I just finished reading Efraim Karsh's smear job of the infamous Juan Cole in The New Republic, and while the whole thing is a fairly dumb piece, one quote really stuck out. So much so, that I have been forced to create a "Dumb Quote of the Month" Biobrain Award, simply to bring distinction to the sheer dumbness of it. Mr. Karsh is apparently the head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London; and this is what that distinguished university produced for our reading pleasure:
Referring to the common belief that western nations are largely responsible for the instability and powerlessness in the middle-east due to western colonialism, Karsh states: These standard assertions not only ignore the active role played by local leaders in the reshaping of their region after World War I, they also overlook the fact that many Middle Eastern countries (Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, to mention but a few) are substantially larger than the country that is often held culpable for their ills: Great Britain.
Of course. Of course! Great Britain is a small country, so it can't be responsible for colonialism or for dividing the middle-east into subservient portions according to British needs. It couldn't have. It's too small. Britain can't be blamed. And India? No problems there. The Empire isn't responsible for that either. I know. I've looked on a map and saw that India is much larger than England. Size matters and Great Britain is just too small to be blamed for anything. As is any country which conquers a larger country. Perfectly acceptable logic.
Life is indeed simple. You can completely dismiss centuries worth of history and evidence, and all by waving your magic wand of logic and telling yourself that it's so. If you don't think something could have happened, it must not have happened. No proof beyond country size is required. Now, I'm not sure if Karsh is implying that Great Britain didn't colonize the middle-east, or if he's admitting that they did, but that they still aren't responsible for the problems it caused. Karsh never said. But he really didn't mean to. It's quite apparent that he's above all that. His rock solid logic is just too strong to deny, and no other thinking is required.
And beyond that, because local leaders in the middle-east also helped to shape (ruin) it, any culpability by anyone else is immediately dismissed. I suppose if you can prove that some African leaders helped capture slaves, then all responsibility of white slavers and slave owners is immediately forgiven. Similarly, if you can show that some Jews helped the Nazi's setup the Ghetto system, or received special treatment for helping control them; that all blame is off the Nazi's too. Responsibility isn't divided up according to specific actions taken, but simply lumped together and dumped at the feet of the victim. And all because some members of the victims' religion or race aided the oppressors.
Wait a minute. Some people DO dismiss slaver responsibility for that reason, though I have not heard too much from people dismissing Nazi responsibility. So I guess Karsh's theory is 2 for 3. Due to native compliance, western nations are not responsible for the plight of the Africans or Arabs, but the Nazis are still responsible for the holocaust. I understand perfectly.
The Rest of the Dumb Piece
Beyond the informative quote, the rest of the piece is a straight-up smear job. He acts as if he is about to dismantle Cole's theories and attitude, but never really gets around to doing it. Rather than argue against it, he describes it using derogatory language, intended to belittle Cole's opinion. He says things like "But, unfortunately, Cole suffers from many other common Arabist misconceptions that deeply prejudice and compromise his writing." And he uses phrases such as "misguided dogma" and refers to Cole's theories as "essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom". Oh, and he can caricature Cole's position on Israel with phrases like "imaginary Zionist cabal". And as we all know, if you dislike what Israel is doing, it must be because you hate all Jews. What other explanation is possible? So Cole obviously hates all Jews too. Ipso facto. (which is Latin for: That's a fact)
Indeed. It appears that Karsh is an adherent to the idea that if you label someone, you own them. And that if you can describe someone in villainous terms, the person must be a villain. By definition. As if labels ARE reality, rather than a construct used to identify and communicate observed reality.
Empiricism and objective reality are turned on their head for Karsh's type. For them, reality is how you describe it...but only if you agree with them. Otherwise, you are forced to follow the rules of proof. Cole has to prove that there's a Jewish cabal trying to use American might for Israel's benefit, or that Westerners are responsible for much of what is wrong with the middle-east. But Karsh needs no proof that Cole hates Jews, or that westerners aren't to blame for the problems in the middle-east, or that Muslims will always hate Jews and Christians, or that God really wants the Jews to have that precious land.
He needs no proof, because he knows that it's true. Proof is what the other guy has to provide, not a fine mind like Karsh. And Karsh's mind is so fine that it is impossible for Cole to be right about anything. He might as well stop trying, because Karsh just ain't going to have it. All of Cole's proof goes straight down the drain when faced with Karsh's assertions and beliefs. That's just how it works.
Karsh's Proof
I confess. I read Juan Cole's site daily and know quite a bit about what he writes. But when I read Karsh's piece, I was waiting for some good anti-Cole proof. I know little of the middle-east, and do rely upon Cole to provide me with many details. So I wanted some juicy proof from the other side to show why I was wrong in believing in Cole. That is, after all, the whole point of Karsh's piece; to get us to stop listening to Cole. And, as an empiricist, I'm always willing to hear why I might be wrong. The past is dead to me, so I'd rather be right in the future than worry about being wrong in the past. To admit you were wrong in the past is merely to proclaim that you're smarter now. And I love being smarter.
But did he come through? Was I enlightened to Juan Cole's grave errors? Not even close. You either were already a believer in Karsh's beliefs, or you weren't going to be converted. For believers, proof is unnecessary and unseemly. Believers don't want proof, they just want fellow believers to say comforting things which confirm their beliefs. And Karsh really came through for them this time.
Beyond his disparaging description of Cole and his beliefs, what actual rebuttal does Efraim Karsh give? Easy. He blames Arabs for their own problems, because they helped westerners harness the middle-east. And he also cites a like-minded scholar who was once denied a doctorate and shunned by the scholarly community for disagreeing with Cole's conventional wisdom. And if they did that, they must have known that they were wrong. Why else would they shun him? We all know that all students are allowed to believe whatever they want, and are graded on the strength of their beliefs; and not on the validity of their claims. Or so I imagine that's how it's done at Kings College, anyway.
Inherent Religious Conflict
And even more importantly, he points out centuries old conflict between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And that's it. That's all the proof he provides. As if conflict between the religions automatically explains everything going on now. And it might. Just as the centuries old conflict between Jews and Christians also might explain why all Christians continue to hate Jews and why they continue to fight, just as they always have. And just like how our current war in the middle-east can be seen through the lens of centuries old crusades. Just as they did centuries ago, Christians want the holy land back, and that explains why they're fighting the Muslims.
Everything old is new again.
Or do Karsh's rules only only apply to Muslims? I think they do.
And even at that, how does he know that he's right? Because...well because... he knows that he's right. And his opponents, and the conventional wisdom, and the bulk of middle-eastern academia is wrong. And most importantly, Juan Cole's wrong; so we're all wrong for reading his blog. And how does he know. Because he can use disparaging words to describe Cole and his beliefs, and that does it for me. No further rebuttal necessary.
And this is exactly what we should expect from the head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme of Kings College, University of London. Proof and evidence are beneath him. Labels and assertions rule the day. I wonder if I can attend his school. I have very strong beliefs and have a few choice labels for him. I'll get my doctorate yet!
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Monday, April 18, 2005
Regarding Ann Coulter
A thought occurred when reading the officious Media Matters regarding Ann Coulter, and Time's fawning coverage of her. I disagree with none of the substance of their piece, but wondered of its necessity. My thought:
What IS the proper way for Time to write an Ann Coulter piece? And would Time have known how to do it, had it wanted to? It's my hypothesis that there is NO way to properly write an Ann Coulter piece, not by any magazine attempting to appear at all politically objective, anyway. Moreover, Time would not have written such a piece, even had it otherwise the inclination and ability. And the problem is that a piece properly describing Miss Coulter is completely outside of their milieu. It's just not their thing. Not for political reasons, even though that is certainly a factor also; but due to jurisdictional concerns. They just don't write those kinds of pieces. This either had to be a fluff piece, or it couldn't be done at all.
Polemic Junkies
And the problem is that, because Coulter is such a polemicist and her statements are so outrageous and offensive, she cannot be covered objectively. It is simply impossible. If you quote her absurd claims, you must also debunk the misstatements and lies; or otherwise risk implicit endorsement of them... as Times' John Cloud did, intentionally or not. And failing to cite any of her fameworthy statements also brings charges of bias, from both her attackers and admirers. But if you debunk her, you automatically enter the realm of biased polemicism. Not because fact-checking is inherently biased, but because Coulter's brand of partisanship and fervent self-imposed bias is so ingrained into her entire ideology that the truth of her facts are beyond the point. It's an objective nightmare at every turn.
The truth of her claims is irrelevant to her beliefs; their basis lies in your ability to believe them. Not because they are true, but because they are wanted to be true. And you either want to believe the facts or you do not. And if you don't want to believe those facts, then by definition, you are not on their team. In essence, belief in those facts are a form of initiation rites, or a test of will. Or a form of addiction. These people are not hoodwinked into believing Ann Coulter; they flock to her because she has what they seek. Despite popular misconceptions, drug dealers rarely create demand; they merely satisfy it. And she is nothing but a right-wing drug dealer, happily filling the crazed masses with the vitriol and certaintude they desire. And she makes millions at it.
Ideology of Inferiority
What's worse, she's not even ideological. She's not a rabid conservative tossing anti-regulatory chum to fool the masses. That's just a theme she uses as part of her attacks. Nor is she like Jonah Goldberg, a liberal Republican so desperate to empower his party that he's willing to abandon his own beliefs to spew the conservative rhetoric he believes will strengthen the Republicans. She's just a opportunist filling a niche market of hatred and ultra-snark. There are such peddlers on both sides of the spectrum, and Coulter is simply one of the more prominent members of the extremist fringes. She's not interested in helping the Republicans; she's just looking out for number one.
So objective coverage can't even conveniently pin itself to her policy goals; as she has none. When you get below her surface level of snark and attacks, you'll find at its basis is simply the desire to be snarky and attacking. Some use politics as a means to achieve policy goals. More use policy as a means to achieve political goals. Coulter's ilk use politics and policy as a means to achieve personal goals; namely making inferior people feel superior. Or more specifically, making people who feel inferior believe that they are superior to those they fear might be superior to them. Or something like that.
That is the appeal of Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. They're strong and smart, and their strength makes weak people also feel strong and smart. The words don't sound nearly as convincing coming out of the listener's mouth, but they don't need to sound strong coming out of the listener. They just need to make the listener feel stronger saying them. And it does. These people aren't listening for the right answers; they're listening for answers that make them feel right. The truth can't always do that, but Coulter and Hannity can. Truth is elusive and rarely comes with guarantees. But Limbaugh and O'Reilly can give them answers before they've even heard the question. And as long as they have answers, these people will continue to flock to them; truth be damned.
Objective Bias
And that's why it's impossible for Time to objectively cover Ann Coulter. It's quite likely that their specific bias might be right-leaning itself, and that this piece truly was representative of the magazine's opinions. But that simply explains why they wrote the story. I somehow doubt that Time believed that the right-wing comedian was overly neglected by the media; and that they were giving well-deserved exposure to a rising star. They made a conscience decision to highlight the weird lady due to her popularity, and that alone exposed their bias.
But their offense was not in the lightweight coverage of Miss Coulter. It was that they covered her at all. Once they made that decision, the piece wrote itself as a silly nothing which intelligent people will ignore and ignorant people will relish; but which will inform no one. You either agree with what you read in the piece, or you disagree; and all based on what you believed going into it. And no level of debunking by Time would have altered that equation. All it would do is cause those who liked it to hate it, and vice versa. But it would influence no one.
While it is always prudent to fact check these people, it should be remembered why it is besides the point. To fact check them assumes that they are trying to be truthful. But anyone can give the truth. People flock to Coulter because her "truth" feels better. You can fact-check individual statements, but that's missing the forest for the weeds. You can keep pulling and pulling them, but you'll find that it's weeds all the way down.
What IS the proper way for Time to write an Ann Coulter piece? And would Time have known how to do it, had it wanted to? It's my hypothesis that there is NO way to properly write an Ann Coulter piece, not by any magazine attempting to appear at all politically objective, anyway. Moreover, Time would not have written such a piece, even had it otherwise the inclination and ability. And the problem is that a piece properly describing Miss Coulter is completely outside of their milieu. It's just not their thing. Not for political reasons, even though that is certainly a factor also; but due to jurisdictional concerns. They just don't write those kinds of pieces. This either had to be a fluff piece, or it couldn't be done at all.
Polemic Junkies
And the problem is that, because Coulter is such a polemicist and her statements are so outrageous and offensive, she cannot be covered objectively. It is simply impossible. If you quote her absurd claims, you must also debunk the misstatements and lies; or otherwise risk implicit endorsement of them... as Times' John Cloud did, intentionally or not. And failing to cite any of her fameworthy statements also brings charges of bias, from both her attackers and admirers. But if you debunk her, you automatically enter the realm of biased polemicism. Not because fact-checking is inherently biased, but because Coulter's brand of partisanship and fervent self-imposed bias is so ingrained into her entire ideology that the truth of her facts are beyond the point. It's an objective nightmare at every turn.
The truth of her claims is irrelevant to her beliefs; their basis lies in your ability to believe them. Not because they are true, but because they are wanted to be true. And you either want to believe the facts or you do not. And if you don't want to believe those facts, then by definition, you are not on their team. In essence, belief in those facts are a form of initiation rites, or a test of will. Or a form of addiction. These people are not hoodwinked into believing Ann Coulter; they flock to her because she has what they seek. Despite popular misconceptions, drug dealers rarely create demand; they merely satisfy it. And she is nothing but a right-wing drug dealer, happily filling the crazed masses with the vitriol and certaintude they desire. And she makes millions at it.
Ideology of Inferiority
What's worse, she's not even ideological. She's not a rabid conservative tossing anti-regulatory chum to fool the masses. That's just a theme she uses as part of her attacks. Nor is she like Jonah Goldberg, a liberal Republican so desperate to empower his party that he's willing to abandon his own beliefs to spew the conservative rhetoric he believes will strengthen the Republicans. She's just a opportunist filling a niche market of hatred and ultra-snark. There are such peddlers on both sides of the spectrum, and Coulter is simply one of the more prominent members of the extremist fringes. She's not interested in helping the Republicans; she's just looking out for number one.
So objective coverage can't even conveniently pin itself to her policy goals; as she has none. When you get below her surface level of snark and attacks, you'll find at its basis is simply the desire to be snarky and attacking. Some use politics as a means to achieve policy goals. More use policy as a means to achieve political goals. Coulter's ilk use politics and policy as a means to achieve personal goals; namely making inferior people feel superior. Or more specifically, making people who feel inferior believe that they are superior to those they fear might be superior to them. Or something like that.
That is the appeal of Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. They're strong and smart, and their strength makes weak people also feel strong and smart. The words don't sound nearly as convincing coming out of the listener's mouth, but they don't need to sound strong coming out of the listener. They just need to make the listener feel stronger saying them. And it does. These people aren't listening for the right answers; they're listening for answers that make them feel right. The truth can't always do that, but Coulter and Hannity can. Truth is elusive and rarely comes with guarantees. But Limbaugh and O'Reilly can give them answers before they've even heard the question. And as long as they have answers, these people will continue to flock to them; truth be damned.
Objective Bias
And that's why it's impossible for Time to objectively cover Ann Coulter. It's quite likely that their specific bias might be right-leaning itself, and that this piece truly was representative of the magazine's opinions. But that simply explains why they wrote the story. I somehow doubt that Time believed that the right-wing comedian was overly neglected by the media; and that they were giving well-deserved exposure to a rising star. They made a conscience decision to highlight the weird lady due to her popularity, and that alone exposed their bias.
But their offense was not in the lightweight coverage of Miss Coulter. It was that they covered her at all. Once they made that decision, the piece wrote itself as a silly nothing which intelligent people will ignore and ignorant people will relish; but which will inform no one. You either agree with what you read in the piece, or you disagree; and all based on what you believed going into it. And no level of debunking by Time would have altered that equation. All it would do is cause those who liked it to hate it, and vice versa. But it would influence no one.
While it is always prudent to fact check these people, it should be remembered why it is besides the point. To fact check them assumes that they are trying to be truthful. But anyone can give the truth. People flock to Coulter because her "truth" feels better. You can fact-check individual statements, but that's missing the forest for the weeds. You can keep pulling and pulling them, but you'll find that it's weeds all the way down.
Funnyman Coulter
I just posted this comment at Think Progress regarding Ann Coulter's presence on Time Magazine (and her apparently infallibility), and thought I'd just reprint part of it here for your viewing pleasure.
I don't understand why everyone treats Ann Coulter like she's a political pundit. She's clearly just a comedian and has no intent to be anything more. Read her stuff. She has absolutely no interest in the truth, and is just looking for punchlines. Her left-wing equivalent is Maureen Dowd, who never heard a snarky rumor that she wasn't willing to paraphrase into her own words. The only difference is that Dowd is far classier, far more willing to attack her own side (especially if they're named Gore or Kerry), and isn't as desperate for cheap laughs.
