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.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
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.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Jonathan Chait Responds
Not to me, of course. He's much too busy for that. Jonah Goldberg might have the decency of at least linking to me, but Chait completely ignores me, not once, but twice. Man, I'm starting to feel used. But he did respond to Goldberg as part of their so-called duel. And while it was certainly better than his first attempt, it was clearly inferior to my own response. And he even had the benefit of being able to read my response, which I personally emailed to him (and he promptly ignored). So he has no one to blame but himself for blowing it so badly.
His main problem is that he still seems fairly themeless. I guess maybe he has some tough deadlines, but it really doesn't look like he had time for a coherent argument. Instead, it's kind of a scattershot of attacking various parts of Goldberg's rebuttal, without ever going for the kill. And that's bad news when debating a dissembler, as they can just pick off your little arguments, rather than facing the brunt of your theme.
Again, when thinking of Goldberg, the analogy of a debate-terrorist comes to mind. He can't win from a direct assault because he's just plain wrong, but he'll attack every little premise for either being too vague or overly specific. And then finally claim victory, on the idea that attacking your opponent's minor arguments is always enough to undermine the entire argument. That's what Goldberg did after their first confrontation, and that's what he'll do tomorrow. Chait needed to have his forces consolidated behind a powerful theme, and then allowed his arguments to stem directly from that theme, without letting his lines of communication be disrupted. As it is, enough of his troops will be picked off one by one by a professional debate-sniper like Goldberg; thus allowing him to claim that he defeated Chait's theme.
Style, Not Substance
And the crux of Chait's problem is that he takes Goldberg's arguments seriously. In fact, that is the primary flaw of all of the left-wing pundits. They try to debate the substance of their opponents arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. But the implications of Chait's own original theme shows why that's such a mistake. The main theme is that liberals are people who want to make the world a better place and seek out evidence which points them to the best way to do that. But conservatives start from the opposite point. They believe that they already know what will make the world a better place, and seek out evidence which can be used to justify those actions and convince others. That was the premise that got Chait into this mess to begin with, starting the duel with Goldberg.
But the natural conclusion of this premise is that, because they are so convinced that the end goal is correct, they must assume that any evidence to the contrary is obviously flawed and/or irrelevant. They have no other choice. If you know that your shirt is blue, and someone tells you that you have a red shirt, you would be a fool to even consider their opinion on it, even if they're a fashion expert. Equally, if you know you're 30 years old, and your drivers license says your 31; you'd be a fool for not ignoring your drivers license, even if it's a government document. There should be no consideration or debate of a fact that you know to be false. So, if you know that Iraq must be attacked, or that taxes must be cut, or that Social Security is socialism, or that Medicare is be bad for America, you'd be a fool for contemplating any fact that goes contrary to that. That's just the way their logic works. And so it does no good to attack the substance of their arguments, as the substance is merely window-dressing for their premise. If you disprove one fact or argument, they'll just replace it with another as the fact or argument isn't the basis for their premise and they've lost nothing.
They didn't need evidence of WMD's; they already knew they were there.
They didn't need evidence to show that tax cuts help the economy more than they cost; they know it's true.
And they don't need evidence to know that Social Security is on a dead-end path.
They knew that it was simply a matter of time until history proved them right. All they need is the opportunity to implement their plans and everything must fall into place; and nothing can dissuade them from that. And even when all of this turns out to be wrong, they will find some rationalization for why it didn't work. The WMD's are in Syria, or still hidden in the desert, or they were found and the MSM just won't tell us. Or whatever. The specific reason doesn't matter at all because they know that their initial premise was correct. For them, evidence is what you give the other guy. Similarly, to ask for proof of God is proof that you aren't a true believer. Only nonbelievers require proof.
And that's the exact reason why arguing substance with them makes no sense. They cannot accept any fact, evidence, or argument which goes counter to their primary belief. They just can't. You can't have anything to say which can throw them off. It's not that they're stubborn or stupid (though they may be), it's just that they know you're wrong. You must be wrong. And if you're not wrong, then their entire worldview and everything they know is destroyed; and it's much easier to find a vague loophole in your argument or ignore it all together. If the context is against them, they'll change the context. Again, if their initial premise is correct, they'd be fools to think any other way.
How to Debate a Conservative
So does this preclude us from having any kind of debate with them? Of course not. But it should significantly alter the way that we think about these debates (and if it doesn't alter it, then you're probably not a liberal). Rather than debating the meat and potatoes of our case, we have to address their actual argument style, as that's all they have left. Take my rebuttal of Goldberg, for example. I didn't state my case. I didn't present evidence. I merely dissected his argument and showed how, flim-flam aside, it only confirmed Chait's argument. And that's the thing about being right: flim-flam and sophistry can only get you so far, but in the end, you have to be right to be right. It must be that way. So if you can just remove the flim-flam, the truth will become obvious.
And what of my argument earlier that Goldberg is actually a liberal Republican and not a conservative? Does that fall? Of course not. He really does believe that government should be used to solve the problems that it is able to solve. He says so himself. And that puts him at odds with conservatives like Reagan who believed that "government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them". But his problem is that he's trapped. He considers himself to be a Republican. And good Republicans are supposed to be conservative. And conservatives have all the great rhetoric and tons of fun and he writes for a conservative magazine, so he must be a conservative. And because the conservatives work on an overall premise that does not require proof, he has been forced to adopt their methods. So he grabs his conservative argument and pushes his liberal little brain to the max trying to make some sense of it. But it's fairly nonsensical, which is why he requires such a high level of flim-flam to make any kind of argument.
And that's also why he couldn't comprehend Chait's argument at all, an admission he explicitly stated. Overall, he doesn't really believe that limited government is the ends that he seeks, so he couldn't debate against it. Chait gave an argument against conservatives that Goldberg agreed with, but Goldberg didn't want to agree because he calls himself a conservative. So he was basically screwed. But Chait seems to have missed that completely and allowed Goldberg to hide in arguments which Chait knew were full of crap. He's so busy defending himself against Goldberg's attacks, that he doesn't even realize that they're both in agreement; which is the entire purpose of the conservative attack style.
But I guess that's what you get when you send journalists to do a man's work.
His main problem is that he still seems fairly themeless. I guess maybe he has some tough deadlines, but it really doesn't look like he had time for a coherent argument. Instead, it's kind of a scattershot of attacking various parts of Goldberg's rebuttal, without ever going for the kill. And that's bad news when debating a dissembler, as they can just pick off your little arguments, rather than facing the brunt of your theme.
Again, when thinking of Goldberg, the analogy of a debate-terrorist comes to mind. He can't win from a direct assault because he's just plain wrong, but he'll attack every little premise for either being too vague or overly specific. And then finally claim victory, on the idea that attacking your opponent's minor arguments is always enough to undermine the entire argument. That's what Goldberg did after their first confrontation, and that's what he'll do tomorrow. Chait needed to have his forces consolidated behind a powerful theme, and then allowed his arguments to stem directly from that theme, without letting his lines of communication be disrupted. As it is, enough of his troops will be picked off one by one by a professional debate-sniper like Goldberg; thus allowing him to claim that he defeated Chait's theme.
