The continuation of a pissing match I got into with Sorn. Start here.
The shame here is that while I understand and mostly agree with your point, your initial setup is fallacious. You did, in fact, equate leftist rhetoric with rightist rhetoric. You did, in fact, create a strawman of "the left," and tried to use that strawman, unnecessarily, to prove a point. You are, in fact, engaging in high hypocrisy when you lecture people about the dangers of "moral superiority" while standing on a pedestal and being morally superior. Many political decisions have a moral component. Standing outside protesting tax cuts for millionaires is fine, until you realize that most of these protesters are the same people who got downright indignant when people protested the war in Iraq. So the same people who once said that it's unpatriotic to criticize the President, no matter the circumstance, now want to "Teabag Obama." It wasn't too long ago when the same people said that protesting the war emboldened the terrorists, and the protesters were traitors. Now, show me anybody on the left who says that the teabaggers are traitors, or the teabag protests are ruining the economy. Aside from some random DailyKos blogger, you probably won't find too many.
While you did not say "the left is no better than the right in terms of crazy rhetoric," you did say "The teabagging thing is outrageous, but then again so were the comparisons on the left of Bush to Hitler." If you're not shooting for equivalence, then why even go there? When you say "A did X, but B did Y," the automatic inference is that A = B, and X = Y. That's not me reading into it, or me misreading it. That's what it says.
Certainly, the same tendencies exist, but one group of people is far more affected by those tendencies than the other. One group of people has the crazy rhetoric as it's main platform, and has the crazy rhetoricians as it's main spokespeople. I'm not saying that liberals, leftists, and progressives are immune to such forces, but I would say that we're far less affeted, both on a per person basis and as a movement.
Take your example of Ann Coulter. What is her evidence of liberals being driven by Satan? What is her evidence of constant liberal lies? There is none, except to those who are already more than willing to believe crazy bullshit because that crazy bullshit confirms their pre-existing worldview. Who on the left serves as an analog to Coulter? Who spits out anywhere near as much venom or as many outright falsehoods? Ann didn't start out as some moderate and then go crazy. She started out crazy and never moderated. Her books include "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," "Guilty," and "Treason." All with some subtitle about the liberal threat to America. Again, find me someone just as nutty, influential, and respected on the left. If Ann was some exception, that would be one thing. But she's not. And it would take us all day to name all the batshit crazy "conservative" philosophers.
When I say the the GOP is the party of "xenophobic, homophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-intellectual, white, Christians," I have at least 30 years of actions committed by the GOP and its adherents to bolster my claim. It's not made up shit to satisfy my own confirmation bias, the record speaks for itself. Unlike Ms Coulter, I don't have to rely on quote mines or make things up out of whole cloth. Say what you will, that makes me morally superior. But you already knew that, as you yourself say "I don't vote Republican any more because of the degree to which the GOP has embraced what I consider to be crazy-talk." That's a moral position. One I consider to be superior. Obviously, you do as well, or you wouldn't care about the crazy-talk, and you would keep voting for policies that don't match the rhetoric.
Bigotry, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I'm all for the concept of moral relativism, but my personal moral code is not relative. Selling people into slavery is wrong, as is molesting children, or killing indiscriminately. So I am bigoted against slavers, molesters, pirates, and serial killers. Does not wanting to "understand the the causal forces that generated such ideas" make me a nut-job?
Besides, I already know the causal forces which generate the ideas of today's "conservatism." And even though I understand, I still don't agree, and I still believe their position on many matters is morally wrong, and mostly because those positions aren't conservative. The information which would change their positions is out there, but they choose to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, or it's some sort of conspiracy against them.
In the 8 years where Bush sped up America's decline by a few generations, the activist left got it's shit together, the political left acquiesced to Bush's agenda, and those of who were left of center, but apolitical, began to make our voices heard.
In the 3 months which Obama's been President, the activist right has lost their damn minds, the political right has lost their damn minds, and the people who are right of center are being poorly served by elected and de facto leadership that has lost its damn mind.
You could "argue that feeling morally superior is the first step down the road that ends in nut-jobery," but I would argue that feeling morally superior and being morally superior are two wholly separate states. I'm sure BushCo felt morally superior when they were fashioning a noble lie to get us into Iraq. I'm sure Klansmen felt morally superior when they were protecting the virtues of white women. I'm sure the Irish Catholics felt morally superior to the Irish Protestants, and vice-versa. I'm sure many people from the beginning of human history felt morally superior to the people they were being immoral towards. But that doesn't mean that they actually were. I understand the distinction. The nut-jobbery comes when one doesn't understand said distinction, or when one has been right about so many things that they can't imagine an instance in which they'd be wrong.