But neither of them performs any serious analysis on the world of politics; nor do they let facts get in the way of their targets. They're entertainers, with a focus on character assassination and mockery; not pundits. I see nothing wrong with people reading Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter for the entertainment value. Even I have been known to agree with Dowd on occasion. I just don't think people should base their opinions on anything either of them say. Hell, many comedians like Louis Black and Margaret Cho deserve more respect than either Dowd or Coulter regarding political matters. They're openly going for laughs, but are still more trustworthy and intelligent than the two would-be pundits.
And I'm not comparing them to comedians to be rude. That really is the level that they choose to work at; assuming that it's their choice. They didn't gain a national audience based upon facts and truth-telling, as anyone can do that. It was their comedy stylings that gained that fame, and the truth often gets in the way of a good punchline. And that's why fact-checking Dowd or Coulter is like fact-checking Gallagher or Seinfeld. You might laugh, but the sock really didn't disappear in your laundry and you're really only there to see the watermelon busted open. Just because it's funny, doesn't make it true.
I don't understand why everyone treats Ann Coulter like she's a political pundit. She's clearly just a comedian and has no intent to be anything more. Read her stuff. She has absolutely no interest in the truth, and is just looking for punchlines. Her left-wing equivalent is Maureen Dowd, who never heard a snarky rumor that she wasn't willing to paraphrase into her own words. The only difference is that Dowd is far classier, far more willing to attack her own side (especially if they're named Gore or Kerry), and isn't as desperate for cheap laughs.
But neither of them performs any serious analysis on the world of politics; nor do they let facts get in the way of their targets. They're entertainers, with a focus on character assassination and mockery; not pundits. I see nothing wrong with people reading Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter for the entertainment value. Even I have been known to agree with Dowd on occasion. I just don't think people should base their opinions on anything either of them say. Hell, many comedians like Louis Black and Margaret Cho deserve more respect than either Dowd or Coulter regarding political matters. They're openly going for laughs, but are still more trustworthy and intelligent than the two would-be pundits.
And I'm not comparing them to comedians to be rude. That really is the level that they choose to work at; assuming that it's their choice. They didn't gain a national audience based upon facts and truth-telling, as anyone can do that. It was their comedy stylings that gained that fame, and the truth often gets in the way of a good punchline. And that's why fact-checking Dowd or Coulter is like fact-checking Gallagher or Seinfeld. You might laugh, but the sock really didn't disappear in your laundry and you're really only there to see the watermelon busted open. Just because it's funny, doesn't make it true.
Flat Taxes for Flat Brains
I've been pondering a grand new post railing against the flat-tax for some time now, but that'll have to wait. But for now, I just wanted to add to what the ubiquitous Kevin Drum had to say over at Washington Monthly.
Like Drum, it bugs the hell out of me listening to flat-taxers, because they ALWAYS pretend like it's an all or nothing kind of thing. They rally against the inequities of the deductions system, but then insist on hoisting the stupid flat rate on us too, as if various tax rates are a problem. But the issues are separate. One determines how much income is taxed, and the other determines the rate at which that income is taxed. But the only arguments they can give are against deductions, and they never fully explain the advantage of the flat-rate. And all they really want is lower tax rates for themselves.
Tax Rates
I can tell you straight-up that as a CPA who does taxes, having various tax rates doesn't slow me down in the least. Hell, I don't even know what the tax rates are. Sometimes, clients ask me what rate they're taxed at, and I haven't a clue until I'm done with their return. And that's because I never look at tax rates. I have a general idea of what they are, but the computer takes care of all of that, and does it instantly. I plug in the numbers, and the tax software does the calculations...just as you'd expect. The secret of taxes is knowing how to treat income, what you can deduct, and where to enter everything. That's the hard stuff. But the tax rates aren't even an after-thought. I don't even consider them.
And why should I tell them what the tax rate is? That applies to their taxable income, not their gross income, and depending on their specific situation (kids, itemizing, etc), taxable income is all over the map compared to gross income. I could tell them what their the tax table rate is, but their effective tax rate (tax paid divided by gross income) is much more important. Your tax rate might be in the 30% range of taxable income, but still be less than 10% of gross income. And that's a much more relevant number. And that's an important issue, as most people are wrong about how much of their income they actually pay in taxes; as they use the tax table rate, and not the effective rate. It's a safe bet that most people believe they pay a higher rate than they really do.
Super-Rich
Anyway, this isn't my big anti-flat tax post. I meant to do one on tax day, but I was much too busy and don't have the time for it now. But my main point is that, even if you don't like loopholes and deductions (many of which are seriously misunderstood) that's still no reason to switch to a flat rate. The primary benefit of the flat rate is to help rich people pay less, and I can't think of any other reasons beyond that. Especially as some of the biggest deductions don't even apply to the super-rich due to income phase-outs; and it's the super-rich who are the intended beneficiary of the flat-tax, despite the phony populist rhetoric.
So removal of deductions doesn't really hurt the super-rich, and the flat-rate will clearly benefit them greatly, easily reducing their effective tax rate in half. Based upon my rough estimates of a fair flat-tax system, the people who are likely to pay for that will be those in the $80k-$250k income level; with those below that level seeing little or no benefit, and those in the $500k+ range seeing great benefit. And I'm talking about annual income and not wealth, of course. So the typical American won't see a significant tax savings, those in the top 0.1% will have a significant tax savings, which those between the two will pay for. I'll explain my assumptions on that in another post.
That's all I have to say for now, but you can count on several more specific posts on why the flat-tax is a bad idea, especially as it's one of the only subjects that my expertise actually pertains to. And if you really have trouble figuring out your tax table rate, you have no business doing your own taxes. Hire professional help. Just not me. I'm too busy right now.
Like Drum, it bugs the hell out of me listening to flat-taxers, because they ALWAYS pretend like it's an all or nothing kind of thing. They rally against the inequities of the deductions system, but then insist on hoisting the stupid flat rate on us too, as if various tax rates are a problem. But the issues are separate. One determines how much income is taxed, and the other determines the rate at which that income is taxed. But the only arguments they can give are against deductions, and they never fully explain the advantage of the flat-rate. And all they really want is lower tax rates for themselves.
Tax Rates
I can tell you straight-up that as a CPA who does taxes, having various tax rates doesn't slow me down in the least. Hell, I don't even know what the tax rates are. Sometimes, clients ask me what rate they're taxed at, and I haven't a clue until I'm done with their return. And that's because I never look at tax rates. I have a general idea of what they are, but the computer takes care of all of that, and does it instantly. I plug in the numbers, and the tax software does the calculations...just as you'd expect. The secret of taxes is knowing how to treat income, what you can deduct, and where to enter everything. That's the hard stuff. But the tax rates aren't even an after-thought. I don't even consider them.
And why should I tell them what the tax rate is? That applies to their taxable income, not their gross income, and depending on their specific situation (kids, itemizing, etc), taxable income is all over the map compared to gross income. I could tell them what their the tax table rate is, but their effective tax rate (tax paid divided by gross income) is much more important. Your tax rate might be in the 30% range of taxable income, but still be less than 10% of gross income. And that's a much more relevant number. And that's an important issue, as most people are wrong about how much of their income they actually pay in taxes; as they use the tax table rate, and not the effective rate. It's a safe bet that most people believe they pay a higher rate than they really do.
Super-Rich
Anyway, this isn't my big anti-flat tax post. I meant to do one on tax day, but I was much too busy and don't have the time for it now. But my main point is that, even if you don't like loopholes and deductions (many of which are seriously misunderstood) that's still no reason to switch to a flat rate. The primary benefit of the flat rate is to help rich people pay less, and I can't think of any other reasons beyond that. Especially as some of the biggest deductions don't even apply to the super-rich due to income phase-outs; and it's the super-rich who are the intended beneficiary of the flat-tax, despite the phony populist rhetoric.
So removal of deductions doesn't really hurt the super-rich, and the flat-rate will clearly benefit them greatly, easily reducing their effective tax rate in half. Based upon my rough estimates of a fair flat-tax system, the people who are likely to pay for that will be those in the $80k-$250k income level; with those below that level seeing little or no benefit, and those in the $500k+ range seeing great benefit. And I'm talking about annual income and not wealth, of course. So the typical American won't see a significant tax savings, those in the top 0.1% will have a significant tax savings, which those between the two will pay for. I'll explain my assumptions on that in another post.
That's all I have to say for now, but you can count on several more specific posts on why the flat-tax is a bad idea, especially as it's one of the only subjects that my expertise actually pertains to. And if you really have trouble figuring out your tax table rate, you have no business doing your own taxes. Hire professional help. Just not me. I'm too busy right now.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Tax Break
I've wasted enough time recently posting extra long entries into this here site, but now time is running extra short for Mr. CPA, and I won't be writing anything else until after the 15th. There, there. I know. It'll be tough going without my special power b-brain to weigh in on the issues of the day. But my clients need me more and they pay me (something y'all might want to think about doing). I know you can handle it. You've gotten by much of your life without me, and it's just a few more days like that. This hurts me far more than it hurts you...especially as I'm a lazy ass who likes to use this blog as the excuse for why I'm not getting more work done.
And I can assure you that my brain is just buzzing with all kinds of great stuff that you ain't never thought of yet. I just need the time to type it all out. Maybe this weekend will be my big time...assuming that my brain is still functioning at that time.
And I can assure you that my brain is just buzzing with all kinds of great stuff that you ain't never thought of yet. I just need the time to type it all out. Maybe this weekend will be my big time...assuming that my brain is still functioning at that time.
Ownership Society
There's this idea that we owe something to Bush. This idea that Bush is our leader and that, like it or not, we owe it to him to provide our support to whatever he chooses to engage in. And also that we owe something to America; not we as individuals, but we as a group of people; as Americans. And many people really seem to believe that. Much of their crap is just noise intended to throw us off our game, and convince moderates that liberals are extremist. But I don't think this is one of those issues. I honestly think that most Republicans believe that we all owe something to Bush and our country, and should not criticize the actions of either.
The way they think of things is as if we, the people, are the employees and that Bush is the CEO and owner. And that he, as our leader, is supposed to tell us what to do. And we're supposed to follow his lead because he's the boss and can tell us what to do. And that someone who isn't doing what Bush says, that person's a shirker who isn't doing his duty; and deserves to be left behind and ignored. And this extends to America as a whole too. That Americans owe something to the company for everything the company has given to us.
And that's absurd and a complete inversion of reality. Bush doesn't own us; we own him. We don't work for Bush; he works for us. And I say that, not as one denouncing Bush or America, but as one supporting democracy. And this dangerous attitude of theirs is an offense to democracy, and thus to America itself. And by wrapping themselves in our America, they are inadvertently helping to destroy the very essence they wish to exploit. But America can't own us; we own America, equally.
We the Owners
In Democracy (and no, I don't want to debate that term, so just deal with it cause that's the one I'm using), we have no personal leaders; as we are all equals. Bush isn't our leader, in the way that a general is a soldier's leader. He is the head of our government. He is the boss over the government. Not us, the citizens, but the government. They have to do what he says. They have to obey his commands. The government workers, not us. It's just a job, and that's his job. This isn't controversial or an opinion. This is how it is.
And how did he get that job? Because we gave it to him. Not all of us, but enough voted for him in accordance to the bylaws of our nation. Just as stockholders at any company vote to elect their leaders. But the stockholders are not electing a boss; but choosing an employee. Their chief employee. That is the essence of democracy. Led, not by a superior; but by an equal. Not as a father; but as a brother. With our President owning as much of our country as anyone else.
To follow our business analogy, it is obvious that we are the stockholders of this company. We are its owners. And we hired him to be the President of the company and to manage its business. Not to own us or control us. Or to tell us what's good for us. Or to denounce us. But to do our bidding. To lead our country in the way we see fit. He can choose to go against the will of the stockholders, but they have the right to denounce his performance and even replace him. And that is exactly what us "Bush-haters" are accused of doing. Exercising our rights as owners of our nation. We don't owe America. We are America.
This may all sound quite obvious, but unfortunately it's not obvious enough. We need to remind people of this. And don't forget to smile. It helps.
The way they think of things is as if we, the people, are the employees and that Bush is the CEO and owner. And that he, as our leader, is supposed to tell us what to do. And we're supposed to follow his lead because he's the boss and can tell us what to do. And that someone who isn't doing what Bush says, that person's a shirker who isn't doing his duty; and deserves to be left behind and ignored. And this extends to America as a whole too. That Americans owe something to the company for everything the company has given to us.
And that's absurd and a complete inversion of reality. Bush doesn't own us; we own him. We don't work for Bush; he works for us. And I say that, not as one denouncing Bush or America, but as one supporting democracy. And this dangerous attitude of theirs is an offense to democracy, and thus to America itself. And by wrapping themselves in our America, they are inadvertently helping to destroy the very essence they wish to exploit. But America can't own us; we own America, equally.
We the Owners
In Democracy (and no, I don't want to debate that term, so just deal with it cause that's the one I'm using), we have no personal leaders; as we are all equals. Bush isn't our leader, in the way that a general is a soldier's leader. He is the head of our government. He is the boss over the government. Not us, the citizens, but the government. They have to do what he says. They have to obey his commands. The government workers, not us. It's just a job, and that's his job. This isn't controversial or an opinion. This is how it is.
And how did he get that job? Because we gave it to him. Not all of us, but enough voted for him in accordance to the bylaws of our nation. Just as stockholders at any company vote to elect their leaders. But the stockholders are not electing a boss; but choosing an employee. Their chief employee. That is the essence of democracy. Led, not by a superior; but by an equal. Not as a father; but as a brother. With our President owning as much of our country as anyone else.
To follow our business analogy, it is obvious that we are the stockholders of this company. We are its owners. And we hired him to be the President of the company and to manage its business. Not to own us or control us. Or to tell us what's good for us. Or to denounce us. But to do our bidding. To lead our country in the way we see fit. He can choose to go against the will of the stockholders, but they have the right to denounce his performance and even replace him. And that is exactly what us "Bush-haters" are accused of doing. Exercising our rights as owners of our nation. We don't owe America. We are America.
This may all sound quite obvious, but unfortunately it's not obvious enough. We need to remind people of this. And don't forget to smile. It helps.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
The Problem With Being Stupid
The main problem with being stupid is that, well, you're stupid. And that's bad. What's worse is that everyone is inherently too stupid to realize how stupid they are; as, if they were smart enough to know how stupid they are, they wouldn't be that stupid. So people are, at best, slightly more stupid than they realize; and, as is too often the case, far more stupid than they realize. And they're all more stupid than they want to be. I'm not blaming them for that, as nobody wants to be stupid and so they obviously can't help it. And the greater the separation between their level of stupidity and the awareness of their own stupidity, the more stupid they are and the less they are able to realize it. That's just a fact of life.
And what confuses the matter is that too many stupid people are able to learn the terminology and phrasing of smart people; and are thus able to fool themselves and others into thinking they are smart. They understand the context of when to use them, but not the concepts for why they are used. And as they don't know how stupid they are, they honestly believe that knowing the terminology IS true knowledge; rather than a communication tool used to express knowledge. In fact, learning the terminology is the first step of gaining knowledge, and not the end result of knowledge; as these people believe.
And oftentimes, they use terminology to hide their lack of knowledge from both themselves and the outside world. If they stopped using their loaded words, their ignorance would be more apparent and they might be able to learn more. And even knowledgeable people can get trapped into their own terminology and make wrong statements; which is one reason I tend to avoid fancy words and phrases. (The other reason is my poor vocabulary.) Agreed-upon terminology aids discussion with those who also agree upon the definitions in question. But with most people, there is no agreed-upon terminology and it is, in fact, the definitions themselves that everyone is arguing about. How can Conservatives and Liberals debate anything, if we can't agree about what even those words mean?
So I choose to not use big words, and say explicitly what I'm trying to say; which is why I always write so much. That way, I can't hide anything from others or myself. When I do use special phrases, they are often of my own creation and I really don't give a shit if others agree with my labels. I'm smart enough to avoid debates over word choice, and can beat anyone using their own words. And that's how everyone should be...if they're smart enough to do it.
National Embarrassments
But many people are too stupid to do this, and instead hide behind fancy words and meaningless phrases that they can't really comprehend. And thus, they embarrass themselves by not understanding fundamental concepts which are integral to modern discourse. In our recent commentary on the Chait v. Goldberg Opinion Duel, we saw that Jonah Goldberg embarrassed himself by not understanding some basic principles about what conservatives believe in, even though he believes himself to be one. And he also embarrassed himself by not understanding Chait's premise, which was supposedly the very topic they were discussing.
Goldberg uses fancy words and ideas that he picked up from his fancy conservative friends, but he utterly fails to comprehend any of them. Any intelligent conservative would readily agree with Chait's premise. It's part of their core belief. But Goldberg could only understand it as a petty insult. I've read enough of his ramblings to conclude that this is the only level he understands anything on. As I've said from the start, he's not an ideologue; he's just stupidly partisan. And he's too dumb to know the difference.
