"Debate is the death of conversation." Posted by: Jon Henke
on Thursday, December 08, 2005
Ezra Klein makes a very important argument in this post. Excerpts with my own comments...
I always fear, particularly in the blogosphere...that the incentives are all aimed at mercilessly mocking the most pathetic arguments to emerge across the aisle. Tearing them apart is funny, safe, and a sure way to attract some hits. But, in the end, all we engage with is idiocy from from maniacs...
We're all familiar with the Righties who point and laugh at people from DemocraticUnderground, or theLefties who point and laugh at Freepers. Sure, it's amusing, but it's hardly informative. It's fringe-baiting.
What's more, bloggers seem to forget that 1) mockery isn't an argument, and 2) "funny" doesn't equal "correct". Worse, since mockery is easier when you misrepresent the argument being made, the opportunity for useful, productive debate is lost.
Of course, the sad fact is that many readers and bloggers aren't actually interested in learning; for many, reinforcement is enough.
What's missing there is actual engagement with the good, or at least sound, arguments that pop up across the aisle. ... It's easy to hate ill-intentioned hacks, but when folks are engaging in a fairly honest attempt to work through problems and arrive at conclusions, even when they end up in the wrong place, they've taken a respectable journey. And sometimes, highlighting that would be a bit more useful than mocking Ben Shapiro.
Nowhere, I think, has this lack of cross-pollination been more apparent than on the issue of the war in Iraq. Perhaps that's only because it's the most prominent issue of the day, but between...
the Right arguing that the Left is treasonous and anti-American and the war is going great, gonna shake out just fine, yes sir!
...and the Left arguing that the Right is treasonous and un-American and the war was doomed to fail and it's only gotten worse...
...not many people seem to be taking contrary arguments very seriously and actually addressing them.
And that's not healthy for political debate. For one thing, in a lot of these arguments, there is no right or wrong position. In politics, two diametrically opposite positions can both be legitimate, according to the values each observer bring to the table. The disagreement usually amounts to a disagreement over basic premises and values, which are rarely mentioned. And if two people disagree on fundamental premises, then the opportunity for caricature is endless!
As one of Ezra's commenters observes, "without shared assumptions, constructive dialogue is hard." Another writes that "while humor is great...both sides of the divide are creating enough straw men to people Oz and enough bad blood for half a dozen crusades."
Unfortunately—and, I think, more representative of the majority—other commenters write things like....
"I do agree with Ezra that 'serious' arguments from the right do need to be responded to with similar serious arguments. The dearth of these 'serious' conservative/Republican/wingnut/Neo-Con arguments seems to account for the lack of left responses."
"The problem is that at this point, there are no 'serious thinkers' who are still defending the administration."
"I try to ignore the wingnut-o-sphere as much as possible."
"All the questions are settled. The invasion was wrong; the occupation is wrong. The tax cuts were wrong. The judicial nominations were wrong. Etc. etc. on just about anything you can think of."
"first, we would have to *find* a "serious thinker" on the right...."
Sadly, I read the same kind of dismissive thing in the comments here and on other rightwing blogs. Frankly, I have trouble taking people's arguments too seriously when they don't even read the other side.
No larger point here. I'm just troubled by the lack of respect and intellectual tolerance among the punditocracy.
Hell, the 3x3 boxes one has to type in, the delay between responses, and general anonymity afforded by the Internet are the main problems. Most of the people who call the other side nasty names don’t talk like that in public. Those who do are usually marginalized / ostracized.
But a good deal of the problem comes from starting at different points. For me, I don’t believe charity should be done at gunpoint (i.e. taxes) while others believe that charity is a shared responsibility regardless if you wish to do so or not. I see nothing wrong with firearms, others see them as the most evil tool known to man. Common ground is difficult to come by in the first place and add in the technical issues I mention above, and the conversation goes south rather quickly.
Robb, you are obviously some kind of EVIL, rightwing-nut. A minion of Chimpy McHaliburton! You probably oppose Kyoto, too!