Style, Not Substance
And the crux of Chait's problem is that he takes Goldberg's arguments seriously. In fact, that is the primary flaw of all of the left-wing pundits. They try to debate the substance of their opponents arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. But the implications of Chait's own original theme shows why that's such a mistake. The main theme is that liberals are people who want to make the world a better place and seek out evidence which points them to the best way to do that. But conservatives start from the opposite point. They believe that they already know what will make the world a better place, and seek out evidence which can be used to justify those actions and convince others. That was the premise that got Chait into this mess to begin with, starting the duel with Goldberg.
But the natural conclusion of this premise is that, because they are so convinced that the end goal is correct, they must assume that any evidence to the contrary is obviously flawed and/or irrelevant. They have no other choice. If you know that your shirt is blue, and someone tells you that you have a red shirt, you would be a fool to even consider their opinion on it, even if they're a fashion expert. Equally, if you know you're 30 years old, and your drivers license says your 31; you'd be a fool for not ignoring your drivers license, even if it's a government document. There should be no consideration or debate of a fact that you know to be false. So, if you know that Iraq must be attacked, or that taxes must be cut, or that Social Security is socialism, or that Medicare is be bad for America, you'd be a fool for contemplating any fact that goes contrary to that. That's just the way their logic works. And so it does no good to attack the substance of their arguments, as the substance is merely window-dressing for their premise. If you disprove one fact or argument, they'll just replace it with another as the fact or argument isn't the basis for their premise and they've lost nothing.
They didn't need evidence of WMD's; they already knew they were there.
They didn't need evidence to show that tax cuts help the economy more than they cost; they know it's true.
And they don't need evidence to know that Social Security is on a dead-end path.
They knew that it was simply a matter of time until history proved them right. All they need is the opportunity to implement their plans and everything must fall into place; and nothing can dissuade them from that. And even when all of this turns out to be wrong, they will find some rationalization for why it didn't work. The WMD's are in Syria, or still hidden in the desert, or they were found and the MSM just won't tell us. Or whatever. The specific reason doesn't matter at all because they know that their initial premise was correct. For them, evidence is what you give the other guy. Similarly, to ask for proof of God is proof that you aren't a true believer. Only nonbelievers require proof.
And that's the exact reason why arguing substance with them makes no sense. They cannot accept any fact, evidence, or argument which goes counter to their primary belief. They just can't. You can't have anything to say which can throw them off. It's not that they're stubborn or stupid (though they may be), it's just that they know you're wrong. You must be wrong. And if you're not wrong, then their entire worldview and everything they know is destroyed; and it's much easier to find a vague loophole in your argument or ignore it all together. If the context is against them, they'll change the context. Again, if their initial premise is correct, they'd be fools to think any other way.
How to Debate a Conservative
So does this preclude us from having any kind of debate with them? Of course not. But it should significantly alter the way that we think about these debates (and if it doesn't alter it, then you're probably not a liberal). Rather than debating the meat and potatoes of our case, we have to address their actual argument style, as that's all they have left. Take my rebuttal of Goldberg, for example. I didn't state my case. I didn't present evidence. I merely dissected his argument and showed how, flim-flam aside, it only confirmed Chait's argument. And that's the thing about being right: flim-flam and sophistry can only get you so far, but in the end, you have to be right to be right. It must be that way. So if you can just remove the flim-flam, the truth will become obvious.
And what of my argument earlier that Goldberg is actually a liberal Republican and not a conservative? Does that fall? Of course not. He really does believe that government should be used to solve the problems that it is able to solve. He says so himself. And that puts him at odds with conservatives like Reagan who believed that "government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them". But his problem is that he's trapped. He considers himself to be a Republican. And good Republicans are supposed to be conservative. And conservatives have all the great rhetoric and tons of fun and he writes for a conservative magazine, so he must be a conservative. And because the conservatives work on an overall premise that does not require proof, he has been forced to adopt their methods. So he grabs his conservative argument and pushes his liberal little brain to the max trying to make some sense of it. But it's fairly nonsensical, which is why he requires such a high level of flim-flam to make any kind of argument.
And that's also why he couldn't comprehend Chait's argument at all, an admission he explicitly stated. Overall, he doesn't really believe that limited government is the ends that he seeks, so he couldn't debate against it. Chait gave an argument against conservatives that Goldberg agreed with, but Goldberg didn't want to agree because he calls himself a conservative. So he was basically screwed. But Chait seems to have missed that completely and allowed Goldberg to hide in arguments which Chait knew were full of crap. He's so busy defending himself against Goldberg's attacks, that he doesn't even realize that they're both in agreement; which is the entire purpose of the conservative attack style.
But I guess that's what you get when you send journalists to do a man's work.
The Rational Liberal Cont'd
To clarify a distinction that a few dissenting emailers had regarding my previous post:
While both Peretz and I both seem to be engaging in the same inter-party struggle of claiming the Liberal Title as our own, there is a significant difference between his article and my post. In my post, I claim that my position is the true Liberal position, and that Peretz's is best described as Neo-Conservative. But I am by no means label obsessed, and will happily take any other label, as long as it properly reflects my beliefs. My main point was that we are both rational people with a difference of opinion and that because his ideology is not the same as mine, we shouldn't be lumped together.
Peretz's attitude is different. His main point was that we are all liberals who agree with what we want, but that one side is Rational, while the other is Irrational. For him, there is no difference of opinion; but rather that our side is unwilling to overrule our emotional hatred towards Bush. And once we regain our rationality, he believes, we too will rejoice in Bush's successful policy.
So unless Peretz was only addressing Neo-Conservative Bush-Haters, and not liberals, we were not engaging in the same activity. Mine is an open discussion among equals who disagree, and his is as a teacher insulting his undisciplined pupils to make them shut-up and learn. He believes no rational debate is possible, and precludes any debate from occurring as he sees nothing to debate.
And as I said before, a key problem is that he wrongly pretends that he has adopted Bush's policy, while encouraging us to do so; when in fact, it was Bush who adopted Peretz's policy, and this is merely an extension of the same debate we've had for years. When he taunts us for Bush-hatred, he is actually showing bitterness that we aren't finally congratulating him for his own policy success. And he refuses to accept any arguments which might suggest that success isn't already self-evident. The "Bush Hater" rhetoric is nothing but a mask used to stifle his own critics, and coax the weak-minded into believing that their disagreement is irrational and stupid.
While both Peretz and I both seem to be engaging in the same inter-party struggle of claiming the Liberal Title as our own, there is a significant difference between his article and my post. In my post, I claim that my position is the true Liberal position, and that Peretz's is best described as Neo-Conservative. But I am by no means label obsessed, and will happily take any other label, as long as it properly reflects my beliefs. My main point was that we are both rational people with a difference of opinion and that because his ideology is not the same as mine, we shouldn't be lumped together.
Peretz's attitude is different. His main point was that we are all liberals who agree with what we want, but that one side is Rational, while the other is Irrational. For him, there is no difference of opinion; but rather that our side is unwilling to overrule our emotional hatred towards Bush. And once we regain our rationality, he believes, we too will rejoice in Bush's successful policy.
So unless Peretz was only addressing Neo-Conservative Bush-Haters, and not liberals, we were not engaging in the same activity. Mine is an open discussion among equals who disagree, and his is as a teacher insulting his undisciplined pupils to make them shut-up and learn. He believes no rational debate is possible, and precludes any debate from occurring as he sees nothing to debate.