And this brings us to this very embarrassing statement by the fairly embarrassing Thomas Friedman (via the adorable Juan Cole), which is why I started writing this post. Speaking of the perceived lack of academic study regarding Arab Democracy, Friedman writes:
In the West, it was avoided because a toxic political correctness infected the academic field of Middle Eastern studies -- to such a degree that anyone focusing on the absence of freedom in the Arab world ran the risk of being labeled an "Orientalist" or an "essentialist." '
To which Juan Cole responds:
Third, the way you would get accused of essentialism is to engage in it. This fancy word just means that you say things that depend on there being eternal essences of things. So, for instance, if you said, "Palestinians are now and always have been a violent, fanatical, and duplicitous race." -- that would be essentialism (also racism). You would be assuming that Palestinians have a shared and unvarying essence. If you said, "Arabs are incapable of democracy because their political instincts are always authoritarian"-- that would be essentialism. If you said that most Arab governments are authoritarian, and tried to explain why that was with reference to changing political, social or economic factors, then that would not be essentialist. It would be social science.
Now, I confess. I'm not sure if I've ever heard the word "Essentialism" before. I guess I'm just not into reading that kind of stuff, and always thought philosophy and whatnot was for losers who can't think straight without assistance. Or maybe whenever I saw it, I just skipped over it and understood the context of it, without absorbing the word. I'm a concept man, not a word man. So like Thomas Friedman, I didn't know what that word meant. But there's a difference between us. You see, I have never believed that I knew what it meant. Nor have I ever used it in a sentence intended to convince anyone of anything. And most of all, I have never used the word in a sentence on the op/ed page of one of America's most prestigious newspaper. Beyond the fact that they wouldn't print my material, I generally like to know what I'm talking about, rather than making an ass out of myself.
And that's exactly what Friedman did. He's heard the word before, but clearly never understood it. And because he didn't understand it, he internalized it as a meaningless term that you hurl at someone of a particular belief, as if it's an insult. And this is similar to Jonah Goldberg who, failing to understand Chait's initial premise, wrongly viewed it as a petty insult and equated it to stubbornness. And like Goldberg, rather than admitting to ignorance and asking for a definition, he proceeded to blast about it in our national discourse; showing his ignorance to the world. And to tie this into our theme, their main problem was that they were too stupid to realize how stupid they are.
It's just a guess, by I suspect that Friedman has been labeled as being an essentialist on more than one occasion. He strikes me as a particularly simple-minded guy, and essentialism sounds like a simple-minded way of looking at life. It's basically a ridiculous position you are forced to adopt when you can't defend your ridiculous arguments in the normal way. I refuse to see how any rational, empirically-minded person could possibly believe that anything is the way that it is because it must be that way. That's just silly. Even if it's true, there's no way to know that it's true and therefore invalid as a reliable premise. I can understand an irrational, belief-based person using such logic; but they have no business taking part in our serious discussions.
Why This Matters
And that's why this is so important. This wasn't just an issue of someone using a minor word incorrectly. Everyone does that. But this wasn't a minor error, but a fundamental one which highlights their flawed logical processes. You see, when Thomas Friedman gets into major political discussions about issues such as this, and someone makes a criticism about his argument and tosses off a label, such as essentialist; he doesn't understand that they are making a fundamental statement about his beliefs. In fact, he doesn't even understand why they're saying it. But it's not that he disagrees; he just thinks it's a petty insult and glosses right over the matter of whether it's true or not. He doesn't even see how it's something that could be right or wrong. To him, it's just another insult and does not give him a moments reflection.
They react the same way as if the label was fascist, or neo-con, or imperialist. To them, these aren't valid phrases that could possibly apply to them; but just petty insults. And we can see that with their phrases of us. They don't actually believe us to be traitors, or anti-Americans, or (god forbid) Marxists. They just toss those out as insults to throw us off and keep us in line, and aren't really trying to define us in any way. Hell, they'd have to read Marx before they could know what they were calling us, and only commies read Marx. And so that's why they think that our phrases like "Essentialist" and "Orientalist" and "Fascist" are just cheap insults. Because they don't see how we're any different from them, and they use meaningless insults to taunt us.
And that was how it was with Goldberg. He dismissed valid criticism and accurate theories because he couldn't understand it as anything but an insult. Neither of them understood the criticism enough to debate against it. And that's the problem. Maybe Friedman isn't an Essentialist. And maybe conservatives are just as empirical as liberals. Or maybe it's true and they should gladly take the title. But Friedman and Goldberg are the last people who would know diddly squat about this as they're too stupid to ask for an explanation. And that's because they're too stupid to know that they don't know already. And that's because they believe that they already know the answers, and that anyone who tries to educate them is obviously wrong. So they remain in ignorance eternal.
I should add that I feel that Friedman's a smart enough guy that he might be able to finally understand that word, assuming someone sent him Cole's post. But even that's not likely to completely revamp the poor pundit's thought processes enough.
Stupid Stupid, Stupidly
And I'm not necessarily trying to single-out Friedman's boobery (though I do enjoy it so), this is just another example of the way that these people work, and why debating with them is so difficult. How can we expect them to debate complex issues, when they proudly display their own ignorance of the very words necessary for debate? We can't. It's impossible. We attack them for their simple-mindedness, but then pretend that it ends with their lame-brain theories. But it doesn't. It goes all the way down. They are fundamentally stupid and their ignorance is such that they don't even begin to comprehend anything we say.
And the cause of their ignorance is their belief-based system and thus their inherent anti-empiricism. Anything that goes against it must be rejected as false. And so they have no way of learning out of it. They're anti-intellectual, not because intellectuallism is bad, but because it gives them answers which they are forced by their beliefs to reject. And they are unable to comprehend that we aren't doing the same. They use the same words as us, which enables them to believe that they think like us. But they don't. We use observation to better understand what we should believe, and they use their beliefs to tell them what they observe.
Their ignorance is not always obvious, but it is always there. And until we understand that, we'll never be able to address their fundamental misunderstandings; thus making it impossible to debate the more complex issues that arise. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and these people are very, very dangerous.
And what confuses the matter is that too many stupid people are able to learn the terminology and phrasing of smart people; and are thus able to fool themselves and others into thinking they are smart. They understand the context of when to use them, but not the concepts for why they are used. And as they don't know how stupid they are, they honestly believe that knowing the terminology IS true knowledge; rather than a communication tool used to express knowledge. In fact, learning the terminology is the first step of gaining knowledge, and not the end result of knowledge; as these people believe.
And oftentimes, they use terminology to hide their lack of knowledge from both themselves and the outside world. If they stopped using their loaded words, their ignorance would be more apparent and they might be able to learn more. And even knowledgeable people can get trapped into their own terminology and make wrong statements; which is one reason I tend to avoid fancy words and phrases. (The other reason is my poor vocabulary.) Agreed-upon terminology aids discussion with those who also agree upon the definitions in question. But with most people, there is no agreed-upon terminology and it is, in fact, the definitions themselves that everyone is arguing about. How can Conservatives and Liberals debate anything, if we can't agree about what even those words mean?
So I choose to not use big words, and say explicitly what I'm trying to say; which is why I always write so much. That way, I can't hide anything from others or myself. When I do use special phrases, they are often of my own creation and I really don't give a shit if others agree with my labels. I'm smart enough to avoid debates over word choice, and can beat anyone using their own words. And that's how everyone should be...if they're smart enough to do it.
National Embarrassments
But many people are too stupid to do this, and instead hide behind fancy words and meaningless phrases that they can't really comprehend. And thus, they embarrass themselves by not understanding fundamental concepts which are integral to modern discourse. In our recent commentary on the Chait v. Goldberg Opinion Duel, we saw that Jonah Goldberg embarrassed himself by not understanding some basic principles about what conservatives believe in, even though he believes himself to be one. And he also embarrassed himself by not understanding Chait's premise, which was supposedly the very topic they were discussing.
Goldberg uses fancy words and ideas that he picked up from his fancy conservative friends, but he utterly fails to comprehend any of them. Any intelligent conservative would readily agree with Chait's premise. It's part of their core belief. But Goldberg could only understand it as a petty insult. I've read enough of his ramblings to conclude that this is the only level he understands anything on. As I've said from the start, he's not an ideologue; he's just stupidly partisan. And he's too dumb to know the difference.
And this brings us to this very embarrassing statement by the fairly embarrassing Thomas Friedman (via the adorable Juan Cole), which is why I started writing this post. Speaking of the perceived lack of academic study regarding Arab Democracy, Friedman writes:
In the West, it was avoided because a toxic political correctness infected the academic field of Middle Eastern studies -- to such a degree that anyone focusing on the absence of freedom in the Arab world ran the risk of being labeled an "Orientalist" or an "essentialist." '
To which Juan Cole responds:
Third, the way you would get accused of essentialism is to engage in it. This fancy word just means that you say things that depend on there being eternal essences of things. So, for instance, if you said, "Palestinians are now and always have been a violent, fanatical, and duplicitous race." -- that would be essentialism (also racism). You would be assuming that Palestinians have a shared and unvarying essence. If you said, "Arabs are incapable of democracy because their political instincts are always authoritarian"-- that would be essentialism. If you said that most Arab governments are authoritarian, and tried to explain why that was with reference to changing political, social or economic factors, then that would not be essentialist. It would be social science.
Now, I confess. I'm not sure if I've ever heard the word "Essentialism" before. I guess I'm just not into reading that kind of stuff, and always thought philosophy and whatnot was for losers who can't think straight without assistance. Or maybe whenever I saw it, I just skipped over it and understood the context of it, without absorbing the word. I'm a concept man, not a word man. So like Thomas Friedman, I didn't know what that word meant. But there's a difference between us. You see, I have never believed that I knew what it meant. Nor have I ever used it in a sentence intended to convince anyone of anything. And most of all, I have never used the word in a sentence on the op/ed page of one of America's most prestigious newspaper. Beyond the fact that they wouldn't print my material, I generally like to know what I'm talking about, rather than making an ass out of myself.
And that's exactly what Friedman did. He's heard the word before, but clearly never understood it. And because he didn't understand it, he internalized it as a meaningless term that you hurl at someone of a particular belief, as if it's an insult. And this is similar to Jonah Goldberg who, failing to understand Chait's initial premise, wrongly viewed it as a petty insult and equated it to stubbornness. And like Goldberg, rather than admitting to ignorance and asking for a definition, he proceeded to blast about it in our national discourse; showing his ignorance to the world. And to tie this into our theme, their main problem was that they were too stupid to realize how stupid they are.
It's just a guess, by I suspect that Friedman has been labeled as being an essentialist on more than one occasion. He strikes me as a particularly simple-minded guy, and essentialism sounds like a simple-minded way of looking at life. It's basically a ridiculous position you are forced to adopt when you can't defend your ridiculous arguments in the normal way. I refuse to see how any rational, empirically-minded person could possibly believe that anything is the way that it is because it must be that way. That's just silly. Even if it's true, there's no way to know that it's true and therefore invalid as a reliable premise. I can understand an irrational, belief-based person using such logic; but they have no business taking part in our serious discussions.
Why This Matters
And that's why this is so important. This wasn't just an issue of someone using a minor word incorrectly. Everyone does that. But this wasn't a minor error, but a fundamental one which highlights their flawed logical processes. You see, when Thomas Friedman gets into major political discussions about issues such as this, and someone makes a criticism about his argument and tosses off a label, such as essentialist; he doesn't understand that they are making a fundamental statement about his beliefs. In fact, he doesn't even understand why they're saying it. But it's not that he disagrees; he just thinks it's a petty insult and glosses right over the matter of whether it's true or not. He doesn't even see how it's something that could be right or wrong. To him, it's just another insult and does not give him a moments reflection.
They react the same way as if the label was fascist, or neo-con, or imperialist. To them, these aren't valid phrases that could possibly apply to them; but just petty insults. And we can see that with their phrases of us. They don't actually believe us to be traitors, or anti-Americans, or (god forbid) Marxists. They just toss those out as insults to throw us off and keep us in line, and aren't really trying to define us in any way. Hell, they'd have to read Marx before they could know what they were calling us, and only commies read Marx. And so that's why they think that our phrases like "Essentialist" and "Orientalist" and "Fascist" are just cheap insults. Because they don't see how we're any different from them, and they use meaningless insults to taunt us.
And that was how it was with Goldberg. He dismissed valid criticism and accurate theories because he couldn't understand it as anything but an insult. Neither of them understood the criticism enough to debate against it. And that's the problem. Maybe Friedman isn't an Essentialist. And maybe conservatives are just as empirical as liberals. Or maybe it's true and they should gladly take the title. But Friedman and Goldberg are the last people who would know diddly squat about this as they're too stupid to ask for an explanation. And that's because they're too stupid to know that they don't know already. And that's because they believe that they already know the answers, and that anyone who tries to educate them is obviously wrong. So they remain in ignorance eternal.
I should add that I feel that Friedman's a smart enough guy that he might be able to finally understand that word, assuming someone sent him Cole's post. But even that's not likely to completely revamp the poor pundit's thought processes enough.
Stupid Stupid, Stupidly
And I'm not necessarily trying to single-out Friedman's boobery (though I do enjoy it so), this is just another example of the way that these people work, and why debating with them is so difficult. How can we expect them to debate complex issues, when they proudly display their own ignorance of the very words necessary for debate? We can't. It's impossible. We attack them for their simple-mindedness, but then pretend that it ends with their lame-brain theories. But it doesn't. It goes all the way down. They are fundamentally stupid and their ignorance is such that they don't even begin to comprehend anything we say.
And the cause of their ignorance is their belief-based system and thus their inherent anti-empiricism. Anything that goes against it must be rejected as false. And so they have no way of learning out of it. They're anti-intellectual, not because intellectuallism is bad, but because it gives them answers which they are forced by their beliefs to reject. And they are unable to comprehend that we aren't doing the same. They use the same words as us, which enables them to believe that they think like us. But they don't. We use observation to better understand what we should believe, and they use their beliefs to tell them what they observe.
Their ignorance is not always obvious, but it is always there. And until we understand that, we'll never be able to address their fundamental misunderstandings; thus making it impossible to debate the more complex issues that arise. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and these people are very, very dangerous.
The Ignorant Shadow Boxer
My initial claim of Jonathan Chait's Opinion Duel victory by points has been proven correct. Even though Goldberg had yet to make his final argument, I felt confident in declaring an early victory because Chait's final response was solid, to the point, and fairly deft in his handling of the subject. I was fairly certain that Goldberg could not provide any kind of rational response back; thus giving the win to Chait by default.
Well, Goldberg has now given his final argument and it's just a mess. It's obvious that he believes (fears) that Chait won and is now thrashing about wildly throwing punches without the slightest ability of knowing whether any will land. In boxing terms, his eyes have swollen shut and he's just hoping that one of his random haymakers will somehow land on Chait hard enough to knock him down for the count. Unfortunately, those aren't haymakers, and he's actually been in the locker room shadow boxing for the last half hour. The fight was over after Chait's final response, and nobody had the heart to tell Goldberg. I'd feel bad for Jonah, but he's just a punkass who brought this onto himself and will continue to do so in the future.
Shadow Boxer
And the problem for Goldberg is that he really has been shadow boxing this whole time. He can't disagree with Chait's argument because he's too ignorant to understand it. And his inability to understand it is solely due to the fact that he's really not a conservative and clearly believes that True Conservatives are fools. He's not arguing against Chait; he's debating against the truth of his own ideology.
And that's what his problem is. He wants to believe that conservatives are right, but he doesn't actually agree with them. He likes the rhetoric, but fails to understand the ideological underpinnings of it. So he can't understand what the hell he's talking about. Before he can possibly argue against Chait, he needs to first get his own mind straight. As it is, he is simply fighting against himself, with Chait only serving the roll of the trainer yelling instructions from the sideline as to what the shadow is supposedly doing.
Mindless Name-Calling
And the evidence is obvious from this final entry. His whole piece can be summed up as: "Jonathan, how dare you define the terms "Conservatives" and "Liberals" in such a way that doesn't make me sound like a Conservative. I get to define those words and I do it in a way that makes me sound like a Conservative, and for Liberals to sound like fruitcakes". That's it. That's everything that he says. And he takes a long time saying it.
And what's worse, he doesn't actually get around to defining any of those terms. He isn't offering up any kind of argument whatsoever. He's just flailing back against Chait's, but unable to counter it. More specifically, he never gives us any kind of rational criteria for which we can identify conservatives or liberals. He offers examples that he believes undermines Chait's criteria, but nothing to establish his own. And because he fails to grasp even the most basic points, all of Chait's points sound like name-calling to him; which is itself an insult. But he honestly can't tell the difference.