It’s not simply the Intarwebs, it is the discourse itself. I believe it was Krauthammer who wrote about the Politics of "Diss’ing". Liberals are STOOPIT, and Conservatives are EVIL. It’s because each group speaks past the other.
I would also make one other point, that we are at an "inflection point" in terms of debate/political power. It’s not 1964 nor is it the Libertarian/Conservative equivalent. EACH side can see that with just a little more effort it can win, and win big. When one side of the other dominates, debate can be polite... I just ignore the other side. Or I can be gracious, and listen, and then vote my overwhelming majority to bury them.
Now it’s not that simple, each side can win small fights and see defeating the "other" side. When the stakes are high and the odds even then the fights are a lot nastier... Because the fight REALLY means something now.
What a clown. [Mr O’Reilly is welcome to quote me on that]
What do you call a Republican Majority? Democrats.
and
Not, apparently, as high a responsibility as, for example, Terri Schiavo, but right up there nonetheless. Really.
...really help advance dialogue.
But I should soften the snark/criticism by pointing out that me blockquoting those statements really doesn’t help advance dialogue much, either. Furthermore, I have caught myself doing the same thing on my own blog too many times to count. The impulse to add a zinger, to try and share some barbed humor, or to simply be snarky is often to difficult to resist. Friendship is usually the thing that softens the blow. Perhaps the problem is that the blogosphere is just too anonymous? Perhaps it’s too easy to follow chained links and drop into a post and react to it without seeing it in the context of other posts, in context of that person? But rather, in context of the posts on other blogs you read leading up to the post that makes you angry. I know I’ve done that. I’d react totally differently to something I found linked by Ace than by something linked by Michelle Malkin, or Michele Catalano, too. Is lack of context or lack of continuity the problem?
You know Robb, I laughed outloud when I read that (and no Nathan, I don’t believe the characterization, I just thought it was funny).
I reminded me of an entirely un-PC quote I saw one time of which I’m sure someone will manage to take offense:
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Speical Olympics, you may win but you’re still retarded".
Over the years, with some exceptions, I find that to be true. As you point out, anonymity seems to see argument and debate slip immediately to ad hominem attacks. I’m as guilty of slipping into it as the next guy, but the impersonal aspect of the ’net makes it so easy to type what you’d never say to a person’s face in a conversation. It’s something I fight, often unsuccessfully, all the time.
This is a serious argument for civility in exchange of views. I too fall to the ad hominem, but generally speaking, I find a lot more so called conservative sites willing to discuss the merits than I do so called liberal sites.
It is nearly impossible to have a reasoned exchange even on sites such as QandO with the left side. It immediately turns into condecension or Bushitler, Bushlied, etc.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Some groups, such as creationists on the right and socialists on the left, don’t want to have a debate. They want their fantasies indulged.
I usually ignore such folks, but I understand those who heap humiliation on them. It’s the only thing that affects them. Facts and logical argument do not.
The difficulty is distinguishing that group from those who debate in good faith but just have a different worldview. Depending on how different the worldview is, that can be hard indeed. Is someone who says Iraq is as big a failure as Vietnam someone to take seriously? How about someone who maintains that our biggest priority should be free health care for all (when that’s, in my mind, clearly economically impossible and has failed in every place it’s been tried)?
Then we move on up the chaing to the ones that claim Bush is as bad as Hitler. There’s a whole continuum on the left, and it’s hard to know where to draw a line and say "There be deluded fools there".
The right is not as bad. Aside from the creationists and some of the more deluded drug warriors, most on the right have a different moral framework, typically based on their perception of religion, and at least I understand the source of their position even if I don’t agree.
Some groups, such as creationists on the right and socialists on the left, don’t want to have a debate. They want their fantasies indulged.
By ’creationist,’ I’m assuming you’re talking about someone who happens to believe in creation (ID is such a stupid name for it)? I’m one of those loony creationists, then, but the last time I checked, I don’t spout fantasy and pie in the sky upon QandO (or anyplace else, for that matter). Granted, there are plenty of creationists like that. Just wanted to narrow that brush a smidge.
