepant sentencing. That is, with all other factors statistically controlled for, minorities are given longer sentences. I've never heard anyone claim that whether or not someone committed murder is irrelevant. Does anyone disagree that murderers should be punished? I kind of doubt that. People are looking for justice when they point out that minorities seem to get longer sentences, even when the crime and past criminal history are the same. Is that a childish point of view, imbued with wussy liberal sentimentality? Doesn't seem so to me.
By the way, I don't keep up on the research, and I'm going to assume that those findings are probably controversial in the literature. I'm just making a point about what fairness and equality of outcome is and what it isn't.
Should be be concerned if there are more black people in prisons for murder than white people? In other words, that they are *actually committing* these crimes at a higher rate than white people? That's an outcome, and as I said before, it is suggestive of underlying inequaties in the society, but certainly in no way conclusive of them. Other factors – subculture norms, disintegrating families, rap music, whatever – may be more salient. But surely we can raise the question of whether a discrepant outcome can signal underlying and unacceptable inequities, can't we?
I have thoughts on standardized testing also, but no time to illuminate everyone with them. :-)
By the way, naturally I don't consider my debate to be dishonest. I'm not saying I'm honest by nature – actually I'm quite an accomplished faker, phony, and all-around disreputable character. But my comments in this instance were entirely straightforward. Again, most of what you present above seems only the conservative 'spin' on the methods and intentions of these programs, rather than reflecting the realities of them as I suspect their originators would present them. That is why your examples are not particularly persuasive to me that liberals/leftists are seeking massive equalities of Outcome rather than trying to seek (and yes, even impose) equalities of opportunity.
I'm far too verbose. Yet another character flaw.
TT
4. Court cases have been brought against criminal justice systems for prosecuting a disproportionate number of criminals from one socio-economic group. If Group X (say, African Americans) has 3% of their population in jail for murder, and Group Y (say, Anglo Americans) has 1% of their population in jail for murder, then the outcome is unequal and unfair, and court-directed action is taken to “correct” it. The emphasis is not on whether murders were actually committed, but whether one ethnic group has more people in jail for murder than others. So either white people commit more murders to keep pace, or murders in certain minority groups need to be released from jail. See “RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL PROCESSING: THE CONSEQUENCES OF MODEL SELECTION ON CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT” Abstract http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=court+cases+equality+of+outcome&start=10&sa=N