He's the equivalent of a moral relativist who understands the flaws of moral relativism, and therefore chooses the title of moral absolutist; but lacks the intellectual powers of actually forming absolute morals. They apply a hundred little rules to a hundred little situations; unable to form big rules which cover multiple situations. But unable to comprehend true moral absolutism, they wrongly adopt that title and fail to identify their own multiple standards.
For them, moral absolutism just means having a tough attitude towards people they identify as immoral; rather than a set of rules used to define immorality itself. Their's is the kind of mind which strongly defended the attacks on Bill Clinton and his moral relativist "anything goes" attitude while dismissing any attacks on Bush as the work of mindless and partisan "Bush-haters"; and believe that "9/11 changed everything". Wait a minute. Goldberg IS a moral relativist who wrongly thinks he's absolutist; so I guess that applies to him too. Their mantra: If it feels good, believe it.
Goldberg Example Proves Chait Right
In this case, he attacked Chait's absolutist arguments because they might not be "catch-alls"; but he does it from a shifting position which is only difficult to counter because it's entirely relative and even he doesn't know where he stands. And even then failed to cite any real examples which defy Chait's definitions.
In one of his few examples, he attacks Chait for citing conservative economist Robert Barro who wrote several years ago that Private Accounts didn't really solve anything, but that he preferred them anyway for ideological reasons. Chait correctly used that as an example of an important conservative who supported an ideological argument in spite of his acknowledging that the facts were against it. In response, Goldberg cites a recent column in Business Week by Barro as proof of that same conservative accepting facts over ideology; and thus refuting Chait's point.
But either Goldberg failed to read the column and based his opinion solely on the title "Why Private Accounts Are Bad Public Policy" (PDF), or he's just too ignorant to understand it. Here's the money quote on why Barro now opposes Private Accounts:
Contributions that fund just the minimum cannot go into a meaningful personal account. People would opt for too much risk, knowing they would be bailed out if they fell short. Also, contributions that cover the minimum provide no individual return and, therefore, amount to a tax that discourages work.
Personal accounts have to supplement the minimum payout. But then why have a public program at all, rather than relying on individual choices on saving? I think there is no good reason to go beyond the minimum standard; that is why I view personal accounts as a mistake -- they enlarge a Social Security program that already promises too much.
So it's not that Barro has changed his mind about Private Accounts being good for freedom, per se; but rather that he now sees Private Accounts as being worse for freedom because they won't be done the way that he wants. He's not foregoing his Freedom argument in now denouncing Private Accounts; but rather the opposite. He no longer sees Private Accounts as a way of improving freedom, and believes it to be an implied tax; both of which he denounces on conservative ideological grounds. So, far from Barro showing his empiricist over ideologue attitude; we see that he was once willing to trump ideology over facts several years ago, but backed down now that he sees that his ideology shouldn't support it either.
Chait wins again...assuming you actually read the column Goldberg referenced (without linking to). But Goldberg wasn't looking for the truth when he found that quote. He just wanted something to back up his point; which is all that he thinks facts are good for. And he does that, not as a conservative, but as one who is forced to adopt conservative methods. And so all he can see are things that back up his point, and anything else is ignored.
Anti-Empiricism vs. Stubbornness
And again, Goldberg's problem is that he's too ignorant to actually understand what conservatives are saying. I believe that he DID read that column. Furthermore, I believe that he honestly believed that the column proved Chait's premise wrong. His problem is that he fails to even grasp what Chait is saying about empiricism, and really does think it's a fancy word that Chait uses as a weapon against conservatives. He wrongly believes that Chait is accusing conservatives of being stubborn, rather than anti-empirical. Because that's what Goldberg keeps addressing: conservative stubbornness and tries to cite example of liberal stubbornness.
And that's the point. Goldberg sees Chait's argument as an insult against conservatives; rather than a fact that any real conservative would agree with. They don't care about the facts, they just don't like government; even if the facts showed that it worked (especially then). Goldberg can cite stupid liberals who are just as stubborn as stupid conservatives, but fails to cite any intelligent liberals who are as anti-empirical as intelligent conservatives. And that's the thing. Chait was never denouncing their stubbornness, nor even accusing them of it. He was citing a fact about intelligent conservatives and what we need to do about that. It was only Goldberg who saw it as an insult because he doesn't understand the ideology he wants so badly to believe in.
Conclusion
And this is why Goldberg hasn't presented a coherent argument: because he doesn't have one. Instead, it's just one giant dissembling mess; and not even a good one. In fact, this whole time, he hasn't been trying to make an argument; he's just been attacking Chait's ability to do so. And his final post is the worst of the lot. Chait offended Goldberg due to Goldberg's own confusion, and he has been fighting himself this entire time.
My initial entry into this debate stated that Chait arguing against Goldberg wasn't fair and that Goldberg wasn't mentally capable of participating in such a debate. Goldberg has only served to prove me right. This wasn't a debate; it was an embarrassment. And, as usual, the most embarrassing aspect is that he's too ignorant to be embarrassed by it. But we knew that going in, didn't we. Way to go, Chait. You proved the obvious. Now get back to work and make us liberals proud.
Well, Goldberg has now given his final argument and it's just a mess. It's obvious that he believes (fears) that Chait won and is now thrashing about wildly throwing punches without the slightest ability of knowing whether any will land. In boxing terms, his eyes have swollen shut and he's just hoping that one of his random haymakers will somehow land on Chait hard enough to knock him down for the count. Unfortunately, those aren't haymakers, and he's actually been in the locker room shadow boxing for the last half hour. The fight was over after Chait's final response, and nobody had the heart to tell Goldberg. I'd feel bad for Jonah, but he's just a punkass who brought this onto himself and will continue to do so in the future.
Shadow Boxer
And the problem for Goldberg is that he really has been shadow boxing this whole time. He can't disagree with Chait's argument because he's too ignorant to understand it. And his inability to understand it is solely due to the fact that he's really not a conservative and clearly believes that True Conservatives are fools. He's not arguing against Chait; he's debating against the truth of his own ideology.
And that's what his problem is. He wants to believe that conservatives are right, but he doesn't actually agree with them. He likes the rhetoric, but fails to understand the ideological underpinnings of it. So he can't understand what the hell he's talking about. Before he can possibly argue against Chait, he needs to first get his own mind straight. As it is, he is simply fighting against himself, with Chait only serving the roll of the trainer yelling instructions from the sideline as to what the shadow is supposedly doing.
Mindless Name-Calling
And the evidence is obvious from this final entry. His whole piece can be summed up as: "Jonathan, how dare you define the terms "Conservatives" and "Liberals" in such a way that doesn't make me sound like a Conservative. I get to define those words and I do it in a way that makes me sound like a Conservative, and for Liberals to sound like fruitcakes". That's it. That's everything that he says. And he takes a long time saying it.
And what's worse, he doesn't actually get around to defining any of those terms. He isn't offering up any kind of argument whatsoever. He's just flailing back against Chait's, but unable to counter it. More specifically, he never gives us any kind of rational criteria for which we can identify conservatives or liberals. He offers examples that he believes undermines Chait's criteria, but nothing to establish his own. And because he fails to grasp even the most basic points, all of Chait's points sound like name-calling to him; which is itself an insult. But he honestly can't tell the difference.
He's the equivalent of a moral relativist who understands the flaws of moral relativism, and therefore chooses the title of moral absolutist; but lacks the intellectual powers of actually forming absolute morals. They apply a hundred little rules to a hundred little situations; unable to form big rules which cover multiple situations. But unable to comprehend true moral absolutism, they wrongly adopt that title and fail to identify their own multiple standards.
For them, moral absolutism just means having a tough attitude towards people they identify as immoral; rather than a set of rules used to define immorality itself. Their's is the kind of mind which strongly defended the attacks on Bill Clinton and his moral relativist "anything goes" attitude while dismissing any attacks on Bush as the work of mindless and partisan "Bush-haters"; and believe that "9/11 changed everything". Wait a minute. Goldberg IS a moral relativist who wrongly thinks he's absolutist; so I guess that applies to him too. Their mantra: If it feels good, believe it.
Goldberg Example Proves Chait Right
In this case, he attacked Chait's absolutist arguments because they might not be "catch-alls"; but he does it from a shifting position which is only difficult to counter because it's entirely relative and even he doesn't know where he stands. And even then failed to cite any real examples which defy Chait's definitions.
In one of his few examples, he attacks Chait for citing conservative economist Robert Barro who wrote several years ago that Private Accounts didn't really solve anything, but that he preferred them anyway for ideological reasons. Chait correctly used that as an example of an important conservative who supported an ideological argument in spite of his acknowledging that the facts were against it. In response, Goldberg cites a recent column in Business Week by Barro as proof of that same conservative accepting facts over ideology; and thus refuting Chait's point.
But either Goldberg failed to read the column and based his opinion solely on the title "Why Private Accounts Are Bad Public Policy" (PDF), or he's just too ignorant to understand it. Here's the money quote on why Barro now opposes Private Accounts:
Contributions that fund just the minimum cannot go into a meaningful personal account. People would opt for too much risk, knowing they would be bailed out if they fell short. Also, contributions that cover the minimum provide no individual return and, therefore, amount to a tax that discourages work.
Personal accounts have to supplement the minimum payout. But then why have a public program at all, rather than relying on individual choices on saving? I think there is no good reason to go beyond the minimum standard; that is why I view personal accounts as a mistake -- they enlarge a Social Security program that already promises too much.
So it's not that Barro has changed his mind about Private Accounts being good for freedom, per se; but rather that he now sees Private Accounts as being worse for freedom because they won't be done the way that he wants. He's not foregoing his Freedom argument in now denouncing Private Accounts; but rather the opposite. He no longer sees Private Accounts as a way of improving freedom, and believes it to be an implied tax; both of which he denounces on conservative ideological grounds. So, far from Barro showing his empiricist over ideologue attitude; we see that he was once willing to trump ideology over facts several years ago, but backed down now that he sees that his ideology shouldn't support it either.
Chait wins again...assuming you actually read the column Goldberg referenced (without linking to). But Goldberg wasn't looking for the truth when he found that quote. He just wanted something to back up his point; which is all that he thinks facts are good for. And he does that, not as a conservative, but as one who is forced to adopt conservative methods. And so all he can see are things that back up his point, and anything else is ignored.
Anti-Empiricism vs. Stubbornness
And again, Goldberg's problem is that he's too ignorant to actually understand what conservatives are saying. I believe that he DID read that column. Furthermore, I believe that he honestly believed that the column proved Chait's premise wrong. His problem is that he fails to even grasp what Chait is saying about empiricism, and really does think it's a fancy word that Chait uses as a weapon against conservatives. He wrongly believes that Chait is accusing conservatives of being stubborn, rather than anti-empirical. Because that's what Goldberg keeps addressing: conservative stubbornness and tries to cite example of liberal stubbornness.
And that's the point. Goldberg sees Chait's argument as an insult against conservatives; rather than a fact that any real conservative would agree with. They don't care about the facts, they just don't like government; even if the facts showed that it worked (especially then). Goldberg can cite stupid liberals who are just as stubborn as stupid conservatives, but fails to cite any intelligent liberals who are as anti-empirical as intelligent conservatives. And that's the thing. Chait was never denouncing their stubbornness, nor even accusing them of it. He was citing a fact about intelligent conservatives and what we need to do about that. It was only Goldberg who saw it as an insult because he doesn't understand the ideology he wants so badly to believe in.
Conclusion
And this is why Goldberg hasn't presented a coherent argument: because he doesn't have one. Instead, it's just one giant dissembling mess; and not even a good one. In fact, this whole time, he hasn't been trying to make an argument; he's just been attacking Chait's ability to do so. And his final post is the worst of the lot. Chait offended Goldberg due to Goldberg's own confusion, and he has been fighting himself this entire time.
My initial entry into this debate stated that Chait arguing against Goldberg wasn't fair and that Goldberg wasn't mentally capable of participating in such a debate. Goldberg has only served to prove me right. This wasn't a debate; it was an embarrassment. And, as usual, the most embarrassing aspect is that he's too ignorant to be embarrassed by it. But we knew that going in, didn't we. Way to go, Chait. You proved the obvious. Now get back to work and make us liberals proud.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Hindrocket Wins Again
As Josh Marshall points out, the GOP talking points memo regarding the political advantage of Terri Schiavo has turned out to be written by a Republican. Referring to conservative pundits and bloggers who incorrectly theorized that it was a Dem dirty trick, Josh writes "I hope some folks have sense enough to feel like real fools tonight." No, no, no, foolish mortal. That's just not how these people work. Were they "lessons learned" kind of people, they wouldn't be conservatives for very long. The theory sounds good, but the facts just aren't there to support it.
Now, I was surprised that I read this story in Yahoo before I got it from Josh. I'm sure he was already working on his post. And while I'm normally not the "scoop" kind of blogger, I thought I might rush something off and get the story here first; rather than my normal analysis stuff, which can take hours or days for inspiration to kick-in. But this story really fit into my current stuff of unempirical conservatives; so I started a few different variations, but didn't think I could write enough (for reasons I'll get into). And I'm short of time with my tax deadlines, so I thought of writing nothing. But I read Josh's comments and felt like I should write it afterall.
Research Results
Another rarity for me is that I started doing blog research, looking for conservative bloggers who pimped the "fake memo" story. I will sometimes do research, but not by reading other blogs. Everything I'm writing are long-held thoughts that I just never wrote down before. But before attacking the stupid rightwing bloggers, I had to ascertain that they really did do what I was about to write about them doing. Empirical, I say.
Searching in Yahoo, I quickly stumbled into Powerline; a mistake I won't be making again. Damn those people are obtuse. It really hurt my brain to read that stuff; and I've got a biobrain, so you can just imagine the level of bullshit it requires to injure me. But sure enough they did. I got into a few posts from some dope named Hindrocket (apparently somebody important, despite the crappy ass name), and I had to fight off a sudden urge to attack my screen in anger. Damn, those people are so...ARGH, RODLKLFASJDISDI, stupid, motherskd ikas;difna;lfknalk! I couldn't stand it. It was so frustratingly alksfilj! Needless to say, I had trouble writing.
Reading over that stuff, all I can say is that those people are completely batshit insane. I know, I know. We all talk about that. But I always avoid reading that crap because it upsets my logical processors so severely; so this really took me by surprise. They really do live in some alternate universe where the rules of logic are permanently suspended. So that's why I gave up my post. But Josh's post got me back into it, so here it is.
Foolish Marshall
And why was Josh foolish? Because these people just don't work the way we do. They have their initial premise and scout out for any piece of evidence that supports that premise. Now, that's the way a good argument should work. You state your premise, and you allow your facts and arguments to flow out from that. But that's not the way you're supposed to collect your data; basing it solely upon predetermined criteria. Because you'll only find exactly what you're looking for and nothing else.
But that's all that they want. For them, facts are more like analogies or parables which you tell in order to explain higher truths which aren't readily accepted as true. And that's exactly what conservatives use facts for. And just as you would discard an analogy as soon as you realized that it was invalid; they discard facts once they lose their relevance. They're not in the fact business; they're trying to tell you higher truths. And so they'll just find another parable to tell you, which explains the truth about the Liberal Media or Evil Welfare States or whatever.
And just as you wouldn't look for an analogy or parable which goes against your point; they intentionally filter out facts which dispute theirs. And that's why you can't argue with them as if they're like us. Because they don't give a shit about evidence. They don't give a fuck about facts. They don't care what we say. They already know that they're right, and they don't see what any contrary evidence or facts or arguments have to do with it. They just don't care. They already know that they're right, so they refuse to see anything else. And if they really were right, they'd be fools to do it any differently. But unless they're borrowing their god's omniscience, they can't possibly know if they're right; so they should rely upon the human source of knowledge: facts.
But alas...
Hindrocket
In this case, uber-goober Hindrocket saw this whole GOP memo as an obvious conspiracy between the Democrats and the media. He was fairly certain that it was a "fake memo" created by Dems, and was absolutely certain that it was pimped by the media in order to embarrass the GOP. And that's the way that they really think. Now, I will confess that I had initially thought that maybe it was a stupid Democrat trick or something. There's nothing too odd about that. But the idea that it was a conspiracy with the media?? That's just batshit insane.
But in fact, if you dare to read that painful post by Hindrocket, you'll see that the emphasis was far more heavily on the media conspiracy part, than the fake memo part. Which makes sense, as he has a strong belief in the premise that the media is out to attack Republicans; and a much smaller belief that Dems are dirty tricksters who fake memos. So the emphasis would naturally be on the media conspiracy, as all facts have to lead to that.
And his evidence that the media was involved with this? Because the initial news article sourced the memo to "Republican leaders" in one sentence; one sentence that Hindrocket says they changed almost immediately afterwards, without giving an official retraction. Damn them media types! They got one sentence wrong! Heat up the tar, I'll get the feathers. Let's run those partisan bastards out of town! It's a conspiracy!