Of course, if you’re referring to something else totally, then I’ve just made an ass of myself and I’ll be quick to make fun of myself, as well.
McQ, No offense taken. Robb is obviously way off base. I’m no more than 2 fries short of a Happy Meal, and maybe not more than 1. Still, it’s a good example of Robb having a choice and choosing to use his words to hurt instead of to heal. [grin] The thing is, I think you have to have trust to be able to give people crap like Robb and I do each other. For instance, I’ve probably been enough of an ass on this blog enough times that I didn’t deserve the reasoned response you gave, McQ. I hope Jon wasn’t offended, either. Blog etiquette is still evolving, I think. In some ways it is better than it was 2 years ago. Another 10 years and it may be easier to have civil conversations.
“I read the same kind of dismissive thing in the comments here and on other rightwing blogs.” [ my emphasis]
Good heavens! Say that you have mis-spoken, Jon. I don’t think qando magazine is a right wing blog for there to be others "of". I think it is a centrist internet magazine that has difficulty attracting sensible liberal commenters. Part of the problem is that many liberals view being liberal like many people view their religion. Ever hear anyone say about their religion: “I never knew we believed that. Well, I guess if the Synod says that, then I do believe that. I want to be a good ———arian.” In other words, their personal identity is that of being a —————-arian and they have gone whole hog. Thinking of oneself as a liberal is very much the same thing. Being liberal pretty much dictates one’s position on most political issues. Of course, it would be very bad form to admit that one “believes” something just because it is the liberal thing to do. “Don’t admit it, just do it.” appears to be the rule. On the other hand, most on the right or in the center can quickly tell you why they believe as they do (including inconsistencies, mistakes of fact, and misunderstanding of how things work or what the law is). If a liberal gets into a real debate about what they believe, because they never question their beliefs or spend much time around anyone who does, they quickly realize that they are not in a position to mount an argument and terminate the discussion. When someone on the right does make an obvious good case, liberals act like someone who temporarily cannot remember their home phone number: “I know I am right, I just can’t remember why right now.” At no time do they consider adopting the viewpoint that has just been proven to them. They can’t. If a liberal leaves the liberal pack groupthink on the smallest point, they generate suspicion and risk being driven from the fold. So in any discussion between the right and the left, you have with the liberal, an Arab judge at the pork barbeque roast. Liberals are forbidden by their “religion” to partake of any right wing views – and I do mean ANY. They dare not sample any “pork” at the risk of their identity and circle of friends. How can one have a real debate with such people?
notherbob2: If a liberal gets into a real debate about what they believe, because they never question their beliefs or spend much time around anyone who does, they quickly realize that they are not in a position to mount an argument and terminate the discussion. When someone on the right does make an obvious good case, liberals act like someone who temporarily cannot remember their home phone number: “I know I am right, I just can’t remember why right now.”
What’s really funny (in that tragic kind of way) is that I’ve seen that quote almost word for word but after a sed s/liberal/conservative/. (In non-unixgeek, that’s replace "liberal" with "conservative".)
I really think this is EXACTLY what Ezra and Jon are talking about. There are plenty of liberals who haven’t though about their positions just like there are plenty of conservatives who haven’t. And the ones people think about and quote from the other side are the idiots.
It definately comes from an underlying difference in assumptions. I still don’t see how property rights are the foundation of all other forms of liberty/freedom (especially when it comes to "intellectual property"), nor do I see how gun rights are a foundation of other rights/freedoms either. But I’ve never seen anyone from the conservative side adequately address those underlying assumptions. (To QandO’s credit, the only place I’ve even seen those enumerated as underlying beliefs is here, from you guys and commenters)
That being said, rarely do I see anyone from the liberal side address the underlying "equality" assumptions or the shared community assumptions or the assumption that large businesses are as big of a threat to our liberty as the government. Instead we have Kos "representing" our side.
And those are just a few quick examples off the top of my head.