When I say that the GOP is the party of xenophobic, homophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-intellectual, white, Christians, it's not about demonizing or denigrating the "Other." It's an opinion based on where the party is right now, and the course they've taken over the span of my life (though now moreso than ever), backed up by facts. They may not have been that way 50 years ago, and they may not be that way 50 years hence. If a few years from now the GOP has actually changed it's positions, and I'm still singing the same tune, feel free to call me a nut-job. Until then, I leave it to you to tell me why they aren't who I say they are, and if you can't, why my position is not morally superior.
6 comments:
Planning to reply either later today or tomorrow depending. Have a lot of stuff to do right now.
I am enjoying this discussion very much.
So now that things have quieted down on my end for a minute I would like to take the time to continue this discussion.
Let me begin by saying that I think we agree on far more than we disagree. I also want to thank you for teaching me a valuable lesson between intent and perception. From now on I will be more carefull in making sure that my arguments are more carefully worded.
Now on to the moral equivalence argument. Again I never said that the left equals the right. I said that certain comments made by people, who fall to the left on the political spectrum, that compared Bush to Hitler were outrageous. I said that the teabagging business was equally distastefull. However saying that two opinions are distastefull is not the same thing as saying that they are moraly equvalent.
When you say that:
"when you say that "A did X, but B did Y," the automatic inference is that A = B, and X = Y. That's not me reading into it, or me misreading it. That's what it says."
I disagree and personally I think that its a logical fallacy. No offense but had I meant that the douchebagery of the right was equal to the left I would have said so. What I meant to do by placing those two things together was to show that outrageous opinions when they enter our public discourse should not be listened to.
I asked the readers of my post to make a jump from the outrageous comments made by certain individuals to the effects of those opinions on the public discourse in a civic participant society. That was the whole point behind the second part of my initial post when I said that:
"No faction is ever without it's zealots, and a certain segment of the population will always be prone to believe things that are far-fetched simply because these things are too absurd to be a lie. Does it really matter if some people in the republican party want to "teabag" their politicians?"
The point behind this was to show that every party every goup of people is affected to a greater or lesser degree by zealotry. The intent was to show that in our present discouse the differences between left and right are differences in degree not in kind.
implicit in my argument and perhaps I should have spelled it out a bit clearer was the belief that if a person is going to make a moral distinction it needs to be based on the degree of craziness not the type of craziness.
In your reply to my second post you hit on what I was trying to say without mentioning this question of differences of degree vs differences in manner or in kind.
"The zealots of the left are generally ignored by the left. The zealots of the right are either elected to public office (see Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Armey, etc) or elevated to a position that is not commensurate with their actual importance (see Ingrahm, Hannity, Dobson, Kristol, etc). Michael Moore is a film-maker, Rush Limbaugh is the de-facto head of the GOP. Big difference."
I would only point out here that the difference is one of degree. The same types of people exist on both sides. Qualitatively there isn't much to seperate the Democratic extremists from the Republicam Extremists. However quantitatively there is a big difference. The nut jobs on the right shape and create policy. The nutjobs on the left are stuck with Bombing subdivisions like ELF did in Atlanta.
Again when you say that:
Certainly, the same tendencies exist, but one group of people is far more affected by those tendencies than the other. One group of people has the crazy rhetoric as it's main platform, and has the crazy rhetoricians as it's main spokespeople. I'm not saying that liberals, leftists, and progressives are immune to such forces, but I would say that we're far less affeted, both on a per person basis and as a movement.
That is a difference of degree not of kind. Keith Olberman proves this point in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU
I agree with the many of the quantitative points that Mr. Olberman has to say. There was much done by the previous administration that was wrong. However calling Mr. Bush a facist serves no usefull purpose. Neither does calling Obama a socialist. Both slurs are outdated forms of attack that reflect ideologies that should have been thrown into the trash long ago. However again we as people fall into this trap when we make moral distinctions between political parties that are qualitative instead of quantitative.
The Ann Coulter example proves that if moral judgements are to be made they must be based on empircle judgements. Ann does not make her judgements on any sort of empircly verifiable claims. This, not her positions but the fact that her positions are not founded in any rational basis of argument, makes her much worse than the people on the left who have a tendency towards hyperbole and also this basic lack of empiricism should be the sole basis for refusing to listen to her, not the fact that she's conservative but that her arguments are factually wrong. At least the Democratic critiques were based on a justifiable greivence, even if at times they showed a tendency towards exageration there was an underlying empiricism to the Democratic criticisms of the Bush Administration.
However, when you said that the republican party was the party of:
"xenophobic, homophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-intellectual, white, Christians" I was willing to agree with you until you said that the Republicans were Christian. Empirically the current Republican party has positions that are xenophobic (fearful of strangers), racist, anti-science, and anti-intellectual. However the GOP is not a "christain" party.
Republicans use social issues that certain segments of evangelicals feel are important in order to manipulate them into voting Republican. This does not mean that the Republican Party is in any way "christian."