And as I said before, a key problem is that he wrongly pretends that he has adopted Bush's policy, while encouraging us to do so; when in fact, it was Bush who adopted Peretz's policy, and this is merely an extension of the same debate we've had for years. When he taunts us for Bush-hatred, he is actually showing bitterness that we aren't finally congratulating him for his own policy success. And he refuses to accept any arguments which might suggest that success isn't already self-evident. The "Bush Hater" rhetoric is nothing but a mask used to stifle his own critics, and coax the weak-minded into believing that their disagreement is irrational and stupid.
The Rational Liberal vs The Politics of Churling
Martin Peretz, Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic, begins today's article, "The Politics of Churlishness" with:
"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others."
Is this what now passes as rational discourse? Can anyone see this as an honest criticism? It's nothing but a cheap insult. A taunt used to confuse and anger, rather than enlighten. And while I naturally disagree when cheap radio and television hucksters like Rush Limbaugh and Robert Novak toss up these kinds of rhetorical insults against those they label as "Bush-Haters", I expect it from them. Cheap theatrics is part of their game, and only the rubes in the cheap seats fall for it.
They're partisans, to be sure; but they're also entertainers, and like it or not, ratings are the name of their game. Honest discourse and rational arguments from them would be as likely as seeing Greco-Roman wrestling from Vince McMahon's crew. These guys might pretend to hate each other in the ring, but at the end of the day they're chillin' out with some hot dogs and brewski's (or so I would imagine). Similarly, we see guys like Novak and Carville duking it out on screen, but only a complete boob wouldn't understand that after the show they toss back a few drinks at the local saloon every now and again; chuckling at some of their more heated exchanges. Petty taunts and humorous insults are all part of the theatrics that bring in viewers, and only fools believe that this is intended to represent serious discourse of our pressing issues.
But to read this from the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic is beyond disconcerting. It's downright frightening. This isn't a ratings hungry forum, eager to entertain the easily bored. This is one of America's top political journals, and even if you disagree with them, you expect a certain level of enlightenment and serious debate. I read it daily, and find many interesting perspectives and intelligent reviews. Yet, as anyone paying attention is aware, this is far from the first time that TNR adopted the cheap rhetoric of the hateful right to denounce and insult the left. I only mention it now because this is just the latest example that got my blood boiling. And that's the thing. The purpose of such taunts are not to open the debate for discussion or showcase differences of opinion, but to denounce the motives of those you disagree with. Peretz's piece was not an attempt to engage "Bush's critics" in an open discourse. Quite the opposite. He was giving a rationalization of why people who agree with him should not consider the opinion of those critics as being legitimate, or worthy of consideration.
The Rational Liberal
Nor does he believe that the opinion of "Bush's critics" should be considered legitimate. For him, it is entirely appropriate to dismiss the opinion of anyone who doesn't immediately accept Bush's middle-east policy as a success. Anyone who does not admit this is "trapped in the politics of churlishness," and is clearly going against their better judgment by not immediately touting Bush's success. He casts himself as the typical rational liberal who once doubted Bush's ability to cure the middle-east's woes, but is now glad to admit that he was wrong. Hurrah, hurrah! The rational liberal lives on.
But does it? Reading Peretz's opinion of what he wanted from Bush doesn't sound like any liberal I know. Peretz's initial view of Bush was that he'd be a pragmatist in the middle-east who would merely appease its dictators and monarchies, and strive to avoid rocking the boat. But to Peretz's delight, Bush did not take the status quo attitude of his father, but immediately began to rock the boat by using America's military might and economic strength to shake things up and overturn the established order. Now, maybe I'm the one out of touch with modern liberalism, but this doesn't really sound very liberal to me.
In fact, I would venture to say that the most accurate term to describe Mr. Peretz's ideology would be Neo-Conservative. And I use that term honestly, and not as the insult that many liberals hurl at anyone deemed to be a "war hawk". It's an accurate term to describe liberals who believe that America can and must use their military and economic might to solve the world's problems. But I also believe that it's such a departure from the liberal philosophy that its proponents must relinquish use of the term Liberal, and fully embrace their true ideology. But instead of relinquishing the term, neo-conservatives such as Peretz seem intent to drag the rest of the ideology into their corner, by dividing the field into two parts: The Rational and The Churlish (otherwise known as Bush's Critics). One either learns to embrace Bush's actions, or be dismissed as emotional and filled with hatred. And so when Mr. Peretz touts his change of heart, he's not referring to a liberal embracing a conservative's actions; but rather his own realization that Bush's heart was one with his own.
What a Liberal Believes
So what do liberals believe then? They clearly believe that democracy is a good thing, and that all of the world's citizens deserve it. So that's not the separating factor. But the difference is the methods used to achieve it. While neo-conservatives such as Mr. Peretz believe that it is most easily achieved through military and economic force, liberals believe that it is not only wrong to institute democracy at gunpoint; but that it is impossible. While short-term achievements are possible, due to the relatively easy use of guns to ensure free elections, elections are merely one attribute of an open society, and not the creation of it. And any victory in that direction will be more than offset by the hatred and anger of those who are being held at gunpoint. An employee who offers to work overtime will do much better work than one ordered to do so, even if they both receive the same compensation. And coercion by gunpoint by a foreign power should be expected to create a significantly stronger backlash, even if we believe we are acting in their best interests. Or so the theory goes.
I fully support democracy around the world, but I've always seen it as a natural outcome brought about by a long-term chain of events or conditions; and not as something that can be imposed instantaneously. While it is certainly true that democracies have many great qualities which promote stability and happiness; I've always believed that it was those qualities which produced democracy, not the other way around. To think otherwise is the equivalent of believing that a cold medicine which cures a cold's symptoms also cures the cold. You might not have a runny nose, but you're still sick. Similarly, democracy is a symptom of a healthy society, not its cause; and merely establishing voting booths and allowing the people to choose their leaders does not necessarily promote happiness and stability. A majority can still choose religious rule, can still stifle dissent, can still elect dangerous leaders, and can still attack other counties. And one doesn't have to look too far to see the truth of that.
Of course, what do I know. I'm just an irrational Bush-hater, so I guess I can't possibly have anything honest to say about the subject. TNR's recent article established that premise strongly enough. Perhaps once Peretz's troops are finished installing democracy around the globe, he can bring them back here and put an end to our irrational hatred of a man named Bush.
"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others."
Is this what now passes as rational discourse? Can anyone see this as an honest criticism? It's nothing but a cheap insult. A taunt used to confuse and anger, rather than enlighten. And while I naturally disagree when cheap radio and television hucksters like Rush Limbaugh and Robert Novak toss up these kinds of rhetorical insults against those they label as "Bush-Haters", I expect it from them. Cheap theatrics is part of their game, and only the rubes in the cheap seats fall for it.
They're partisans, to be sure; but they're also entertainers, and like it or not, ratings are the name of their game. Honest discourse and rational arguments from them would be as likely as seeing Greco-Roman wrestling from Vince McMahon's crew. These guys might pretend to hate each other in the ring, but at the end of the day they're chillin' out with some hot dogs and brewski's (or so I would imagine). Similarly, we see guys like Novak and Carville duking it out on screen, but only a complete boob wouldn't understand that after the show they toss back a few drinks at the local saloon every now and again; chuckling at some of their more heated exchanges. Petty taunts and humorous insults are all part of the theatrics that bring in viewers, and only fools believe that this is intended to represent serious discourse of our pressing issues.
