|
Post by chris on Nov 5, 2005 10:41:30 GMT -5
Wow, another pointless political echo chamber: two sides not really talking to each other, but at each other. Reading the two, not-surprisingly dilineated viewpoints here, it's clear (as Jeff implied) there is just two very different modes of thought here. Jeff, Republicans do not care about a breakdown of Aristotelian logic, as pointed as it might be; it just feeds into the anti-academic strain of the party (or as Stephen Colbert put it, "I don't like reference books; they've got no heart."). Kyle, no Democrat on the site really cares about an arcane anecodtal point about what books a computer decided to match another book up to; in the Democratic way of thinking (not good, not bad) it's just not germane to analytical discussion they want to engage in.
Two things I want to add to the echo chamber:
1) The idea that Democrats are idea-less with regards to present-day problems is just a meme that has gotten repeated so much that it has become true. I'm not sure how things like seeing Sen. Joseph Biden on Meet the Press talking about things that need to be done in health care and fighting poverty somehow become "not having ideas." Actually, I do know, and it's one of the main reasons I got out of journalism four years ago.
2) One of the Republican "zinger" one-liners that they keep trotting out to great media effect is the "returning your money to you, 'cause you can spend it better than the government" line. Rather than go down the fruitless road of breaking down the Aristotelian logic (sorry, Jeff), I'll just say this: it sounds pretty, but it's just not true. There's two problems with it: 1) what do people think the government does with the money it raises? Sit around on it, gleefully laughing about the damage it's doing to the economy? If nothing else, government (under both Democrats and Republicans) has shown that it has no problem spending, spending, spending, and when that money is spent, where does it go? Into the general economy... exactly where tax cuts are meant to wind up. 2) individual taxpayers don't spend their money (in terms of group-think) any better than the government does; in terms of savings vs. debt, American individuals are right up there with their own government; and while government debt is by and large spent on a range of things, American debt (credit card, not mortgage, mind you) is generally spent on luxuries (with the exception of those under the poverty level). So here's my attempt at an ideological zinger in response: Is it better for the economy to be spending money on an American construction crew building an American road for the American people, or is it better to spend money on cheap plastic things made in red China?
|
|
|
Post by Xfan on Nov 5, 2005 14:47:16 GMT -5
I like plastic thingies!
|
|
|
Post by rick on Nov 5, 2005 15:03:23 GMT -5
Chad,
More! We need more posts from you! Your presence is akin to a chocolate, gooey, carmel covered delicacy that we can only have when the mood strikes it. But you see, we're all gluttons here! We need more! Please! put up more of your wonderful posts!
And Chris, we missed you! Thanks for coming back.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 5, 2005 15:56:17 GMT -5
Chris,
In the realm of ideas, one ignores logic at her own peril, which is not to say that all our ideas must be couched in valid Aristotelian Syllogisms; rather, the claim is that we should keep our discussions on this side of reasonability if we hope to confine our engagement to a battle of ideas rather than futile emotional appeals or outright war. There is little hope for integration and resolution beyond the gates of reason.
When a public figure is just straight-up unreasonable, like Limbaugh, then he's earned a deaf ear. But I don’t hear the horselaughs that should be following every second utterance that escapes his crooked mouth. More and more the unreasonable voices are getting louder and louder. How should we deal with this contemporary social fact? If we let their unreasonableness pass, then how shall we ever counter error? Your own observation and argument—which I quite liked, as you probably guessed—point out sloppy reasoning, too.
Was it the manner more than the matter of my posts that went wrong? This is a real question: I have been trying unsuccessfully for over a year to find the proper ground on which to engage Adam. I readily admit my utter failure in this endeavor. Additionally, I’ve had no success engaging Kyle. At this point, I can only say that I have been, yet again, stunningly ineffective. But what is the solution? What change could I make?
Jeff
PS I promise that if either Adam or Kyle successfully argues a point then I’ll change my mind about it. (In fact, I do this in every conversation and with complete strangers. I like learning new things!) Intellectual honesty should be a point of honor.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 6, 2005 1:47:05 GMT -5
Jeff is right Chris. While your point is valid in the short term, its the war we need to win... having said that though, Jeff, I'd say the area where your arguments fail is how you always seem to lose sight of the human aspect. I've always been truly amazed at how you take out the human in humanity. And I hope that doesn't come off as sounding like an insult, because I really do think it's quite an interesting way to view the world.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most people just aren't as **mired in philosophy as you, but you talk to them like they were. I find myself wanting to do the same with art critical analysis, and even though I don't intend to, and what I'm saying has worth within the art world, I just end up as sounding pompous or condescending (as Justin pointed out one time). I don't really know how fixable this is, since I think you are a more devout Philosopher than I am an artist, but maybe thats ok. Maybe that's just how you are and not something you can or should change. I don't know. What I do know is that the world would be a better place if people were a 10th as interested as you give them credit.