Christian teaching has a long history of social justice. In terms of emphasis Christianity has far more to say about the plight of the oppressed, the down-trodden, the poor, and the marginalized that it has to say about such things as Abortion, Homosexuality, or Evolution. The party of rich white men cannot in principle have much in common with a tradition that stresses equality, compassion, and brotherhood.
In Greek the Frist words of the Gospel of John read: "En Archae en ho logos kai ho logos pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos. In the begining was the Ruling Reason, and the Ruling Reason was with God and God was the Ruling Reason. Christianity is in many respects Neo-Platonic, Rationalist, Humanist, and socially oriented. The bigotry inherent in the Republican party is not compatible with such a worldview. Rather the Republican Party is using such rhetoric to get votes and to manipulate people.
Tell me how exactly can a party that continually takes from the poor and gives to the rich be compatible with a worldview that states:
"How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and say long prayers to cover it up. Therefore, you will receive greater condemnation!"
How can modern republicanism which quantitatively is a party of exlusion be compatible with the worlds of the Apostle Paul who says:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus?
The short answer is that it can't. Had you said that the Republican Party is full of "xenophobic (fearful of strangers), racist, anti-science, and anti-intellectual, white men I would" have conceded and been on my merry way to something else.
However to say that an organization that is fundamentally opposed to the majority of the principles found in scripture is Christian means that you have the same tendency towards qualitative distinctions from an un-examined point of view as those you are so fond of denigrating.
Now certainly I respect your opinions, and I don't think that you are the moral equivalent of Anne Coulter. However, the tendency towards unempircle thought is there as it is in all of us. I have the same tendencies in myself. The fact that you had to point out to me that my argument was hypocritical means that I am not any more free from the forces of unempirical irrationality than any other person.
This in sum is my basic argument, and has been my basic argument all along since we started the whole debate.
In sum everyone is flawed, and we all have the same tendencies towards zealotry, ignorance, and superstition. You ask me to prove to you at the end of your post "why my position is not morally superior?" I can't. However, what you said at the begining was not that your position was morally superior but that you were. When you say that "I am morally superior, not because I vote Democrat, but because I don't embrace the hypocrisy or the cognitive dissonance of the right, " this is not the same thing as saying "My posisition is better than their position based on a common set of empirically derived evidence." This is more than simple hair splitting. The first position is a rationalization that makes you feel better about yourself because you aren't a republican. The second is a quantifiable objective analyasis of both positions that says this position works better than that one.
I look forward to your response. This whole discussion has been extremely thought provoking. I thank you very much for taking the time to listen, read and reply to what I had to say. It's not everyday that we find people in this day and age who are willing to engage arguments on their evidence without resorting to name calling.
Gratias Tibi Ago.
Sorn:
You seem caught up in trying to exonerate yourself from the moral equivalence charge, but the main problem is that you made a vague accusation without any specifics to back it up. You talked about "the comparisons on the left of Bush to Hitler." What comparisons? By whom? You never give any examples, and you make it sound like it was a general phenomenon on "the left" rather than a set of isolated incidents.
Anyway, Hitler comparisons are so old and hackneyed they don't deserve mention in the same breath as a novelty like the current tea-parties. Before Bush was compared to Hitler, Clinton was. And Clinton never stole an election, sent thousands of Americans to die for an unjust war, authorized torture or warrantless wiretapping, etc.
Still, I never compared Bush to Hitler, so why should I bother that there are some who did? Why should I be held responsible for what every human being who identifies with "the left" has ever said? All that matters, or should matter, is the state of the left as a movement. I have never hesitated to call out my fellow travelers when I have felt they went over the top. But Hitler comparisons are a poor example. There was no general tendency in the antiwar movement to depict itself as fighting against Nazi Germany, the way the tea-parties deliberately and intentionally try to conjure up the early American fight against British colonialism.
Sorn, Kylopod, welcome.
Sorn first:
We most likely do agree far more than not. I remember a time in America when I was considered, more or less, a left leaning centrist. Now, though my views haven't changed dramatically, I'm now considered a socialist/fascist/commie America-hater.
Once upon a time, when two sides argued about the sky, one would say that the sky is cerulean, and the other would insist it's baby blue. That's a matter of perception, but still a valid argument. At least they could both agree that the sky was some shade of blue. Sometime during the Clinton years, one side said the sky was blue, and one side said the sky was orange. That became our political discourse, and the so-called liberal media decided to give both sides equal weight. During the W era, for some the sky was still blue, to to others, the sky was orange with silver polka dots, and to those people, the media continued to defer to the point of re-inforcing that the sky may not be blue.