But to read this from the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic is beyond disconcerting. It's downright frightening. This isn't a ratings hungry forum, eager to entertain the easily bored. This is one of America's top political journals, and even if you disagree with them, you expect a certain level of enlightenment and serious debate. I read it daily, and find many interesting perspectives and intelligent reviews. Yet, as anyone paying attention is aware, this is far from the first time that TNR adopted the cheap rhetoric of the hateful right to denounce and insult the left. I only mention it now because this is just the latest example that got my blood boiling. And that's the thing. The purpose of such taunts are not to open the debate for discussion or showcase differences of opinion, but to denounce the motives of those you disagree with. Peretz's piece was not an attempt to engage "Bush's critics" in an open discourse. Quite the opposite. He was giving a rationalization of why people who agree with him should not consider the opinion of those critics as being legitimate, or worthy of consideration.
The Rational Liberal
Nor does he believe that the opinion of "Bush's critics" should be considered legitimate. For him, it is entirely appropriate to dismiss the opinion of anyone who doesn't immediately accept Bush's middle-east policy as a success. Anyone who does not admit this is "trapped in the politics of churlishness," and is clearly going against their better judgment by not immediately touting Bush's success. He casts himself as the typical rational liberal who once doubted Bush's ability to cure the middle-east's woes, but is now glad to admit that he was wrong. Hurrah, hurrah! The rational liberal lives on.
But does it? Reading Peretz's opinion of what he wanted from Bush doesn't sound like any liberal I know. Peretz's initial view of Bush was that he'd be a pragmatist in the middle-east who would merely appease its dictators and monarchies, and strive to avoid rocking the boat. But to Peretz's delight, Bush did not take the status quo attitude of his father, but immediately began to rock the boat by using America's military might and economic strength to shake things up and overturn the established order. Now, maybe I'm the one out of touch with modern liberalism, but this doesn't really sound very liberal to me.
In fact, I would venture to say that the most accurate term to describe Mr. Peretz's ideology would be Neo-Conservative. And I use that term honestly, and not as the insult that many liberals hurl at anyone deemed to be a "war hawk". It's an accurate term to describe liberals who believe that America can and must use their military and economic might to solve the world's problems. But I also believe that it's such a departure from the liberal philosophy that its proponents must relinquish use of the term Liberal, and fully embrace their true ideology. But instead of relinquishing the term, neo-conservatives such as Peretz seem intent to drag the rest of the ideology into their corner, by dividing the field into two parts: The Rational and The Churlish (otherwise known as Bush's Critics). One either learns to embrace Bush's actions, or be dismissed as emotional and filled with hatred. And so when Mr. Peretz touts his change of heart, he's not referring to a liberal embracing a conservative's actions; but rather his own realization that Bush's heart was one with his own.
What a Liberal Believes
So what do liberals believe then? They clearly believe that democracy is a good thing, and that all of the world's citizens deserve it. So that's not the separating factor. But the difference is the methods used to achieve it. While neo-conservatives such as Mr. Peretz believe that it is most easily achieved through military and economic force, liberals believe that it is not only wrong to institute democracy at gunpoint; but that it is impossible. While short-term achievements are possible, due to the relatively easy use of guns to ensure free elections, elections are merely one attribute of an open society, and not the creation of it. And any victory in that direction will be more than offset by the hatred and anger of those who are being held at gunpoint. An employee who offers to work overtime will do much better work than one ordered to do so, even if they both receive the same compensation. And coercion by gunpoint by a foreign power should be expected to create a significantly stronger backlash, even if we believe we are acting in their best interests. Or so the theory goes.
I fully support democracy around the world, but I've always seen it as a natural outcome brought about by a long-term chain of events or conditions; and not as something that can be imposed instantaneously. While it is certainly true that democracies have many great qualities which promote stability and happiness; I've always believed that it was those qualities which produced democracy, not the other way around. To think otherwise is the equivalent of believing that a cold medicine which cures a cold's symptoms also cures the cold. You might not have a runny nose, but you're still sick. Similarly, democracy is a symptom of a healthy society, not its cause; and merely establishing voting booths and allowing the people to choose their leaders does not necessarily promote happiness and stability. A majority can still choose religious rule, can still stifle dissent, can still elect dangerous leaders, and can still attack other counties. And one doesn't have to look too far to see the truth of that.
Of course, what do I know. I'm just an irrational Bush-hater, so I guess I can't possibly have anything honest to say about the subject. TNR's recent article established that premise strongly enough. Perhaps once Peretz's troops are finished installing democracy around the globe, he can bring them back here and put an end to our irrational hatred of a man named Bush.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Goldberg versus Goldberg
I decided to go ahead and wage a shadow-duel against Jonah Goldberg regarding his actual duel with Jonathan Chait. As lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place, I doubt that Mr. Goldberg would do us the honor of reading this response; so I'm really not expecting a rebuttal from him. But I wouldn't be a liberal if I wasn't a dreamer, so who knows.
As I mentioned in my last post, Goldberg's rebuttal to Chait was as meandering and themeless as Chait's opening argument; so I will be limiting this discussion to only one part of Goldberg's rebuttal, regarding Chait's own Conservative v. Liberal claim. Specifically, I will respond to Goldberg's rebuttal of Chait's claim that "conservatives believe that smaller government is an end in itself, because it promotes freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, do not see bigger government as an end in itself. Therefore, on economic policy, liberals are much more interested in what works than are conservatives." This is a claim that I happen to agree with, and was glad that Chait drew attention to it. But I won't be addressing that point specifically. I merely want to address Goldberg's supposed response to it.
Classic Conservative
Goldberg's response was the classic conservative argument. He quotes his opponent, humorously implies that he's spotted obvious flaws with talk of "flags on the play", clarifies conservative stereotypes that Chait never issued, tosses out a few liberal stereotypes which are obviously flawed, and then pronounces his work complete. But did he actually address Chait's claim? Not even close. He danced around it, while confirming it in its essence, and then moves on to his next unfinished argument. We'll watch a slo-mo replay to see exactly what happened, but let me address Goldberg's overall argument.
A more simplistic recap of Chait's argument is that the conservative's goal is smaller government, and that the liberal's goal is a good society. He wasn't writing a thesis on the subject to prove it. He was making a grander point and introduced that premise on his way to the bigger argument. He never fleshed out exactly what he meant by "smaller government" or "good society", but he never meant to. It had been my assumption upon reading the initial article that he was addressing it to liberals who already believe it to be true. It wasn't the theme of his argument, but rather an important premise supporting that theme; with the theme being what liberals should do about it. Similarly, a prosecutor shouldn't always have to explain why crime is bad when arguing that we should send a particular criminal to jail. It's a worthy topic, but fairly irrelevant to a specific trial. The point is that we can't always address every point in every argument, article, or essay, or we'd need to write a book every time. And a big book at that.