P.S. If you really want people to listen to you Chris (not that you necessarily do here), it's probably best to not blatantly insult them... trust me, I know. I understand the spirit in which your initial salvo was made, but there are probably more persuasive ways to say it. The way you've chosen to express it just makes you sound either arrogant or just arbitrarily rude. Regardless, it doesn't help any future point you make.
** Mired isn't the word I wanted to use by the way. A better word to express the sentiment I was trying to express would have been immersed.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Nov 6, 2005 10:52:13 GMT -5
I was absolutely thrilled to read Chris' post. I bite my words back each and every day. We were trying to be really pleasant and Kyle's still dissappeared. We need the other side in this discussion quite badly, and I'm not sure that being nice will either get them or keep them here. Adam is our only real dissenting opinion, and his stance is against reason in the struggle for faith. We need someone who has a reasoned and thought out opinion that is 180 away from ours.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Nov 6, 2005 10:54:52 GMT -5
One other thing I'd like to say is that I don't think a reasoned opinion exists on the other side. I think they've got an agenda of their own, and they've decided that they can carry elections through rhetoric without the need of carrying through on what they say. I think to understand the new right you have to ignore what's coming out of their mouths entirely and just view their policy as the only window into their intent.
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Nov 6, 2005 11:10:31 GMT -5
I agree almost word for word with this last post of yours, Tiy. If we still had karma, I'd freakin' boost yours way up.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 6, 2005 12:02:56 GMT -5
In Search of Reasoned Conservatism Tyler, every week or two I like to get over to the STC library and browse the stacks. Lately I’ve been going over there just to read one book: The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot ( www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261715/qid=1131294325/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3468111-6595069?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 ). Read this for a seminal work in reasoned conservatism. Some of the ideas that it expresses are these: 1. Conservatism is a disposition or temperament toward change which claims that as a society we should move slowly and AVOID ERROR. Conservatives are not opposed to change, per se, but to abrupt and irreversible change. 2. Part of avoiding error is knowing and remembering the errors of the past, so conservatism tells us to be respectful of precedent and tradition. 3. Another part of avoiding error is not claiming to know what we do not know. Most particularly we do not know well how to settle disputes that don’t affect us. So conservatives do not take up the power of making decisions for others when they can avoid it, especially when those others are likely to know things that we don’t. 4. Conservatism need not be tied to any platform at all. Rather, it is a kind of brake on the speedy adoption of any new idea. As a result, conservatism should be more vital than any movement that ties itself to specific goals. 5. Conservatives view suspiciously rationalistic attempts to thwart and disrupt precedent and tradition. They worry about the hubris of those who believe that reason is superior to the slow logic of evolution that has produced our received laws, policies, and institutions. I could go on, Tyler, but it is that last attitude that I think you were talking about. It is not that conservatives are unreasonable or opposed to reason. Rather, they view reason as potentially disruptive of something that is actually working. Think of society as a combustion engine in a vehicle you depend on. Right now the engine is working, and you can get the vehicle it powers up to 40mph on the highway. And you need to do this every day to get to your job, to get your kids to school, etc… A mechanically-minded friend of yours tells you that he could get your highway speed up to 65mph. That would be good, but your friend cannot guarantee that your engine will even work after he’s made his adjustments. You realize that your whole family’s livelihood depends on the functioning of the car, and as a conservative, you turn down his offer. Conservatism: Take the slow lane to the next world! Jeff PS I'll post some links to good conservative sites, but I may make another thread to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 6, 2005 17:26:50 GMT -5
I was absolutely thrilled to read Chris' post. I bite my words back each and every day. We were trying to be really pleasant and Kyle's still dissappeared. We need the other side in this discussion quite badly, and I'm not sure that being nice will either get them or keep them here. I'm not saying Chris doesn’t have a point. What I'm saying is the way he’s going about it in his recent posts aren’t persuasive. There are good ways to make an aggressive point and his heavy handed tactics aren’t really working here. But like I mentioned before, his goal may have only been to insult, which is fine. Sometimes overt rhetoric and insults are necessary.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 6, 2005 19:00:52 GMT -5
I appreciate your efforts to be nice. I think that that is a trait that everyone should have, even if you don't agree with the person. So thanks.
I not sure if you guys have noticed but most of posts have come while at work (Rick, keep your mouth shut). I actually gotten a little busy, I've had time to read a little bit but no time to respond.