Our President can consistently misstate important facts regarding matters of war for over a year; and then refuse to correct those facts when people still continue to believe them (as they still do). But was that lying? Of course not. We're told that he believed these things to be true, even though warnings and disclaimers putting doubt on those facts were in place; which even uneducated dopes like me had heard. But he's the President and he says he hadn't heard the disclaimers and warnings, so that makes it ok...even though he has still never issued an official retraction of those statements. And sometimes, he just used the wrong words, which is entirely understandable as he's just not a wordy kind of guy. But a WaPo reporter misstating one sentence? Regarding a minor memo, on an inane issue? Which gets corrected almost immediately?? Liberal Conspiracy! No benefit of the doubt required. We already know that it's true.
Doing As They Do
But the only reason why this is batshit insane was because they thought we'd do such things. And the reason they think that is because they think that we think like they do. Almost everybody does. People disagree; but deep down, you assume that everyone thinks the same way you do. And that's why you get upset when they don't see things your way. You give them your facts and you find it maddening that they don't automatically convert to your side. Because you really believe that they're minds work like yours and that your facts should simply insert themselves into the empty holes in their minds. But if they don't process facts the way that you do, then it can't possibly work. And yet we still insist on thinking of others as being like slightly more ignorant versions of ourselves.
And that's what all this "conspiracy" talk is all about. Because that really is the way they do things. From start to finish, the Republicans conspire to invent phoney stories and pimp them out in all of their various media outlets. That's just how it works. Not all of them are in on it, but enough are to call it a conspiracy. And they convince themselves that it's ok because they think we're doing the same thing.
That's also how Nixon justified Watergate and illegal wiretaps; because he was convinced that he had been wiretapped too. No evidence. He just knew that he'd do that, so he assumed that they would too. And maybe they did. But he didn't know; he just thought they would because they could. So he did it, and then saw a big conspiracy take him down for doing what he believed Kennedy and Johnson did to him. But the reason he saw a big conspiracy is because, again, that's what he'd have done. And he assumed that everyone worked like him. You play dirty, or you wear dirt; and none of that happens by accident. Or so he believed.
And so it is with Hindrocket and their sick-minded ilk. They know that they are anti-empirical. They know that they support one-sided propaganda. They know that they conspire together to pimp the same party lines and attacks. So they assume we're doing the same things. And that's how they justify it all; by assuming that the "other guy" would do the very same thing to them.
And so there's nothing crazy about thinking that the press would conspire with a political party. Hell, the GOP can pimp whole books that way, let alone little memos. No, what's crazy is them thinking that we'd do that. They thought it with the "Rathergate" story, and they're thinking it now. And they think it because they know that that's what they would do if things were reversed. No innocent misunderstandings or competitive newsmen trying to scoop the other media sources. Partisan conspiracy everytime. Because that's how they think it's supposed to be done.
Hindrocket Embarrassed?
Getting back to Josh's desire: did Hindrocket feel like a fool? If you have the guts, you can see for yourself; though you can't say I didn't warn you. But you don't need to read it. You already know that he didn't. Before, he was fairly sure that it was a "fake memo"; but there's no talk of that now. No mea culpas. Nothing. He's still reluctant to believe this story, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. As always, he can quickly forget about anything that goes against his point; as it was never relevant to his point. Just like if one of your analogies fell apart and proved inapplicable to your point. You'd just come up with a new one which worked better.
And did he use it to justify his earlier beliefs? Of course. Because that's all he's interested in. He already knows that he's right, and that the media is out to get Repubs. That's par for the course. Rather than take responsibility for pimping rumors and guesses; he accepts this as a victory.
What did he claim his victory on? You see, that initial story that had the one bad sentence? The one that he says they changed almost immediately? Turns out that one sentence was wrong after all. The memo wasn't from the GOP leadership. It was from a Republican Senator's legal counsel, who gave it to the Senator, who gave it to Senator Harkin to show him what he was up against. And so we don't know if the GOP leadership passed it around, but we should assume that they didn't because...well because...well because it goes against Hindrocket's theory so it can't have happened. And rather than seeing mistakes and learning a lesson about pimping wild guesses as reality, Hindrocket takes this as a complete vindication. He went looking for a media conspiracy, and by gum, that one sentence was conspiracy enough for him.
Sure, it wasn't written by the Dems to allow the media to pimp. But they gave it to the media. And so that one sentence was wrong. Conspiracy unveiled. Media partisanship revealed. Case closed. And no matter what else happens, nothing can take that away from Hindrocket. But even if it did? Who cares. He already has his premise, and it wasn't based upon this story. One story's as good as another. Even parables and myths are just as good. They have their inner truth. The facts are just what they use to give us insight into that inner truth. And they see nothing wrong with that, as they believe we're doing the same damn thing.
Now, I was surprised that I read this story in Yahoo before I got it from Josh. I'm sure he was already working on his post. And while I'm normally not the "scoop" kind of blogger, I thought I might rush something off and get the story here first; rather than my normal analysis stuff, which can take hours or days for inspiration to kick-in. But this story really fit into my current stuff of unempirical conservatives; so I started a few different variations, but didn't think I could write enough (for reasons I'll get into). And I'm short of time with my tax deadlines, so I thought of writing nothing. But I read Josh's comments and felt like I should write it afterall.
Research Results
Another rarity for me is that I started doing blog research, looking for conservative bloggers who pimped the "fake memo" story. I will sometimes do research, but not by reading other blogs. Everything I'm writing are long-held thoughts that I just never wrote down before. But before attacking the stupid rightwing bloggers, I had to ascertain that they really did do what I was about to write about them doing. Empirical, I say.
Searching in Yahoo, I quickly stumbled into Powerline; a mistake I won't be making again. Damn those people are obtuse. It really hurt my brain to read that stuff; and I've got a biobrain, so you can just imagine the level of bullshit it requires to injure me. But sure enough they did. I got into a few posts from some dope named Hindrocket (apparently somebody important, despite the crappy ass name), and I had to fight off a sudden urge to attack my screen in anger. Damn, those people are so...ARGH, RODLKLFASJDISDI, stupid, motherskd ikas;difna;lfknalk! I couldn't stand it. It was so frustratingly alksfilj! Needless to say, I had trouble writing.
Reading over that stuff, all I can say is that those people are completely batshit insane. I know, I know. We all talk about that. But I always avoid reading that crap because it upsets my logical processors so severely; so this really took me by surprise. They really do live in some alternate universe where the rules of logic are permanently suspended. So that's why I gave up my post. But Josh's post got me back into it, so here it is.
Foolish Marshall
And why was Josh foolish? Because these people just don't work the way we do. They have their initial premise and scout out for any piece of evidence that supports that premise. Now, that's the way a good argument should work. You state your premise, and you allow your facts and arguments to flow out from that. But that's not the way you're supposed to collect your data; basing it solely upon predetermined criteria. Because you'll only find exactly what you're looking for and nothing else.
But that's all that they want. For them, facts are more like analogies or parables which you tell in order to explain higher truths which aren't readily accepted as true. And that's exactly what conservatives use facts for. And just as you would discard an analogy as soon as you realized that it was invalid; they discard facts once they lose their relevance. They're not in the fact business; they're trying to tell you higher truths. And so they'll just find another parable to tell you, which explains the truth about the Liberal Media or Evil Welfare States or whatever.
And just as you wouldn't look for an analogy or parable which goes against your point; they intentionally filter out facts which dispute theirs. And that's why you can't argue with them as if they're like us. Because they don't give a shit about evidence. They don't give a fuck about facts. They don't care what we say. They already know that they're right, and they don't see what any contrary evidence or facts or arguments have to do with it. They just don't care. They already know that they're right, so they refuse to see anything else. And if they really were right, they'd be fools to do it any differently. But unless they're borrowing their god's omniscience, they can't possibly know if they're right; so they should rely upon the human source of knowledge: facts.
But alas...
Hindrocket
In this case, uber-goober Hindrocket saw this whole GOP memo as an obvious conspiracy between the Democrats and the media. He was fairly certain that it was a "fake memo" created by Dems, and was absolutely certain that it was pimped by the media in order to embarrass the GOP. And that's the way that they really think. Now, I will confess that I had initially thought that maybe it was a stupid Democrat trick or something. There's nothing too odd about that. But the idea that it was a conspiracy with the media?? That's just batshit insane.
But in fact, if you dare to read that painful post by Hindrocket, you'll see that the emphasis was far more heavily on the media conspiracy part, than the fake memo part. Which makes sense, as he has a strong belief in the premise that the media is out to attack Republicans; and a much smaller belief that Dems are dirty tricksters who fake memos. So the emphasis would naturally be on the media conspiracy, as all facts have to lead to that.
And his evidence that the media was involved with this? Because the initial news article sourced the memo to "Republican leaders" in one sentence; one sentence that Hindrocket says they changed almost immediately afterwards, without giving an official retraction. Damn them media types! They got one sentence wrong! Heat up the tar, I'll get the feathers. Let's run those partisan bastards out of town! It's a conspiracy!
Our President can consistently misstate important facts regarding matters of war for over a year; and then refuse to correct those facts when people still continue to believe them (as they still do). But was that lying? Of course not. We're told that he believed these things to be true, even though warnings and disclaimers putting doubt on those facts were in place; which even uneducated dopes like me had heard. But he's the President and he says he hadn't heard the disclaimers and warnings, so that makes it ok...even though he has still never issued an official retraction of those statements. And sometimes, he just used the wrong words, which is entirely understandable as he's just not a wordy kind of guy. But a WaPo reporter misstating one sentence? Regarding a minor memo, on an inane issue? Which gets corrected almost immediately?? Liberal Conspiracy! No benefit of the doubt required. We already know that it's true.
Doing As They Do
But the only reason why this is batshit insane was because they thought we'd do such things. And the reason they think that is because they think that we think like they do. Almost everybody does. People disagree; but deep down, you assume that everyone thinks the same way you do. And that's why you get upset when they don't see things your way. You give them your facts and you find it maddening that they don't automatically convert to your side. Because you really believe that they're minds work like yours and that your facts should simply insert themselves into the empty holes in their minds. But if they don't process facts the way that you do, then it can't possibly work. And yet we still insist on thinking of others as being like slightly more ignorant versions of ourselves.
And that's what all this "conspiracy" talk is all about. Because that really is the way they do things. From start to finish, the Republicans conspire to invent phoney stories and pimp them out in all of their various media outlets. That's just how it works. Not all of them are in on it, but enough are to call it a conspiracy. And they convince themselves that it's ok because they think we're doing the same thing.
That's also how Nixon justified Watergate and illegal wiretaps; because he was convinced that he had been wiretapped too. No evidence. He just knew that he'd do that, so he assumed that they would too. And maybe they did. But he didn't know; he just thought they would because they could. So he did it, and then saw a big conspiracy take him down for doing what he believed Kennedy and Johnson did to him. But the reason he saw a big conspiracy is because, again, that's what he'd have done. And he assumed that everyone worked like him. You play dirty, or you wear dirt; and none of that happens by accident. Or so he believed.
And so it is with Hindrocket and their sick-minded ilk. They know that they are anti-empirical. They know that they support one-sided propaganda. They know that they conspire together to pimp the same party lines and attacks. So they assume we're doing the same things. And that's how they justify it all; by assuming that the "other guy" would do the very same thing to them.
And so there's nothing crazy about thinking that the press would conspire with a political party. Hell, the GOP can pimp whole books that way, let alone little memos. No, what's crazy is them thinking that we'd do that. They thought it with the "Rathergate" story, and they're thinking it now. And they think it because they know that that's what they would do if things were reversed. No innocent misunderstandings or competitive newsmen trying to scoop the other media sources. Partisan conspiracy everytime. Because that's how they think it's supposed to be done.
Hindrocket Embarrassed?
Getting back to Josh's desire: did Hindrocket feel like a fool? If you have the guts, you can see for yourself; though you can't say I didn't warn you. But you don't need to read it. You already know that he didn't. Before, he was fairly sure that it was a "fake memo"; but there's no talk of that now. No mea culpas. Nothing. He's still reluctant to believe this story, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. As always, he can quickly forget about anything that goes against his point; as it was never relevant to his point. Just like if one of your analogies fell apart and proved inapplicable to your point. You'd just come up with a new one which worked better.
And did he use it to justify his earlier beliefs? Of course. Because that's all he's interested in. He already knows that he's right, and that the media is out to get Repubs. That's par for the course. Rather than take responsibility for pimping rumors and guesses; he accepts this as a victory.
What did he claim his victory on? You see, that initial story that had the one bad sentence? The one that he says they changed almost immediately? Turns out that one sentence was wrong after all. The memo wasn't from the GOP leadership. It was from a Republican Senator's legal counsel, who gave it to the Senator, who gave it to Senator Harkin to show him what he was up against. And so we don't know if the GOP leadership passed it around, but we should assume that they didn't because...well because...well because it goes against Hindrocket's theory so it can't have happened. And rather than seeing mistakes and learning a lesson about pimping wild guesses as reality, Hindrocket takes this as a complete vindication. He went looking for a media conspiracy, and by gum, that one sentence was conspiracy enough for him.
Sure, it wasn't written by the Dems to allow the media to pimp. But they gave it to the media. And so that one sentence was wrong. Conspiracy unveiled. Media partisanship revealed. Case closed. And no matter what else happens, nothing can take that away from Hindrocket. But even if it did? Who cares. He already has his premise, and it wasn't based upon this story. One story's as good as another. Even parables and myths are just as good. They have their inner truth. The facts are just what they use to give us insight into that inner truth. And they see nothing wrong with that, as they believe we're doing the same damn thing.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Deadweight Delay and the Selfish Bastards
Our beloved Publius at Legal Fiction is being melodramatic. Not by much, but enough. Perhaps excessive viewings of the Rings Trilogy has short circuited the reality portion of his brain, I don't know. That's why I couldn't finish watching the first of those movies. Too much self-dignity got in the way of me enjoying any of it; with trolls and whatnot not really being my thing. I was always more of a sci-fi kind of guy.
But that's not what I'm writing about. No, I'm referring to Pub's post on the GOP leadership's recent breach of conduct concerning the Terry Schiavo incident. To be honest, Publius picked a poor time to stop sniffing blog, as I was really jonesin' for a legal fix, and his opinion was nowhere to be seen. I'm not one to trust the lawyer class, so I was really left hanging while he was off learning his true self. Oh well. He's back now. But unfortunately, he's gotten a bit daft since he left. Or maybe I just never noticed before.
Ok, well I wrote a whole bunch more. Several long paragraphs, trust me. But I really just didn't quite like it. It wasn't that it was bad. It was just very very long, and I hadn't even really gotten to my main point. Trust me, even by my standards it would have been long. It involved everything from fancy words like "hubris", to less fancy words like "hogwash". It was good, I guess. But too long, and it's very late and I knew that if I didn't finish it, I never would. So I just deleted it all. I probably should have saved it for another day, but this stuff's really a dime a dozen for me, and I can crank it out all day. So it's gone and I'm going to sum up (which itself is pretty long).
To sum up, Publius and his ilk are being melodramatic in regards to the perceived constitutional crisis regarding the GOP powergrab. American history is full of powerful men, making powerful moves; and nobody ever remembers their names. Like most politicians, our current bunch are small-minded people with small goals (themselves), and the only way they can emasculate the judicial branch is by accident. If you could somehow convince them of Pub's argument, they'd probably back down...or maybe it would convince them to go for it, I don't know. I just don't think that's what is happening. They're just concerned with upcoming elections and saving Deadweight Delay, and not with stripping powers from a branch of government they hope to stack.
You can always take separate events and try to find a trend which connects them all; but more often than not, the cigar is just a cigar.
Oh, and his idea of Burke conservatives is a bit much for most folks. He thinks it's about stopping men from grabbing too much power and mucking stuff up. That's too high-minded for my taste and suspect it was always his liberal side peeping out. I think most conservatives are just selfish and don't want to help out people they don't know (and some of the people they DO know, I'm sure). "Taxes are theft", is a favorite line by those who haven't the brains to notice how low tax rates in third-world nations are. Somehow, the irony of debating "tax theft" with an anonymous person over trillions of dollars worth of tax paid infrastructure seems lost on these people. I'm sure they would agree with Pub's Burke philosophy, just as they'd agree with any philosophy which would save them tax dollars without making them look selfish and/or greedy. The human mind knows no limits when it comes to inventing good reasons for bad actions.
To me, the problem that conservatives always had with government wasn't that it might become too powerful, but that it would interfere with the conservatives' own power; with "conservative" defined as the rich and powerful. Anyone worried about greedy men seizing power should want a well-functioning government to regulate men's personal desires. With its checks/balances and overwhelming bureaucracy, I trust the government more than I trust corporations. Which is exactly what Republicans don't want us to think. So they hire lots of smart guys to write lots of lofty ideas to justify this stuff, hoping it sticks; which was how they swindled the social conservatives into their party. But I just don't see how someone worried about "bad men" could possibly be against business regulation; which is one reason I doubt that there are too many of these Burke conservatives out there.