Yet this is one of the primary attacks that conservatives use; which is to pinpoint key pillars in the opponent's argument and attacking those pillars, while dismissing the theme as being beneath consideration until the pillars are supported. And there's nothing wrong with asking for an explanation for said pillars, but it's absurd to use that as the primary focus of the rebuttal. Yet, if Goldberg's rebuttal can be seen as having a theme, that theme would be that Chait's Con v. Lib comparison was unproven, and therefore Chait was wrong for saying anything. This is not entirely Goldberg's fault as Chait's opener was too themeless to address properly. But Goldberg should have requested the proof that he felt was lacking, rather than pretending that Chait's point was unprovable. Indeed, because he sees Chait's pillars as unproven, he reduces them to the level of "name calling"; itself a provocative insult used more to end debate rather than encourage further discussion.
Goldberg was merely using the old trick of attacking the opponent for not being specific enough, which is always a winner as you can never be specific enough for these people. There's always some level of detail which needs clarification. And eventually, you're so wallowed down in details and specifics that you completely lose sight of the overall argument, like a drunk who forgets the point of his story due to excessive digressions. And at the end of the argument, you're just thankful that you got to the end of the argument. And as I mentioned before, folks like Goldberg thrive for debate. He's not trying to persuade anyone, he just likes to argue. So for him, this kind of debate is the victory. He's like a terrorist using unconventional warfare against a larger foe: he knows a direct assault is impossible, so he opts for a grueling stalemate to win by attrition.
Play-by-Play
So that addresses Goldberg's overall argument style, where by he attacks Chait for not defining every term, and proving every premise. But what of the slo-mo replay I promised regarding Goldberg's "flags on the play" call? Here it is:
Goldberg first attempts to dismantle Chait's Con v. Lib argument by pointing out that not all conservatives want smaller government. And then explaining that what conservatives really want is limited government for certain undefined government functions, which include national defense, contracts, and civil rights. We'll leave alone Goldberg's own lapse in judgment when he fails to fully define his own terms, and address his intent.
He suggests that some conservatives do not want smaller government. But that is obviously false. Our problem is that when we say "conservative" many people include Social Conservatives. But they are clearly a different breed and shouldn't have been considered part of Chait's term. Not only do Social Conservatives believe that the government should be used to promote certain social norms, they think it's obligated to do so. For them, government should base their laws on religion, teach biblical "science" in school, promote prayer in school, prevent abortions, and all kinds of other things. For them, government is clearly a solution, and whether it is a federal, state, or local government solving these problems is irrelevant.
While these people have "conservative" in their name, they are not what any rational person could lump in with the William Buckley style of conservative, which does not believe that the government should be in the problem-solving business. Nor are so-called "neo-conservatives" actual conservatives, though only the truly ignorant would attempt to classify them as such. It was always a term of derision towards liberals who wanted to expand the use of big government beyond domestic problems, and use America's might to solve the world's woes. Again, clearly the anti-thesis of small government conservatives. While these groups have some common ground to bind them, their ultimate goals are different and they should be considered more of a coalition than a single group.
So, leaving out the Social and Neo Conservatives, ALL conservatives want smaller government. That is the definition of conservatives. When we speak of "true" conservatives, we merely are separating out the ones that call themselves "conservative" but don't believe in smaller government. And what's funny is that, once you get passed the flim-flam, Goldberg himself admits that this is the intent of conservatives. But rather than being honest, he throws in more flim-flam. He suggests that they don't necessarily want "smaller government", they want "limited government" which retains certain key functions. But is there anyone who believes that conservatives want no government? Of course not. Those people are called anarchists. We all fully acknowledge that conservatives want "small" or "limited" government, constrained to certain specific functions. And for conservatives, those functions are generally defined as the ones explicitly written in the constitution, as interpreted by those with a strict or "conservative" view of the constitution. This is all by definition.
So essentially, Goldberg pretends to rebut Chait's claims by simply giving the widely accepted definition of what conservatives stand for. Am I crazy, or is this not a rebuttal at all? Rather, he gives some definitions which clearly fit within Chait's context, while then admitting that this is the goal of conservatives. So he's confirming Chait's contention that limited government is the ends that conservatives seek.
Liberal Goldberg
And I'll throw something else in there. I could be wrong as I rarely have read any of Mr. Goldberg's writings, but I'm fairly confident that Goldberg is not really a conservative at all. I suspect that, when all is said and done, he is really a liberal who simply wants to constrain the powers of government; but that, deep down, he believes the purpose of government is to help people and that, when it is able to do so, it should do so. And that is the definition of a liberal.
As I've said before, he's not an ideologue intent on pushing the conservative mantra to it's end glory; but rather a partisan who just likes a good fight. And I appreciate that as I obviously like a good fight too, though my liberal policy views always come first. And this is why Goldberg is so bewildered by Chait's claim. Because he doesn't really see limited government as a conservative end because he wrongly sees himself as a conservative and he doesn't see limited government as an end. But it's not the conservative end that is mistaken, but Goldberg himself. Like most people, he has adopted the Government Cure idea from the liberals, and is merely a liberal Republican intent on helping Republicans, not conservatives. This is the very same socialist indoctrination that folks like Goldwater dreaded, but it was quite unavoidable. Government is often a good answer, even if you don't think it should always be used.
Illiberally Defined
Now I'll address the second part of Goldberg's "flags on the play" statement. In it, he makes the very same offense that he had just falsely accused Chait of making. While Chait did not define exactly what he meant by "conservative" and never suggested that it meant they wanted no government; Goldberg does define liberal, and does so in an absurd way that no one would agree with. Specifically, he suggest that liberals believe "government can have a role in any problem". They do? Any problem? That seems a bit vague. But then goes on to agree with Chait that for liberals "very often government is the best means to their ends". So where's the flag? He's in agreement with Chait and can't figure out what the difference is; yet this draws a flag from Goldberg's refs?? His only distinction is that he defines liberals as having "a well-deserved reputation for bringing a hammer to every problem". Every problem? Indeed.
And again, Goldberg's problem is that he's really a liberal, so he had to define liberal in such a way that it wouldn't include him. He obviously believes that the government should be used to solve problems, such as civil rights (the only contentious problem he identified). Yet, we don't have to look far to see that many conservatives do not consider civil rights as something the government should interfere with. They think it's yet another problem that would solve itself if the government stopped interfering. And while Mr. Goldberg didn't detail other more contentious powers the government should have, I suspect he would include the SEC, FCC, IRS, and many other powers that conservatives once rallied against. Though he would likely disagree with the level of power they currently have, he would not disagree with their overall function.
And that's the thing. Liberals could argue specifics with Goldberg as to what powers the government should and shouldn't have, but it wouldn't be between a liberal and conservative. It would be between two liberals hashing out details on how much power government should have, and which problems it should solve. But that's not what Goldwater and Reagan were about. Reagan believed that the government wasn't the solution to our problems. Government WAS the problem. And that's clearly not Goldberg's opinion, but was Chait's initial premise: that conservatives viewed smaller government as the goal, while liberals viewed larger government as a means. And as long as we use the regular definitions to define both these categories, it is indisputable. Nor should it be disputed. Goldberg didn't like it because he wrongly defines himself as a conservative; with the actual definition of conservative seeming absurd to him. It's that way to me too, which is why I'm not a conservative. So while he sung a tough tune about Chait not giving enough specifics, he essentially confirmed the very premise he was attempting to rebut.