At the risk of sounding bad, it needs to be a "values" discussion. Unfortunately "values" in politics tends to be a laughable caricature of real values.
I’m a fairly solid liberal, but I oppose most gun control (as do actually almost all of my liberal friends), am fine some restritions on abortion (esp in the father’s rights areas) and I’m willing to consider flat/fair/vat tax proposals.
It’s just that gay marriage is important to me; torture’s a no go for me; patriotism doesn’t mean that the president is always correct; welfare should exist, be solid, and still encourage personal responsibility; coporate welfare should be at least as restrictive as personal welfare and corporations should pay the same style of tax as citizens (no "after expenses" crap); investment income should be taxed at least as high as earned income; and universal healthcare seems like a decent idea.
(Though the QandO guys have me thinking that a free market in health care mught work as well.)
The thing is is, arguing about each of these issues misses much of the point. (And I know many readers here would like to argue many of these.) We need to step back, and rather than calling me an idiot, let’s talk about why I hold them, and why you hold the positions you do. Again, the underlying values.
This is a serious argument for civility in exchange of views. I too fall to the ad hominem ...
I have a tendency to treat others as they treat me. If a comment is an invective laden piece of shouting I have a tendency to treat the writer with much less respect than I one that attempts a reasoned rebuttal.
And as Jon points out, we’ve been able to have semi-reasonable debates with folks that are left of center. DannyBoy, Pogue, Tito ... all present themselves and their arguments well. And we’ve gotten to know them well enough that we can even joke around a bit now.
But that takes time. As Nathan points out, blog etiquette is evolving, but sometimes it still reminds me of the free-for-all USENET used to be.
There is one objective way to tell whichy "side" is more exclusive and closed-minded, politically speaking. It’s when one side has the more popular position on the wide majority of issues, but still manages to lose elections by excluding too many people.
The only way you can do that is if you toss people out for infractions against a relatively small number of issues (maybe even only one issue!), or identify yourself by your least popular positions (trying to secure a small constituency) rather than by your popular ones. A Democrat can slip into DINO status for being pro-life, or just happening to believe that we’re going to win the Iraq war (and that this is a good thing), or for believing the economy is performing rather well right now. Meanwhile, the Republicans are busting their butts to build up a big tent, and there’s very little a Republican politician could do right now that could conceivably get him "kicked out of the club," short of openly declaring everyone in the administration a lying psycho. Look at the difference in the popularity of Lieberman with the Democrats vs. the popularity of McCain with Republicans. It’s not a great comparison, but it is telling.
The only difference between the Democrats and the Libertarian Party, in terms of demeanor, is that the Democrats (A) don’t have intellectual heroes who represent huge chunks of the movement, and (B) they know they can win on the national level, whereas the LP has given up. They trip over themselves trying to prove they’re more doctrinally pure than the other candidates during the primaries, then (and this is where part B comes into play) awkwardly try to switch gears and appeal to the wider public. In the age of televised primary debates and widespread internet access, you just can’t get away with that anymore.
If that gets reflected on the internet by the unfortunate fact that the loudest Democrats also happen to be the proud-of-it lunatic fringe, refusing to believe that Bush could be right about anything, well... that’s no fault of the majority of people who decide not to vote Democrat.
I read both sides of the blogosphere and all kinds of journalists when I get my news fix. I’ve heard self-identified conservatives blast Bush and other administration figures, but it’s a rare thing to hear a self-identified liberal praise Bush in anything other than a left-handed manner.
You want to know who has a real future in the Democratic Party, who can actually win? Long-term, it’s not Kerry or Dean, who are singularly uninspiring and flat-footed. Two real challengers, one who’s a great tactician and one charismatic Dem who’s got the long-term strategy to beat:
1. If a Clinton is doing something, it’s the pragmatic thing for the Democrats to do. Whatever Hillary really feels about the issues, she’s tried very hard to portray a centrist image and avoid the doctrinaire traps—just like her husband did so artfully. She’s extremely intelligent and cautious (I might use the term "Machiavellian," but only in an admiring way), and she’s one of the few prominent Democrats who hasn’t spit into the wind on issues that turned around to haunt the Dems. She’s very good at finding the issues that will be popular in coming times and positioning herself accordingly (note how she’s tried to position herself on religion and immigration, for example). Perhaps the only thing working against her is that conservatives got too good a look at her while she was First Lady and are convinced she’s Satan’s lapdog.