And while there are probably conservatives of both types, I'm sure mine outnumbers his. Hell, I'd like to see them in a fist-fight: the selfish conservatives versus the enlightened ones. Not because I know my group would win, but because I'd just like to see conservatives fight, that's all. I think that most folks want to believe that they have higher interests in mind, but they're really only in it for themselves. Maybe that makes me a Burkette too. But I wrote waaay more than I wanted to, and that's after deleting a whole bunch. I'm having trouble spelling straight, so I'm going to bed. You'll just have to imagine all the great stuff you missed.
Oh, and I'm not saying that the true conservatives aren't scared about the implications of the Schiavo incident. They should be. But I think it has to do more with the Pied Piper coming back for his due after he fulfilled his promise. Or should I have made a "deal with the devil" analogy. In either case, you get my point. The true conservatives invited the Social and Neo conservatives over to play, and now fear that they may have lost the whole party. It's all fun and games until you gain the power to fulfill promises. But damn, I ended up writing a bunch more.
But that's not what I'm writing about. No, I'm referring to Pub's post on the GOP leadership's recent breach of conduct concerning the Terry Schiavo incident. To be honest, Publius picked a poor time to stop sniffing blog, as I was really jonesin' for a legal fix, and his opinion was nowhere to be seen. I'm not one to trust the lawyer class, so I was really left hanging while he was off learning his true self. Oh well. He's back now. But unfortunately, he's gotten a bit daft since he left. Or maybe I just never noticed before.
Ok, well I wrote a whole bunch more. Several long paragraphs, trust me. But I really just didn't quite like it. It wasn't that it was bad. It was just very very long, and I hadn't even really gotten to my main point. Trust me, even by my standards it would have been long. It involved everything from fancy words like "hubris", to less fancy words like "hogwash". It was good, I guess. But too long, and it's very late and I knew that if I didn't finish it, I never would. So I just deleted it all. I probably should have saved it for another day, but this stuff's really a dime a dozen for me, and I can crank it out all day. So it's gone and I'm going to sum up (which itself is pretty long).
To sum up, Publius and his ilk are being melodramatic in regards to the perceived constitutional crisis regarding the GOP powergrab. American history is full of powerful men, making powerful moves; and nobody ever remembers their names. Like most politicians, our current bunch are small-minded people with small goals (themselves), and the only way they can emasculate the judicial branch is by accident. If you could somehow convince them of Pub's argument, they'd probably back down...or maybe it would convince them to go for it, I don't know. I just don't think that's what is happening. They're just concerned with upcoming elections and saving Deadweight Delay, and not with stripping powers from a branch of government they hope to stack.
You can always take separate events and try to find a trend which connects them all; but more often than not, the cigar is just a cigar.
Oh, and his idea of Burke conservatives is a bit much for most folks. He thinks it's about stopping men from grabbing too much power and mucking stuff up. That's too high-minded for my taste and suspect it was always his liberal side peeping out. I think most conservatives are just selfish and don't want to help out people they don't know (and some of the people they DO know, I'm sure). "Taxes are theft", is a favorite line by those who haven't the brains to notice how low tax rates in third-world nations are. Somehow, the irony of debating "tax theft" with an anonymous person over trillions of dollars worth of tax paid infrastructure seems lost on these people. I'm sure they would agree with Pub's Burke philosophy, just as they'd agree with any philosophy which would save them tax dollars without making them look selfish and/or greedy. The human mind knows no limits when it comes to inventing good reasons for bad actions.
To me, the problem that conservatives always had with government wasn't that it might become too powerful, but that it would interfere with the conservatives' own power; with "conservative" defined as the rich and powerful. Anyone worried about greedy men seizing power should want a well-functioning government to regulate men's personal desires. With its checks/balances and overwhelming bureaucracy, I trust the government more than I trust corporations. Which is exactly what Republicans don't want us to think. So they hire lots of smart guys to write lots of lofty ideas to justify this stuff, hoping it sticks; which was how they swindled the social conservatives into their party. But I just don't see how someone worried about "bad men" could possibly be against business regulation; which is one reason I doubt that there are too many of these Burke conservatives out there.
And while there are probably conservatives of both types, I'm sure mine outnumbers his. Hell, I'd like to see them in a fist-fight: the selfish conservatives versus the enlightened ones. Not because I know my group would win, but because I'd just like to see conservatives fight, that's all. I think that most folks want to believe that they have higher interests in mind, but they're really only in it for themselves. Maybe that makes me a Burkette too. But I wrote waaay more than I wanted to, and that's after deleting a whole bunch. I'm having trouble spelling straight, so I'm going to bed. You'll just have to imagine all the great stuff you missed.
Oh, and I'm not saying that the true conservatives aren't scared about the implications of the Schiavo incident. They should be. But I think it has to do more with the Pied Piper coming back for his due after he fulfilled his promise. Or should I have made a "deal with the devil" analogy. In either case, you get my point. The true conservatives invited the Social and Neo conservatives over to play, and now fear that they may have lost the whole party. It's all fun and games until you gain the power to fulfill promises. But damn, I ended up writing a bunch more.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
He's a Liberal, Stupid!
Upon reading Jonathan Chait's latest (and perhaps final) response in his Opinion Duel with the inept Jonah Goldberg, all I can say is "It's about damn time". Where in the hell was this Chait before? Can we expect some brilliant analysis in another forum which would explain where he put his brain during the prior entries in this debate? I just don't see what took him so long to write a coherent and concise rebuttal of Goldberg's inane refusal to admit to the obvious. And while Chait's response is still inferior to my own, it was close enough to allow us to declare him the winner. After all, we can't all have biobrains, can we?
Specifically, what he did right was his insistence on directly refuting Goldberg's absurd opinion of what liberals stand for; as well as relying upon his initial premise to backup his case. And even more so, it was his conciseness and interweaving of these two concepts to form a fully conceptualized piece. Rather than randomly tossing out assertions and examples, he has an overall theme which he deftly unspools into quick refutations of Goldberg's inherently wrong examples. And it is this conciseness, more than anything else which gives Chait the strong advantage in this debate. But while he seems to have bested Goldberg (who has yet to write his final argument); he has failed to actually win the debate outright. Chait was only able to win on points; having failed to win by knock-out.
What Went Wrong
What he did wrong was to ignore the primary point that this blog has been trying to make: that Jonah Goldberg isn't a conservative, which is what brought about this unnecessary debate. Chait had introduced the fairly obvious premise that conservatives are not empiricists, and focus solely on one ideological goal; and thus ignore any evidence which runs contrary to that goal. While liberals have multiple goals which change over time, and are willing to change the methods used to achieve those goals.
Goldberg can't understand Chait's initial premise because he wrongly believes that he's a conservative and that it applies to him. And if Goldberg was a conservative, Chait would have to be wrong as Goldberg is an empiricist at heart (though generally not in practice). But rather than be gracious enough to ask Chait to explain his terms, which would expose Goldberg's problem, Goldberg set out to refute something irrefutable; and thus this debate. And so we've been subjected to a fairly tedious debate by Goldberg, who is forced to play games with semantics; without which Goldberg would be unable to provide any argument at all.
But as I've stressed before, Goldberg's key misunderstanding stems from the fact that he is an empiricist and would readily acknowledge that the liberal position is correct, if he was willing to do so. But the fact that he refuses to accept those facts does not stem from his ideological beliefs (as it does with true conservatives), but from his Republican partisan beliefs and his desire to think of himself as the now glorious Conservative Republican.
And what confuses him is that he knows, in theory, that he'd be willing to agree with the liberal position if he accepted facts which disagree with the conservative position; which puts him in the empiricist category, and thus unable to comprehend Chait's premise. And that is certainly the case. The fact that he does refuse to acknowledge those facts should not be taken as evidence that he is a conservative, because this is a willful ignorance of reality, and not one forced upon him by his ideological stance. He chose to accept the conservative arguments when he chose to think of himself as a conservative. Were he to acknowledge that he is really a liberal Republican, in the vein of Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon, he would readily accept Chait's premise; and thus end this debate. And even in his "conservativism", Goldberg's arguments have forced him to clearly acknowledge many liberal positions and thus his support of far more government intervention than his supposed conservative brethren ever could. So not only is Goldberg liberal in theory; he is also liberal in fact. Rather than debating against Chait's premise, Goldberg has only served to expose his own liberal tendencies.
Beating Conservatives
And Goldberg's liberalism is the key to this debate, for this debate is not at all about conservative empiricism (or the lack thereof). But rather it is about Goldberg's inability to comprehend it. And thus, the only way to truly win this debate is to establish the cause of Goldberg's confusion; which is his liberalness. A true conservative who is honest would not attempt to refute Chait's premise, as he knows it to be correct. The true conservative wants limited government for ideological concerns, in spite of facts showing that bigger government can successfully solve problems; for they do not want the government in the problem-solving business. In fact for them, successful and popular government intervention is far worse than unsuccessful, unpopular intervention; as it will only lead to more government intervention (the attempted murder of Social Security is just one topical example of this).
Rather than being persuadable by empirical facts which show the successful use of government, the true conservative shuns all such facts and only cling more strongly to their ideological beliefs. So unlike Goldberg, it's not that conservatives choose to deny empirical facts which go against their beliefs; it's that they find such facts irrelevant to the discussion and distasteful. For them, facts are only used as weapons against their opponents, and not as the basis for their own beliefs; much the way that Goldberg uses conservative arguments as weapons to attack liberals, without comprehending their implications or allowing them to shape his own beliefs. And while they are not likely to openly admit to this, it doesn't take much extrapolation to realize that this is undeniably correct. For both conservatives and wanna-be conservatives, history is not a teaching tool to learn by; but rather an arsenal to be plundered.
Unlearned Liberals
And so it is only the wanna-be conservatives who are offended at Chait's premise, as they are empiricist liberals who choose to deny reality in an effort to claim the esteemed label of Conservative; and not a denial based upon ideological purity. Chait's arguments, while effective, only address the exterior of Goldberg's arguments; while failing to root out their true cause. They fail because he wrongly believes he is addressing a conservative and correctly knows that a true conservative could not deny his undeniable premise. But because Goldberg is not a conservative, Chait's arguments cannot affect Goldberg's; and thus Chait is doomed to failure.
And that is what it takes to defeat all conservatives and wanna-be conservatives who have adopted the conservative's arguments. Empiricism and arguments cannot work, as Chait's initial premise made clear. It is only by taking the argument directly to the specific conservative that one can actually address the true issues. The cause of the empirical blind-spot is irrelevant in regards to its effect; but it is of the utmost relevance in regards to curing that blind-spot.
Jonathan Chait failed to address the cause of Goldberg's blind-spot; thus making even his most successful argument a complete failure. Goldberg might run out of arguments, but he will continue to fundamentally misunderstand why that happened, and continue to cling to his mistaken beliefs. And by ignoring the implications of his initial premise, Chait can be blamed for Goldberg's continued ignorance. Stupid liberal; can't learn from his own lessons.
Specifically, what he did right was his insistence on directly refuting Goldberg's absurd opinion of what liberals stand for; as well as relying upon his initial premise to backup his case. And even more so, it was his conciseness and interweaving of these two concepts to form a fully conceptualized piece. Rather than randomly tossing out assertions and examples, he has an overall theme which he deftly unspools into quick refutations of Goldberg's inherently wrong examples. And it is this conciseness, more than anything else which gives Chait the strong advantage in this debate. But while he seems to have bested Goldberg (who has yet to write his final argument); he has failed to actually win the debate outright. Chait was only able to win on points; having failed to win by knock-out.
What Went Wrong
What he did wrong was to ignore the primary point that this blog has been trying to make: that Jonah Goldberg isn't a conservative, which is what brought about this unnecessary debate. Chait had introduced the fairly obvious premise that conservatives are not empiricists, and focus solely on one ideological goal; and thus ignore any evidence which runs contrary to that goal. While liberals have multiple goals which change over time, and are willing to change the methods used to achieve those goals.
Goldberg can't understand Chait's initial premise because he wrongly believes that he's a conservative and that it applies to him. And if Goldberg was a conservative, Chait would have to be wrong as Goldberg is an empiricist at heart (though generally not in practice). But rather than be gracious enough to ask Chait to explain his terms, which would expose Goldberg's problem, Goldberg set out to refute something irrefutable; and thus this debate. And so we've been subjected to a fairly tedious debate by Goldberg, who is forced to play games with semantics; without which Goldberg would be unable to provide any argument at all.
But as I've stressed before, Goldberg's key misunderstanding stems from the fact that he is an empiricist and would readily acknowledge that the liberal position is correct, if he was willing to do so. But the fact that he refuses to accept those facts does not stem from his ideological beliefs (as it does with true conservatives), but from his Republican partisan beliefs and his desire to think of himself as the now glorious Conservative Republican.
And what confuses him is that he knows, in theory, that he'd be willing to agree with the liberal position if he accepted facts which disagree with the conservative position; which puts him in the empiricist category, and thus unable to comprehend Chait's premise. And that is certainly the case. The fact that he does refuse to acknowledge those facts should not be taken as evidence that he is a conservative, because this is a willful ignorance of reality, and not one forced upon him by his ideological stance. He chose to accept the conservative arguments when he chose to think of himself as a conservative. Were he to acknowledge that he is really a liberal Republican, in the vein of Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon, he would readily accept Chait's premise; and thus end this debate. And even in his "conservativism", Goldberg's arguments have forced him to clearly acknowledge many liberal positions and thus his support of far more government intervention than his supposed conservative brethren ever could. So not only is Goldberg liberal in theory; he is also liberal in fact. Rather than debating against Chait's premise, Goldberg has only served to expose his own liberal tendencies.
Beating Conservatives
And Goldberg's liberalism is the key to this debate, for this debate is not at all about conservative empiricism (or the lack thereof). But rather it is about Goldberg's inability to comprehend it. And thus, the only way to truly win this debate is to establish the cause of Goldberg's confusion; which is his liberalness. A true conservative who is honest would not attempt to refute Chait's premise, as he knows it to be correct. The true conservative wants limited government for ideological concerns, in spite of facts showing that bigger government can successfully solve problems; for they do not want the government in the problem-solving business. In fact for them, successful and popular government intervention is far worse than unsuccessful, unpopular intervention; as it will only lead to more government intervention (the attempted murder of Social Security is just one topical example of this).
Rather than being persuadable by empirical facts which show the successful use of government, the true conservative shuns all such facts and only cling more strongly to their ideological beliefs. So unlike Goldberg, it's not that conservatives choose to deny empirical facts which go against their beliefs; it's that they find such facts irrelevant to the discussion and distasteful. For them, facts are only used as weapons against their opponents, and not as the basis for their own beliefs; much the way that Goldberg uses conservative arguments as weapons to attack liberals, without comprehending their implications or allowing them to shape his own beliefs. And while they are not likely to openly admit to this, it doesn't take much extrapolation to realize that this is undeniably correct. For both conservatives and wanna-be conservatives, history is not a teaching tool to learn by; but rather an arsenal to be plundered.
Unlearned Liberals
And so it is only the wanna-be conservatives who are offended at Chait's premise, as they are empiricist liberals who choose to deny reality in an effort to claim the esteemed label of Conservative; and not a denial based upon ideological purity. Chait's arguments, while effective, only address the exterior of Goldberg's arguments; while failing to root out their true cause. They fail because he wrongly believes he is addressing a conservative and correctly knows that a true conservative could not deny his undeniable premise. But because Goldberg is not a conservative, Chait's arguments cannot affect Goldberg's; and thus Chait is doomed to failure.
And that is what it takes to defeat all conservatives and wanna-be conservatives who have adopted the conservative's arguments. Empiricism and arguments cannot work, as Chait's initial premise made clear. It is only by taking the argument directly to the specific conservative that one can actually address the true issues. The cause of the empirical blind-spot is irrelevant in regards to its effect; but it is of the utmost relevance in regards to curing that blind-spot.
Jonathan Chait failed to address the cause of Goldberg's blind-spot; thus making even his most successful argument a complete failure. Goldberg might run out of arguments, but he will continue to fundamentally misunderstand why that happened, and continue to cling to his mistaken beliefs. And by ignoring the implications of his initial premise, Chait can be blamed for Goldberg's continued ignorance. Stupid liberal; can't learn from his own lessons.
The Benevolence of Loan Sharks
For various reasons, I've ignored Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy section of Talking Points Memo. For one thing, I guess I thought the bill in question had already passed or was unstoppable or something, and I'm generally not the type to worry about things that I can't do anything about. This might break your heart, but Doctor Biobrain is not the activist-type; with this blog being the most public stance I've ever taken on anything. But Josh alerted us to a recent post, and I was somewhat floored by this paragraph:
Start with a brief look at the data. Bankruptcy write offs represent about half of the total bad debt writes, which would suggest that they ranged from 1% in 1985 to 2.5% in 1992. Much larger is the cost of funds, which is the amount companies must pay to borrow the money they lend out. From 1980 to 1992, that cost fell from 13.4% to 3.5%, a stunning decrease in costs. What happened to the interest rates the companies charged? In the same time period, the average credit card interest rate rose from 17.3% to 17.8%. Move the clock forward a bit. When the cost of funds dropped nine times in 2001, instead of passing along the cost savings, the credit card companies pocketed a windfall of $10 billion in a single year. So much for the idea that the credit card companies are lined up to pass savings along to the customers.