In the end, Jonah Goldberg is a liberal Republican who uses the conservative rhetoric without fully understanding it's historical significance; and thus does not and can not refute Chait's initial premise. He argues with Chait, not out of ideological disagreement, but because it's his job. It's nice work if you can get it, and if you can get it, won't you tell me how.
Now that I've essentially written a book on the subject, and still didn't address most of Goldberg's rebuttal, I'll quit. And if someone can get this to him, I'd be much obliged. I don't expect a rebuttal, but I wouldn't mind him linking to me again. Even if I can't debate him personally, I wouldn't mind taking on a few of his minions. Just one at a time, please. It's tax season right now and I waste too much time as it is without facing an onslaught of furious emails.
P.S. There are conservatives who I admire, such as Reagan, Buckley, and Goldwater who I do not refer to as liberals. So please don't try to suggest that my critique of Goldberg somehow applies to all conservatives. It does not. I don't agree with them, but I respect their opinions. Nixon was a fairly liberal Republican (though I didn't respect him, for other reasons), and they used to have a good reputation before the "Reagan Revolution". Now they're a dying breed, which will eventually be adopted into the D-category. Or so says I.
As I mentioned in my last post, Goldberg's rebuttal to Chait was as meandering and themeless as Chait's opening argument; so I will be limiting this discussion to only one part of Goldberg's rebuttal, regarding Chait's own Conservative v. Liberal claim. Specifically, I will respond to Goldberg's rebuttal of Chait's claim that "conservatives believe that smaller government is an end in itself, because it promotes freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, do not see bigger government as an end in itself. Therefore, on economic policy, liberals are much more interested in what works than are conservatives." This is a claim that I happen to agree with, and was glad that Chait drew attention to it. But I won't be addressing that point specifically. I merely want to address Goldberg's supposed response to it.
Classic Conservative
Goldberg's response was the classic conservative argument. He quotes his opponent, humorously implies that he's spotted obvious flaws with talk of "flags on the play", clarifies conservative stereotypes that Chait never issued, tosses out a few liberal stereotypes which are obviously flawed, and then pronounces his work complete. But did he actually address Chait's claim? Not even close. He danced around it, while confirming it in its essence, and then moves on to his next unfinished argument. We'll watch a slo-mo replay to see exactly what happened, but let me address Goldberg's overall argument.
A more simplistic recap of Chait's argument is that the conservative's goal is smaller government, and that the liberal's goal is a good society. He wasn't writing a thesis on the subject to prove it. He was making a grander point and introduced that premise on his way to the bigger argument. He never fleshed out exactly what he meant by "smaller government" or "good society", but he never meant to. It had been my assumption upon reading the initial article that he was addressing it to liberals who already believe it to be true. It wasn't the theme of his argument, but rather an important premise supporting that theme; with the theme being what liberals should do about it. Similarly, a prosecutor shouldn't always have to explain why crime is bad when arguing that we should send a particular criminal to jail. It's a worthy topic, but fairly irrelevant to a specific trial. The point is that we can't always address every point in every argument, article, or essay, or we'd need to write a book every time. And a big book at that.
Yet this is one of the primary attacks that conservatives use; which is to pinpoint key pillars in the opponent's argument and attacking those pillars, while dismissing the theme as being beneath consideration until the pillars are supported. And there's nothing wrong with asking for an explanation for said pillars, but it's absurd to use that as the primary focus of the rebuttal. Yet, if Goldberg's rebuttal can be seen as having a theme, that theme would be that Chait's Con v. Lib comparison was unproven, and therefore Chait was wrong for saying anything. This is not entirely Goldberg's fault as Chait's opener was too themeless to address properly. But Goldberg should have requested the proof that he felt was lacking, rather than pretending that Chait's point was unprovable. Indeed, because he sees Chait's pillars as unproven, he reduces them to the level of "name calling"; itself a provocative insult used more to end debate rather than encourage further discussion.
Goldberg was merely using the old trick of attacking the opponent for not being specific enough, which is always a winner as you can never be specific enough for these people. There's always some level of detail which needs clarification. And eventually, you're so wallowed down in details and specifics that you completely lose sight of the overall argument, like a drunk who forgets the point of his story due to excessive digressions. And at the end of the argument, you're just thankful that you got to the end of the argument. And as I mentioned before, folks like Goldberg thrive for debate. He's not trying to persuade anyone, he just likes to argue. So for him, this kind of debate is the victory. He's like a terrorist using unconventional warfare against a larger foe: he knows a direct assault is impossible, so he opts for a grueling stalemate to win by attrition.
Play-by-Play
So that addresses Goldberg's overall argument style, where by he attacks Chait for not defining every term, and proving every premise. But what of the slo-mo replay I promised regarding Goldberg's "flags on the play" call? Here it is:
Goldberg first attempts to dismantle Chait's Con v. Lib argument by pointing out that not all conservatives want smaller government. And then explaining that what conservatives really want is limited government for certain undefined government functions, which include national defense, contracts, and civil rights. We'll leave alone Goldberg's own lapse in judgment when he fails to fully define his own terms, and address his intent.
He suggests that some conservatives do not want smaller government. But that is obviously false. Our problem is that when we say "conservative" many people include Social Conservatives. But they are clearly a different breed and shouldn't have been considered part of Chait's term. Not only do Social Conservatives believe that the government should be used to promote certain social norms, they think it's obligated to do so. For them, government should base their laws on religion, teach biblical "science" in school, promote prayer in school, prevent abortions, and all kinds of other things. For them, government is clearly a solution, and whether it is a federal, state, or local government solving these problems is irrelevant.
While these people have "conservative" in their name, they are not what any rational person could lump in with the William Buckley style of conservative, which does not believe that the government should be in the problem-solving business. Nor are so-called "neo-conservatives" actual conservatives, though only the truly ignorant would attempt to classify them as such. It was always a term of derision towards liberals who wanted to expand the use of big government beyond domestic problems, and use America's might to solve the world's woes. Again, clearly the anti-thesis of small government conservatives. While these groups have some common ground to bind them, their ultimate goals are different and they should be considered more of a coalition than a single group.
So, leaving out the Social and Neo Conservatives, ALL conservatives want smaller government. That is the definition of conservatives. When we speak of "true" conservatives, we merely are separating out the ones that call themselves "conservative" but don't believe in smaller government. And what's funny is that, once you get passed the flim-flam, Goldberg himself admits that this is the intent of conservatives. But rather than being honest, he throws in more flim-flam. He suggests that they don't necessarily want "smaller government", they want "limited government" which retains certain key functions. But is there anyone who believes that conservatives want no government? Of course not. Those people are called anarchists. We all fully acknowledge that conservatives want "small" or "limited" government, constrained to certain specific functions. And for conservatives, those functions are generally defined as the ones explicitly written in the constitution, as interpreted by those with a strict or "conservative" view of the constitution. This is all by definition.
So essentially, Goldberg pretends to rebut Chait's claims by simply giving the widely accepted definition of what conservatives stand for. Am I crazy, or is this not a rebuttal at all? Rather, he gives some definitions which clearly fit within Chait's context, while then admitting that this is the goal of conservatives. So he's confirming Chait's contention that limited government is the ends that conservatives seek.