Unfortunately for the Dems, the trademark Clinton pragmatism isn’t contagious within the party. While Bill Clinton was showing up the rest of his party in style, they failed to take a lesson and got what they deserved.
2. Barack Obama can capture the center despite having quite a liberal agenda. Watch him. For example, when other Democrats like Sen. Boxer were trying to tear Condi up with long-winded attacks, Obama stayed calm and respectful, but still kept Rice honest with insightful questions that showed he had already given thought to Rice’s position. They weren’t softballs, and they were definitely intended to hold Rice accountable, but they weren’t thinly veiled insults either. He’s also a passionate—but not over the top—orator, as he showed at the DNC. And he can hold his own in debates, as he did against Keyes.
Tito, may I say that you are unrepresentative of most of the liberals that I have interacted with. But let’s try for a breakthrough. I know that the effort is doomed, but… My single biggest problem with liberals is their lack of respect for the basic truth of things. I can stretch, for the sake of discussion, to “Bush lied”. He certainly presented facts that supported what he wanted to do. He did not give equal treatment to facts that did not support what he wanted to do. When teenagers do this, we tell them that they are lying. We, of course, do it all the time. Certainly all leaders do it all the time; that is one of the things that allows them to lead. But, I can stretch to agree that Bush lied and it was a bad thing to do. What I cannot do is agree that he said that the danger from Saddam was “imminent”. In fact, he said that it was not and I heard him and read it in the transcript of his remarks later. Yet, how many liberals, motivated by I know not what, insist, that Bush said that the danger was imminent. Bush’s lying is difficult to establish and involves judgement as to the existence and/or importance of many facts. Not the case with “imminent”. Because they so want it to be true, and their “values” tell them that he is a bad guy and bad guys lie, …I don’t know. I am at a loss to explain why so many of them insist on believing things, like this specific, that simply are not true. They compound the crime by ignoring evidence to the contrary when it is a link away. How can one respect people like that? If you think that right wingers are equally guilty of this sin you don’t live in the same universe as I.
Have any of you seen a decision tree. These are charts that are supposed to lead the chart reader into making the correct decision. It would be interesting to see liberals and conservatives make one up for major decisions like going to war, decreasing or increasing taxes, shooting airplane passengers claiming to have bombs, etc.
What I suspect is that the group would be unable to progress beyound one or two blocks, if that. This would be informative to both sides. Maybe some insights would occur.
Have any of you seen a decision tree. These are charts that are supposed to lead the chart reader into making the correct decision. It would be interesting to see liberals and conservatives make one up for major decisions like going to war, decreasing or increasing taxes, shooting airplane passengers claiming to have bombs, etc.
What I suspect is that the group would be unable to progress beyound one or two blocks, if that. This would be informative to both sides. Maybe some insights would occur.
For one thing, in a lot of these arguments, there is no right or wrong position. In politics, two diametrically opposite positions can both be legitimate, according to the values each observer bring to the table. The disagreement usually amounts to a disagreement over basic premises and values, which are rarely mentioned. And if two people disagree on fundamental premises, then the opportunity for caricature is endless!
I’m actually going to disagree here. What I’ve noticed is the exact opposite—outside a relatively small core of hardnosed political partisans who’ve been deranged by the Political Mind Warping Field, most political and ethical disagreements are over facts (explicit or assumed) rather than values. Most left-leaning types favour government programs because they think those programs will make people better off; most right-leaning types are against them because they think they don’t work. Different worldviews are shaped by different assumptions about how the world works—people who don’t understand supply and demand think that prices are set by greedy companies, people who believe all nations work to maximize their security and international power think China’s out to screw us if we let our guard down, etc. I find that there’s a remarkable level of agreement in people’s ethical and political judgements once you get them to agree on the same set of facts—and that’s the tricky part, because often the premises they’re working from are hard to tease out.