In the first few months of the Obama administration, the GOP has lost its mind and its focus. Although it has been proven time and time again that the sky is blue, some people refuse to accept it. Some others don't care what color it actually is, but will not say that it is blue, under any circumstance. How much longer until they say that there is no sky? But enough waxing political, let's get to your points.
I wholeheartedly agree with "the left" needing to be really careful about falling for their own bullshit the way the GOP did during the Bush era. I also agree that some lefty's need to turn down the unsubstantiated hyperbole, as much of it is counter productive. My problem, although pedantic, is your definition of "the left," or lack thereof. "The left" is a nebulous and vague term, ultimately meaningless without at least the names of some of the people who comprise "the left."
In your last post, you mention the ELF. While on the political spectrum, they fall on the left side of things, I would hardly define them as "the left," nor would I define "the left"as the ELF. That's where the term "the left" becomes a strawman. Now, "the left"can be used as a blanket term to describe a whole range of political and social thought, and because "the left" is such an ill-defined term, it can be used to link legitimate ideas and actions with actions and ideas that are illegitimate, and sometimes illegal.
And as far as the ELF's leftist activities, so to speak, I call, and raise. Try Timothy McVeigh, Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, or Eric Rudolph.
Like Kylopod says, you're trying to duck the equivalence charge. You try real hard, and it's a Herculean effort, almost admirable, but you cut your own point off at the knees with your own words, this line specifically: "I said that the teabagging business was equally distastefull. However saying that two opinions are distastefull is not the same thing as saying that they are moraly equvalent."
See, the problem is that you don't merely present the two opinions as distasteful, but as equally distasteful. That's a big difference. If these things, as you say, are not "morally equivalent," then what is your basis for saying that they are "equally distasteful?"
At no point did I infer, allude to, nor imply that the GOP was a Christian party. It is, however, a party for Christians. Do you really think that Bobby Jindal would be Rush's boycrush if Bobby the Catholic was still Piyush the Hindu? Wouldn't Mitt Romney have had a better showing in the GOP primaries if he was Episcopalian and not a Mormon?
I'm not going to get in to a long post about Christian theology. As I understand it, if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then you are a Christian. I leave the type of Christian, and judgments on how good a Christian one is, to people who are more religiously inclined.
The fact of the matter is that the same xenophobia that keeps the GOP 99% white is the same xenophobia that keeps them 99% Christian. Jews are cool, sometimes, but Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, pagans, Wiccans, and Sikhs need not apply. And atheists? Well, we know how that goes.
While I would not go so far as to say that Bush=Hitler, I would say, and rather unapologetically, that the Bush administration and it's Republican enablers had a strong tendency towards fascism. The single party state (read "permanent republican majority"), the idea of perpetual conflict, the hatred of class conflict, jingoistic nationalism, demonization of the "Other," imperial foreign policy, a strong propaganda arm, etc.
Now you may say that I'm being hyperbolic to the point of wingnut-hood, but compare the examples I gave you to the knucklehead on that CNN teabag video. When asked why he believes Obama is a fascist, his response is, literally, "Because he is."
It's not just a difference in degree, it is also a difference of kind. I come from a completely different place. I know what fascism actually is. I can name it when I see it, and provide examples of it. Same goes with Communism and socialism. These teabag idiots and their media enablers either do not, can not, or will not.
Still, Sorn, I have to admit that it is nice to debate someone on which sade of blue the shky is. For now, I leave you with this:
These days, if you are to the left of Rush Limbaugh, you're a terrorist enabling commie/socialist/fascist. I don't know where you place yourself on the political spectrum, but you'd best believe that for those 25% of people who believe that Bush was the best President ever, you are "the left."
Kylopod, I like the blog so far. My favorite line, that I am stealing BTW, is "The nice thing about being a non-ideological Democrat, by far the most common variety, is the relative freedom from paranoia. You can just sit comfortably on the left of the good old fuzzy middle."
You can always leave comments at my blog if you like. I will be sure to read them even if it's to old posts.
Well, I voted for Obama in part because he visited the small town where I grew up. Barry Black Eagle is now president....... that was perhaps the hapiest day of my life.
Still, I don't completely understand how saying two things are equally distastefull if they are equally distastefull for different reasons is tatamount to saying that A is the moral equivalent of B.
I think of our public discourse as a box. Opinions that fall outside of the box of reason, restaint, and informed opinion are all equally distastefull but they are not all equivalent.
The Iraq Veterans Against the War is a prime example. In wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve they share an ideological position with the freemen. However, one orgainization is dedicated to ending a war it sees as unjust the other is an ideology that led to a mexican standoff. No sane thinking person would argue that these two positions are morally equivalent.
If the left is a nebulous idea so is any definition of the "right." Empirically neither definition can be verified. The basic argument all along was not for any form of moral equivalence but for refusing to listen to ideas that fall outside of the box of acceptable discourse in a free society wherever they arise.
Post a Comment