Liberal Goldberg
And I'll throw something else in there. I could be wrong as I rarely have read any of Mr. Goldberg's writings, but I'm fairly confident that Goldberg is not really a conservative at all. I suspect that, when all is said and done, he is really a liberal who simply wants to constrain the powers of government; but that, deep down, he believes the purpose of government is to help people and that, when it is able to do so, it should do so. And that is the definition of a liberal.
As I've said before, he's not an ideologue intent on pushing the conservative mantra to it's end glory; but rather a partisan who just likes a good fight. And I appreciate that as I obviously like a good fight too, though my liberal policy views always come first. And this is why Goldberg is so bewildered by Chait's claim. Because he doesn't really see limited government as a conservative end because he wrongly sees himself as a conservative and he doesn't see limited government as an end. But it's not the conservative end that is mistaken, but Goldberg himself. Like most people, he has adopted the Government Cure idea from the liberals, and is merely a liberal Republican intent on helping Republicans, not conservatives. This is the very same socialist indoctrination that folks like Goldwater dreaded, but it was quite unavoidable. Government is often a good answer, even if you don't think it should always be used.
Illiberally Defined
Now I'll address the second part of Goldberg's "flags on the play" statement. In it, he makes the very same offense that he had just falsely accused Chait of making. While Chait did not define exactly what he meant by "conservative" and never suggested that it meant they wanted no government; Goldberg does define liberal, and does so in an absurd way that no one would agree with. Specifically, he suggest that liberals believe "government can have a role in any problem". They do? Any problem? That seems a bit vague. But then goes on to agree with Chait that for liberals "very often government is the best means to their ends". So where's the flag? He's in agreement with Chait and can't figure out what the difference is; yet this draws a flag from Goldberg's refs?? His only distinction is that he defines liberals as having "a well-deserved reputation for bringing a hammer to every problem". Every problem? Indeed.
And again, Goldberg's problem is that he's really a liberal, so he had to define liberal in such a way that it wouldn't include him. He obviously believes that the government should be used to solve problems, such as civil rights (the only contentious problem he identified). Yet, we don't have to look far to see that many conservatives do not consider civil rights as something the government should interfere with. They think it's yet another problem that would solve itself if the government stopped interfering. And while Mr. Goldberg didn't detail other more contentious powers the government should have, I suspect he would include the SEC, FCC, IRS, and many other powers that conservatives once rallied against. Though he would likely disagree with the level of power they currently have, he would not disagree with their overall function.
And that's the thing. Liberals could argue specifics with Goldberg as to what powers the government should and shouldn't have, but it wouldn't be between a liberal and conservative. It would be between two liberals hashing out details on how much power government should have, and which problems it should solve. But that's not what Goldwater and Reagan were about. Reagan believed that the government wasn't the solution to our problems. Government WAS the problem. And that's clearly not Goldberg's opinion, but was Chait's initial premise: that conservatives viewed smaller government as the goal, while liberals viewed larger government as a means. And as long as we use the regular definitions to define both these categories, it is indisputable. Nor should it be disputed. Goldberg didn't like it because he wrongly defines himself as a conservative; with the actual definition of conservative seeming absurd to him. It's that way to me too, which is why I'm not a conservative. So while he sung a tough tune about Chait not giving enough specifics, he essentially confirmed the very premise he was attempting to rebut.
In the end, Jonah Goldberg is a liberal Republican who uses the conservative rhetoric without fully understanding it's historical significance; and thus does not and can not refute Chait's initial premise. He argues with Chait, not out of ideological disagreement, but because it's his job. It's nice work if you can get it, and if you can get it, won't you tell me how.
Now that I've essentially written a book on the subject, and still didn't address most of Goldberg's rebuttal, I'll quit. And if someone can get this to him, I'd be much obliged. I don't expect a rebuttal, but I wouldn't mind him linking to me again. Even if I can't debate him personally, I wouldn't mind taking on a few of his minions. Just one at a time, please. It's tax season right now and I waste too much time as it is without facing an onslaught of furious emails.
P.S. There are conservatives who I admire, such as Reagan, Buckley, and Goldwater who I do not refer to as liberals. So please don't try to suggest that my critique of Goldberg somehow applies to all conservatives. It does not. I don't agree with them, but I respect their opinions. Nixon was a fairly liberal Republican (though I didn't respect him, for other reasons), and they used to have a good reputation before the "Reagan Revolution". Now they're a dying breed, which will eventually be adopted into the D-category. Or so says I.
Goldberg Responds
Hey, I'm famous! Looks like Mr. Goldberg linked to me for my letter to Jonathan Chait regarding their duel. Kind of ironic, really. Seeing as how I was writing that letter to the other guy. The power of the internet, eh?
Well, maybe with any luck I can get Jonah to debate with me next. Especially after Chait's tepid start so far. Maybe he didn't get enough sleep, but I was kind of hoping for something with a bit more zing to it. Instead, it seemed a bit meandering, defensive, and like he was in the middle of a tough slogfest, rather than the preparing the opening volley. Goldberg's was the typical response, made especially easy due to Chait's uninspired beginning. When you're debating a disembler, you really have to be more on-target and pointed with your arguments. Maybe he was just playing opossum to lull Goldberg into a false sense of security. Perhaps if I have time tonight, I'll organize my own response to Goldberg's rebuttal and wage a shadow-battle with the pundit superstar. Of course, it was a tad long and meandering in itself, so I might just have to pick a minor issue and run with it. I had thought about doing that anyway, and now I have the added encouragement of knowing that he might actually read it.
Anyway. welcome NRO'ers. Please wipe your feet on the way in. You're welcome to stay as long as no one gets hurt.
Well, maybe with any luck I can get Jonah to debate with me next. Especially after Chait's tepid start so far. Maybe he didn't get enough sleep, but I was kind of hoping for something with a bit more zing to it. Instead, it seemed a bit meandering, defensive, and like he was in the middle of a tough slogfest, rather than the preparing the opening volley. Goldberg's was the typical response, made especially easy due to Chait's uninspired beginning. When you're debating a disembler, you really have to be more on-target and pointed with your arguments. Maybe he was just playing opossum to lull Goldberg into a false sense of security. Perhaps if I have time tonight, I'll organize my own response to Goldberg's rebuttal and wage a shadow-battle with the pundit superstar. Of course, it was a tad long and meandering in itself, so I might just have to pick a minor issue and run with it. I had thought about doing that anyway, and now I have the added encouragement of knowing that he might actually read it.
Anyway. welcome NRO'ers. Please wipe your feet on the way in. You're welcome to stay as long as no one gets hurt.
My Personal Testimonial
From Media Matters, regarding an affidavit from Ms. Iyer, a former nurse of Terri Schiavo:
As Media Matters points out, Judge Greer dismissed Ms. Iyer's testimony as "incredible", saying "Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler." The 24-Whore News channels were more than happy to air Ms. Iyer's statements, which our cold and corrupt legal system had been only too eager to ignore.
I'd like to present a different side to this story, from a personal perspective. While a senior in high school, my civics class had a mock trial involving a bigtime drugpin. And in this trial, my role was as a key witness: the henchman who was giving testimony against his former boss to avoid jailtime. This is a common scenario in the legal world, but I had one problem: I had no idea if the guy was guilty.