Hm. I’d like to plead that there’s a difference between rhetorical barbs—snark, if you will—and mockery, wherein one twists or simply makes fun of an opponents arguments. The jury will have to decide this one. :)
Perhaps the problem is that the blogosphere is just too anonymous?
Absolutely. Good point.
I reminded me of an entirely un-PC quote I saw one time of which I’m sure someone will manage to take offense: "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Speical Olympics, you may win but you’re still retarded".
HA! Y’know, I’d actually considered using that line with regards to the point I made about fringe-baiting freepers and DU’ers, but I elected not to do so in case the potential offense took away from the main point. But the statement is relevant, isn’t it? :)
generally speaking, I find a lot more so called conservative sites willing to discuss the merits than I do so called liberal sites.
Generally speaking, I also find that is the case. I don’t think there’s some intrinsic characteristic of Righties or Lefties that leads to that, though. I suspect it has to do with either a) my selection bias (I tend to notice it more often), b) the greater tendency of popular left-leaning blogs to have comment sections, c) the fact that the Left is out of power at the moment, and the psychological effect is producing more venom.
Still, it’s a good example of Robb having a choice and choosing to use his words to hurt instead of to heal.
He’s a divider, not a uniter. You, on the other hand, are a point of light. I’m just a random cliche generator.
I don’t think qando magazine is a right wing blog for there to be others "of".
Well, I don’t consider us conservative or Republican, but I think it’s fair to call us "right of center" in a broad sense.
If a liberal gets into a real debate about what they believe, because they never question their beliefs or spend much time around anyone who does, they quickly realize that they are not in a position to mount an argument and terminate the discussion.
Clearly, you’re not debating good examples of the species. I know quite a few people who could mount very strong defenses.
At the risk of sounding bad, it needs to be a "values" discussion. Unfortunately "values" in politics tends to be a laughable caricature of real values.
Very well put, Tito.
Barack Obama can capture the center despite having quite a liberal agenda.
Absolutely. Know what impresses me about him? He seems genuinely thoughtful, as opposed to dogmatic and partisan. What’s more, he appears to be respectful of the opposing side. That is missing from so much of American politics.
What I suspect is that the group would be unable to progress beyound one or two blocks, if that. This would be informative to both sides. Maybe some insights would occur.
Absolutely. Excellent point.
Most left-leaning types favour government programs because they think those programs will make people better off; most right-leaning types are against them because they think they don’t work.
Well, Matt, there are some fundamental disagreements over what constitutes "better off", too.
I have one very cogent, and to me intuitively believable explanation for liberal belief in things that are not true. Dr. Sanity has a very good post that posits that liberals are in denial. It resonates with me. [credibility alert: Not everything that resonates with me turns out to be correct.]
"This psychological defense mechanism protects us … from:
-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)[Like Bush didn’t say "imminent"] -Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don’t want to think about)[Like Bush was right abut Iraq.]
This one really resonates:
"When confronted, they become angry and usually contend that it is their confronter who has the REAL problem, not them."
"Denial can make otherwise intelligent individuals... behave in a stupid or clueless manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to [non-liberals] ... Nothing—and I mean NOTHING—not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial reevaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world—no matter how ridiculous, how distorted... that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense...and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded—as long as the world view remains intact."
"The examples of [liberals] unwillingness to face reality are everywhere. They pretend they didn’t vote for military action. They distort what was actually said and even when confronted with audiotapes and transcripts of what was said; they continue to deny that they meant any such thing. When confronted with what Bush or Cheney actually said about the reasons for going to war; they will insistently adhere to an interpretation that fits their template.
Their denial is complete on this issue. It is simply not possible for them to admit that Bush was correct and they were wrong. This is unacceptable knowledge. Bush must be wrong...for them to maintain not only their self-esteem, but also their worldview."