Now am I wrong for thinking this is criminal? I don't mean legally criminal, of course. But maybe that's just because I don't write the laws (yet). But criminal in the sense that it's just plain wrong and relies upon a perversion of the market system. I'm a devout capitalist, but every system has its flaws; and capitalism is no exception. And one of those flaws becomes apparent any time a 600-lb gorilla works in the same marketplace as the 5-lb monkeys. Conservative-myth to the contrary, monopoly isn't just a boardgame and can too easily be effectively achieved by supposed competitors. For me, it is my strong belief in capitalism and the free-market system which forces me to protest such disparities. A little noted paradox of life is that the ultimate end of capitalism means the destruction of the free-market. (a concept I'll bring out more in the future) But for now, we can just note that the current trend of credit companies shows that they are far more at the ownership/power side of that equation, to the detriment of the free-market side.
Debt Puritans
One of the primary aspects of bankruptcy and the issue of debt is that the debtor or bankruptor is somehow immoral for taking on too much debt, and therefore deserves almost any punishment we can met out. And while most reasonable people don't use "immoralness" as the basis for punishment, many of those same people do seem to believe that the immorality of excessive debt is somehow different. That these people have "it" coming, and that we shouldn't let them off the hook for their wrong-doing. They made their bed, and now have to lie in it.
I'm not exactly sure what their problem is, but it seems to be some sort of puritanical vestige left over from times past; the same way that nutritionists are puritanical about "eating better and living right". That's a post I have yet to write, so you'll just have to wait. But I'll just say for now that I get the strong impression that nutritionists don't want there to be some magic pill that gets you fit and trim. They enjoy working out and eating right, and they'll be damned if anyone can get that for free. And I think that this type of puritanism is unhealthy and has led to many many wrong pronouncements from that field, which we are only now beginning to correct.
In their case, it's not that they want everyone to be healthy; they just want everyone to act like they do because they believe it's more moral. And it makes their own lifestyle seem better as they sit high on their perch and chastise fatties for being so unhealthy. After all, what's the fun of acting moral if all the immoral folks get to have immoral fun AND a healthy life? Deep down, people are cheap and just like to feel good about themselves; and they can invent any number of rationalizations to convince themselves that they can put down others without relinquishing the right to call themselves good people. Self-righteousness is its own reward; not virtue.
Similarly, I think the Debt Puritans are allowing their own indignation to override their better judgment; or even reality. Rather than a sensible debt approach, they want the immoral debtors to suffer gravely. And while I would never suggest that we remove all penalties from debt; I am suggesting that there is more to the Debt Puritans than the public motives they attest to.
Private Industries' Public Servants
And what really bothers me is that this is looked at by them as a one-way street: morally corrupt individuals ripping off these naive, benevolent companies which serve our greater needs. But is that the case? Of course not. They know what they're getting into. They have quicker access to our financial histories than we do. More than that, many of these lenders INTENTIONALLY make loans to people who can't afford it so they can make more money. That's the god damn reason they get to charge so much. If the borrower wasn't such a risk, then they couldn't make so much money.
In fact, the proper way to look at this is the same as stock market investors who choose risky ventures for the high profit potential, who then turn around and sue the company when the investment goes bust. The reason they were investing was the same reason it went bust. That's just how risk and profit works. If the stock wasn't risky, everyone would want it, the price would be skyhigh, and you couldn't make a lot of money off of it. Some people make a fortune, and most don't. It has to be that way; much the same way that lions who eat too many prey will eventually starve, until there aren't enough lions to eat all the prey. In the longterm, life is self-correcting and the markets are no different. Everyone wants the free lunch, but outside of pure corruption, it doesn't exist. And while some corrupt corporations do deserve to be sued, many do not. And that's how it is with these loan shark companies. They insist on lending to risky individuals, and then scream foul when the risk was just slightly more than they had anticipated. But they knew that going in. The guaranteed return could never have been so.
What's worse: it's not just that they lend to risky borrowers and happen to get screwed. It's that they WANT the borrower to have trouble paying it back. Bankruptcy or default are worse of course, but they don't want people paying everything back either. They want to lend to people who will pay late every few months, go over their limit, and give the company an excuse to increase the interest rates. That was the creditor's intent from the start. And once the cycle starts the debtor is denied the ability to switch their debt to a lower rate provider who naturally won't give loans to someone with high debts and bad history.
So it's not just that they lend money to risky borrowers, they clearly want the borrower to stay at risk. They want you teetering on the edge so that you can barely pay them back. They want you borrowing $800 and accumulating thousands more in interest and fees; a scenario that happens far too often. And often, it is their own high interest rates and fees which make the borrower unable to repay the loan. They purposefully design loan agreements to keep the debtor on the hook forever. And this newest bankruptcy bill was solely intended to deny debtors that one last resort option.
Who's Zoomin' Who?
And in that light, who's the immoral one? Someone who wrongly borrows more than they can repay, perhaps with the intent of defaulting? Or a company which intentionally loans out too much money with the intent that the borrower won't always be able to pay it back? That's a tough question. But it's a far different scenario than the one of the immoral borrower and the benevolent lender. Which is why it's entirely ignored by the debt puritans who have a lot more fun on their black & white highhorse.
In the end, credit companies are big boys and they know what they're doing. If they don't want people defaulting, they should have higher standards, lower rates, and lower profit expectations. They aren't performing a public service; they're in the business of making money. And while there is nothing honorable about declaring bankruptcy, there is nothing healthy about loan sharks either. If we want to stop the sharking, we need to make it easier to slip the noose; thus giving the companies less incentive for risky loans. Instead, Congress has only served to greatly tighten the noose; which is a complete disservice to their constituents. Excepting the sharks and the puritans, of course, who celebrate another victory.
Start with a brief look at the data. Bankruptcy write offs represent about half of the total bad debt writes, which would suggest that they ranged from 1% in 1985 to 2.5% in 1992. Much larger is the cost of funds, which is the amount companies must pay to borrow the money they lend out. From 1980 to 1992, that cost fell from 13.4% to 3.5%, a stunning decrease in costs. What happened to the interest rates the companies charged? In the same time period, the average credit card interest rate rose from 17.3% to 17.8%. Move the clock forward a bit. When the cost of funds dropped nine times in 2001, instead of passing along the cost savings, the credit card companies pocketed a windfall of $10 billion in a single year. So much for the idea that the credit card companies are lined up to pass savings along to the customers.
Now am I wrong for thinking this is criminal? I don't mean legally criminal, of course. But maybe that's just because I don't write the laws (yet). But criminal in the sense that it's just plain wrong and relies upon a perversion of the market system. I'm a devout capitalist, but every system has its flaws; and capitalism is no exception. And one of those flaws becomes apparent any time a 600-lb gorilla works in the same marketplace as the 5-lb monkeys. Conservative-myth to the contrary, monopoly isn't just a boardgame and can too easily be effectively achieved by supposed competitors. For me, it is my strong belief in capitalism and the free-market system which forces me to protest such disparities. A little noted paradox of life is that the ultimate end of capitalism means the destruction of the free-market. (a concept I'll bring out more in the future) But for now, we can just note that the current trend of credit companies shows that they are far more at the ownership/power side of that equation, to the detriment of the free-market side.
Debt Puritans
One of the primary aspects of bankruptcy and the issue of debt is that the debtor or bankruptor is somehow immoral for taking on too much debt, and therefore deserves almost any punishment we can met out. And while most reasonable people don't use "immoralness" as the basis for punishment, many of those same people do seem to believe that the immorality of excessive debt is somehow different. That these people have "it" coming, and that we shouldn't let them off the hook for their wrong-doing. They made their bed, and now have to lie in it.
I'm not exactly sure what their problem is, but it seems to be some sort of puritanical vestige left over from times past; the same way that nutritionists are puritanical about "eating better and living right". That's a post I have yet to write, so you'll just have to wait. But I'll just say for now that I get the strong impression that nutritionists don't want there to be some magic pill that gets you fit and trim. They enjoy working out and eating right, and they'll be damned if anyone can get that for free. And I think that this type of puritanism is unhealthy and has led to many many wrong pronouncements from that field, which we are only now beginning to correct.
In their case, it's not that they want everyone to be healthy; they just want everyone to act like they do because they believe it's more moral. And it makes their own lifestyle seem better as they sit high on their perch and chastise fatties for being so unhealthy. After all, what's the fun of acting moral if all the immoral folks get to have immoral fun AND a healthy life? Deep down, people are cheap and just like to feel good about themselves; and they can invent any number of rationalizations to convince themselves that they can put down others without relinquishing the right to call themselves good people. Self-righteousness is its own reward; not virtue.
Similarly, I think the Debt Puritans are allowing their own indignation to override their better judgment; or even reality. Rather than a sensible debt approach, they want the immoral debtors to suffer gravely. And while I would never suggest that we remove all penalties from debt; I am suggesting that there is more to the Debt Puritans than the public motives they attest to.
Private Industries' Public Servants
And what really bothers me is that this is looked at by them as a one-way street: morally corrupt individuals ripping off these naive, benevolent companies which serve our greater needs. But is that the case? Of course not. They know what they're getting into. They have quicker access to our financial histories than we do. More than that, many of these lenders INTENTIONALLY make loans to people who can't afford it so they can make more money. That's the god damn reason they get to charge so much. If the borrower wasn't such a risk, then they couldn't make so much money.
In fact, the proper way to look at this is the same as stock market investors who choose risky ventures for the high profit potential, who then turn around and sue the company when the investment goes bust. The reason they were investing was the same reason it went bust. That's just how risk and profit works. If the stock wasn't risky, everyone would want it, the price would be skyhigh, and you couldn't make a lot of money off of it. Some people make a fortune, and most don't. It has to be that way; much the same way that lions who eat too many prey will eventually starve, until there aren't enough lions to eat all the prey. In the longterm, life is self-correcting and the markets are no different. Everyone wants the free lunch, but outside of pure corruption, it doesn't exist. And while some corrupt corporations do deserve to be sued, many do not. And that's how it is with these loan shark companies. They insist on lending to risky individuals, and then scream foul when the risk was just slightly more than they had anticipated. But they knew that going in. The guaranteed return could never have been so.
What's worse: it's not just that they lend to risky borrowers and happen to get screwed. It's that they WANT the borrower to have trouble paying it back. Bankruptcy or default are worse of course, but they don't want people paying everything back either. They want to lend to people who will pay late every few months, go over their limit, and give the company an excuse to increase the interest rates. That was the creditor's intent from the start. And once the cycle starts the debtor is denied the ability to switch their debt to a lower rate provider who naturally won't give loans to someone with high debts and bad history.
So it's not just that they lend money to risky borrowers, they clearly want the borrower to stay at risk. They want you teetering on the edge so that you can barely pay them back. They want you borrowing $800 and accumulating thousands more in interest and fees; a scenario that happens far too often. And often, it is their own high interest rates and fees which make the borrower unable to repay the loan. They purposefully design loan agreements to keep the debtor on the hook forever. And this newest bankruptcy bill was solely intended to deny debtors that one last resort option.
Who's Zoomin' Who?
And in that light, who's the immoral one? Someone who wrongly borrows more than they can repay, perhaps with the intent of defaulting? Or a company which intentionally loans out too much money with the intent that the borrower won't always be able to pay it back? That's a tough question. But it's a far different scenario than the one of the immoral borrower and the benevolent lender. Which is why it's entirely ignored by the debt puritans who have a lot more fun on their black & white highhorse.
In the end, credit companies are big boys and they know what they're doing. If they don't want people defaulting, they should have higher standards, lower rates, and lower profit expectations. They aren't performing a public service; they're in the business of making money. And while there is nothing honorable about declaring bankruptcy, there is nothing healthy about loan sharks either. If we want to stop the sharking, we need to make it easier to slip the noose; thus giving the companies less incentive for risky loans. Instead, Congress has only served to greatly tighten the noose; which is a complete disservice to their constituents. Excepting the sharks and the puritans, of course, who celebrate another victory.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Friday Night Ramblings
From an AFP article:
BBC Three, one of the public broadcaster's digital TV channels, sent an e-mail to the Bob Marley Foundation saying it wanted to do a documentary about his hit song "No Woman No Cry". It said the project would involve Marley -- who died of cancer in May 1981 at the age of 36 -- "spending one or two days with us", and that "it would only work with some participation from Bob Marley himself".
And as their apology:
In a statement, the BBC said: "We are obviously very embarrassed that we didn't realise that the letter to the Marley Foundation did not acknowledge that Mr Marley is no longer with us."
Now what in the hell is wrong with people? I fully understand not having heard of Bob Marley's death. I'm not the most hip of people myself, and still only have the vaguest idea of who Tupac and BIG were (though I at least know that they're dead). And reggae isn't the most widely listened to of musics, even though Marley so completely transcended the genre to the point that he's the only reggae artist that most people listen to. But music's not everyone's thing, so I'm not holding that against them. No one knows everything.
But what in the hell's the matter with their apologizing skills? Not even the apology so much, as their inability to fess up to a screw up? Because look at that. Their damn apology didn't actually apologize for what they did. In fact, one would assume from the apology that they had known that Marley was dead, but just forgot to mention it in the letter. As if they just didn't think his death was very important, rather than something that they were completely oblivious to. And unless they were expecting Zombie Marley to come strolling into their studio for the interview, they were completely oblivious to it. When they sent that first letter, they fully expected Bob Marley to show up in the flesh and give them that interview. They couldn't have done even the tiniest bit of research of Marley before sending it, or they would have have heard about the obvious monkey-wrench in their plans. They just tossed off a letter to some reggae guy and expected him to commit to the project...though they didn't know the least bit about him; like that he was dead, for example.
And again, that's not my problem. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm far from excluded from that myself. But it's the cover-up that's pissing me off. It's like they thought the Marley Foundation was such a bunch of pothead rastas that they would be duped into thinking that the great BBC hadn't fucked up. And maybe they were. Maybe they were like "Hey, mon. They knew. They just forgot to acknowledge it in the letter, mon." Or something to that effect. I don't know. I've never been to the Marley Foundation or the BBC, so I don't really know how that kind of thing works. But that still doesn't excuse nothing. The dummies at the BBC screwed up and they just couldn't come clean about it.
And why am I writing so much about this? I just don't know. I just really really hate phoney apologies that fail to acknowledge what the apology is for. It's like a politician who apologizes for offending people, while continuing to assert that he didn't do anything wrong. It's like they're trying to make you feel stupid for being offended, rather than actually admitting that they did something wrong. And sometimes that's true. But the BBC folks did do something wrong. Nothing big. But wrong nonetheless. And that they couldn't apologize for such an understandable and forgivable mistake is simply a bad sign for mankind. Or maybe I'm just drunk. It's Friday night and I'm spoiling for a fight. Look at me the wrong way and I'll cut you. Just like a knife.
BBC Three, one of the public broadcaster's digital TV channels, sent an e-mail to the Bob Marley Foundation saying it wanted to do a documentary about his hit song "No Woman No Cry". It said the project would involve Marley -- who died of cancer in May 1981 at the age of 36 -- "spending one or two days with us", and that "it would only work with some participation from Bob Marley himself".
And as their apology:
In a statement, the BBC said: "We are obviously very embarrassed that we didn't realise that the letter to the Marley Foundation did not acknowledge that Mr Marley is no longer with us."
Now what in the hell is wrong with people? I fully understand not having heard of Bob Marley's death. I'm not the most hip of people myself, and still only have the vaguest idea of who Tupac and BIG were (though I at least know that they're dead). And reggae isn't the most widely listened to of musics, even though Marley so completely transcended the genre to the point that he's the only reggae artist that most people listen to. But music's not everyone's thing, so I'm not holding that against them. No one knows everything.
But what in the hell's the matter with their apologizing skills? Not even the apology so much, as their inability to fess up to a screw up? Because look at that. Their damn apology didn't actually apologize for what they did. In fact, one would assume from the apology that they had known that Marley was dead, but just forgot to mention it in the letter. As if they just didn't think his death was very important, rather than something that they were completely oblivious to. And unless they were expecting Zombie Marley to come strolling into their studio for the interview, they were completely oblivious to it. When they sent that first letter, they fully expected Bob Marley to show up in the flesh and give them that interview. They couldn't have done even the tiniest bit of research of Marley before sending it, or they would have have heard about the obvious monkey-wrench in their plans. They just tossed off a letter to some reggae guy and expected him to commit to the project...though they didn't know the least bit about him; like that he was dead, for example.