I guess I'm just stupid, but this was a big deal for me. How could I testify about something when I had no idea what the facts were, or what I was supposed to say? Sure he was a drug dealer, but was he guilty of everything they said? Was I maybe lying? I needed to know. For me, it was very important that we first outline the facts and be told whether the guy really was guilty. I was the typical dumb high school kid, but even then I had a deep dislike of facts being treated subjectively...even in a mock trial. I brought up these objections on several occasions, but was always poo-pooed, and told that it was a mock trial and that the guy's guilt would be decided by the jury (made up of dolts too stupid to play a part in the trial...much like real life).
Now, in the real world, the cops and/or prosecutor would have coached me in my testimony...especially if I was lying; but in the classroom, I was on my own. And while I looked like the typical stoner/druggie-type in high school, I've really always been a square, even more so then than now...and remember, I'm a CPA now, so you can just imagine how square I was back then. I didn't even drink, for christ's sake!! So I came up with my affidavit against the guy, and thought it was really good. Truck loads of cocaine, lots of heroin, pot, millions of dollars, whatever; I used to watch Miami Vice so I knew my stuff. I thought it was good testimony, and I decided to play it like I was honestly ratting on the guy. I may have been a fink, I told myself, but I wasn't a liar. I'm so square that even as a drug dealer, I'm a square.
I turned it in, and then waited until the trial date to give my testimony on the witness stand. And when I gave my testimony, PEOPLE LAUGHED! They LAUGHED at me! Apparently, my testimony was ENTIRELY unbelievable, to the point that the jury decided to ignore all of the other evidence and let the guy off, based upon MY testimony. Here I was, trying to be honest and help The State of Texas put away this big drug king, and the jury's laughing at me for giving such wild testimony, and let him off while thinking that *I* was the liar. But how was I to know what reasonable testimony was supposed to be? This wasn't my fault. I STILL don't even know if the guy really did it!
And so, long post short, I wonder if maybe Ms. Iyer suffered from the same problem. She was told to write an affidavit, but wasn't told what the facts of the case were. And she knew that people thought that Mr. Schiavo was trying to murder his wife, so she just decided to give testimony along those lines. Is it her fault if it was entirely unbelievable and should obviously be dismissed? How could she know that? And maybe Judge Greer did her a solid by dismissing her incredible testimony. How much worse would she have felt hearing the courtroom break out in giggles every time she testified to Michael's evil-doing? It makes a person not want to invent testimony at all!
So we should all give thanks that CNN, Fox, and the other news whores gave Ms. Iyer the forum she needed to finally give her testimony, and without the presence of skeptical people who disapprove of wild stories and outrageous claims. Rather than facing cynical teenagers or cryptic judges, Ms. Iyer was allowed to spin her homemade tales to the wide-eyed folks at Fox & Friends and CNN, both known for their trustfulness and soft, gentle touch. Maybe they'll even have me on some day, so I can testify against whoever the kid playing the drugpin was. Boy oh boy, will I nail that sucker this time! And if you haven't yet read Ms. Iyer's testimony, do yourself a favor and read it. You could just wait until the Lifetime movie comes out, but the written word is always better.
In both a 2003 court affidavit (posted on the website operated by Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler) and her March 22 cable appearances, Iyer maintained that Terri Schiavo was constantly "alert and oriented" while under her care, "saying such things as 'mommy,' and 'help me.' " She claimed that "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?' " The affidavit also included her claims that Michael Schiavo expressed the desire to "accelerate" Terri's death, that when Terri was sick and looked as if she might die, "He [Michael] would blurt out 'I'm going to be rich,' " and the assertion that "[i]t is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin" to intentionally make her sick. She claimed in her affidavit that "I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day."
As Media Matters points out, Judge Greer dismissed Ms. Iyer's testimony as "incredible", saying "Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler." The 24-Whore News channels were more than happy to air Ms. Iyer's statements, which our cold and corrupt legal system had been only too eager to ignore.
I'd like to present a different side to this story, from a personal perspective. While a senior in high school, my civics class had a mock trial involving a bigtime drugpin. And in this trial, my role was as a key witness: the henchman who was giving testimony against his former boss to avoid jailtime. This is a common scenario in the legal world, but I had one problem: I had no idea if the guy was guilty.
I guess I'm just stupid, but this was a big deal for me. How could I testify about something when I had no idea what the facts were, or what I was supposed to say? Sure he was a drug dealer, but was he guilty of everything they said? Was I maybe lying? I needed to know. For me, it was very important that we first outline the facts and be told whether the guy really was guilty. I was the typical dumb high school kid, but even then I had a deep dislike of facts being treated subjectively...even in a mock trial. I brought up these objections on several occasions, but was always poo-pooed, and told that it was a mock trial and that the guy's guilt would be decided by the jury (made up of dolts too stupid to play a part in the trial...much like real life).
Now, in the real world, the cops and/or prosecutor would have coached me in my testimony...especially if I was lying; but in the classroom, I was on my own. And while I looked like the typical stoner/druggie-type in high school, I've really always been a square, even more so then than now...and remember, I'm a CPA now, so you can just imagine how square I was back then. I didn't even drink, for christ's sake!! So I came up with my affidavit against the guy, and thought it was really good. Truck loads of cocaine, lots of heroin, pot, millions of dollars, whatever; I used to watch Miami Vice so I knew my stuff. I thought it was good testimony, and I decided to play it like I was honestly ratting on the guy. I may have been a fink, I told myself, but I wasn't a liar. I'm so square that even as a drug dealer, I'm a square.
I turned it in, and then waited until the trial date to give my testimony on the witness stand. And when I gave my testimony, PEOPLE LAUGHED! They LAUGHED at me! Apparently, my testimony was ENTIRELY unbelievable, to the point that the jury decided to ignore all of the other evidence and let the guy off, based upon MY testimony. Here I was, trying to be honest and help The State of Texas put away this big drug king, and the jury's laughing at me for giving such wild testimony, and let him off while thinking that *I* was the liar. But how was I to know what reasonable testimony was supposed to be? This wasn't my fault. I STILL don't even know if the guy really did it!
And so, long post short, I wonder if maybe Ms. Iyer suffered from the same problem. She was told to write an affidavit, but wasn't told what the facts of the case were. And she knew that people thought that Mr. Schiavo was trying to murder his wife, so she just decided to give testimony along those lines. Is it her fault if it was entirely unbelievable and should obviously be dismissed? How could she know that? And maybe Judge Greer did her a solid by dismissing her incredible testimony. How much worse would she have felt hearing the courtroom break out in giggles every time she testified to Michael's evil-doing? It makes a person not want to invent testimony at all!
So we should all give thanks that CNN, Fox, and the other news whores gave Ms. Iyer the forum she needed to finally give her testimony, and without the presence of skeptical people who disapprove of wild stories and outrageous claims. Rather than facing cynical teenagers or cryptic judges, Ms. Iyer was allowed to spin her homemade tales to the wide-eyed folks at Fox & Friends and CNN, both known for their trustfulness and soft, gentle touch. Maybe they'll even have me on some day, so I can testify against whoever the kid playing the drugpin was. Boy oh boy, will I nail that sucker this time! And if you haven't yet read Ms. Iyer's testimony, do yourself a favor and read it. You could just wait until the Lifetime movie comes out, but the written word is always better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