Can you imagine what must happen in Iraq for MK to admit that Bush was right? Cancer cured? Eternal life? The Red Sox winning a ..no, scratch that one. Perhaps we need a national effort to deprogram liberals from the cult of their world view.
True, there are many blogs that specialize in simplistic, one-sided argument and name-calling. But there are also good sites like this one, where one can also get reliable information and good argument. All in all, however, the blogosphere is a good thing. It is certainly better and more informative than television(too bad it doesn’t pay as well). There is no real debate or discussion on tv. Even the so-called presidential debates are almost worthless. Dueling soundbites. A lot of it is due, I think, to ignorance. It is extremely difficult to rationally defend an idea if you have no knowledge of it deeper than a slogan or soundbite. It is also hard to logically attack an opposing idea if you have no idea of its foundations or implications.
I’m a registered Republican, but I like to say that I’m half Democrat on my mother’s side. I used to be a registered Democrat, but I don’t really know how to characterize my political position and I don’t think one party really captures it.
My family is roughly half-and-half liberals and conservatives, and they would surprise anyone who expects people to march in lock-step with their party. My grandfather, a guy who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a centrist, is vehemently opposed to any changes to our tax system, and a few years ago moved in with his girlfriend (something we never expected a guy as conservative as him to do). My cousin is a frothing Bush-hater, but he and I agree that the judiciary is claiming too much power. My maternal grandparents are old-style dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, but they speak in whispers about "fairies" (meaning gays) and oppose abortion. Here in Utah, one of the most conservative states in the nation, you can find some very rabid Republican environmentalists who will eat nothing but organic foods.
I think that no matter how we self-identify, the party line rarely captures our political positions. We see a lot of extremists on the Internet, but in real life the lines are not that bright.
@notherbob2 (sorry I haven’t responded in a bit, work has been busy) Ahh, the "imminent" debate again. I will acknowledge that the specific word "imminent" was not used by Bush. However, everything coming out of the Bush camp talked about the immediate threat posed by Iraq to the US.
So, I do agree that some liberals take it too far. I also agree that there is some evidence to the contrary, and that MSM shares some blame for whipping up the pre-war frenzy. However, to say that the Bush Administration didn’t push the immediacy of the threat, is, I believe, also indicative of some pretty strong bias.
And since my quote to text ratio is already amazingly bad, I’ll add one more relating to McQ’s point:
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea—massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." — Gene Spafford, 1992
Tito, you seem unable to stick to the point. Bush said we dare not wait until the threat is imminent. The left is now saying that the threat was not imminent and therefore Bush was wrong. OK so far. One side says act now even though the threat is not imminent and the other says wait until it is imminent. Both agree that the threat was not imminent. The line is crossed when the left says: “Bush said the threat was imminent.” This is part of the “Bush lied” campaign and the difference is quite significant.
Bush representatives, as you have indicated, said that the need for action was immediate. This aligns with Bush’s statements that we dare not wait. The left saying that we should have waited is no problem. With 20/20 hindsight, they could even be right. That is not the issue. The issue is that they lied when they said “Bush said the threat was imminent.” So, not only did he not lie, they did. Bias has absolutely nothing to do with these points of fact.
Bias comes in when you quote your quotes and say:
“However, to say that the Bush Administration didn’t push the immediacy of the threat, is, I believe, also indicative of some pretty strong bias.”
To attempt to switch the whole point under discussion from “liberals lied when they said that Bush said the threat was “imminent” to “Bushies said that the threat was immediate and the need for action was immediate” is sophistry. The issue was what did Bush say and did the left lie about it. The left lied and truth died.
“I will acknowledge that the specific word "imminent" was not used by Bush.”
Take at look at what the LAT said: and take a look at this. And your response is “forged, but true”. Bias has nothing to do with it. Can you believe the evidence of your own eyes in the links above or not? My original complaint was that, for some unknown reason, liberals will either 1) not check the links; or 2) refuse to recognize proof when it stares them in the face.