And again, that's not my problem. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm far from excluded from that myself. But it's the cover-up that's pissing me off. It's like they thought the Marley Foundation was such a bunch of pothead rastas that they would be duped into thinking that the great BBC hadn't fucked up. And maybe they were. Maybe they were like "Hey, mon. They knew. They just forgot to acknowledge it in the letter, mon." Or something to that effect. I don't know. I've never been to the Marley Foundation or the BBC, so I don't really know how that kind of thing works. But that still doesn't excuse nothing. The dummies at the BBC screwed up and they just couldn't come clean about it.
And why am I writing so much about this? I just don't know. I just really really hate phoney apologies that fail to acknowledge what the apology is for. It's like a politician who apologizes for offending people, while continuing to assert that he didn't do anything wrong. It's like they're trying to make you feel stupid for being offended, rather than actually admitting that they did something wrong. And sometimes that's true. But the BBC folks did do something wrong. Nothing big. But wrong nonetheless. And that they couldn't apologize for such an understandable and forgivable mistake is simply a bad sign for mankind. Or maybe I'm just drunk. It's Friday night and I'm spoiling for a fight. Look at me the wrong way and I'll cut you. Just like a knife.
Another Open Letter To Jonathan Chait
Dear Mr. Chait - I'm sorry, but Jonah Goldberg is now officially kicking your ass. His main premise is wrong, but his latest argument is far better than the scattershot you've written. Isn't it about time that you relied upon Biobrain's debating expertise to aid you in your duel? You're just a journalist and shouldn't be expected to excel at this kind of thing. But the good Doctor's got the prescription you need right here: link
I would actually recommend that you read all of my posts on your duel, but this latest one is good enough. If you're too proud to rely on some anonymous jerk with a stupid name to help you out, that's fine. I understand that. But this is bigger than you and Jonah. You're representing ALL liberals out there, and when you look bad, we all look bad. And your halfass random arguments are really making us look bad.
So don't do it for me, Mr. Chait. Do it for my children. I would like for them to be able to hold their heads up high some day and say, "I am a liberal". Please help make that a reality by getting your head out of your god damn ass and arguing this punk back into the hole he crawled out of. Jonah Goldberg isn't worthy enough to hold your hat, let alone debate you. Please remind him of that. Thank you.
Doctor Biobrain
http://biobrain.blogspot.com/
I would actually recommend that you read all of my posts on your duel, but this latest one is good enough. If you're too proud to rely on some anonymous jerk with a stupid name to help you out, that's fine. I understand that. But this is bigger than you and Jonah. You're representing ALL liberals out there, and when you look bad, we all look bad. And your halfass random arguments are really making us look bad.
So don't do it for me, Mr. Chait. Do it for my children. I would like for them to be able to hold their heads up high some day and say, "I am a liberal". Please help make that a reality by getting your head out of your god damn ass and arguing this punk back into the hole he crawled out of. Jonah Goldberg isn't worthy enough to hold your hat, let alone debate you. Please remind him of that. Thank you.
Doctor Biobrain
http://biobrain.blogspot.com/
Jonah Goldberg: NRO's Little Liberal
I'm not at all pleased to admit it, but Jonah Goldberg has now taken the lead in his duel with Jonathan Chait. Not in substance, mind you, because he's just plain wrong and can't possibly beat Chait on substance. But as far as well-written arguments go, Goldberg has far surpassed Chait's mediocre meanderings; even surpassing my own expectations. In his shadow-duel with me, however, he has only served to once again confirm my beliefs. Goldberg is a Liberal Republican trapped in a Conservative Republican's journal, but doesn't quite have enough brains to realize it yet.
Again, his problem with Chait is that he refuses to understand exactly what conservatives and liberals stand for, and is forced to define the terms in a way which still allows him to call himself a conservative. But he clearly is not one, and continues to reinforce that fact. In fact, it is his definitions more than anything else which best reflect his true ideology. And that's why the essence of Goldberg's newest rebuttal can again be squeezed down to "I don't understand what your point is, Jonathan. We seem to be in agreement." And that they are.
Conservative Liberals
Specifically, Goldberg is intent on defining Conservatives as people who support a limited government which performs certain functions that it does best; thus solving certain problems for individuals that they cannot solve themselves. Is there a liberal alive who wouldn't agree with that statement? Anywhere? I doubt it. The key distinction for Goldberg is that he disagrees with some of the specific levels of government problem-solving. But it's simply a matter of degrees, rather than a true ideological split. Proof of that is that he is forced to describe liberals as people who ALWAYS want to use government to solve problems. Which is an absurdity that he would never actually defend; nor does he. He does attempt to obscure the distinction between Liberals and Socialists, by denying the separate existence of Socialists. So rather than coming to terms with his own ideology; Mr. Goldberg instead prefers the leftward shift of the entire ideological spectrum. Bold.
At best, Jonah could describe himself as a Conservative Liberal; one who believes government should solve our problems, but has a smaller idea of which problems the government is able to solve. In contrast, a Liberal Conservative could be seen as one whose goal is smaller government, but will allow for a slightly larger government role in a few specific cases. But the key difference is still whether or not you believe the government should be in the problem solving business.
The Main Point: Chait's Right
But that only explains what his own problem in trying to rebut Chait's claim. But the other problem is that Chait is absolutely correct. Conservatives do see limited government as an end to be justified. That's what they're after. Liberals have a whole list of problems they want solved, and use government as a way of fixing those problems. They seek the means of doing that, and are willing to alter their methods if they don't work. But the key is that they want the problems solved, regardless of the method used (within reason, of course).
For example, if abstinence-only programs really worked, I would fully support them (though not if they resorted to lies and distortions). If churches really were best able to help the homeless and alcoholics by converting them to their religion, I would support that too. Taxpayer funded and everything, just as long as the church was open about their religious intent. I'm not obsessed with government intervention. I oppose those plans solely because I don't believe that they work as well as the traditional programs. Instead, I see them as needless government subsidization of churches, a proposition that both atheists and churches should be against. But I want the problems fixed, no matter how it's done. And that's what liberals support: problem solving.
But conservatives have no such list (again, I define Conservatives as not including Social Conservatives or Neo-Conservatives, which are a completely different ideology, more closely related to liberals). They don't want to solve poverty, healthcare, education, inequalities, or anything else. For them, these problems will fix themselves or won't be fixed and they really don't care anyway. They've got their money and happy lives and they don't want the government to mess with it. And it's not quite that they don't believe the government CAN solve these problems (though that is part of their belief), it's that they just don't think government should. You either fix your own problems or you tough if out. Their goal is to undo all of the progressive fixes of the past 100 years or so, and return us back to the anything goes days of cheap labor and survival of the fittest. That is their goal.
What Goldberg fails to understand is that part of the conservative dogma is that they are against all unnecessary government intervention as it empowers the government and will allow it to take more power in the future; thus taking more liberties. They are not against specific government solutions; they are against all but the most necessary. And they have a very narrow and nonexpandable definition of what is necessary. For them, what is necessary are the same powers that our founding fathers believed were necessary and absolutely nothing more.
Conservatives Not Anti-Government
Now is that to say that conservatives are completely against government? Of course not. Jonah continues to bring up that strawman whenever he tries to address the real meaning of "conservative". He continues to act as if "smaller government" could ever mean "no government", which no one claims it does. As I said before, only Anarchists support no government. And he's forced to do that so that he can continue to call himself a conservative; and again is evidence of his leftward shift of ideology. Liberals are pushed into Socialism, Anarchists are pushed into Conservativeism; and all so a liberal named Jonah Goldberg can refer to himself as a Conservative.
In this latest example, Jonah uses the example of William Buckley's agreement that National Defense was a worthy goal of the government. And no one would deny that. But that is simply because it is one of the few things that directly effect conservatives' lives. They support government intervention in National Defense, Law Enforcement, Contract Enforcement, or any number of other things that directly effect their own freedom. And even at that, the only reason they permit government interference in these matters is because modern society has advanced to the point at which they could no longer protect themselves and their assets with their own private armies or security. If foreign nations were no longer able to field armies large enough to threaten conservatives, and if they no longer had business assets spread wide throughout the country and world, they would be perfectly happy with using their own private forces, rather than government forces. And more importantly, these are all problems which directly threaten a conservative's freedom, with the government solution not directly threatening their own freedom. In other words, they would pay less in taxes than what they would directly pay for their own private security forces. In essence, this as a subsidization of their own interests, not them subsidizing the nation.
But that is where they draw the line. Beyond that, they don't believe that government should even consider any other issues. Again, it's not even that they think the problems will work themselves out in the free market, though they think it might. They just don't care about the problems. They don't see how it affects them, but they do see how a government solution does. So it's not that they really believe that government is inefficient at solving some problems (which is Jonah's position). They oppose all government intervention, including the efficient ones. For example, it's not that Universal Healthcare is necessarily inefficient; it's that they don't think the government should solve it. Even if it were more efficient, they would prefer to not subsidize it at all.
And that's clearly not Jonah's position. For him, he would apparently be perfectly happy with Universal Healthcare, if it could be proven that it led to better healthcare than what we currently have. He attempts to dispute Chait's hypothetical on that, but only by insisting that it would be impossible to prove. And since, he believes, it could not be proven; he's not willing to support it. So he essentially had to alter the hypothetical in a way which allowed him to back out of it. And he had to alter it because, otherwise, he would have been forced to agree with it. If the evidence proved his position wrong, he'd be willing to change his position and accept the particular government intervention. Thus making him an empiricist, and making him a liberal.
And that's obvious with all of Jonah's opinions. If the facts proved him wrong, he'd support the liberal position. And the reason he's against the liberal position isn't because he's against intervention; it's because he doesn't think it'll work. So like all the writers at The National Review, he is forced to ignore facts which goes against his opinion, while focusing on the few that support the conservative cause. But he doesn't do that as a conservative protecting his worldview; he does that as a liberal who cannot be open about his true ideology. Not even to himself. Because if he admitted those facts, he'd be forced to take the liberal position.
So while he has won this last round of the debate, with a surprisingly concise rebuttal to Chait's scattershot attack; he is still utterly doomed to failure. And his failure is not in defending conservatism against a liberal attack, but in failing to realize that he agrees with that attack. Let's just hope that Chait realizes that going into the next round and finally puts an end to this non-debate.
Again, his problem with Chait is that he refuses to understand exactly what conservatives and liberals stand for, and is forced to define the terms in a way which still allows him to call himself a conservative. But he clearly is not one, and continues to reinforce that fact. In fact, it is his definitions more than anything else which best reflect his true ideology. And that's why the essence of Goldberg's newest rebuttal can again be squeezed down to "I don't understand what your point is, Jonathan. We seem to be in agreement." And that they are.
Conservative Liberals
Specifically, Goldberg is intent on defining Conservatives as people who support a limited government which performs certain functions that it does best; thus solving certain problems for individuals that they cannot solve themselves. Is there a liberal alive who wouldn't agree with that statement? Anywhere? I doubt it. The key distinction for Goldberg is that he disagrees with some of the specific levels of government problem-solving. But it's simply a matter of degrees, rather than a true ideological split. Proof of that is that he is forced to describe liberals as people who ALWAYS want to use government to solve problems. Which is an absurdity that he would never actually defend; nor does he. He does attempt to obscure the distinction between Liberals and Socialists, by denying the separate existence of Socialists. So rather than coming to terms with his own ideology; Mr. Goldberg instead prefers the leftward shift of the entire ideological spectrum. Bold.
At best, Jonah could describe himself as a Conservative Liberal; one who believes government should solve our problems, but has a smaller idea of which problems the government is able to solve. In contrast, a Liberal Conservative could be seen as one whose goal is smaller government, but will allow for a slightly larger government role in a few specific cases. But the key difference is still whether or not you believe the government should be in the problem solving business.
The Main Point: Chait's Right
But that only explains what his own problem in trying to rebut Chait's claim. But the other problem is that Chait is absolutely correct. Conservatives do see limited government as an end to be justified. That's what they're after. Liberals have a whole list of problems they want solved, and use government as a way of fixing those problems. They seek the means of doing that, and are willing to alter their methods if they don't work. But the key is that they want the problems solved, regardless of the method used (within reason, of course).
For example, if abstinence-only programs really worked, I would fully support them (though not if they resorted to lies and distortions). If churches really were best able to help the homeless and alcoholics by converting them to their religion, I would support that too. Taxpayer funded and everything, just as long as the church was open about their religious intent. I'm not obsessed with government intervention. I oppose those plans solely because I don't believe that they work as well as the traditional programs. Instead, I see them as needless government subsidization of churches, a proposition that both atheists and churches should be against. But I want the problems fixed, no matter how it's done. And that's what liberals support: problem solving.
But conservatives have no such list (again, I define Conservatives as not including Social Conservatives or Neo-Conservatives, which are a completely different ideology, more closely related to liberals). They don't want to solve poverty, healthcare, education, inequalities, or anything else. For them, these problems will fix themselves or won't be fixed and they really don't care anyway. They've got their money and happy lives and they don't want the government to mess with it. And it's not quite that they don't believe the government CAN solve these problems (though that is part of their belief), it's that they just don't think government should. You either fix your own problems or you tough if out. Their goal is to undo all of the progressive fixes of the past 100 years or so, and return us back to the anything goes days of cheap labor and survival of the fittest. That is their goal.
What Goldberg fails to understand is that part of the conservative dogma is that they are against all unnecessary government intervention as it empowers the government and will allow it to take more power in the future; thus taking more liberties. They are not against specific government solutions; they are against all but the most necessary. And they have a very narrow and nonexpandable definition of what is necessary. For them, what is necessary are the same powers that our founding fathers believed were necessary and absolutely nothing more.
Conservatives Not Anti-Government
Now is that to say that conservatives are completely against government? Of course not. Jonah continues to bring up that strawman whenever he tries to address the real meaning of "conservative". He continues to act as if "smaller government" could ever mean "no government", which no one claims it does. As I said before, only Anarchists support no government. And he's forced to do that so that he can continue to call himself a conservative; and again is evidence of his leftward shift of ideology. Liberals are pushed into Socialism, Anarchists are pushed into Conservativeism; and all so a liberal named Jonah Goldberg can refer to himself as a Conservative.
In this latest example, Jonah uses the example of William Buckley's agreement that National Defense was a worthy goal of the government. And no one would deny that. But that is simply because it is one of the few things that directly effect conservatives' lives. They support government intervention in National Defense, Law Enforcement, Contract Enforcement, or any number of other things that directly effect their own freedom. And even at that, the only reason they permit government interference in these matters is because modern society has advanced to the point at which they could no longer protect themselves and their assets with their own private armies or security. If foreign nations were no longer able to field armies large enough to threaten conservatives, and if they no longer had business assets spread wide throughout the country and world, they would be perfectly happy with using their own private forces, rather than government forces. And more importantly, these are all problems which directly threaten a conservative's freedom, with the government solution not directly threatening their own freedom. In other words, they would pay less in taxes than what they would directly pay for their own private security forces. In essence, this as a subsidization of their own interests, not them subsidizing the nation.
But that is where they draw the line. Beyond that, they don't believe that government should even consider any other issues. Again, it's not even that they think the problems will work themselves out in the free market, though they think it might. They just don't care about the problems. They don't see how it affects them, but they do see how a government solution does. So it's not that they really believe that government is inefficient at solving some problems (which is Jonah's position). They oppose all government intervention, including the efficient ones. For example, it's not that Universal Healthcare is necessarily inefficient; it's that they don't think the government should solve it. Even if it were more efficient, they would prefer to not subsidize it at all.
And that's clearly not Jonah's position. For him, he would apparently be perfectly happy with Universal Healthcare, if it could be proven that it led to better healthcare than what we currently have. He attempts to dispute Chait's hypothetical on that, but only by insisting that it would be impossible to prove. And since, he believes, it could not be proven; he's not willing to support it. So he essentially had to alter the hypothetical in a way which allowed him to back out of it. And he had to alter it because, otherwise, he would have been forced to agree with it. If the evidence proved his position wrong, he'd be willing to change his position and accept the particular government intervention. Thus making him an empiricist, and making him a liberal.
And that's obvious with all of Jonah's opinions. If the facts proved him wrong, he'd support the liberal position. And the reason he's against the liberal position isn't because he's against intervention; it's because he doesn't think it'll work. So like all the writers at The National Review, he is forced to ignore facts which goes against his opinion, while focusing on the few that support the conservative cause. But he doesn't do that as a conservative protecting his worldview; he does that as a liberal who cannot be open about his true ideology. Not even to himself. Because if he admitted those facts, he'd be forced to take the liberal position.
So while he has won this last round of the debate, with a surprisingly concise rebuttal to Chait's scattershot attack; he is still utterly doomed to failure. And his failure is not in defending conservatism against a liberal attack, but in failing to realize that he agrees with that attack. Let's just hope that Chait realizes that going into the next round and finally puts an end to this non-debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