I have a few responses so hear we go:
Jeff: I'm not really sure how to take the thought that you have had no success engaging me. I would agree Thanin, that more times than not I have a hard time keeping up with your posts. I feel that I have told you exactly what I've thought on the topics that I've started in on.
Thanin: I was a high school art teacher for 2 years. I heard from Rick that you are an art student at OU. Is there anywhere on this board that has discussions about fine art? My view of contemporary art is a little too lengthy to go into hear and if I ever have the time to read all of that that Jeff posted I might get in on that.
Chris: I was just trying to point out that a "logic" book that was written was close enough to anti-Republican views to be listed with them.
I have watched Sen. Biden on Meet the Press, as well as other talk shows. I think that it astonishing that he is one of the guys that I think of when I think that Dems. are not putting forth ideas and only saying how Reps. are doing everything wrong. I've actually sat and watched him complain about certian issues and found myself agreeing with him and waiting to hear his solution...waiting...still waiting...interview over...no suggestions, only complaints. That has bias written all over, I think for both of us.
Tyler: Here is how I would change part of your last post to fit how I feel...there aren't may differences so pay attention:
One other thing I'd like to say is that I don't think a reasoned opinion exists on the other side. I think they've got an agenda of their own, and they've decided that they can carry elections through rhetoric without the need of carrying through on what they say. I think to understand the left you have to listen to what's coming out of their mouths entirely and just look aimlessly for their policy as the only window into their intent.
Jeff Again: I only read your summery of Conservatism and it sounds pretty good to me. Why rush into things? Why not think things through and think about the future repercussions of our decisions. I would like to add a little bit to you car analogy, which I like by the way, why would you risk screwing up the thing your family depends on for it's livelyhood. It seems hard to argue with that. Anyway, I would have to add: The fuel that we put into the car could be representative of the entitlements that the govt. gives. If you keep putting gas in the car...it will run. But eventually, without oil changes, transmission flushes, changing the battery and spark plugs, and most importantly, the fuel filter, the car is eventually going to stop. The periodic maintanence of the car I would liken to setting good standards and rules for receiving those entitlements. Making people stay in school, training those who are recieving entitlements for a career, basically, giving them a chance, a sense of hope that one day they will not need the entitlements that they are so dependent upon.
When I was 17, the thermostat, and eventually, the radiator in my truck went out. I kept knew something was wrong with it but I just kept putting antifreeze in it and didn't take car of the problem...a few months of that and I burnt up the engine. My parents did a great thing...they made me pay for it. They could have easily payed for it but they saw the value of making me live with my decision to not fix it sooner. They didn't stop loving, they just knew that I'd learn a valuable life lesson by having to take care of it on my own. I wasn't too happy with their decision but I now know that they were right and they were actually helping me in the long run.
That is how I view many of these entitlement issues. I have little problem with helping people, I just think that they need to earn it. Some how, some way. Don't just give people money to use up and have nothing show for it. I can't think that anybody that is receiving entitlements right now would be happy about stronger requirements, but I think that in the long run they too would be able to see the benefits.
Thanks, Kyle
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 6, 2005 20:41:26 GMT -5
In partial answer to Jeff's question right after my post, I think the problem I always have with this format is the same problem with any "debate" format you see on television or hear on radio nowadays: it's too easy to get sidetracked.
Allow to give an abridged fictional example:
D: Whoo-hoo! Delay's indicted! R: Tom Delay is the victim of a witchhunt! The charges are trumped up! D: He's getting what's finally coming to him! The chicken's coming home to roost. R: Ronnie Earle is a partisan! D: No more partisan than Ken Starr was! You weren't complaining about the "criminalization of politics" then. R: Ken Starr found real perjury, not some cooked-up charge. D: Yeah, accusing of perjury about sex!
And so on from there... not the best example, but it's clear in so many political arguments people don't stay on one subject and break it down old school (i.e., Lincoln-Douglas style). Instead, you get someone like Ann Coulter (and I mean this with both respect and derision; she plays 'em like a virtuoso), who can turn a conversation about an issue into an argument about the patriotism of the left with a few loaded words. And when you've got several people giving input, it gets to be a cacaphony:
A: Argument Pro-1; Argument Pro02 B: Anti-1; Anti-2 A: Pro-2; Pro-3 C: Anti-3; Pro-4 B: Anti-4; Anti-3; Pro-5 D: Pro-5; Anti-6
...and arguments 1 and 2 get lost in the process...
And hell, I'm just as guilty as anyone else. Just look at my last post. No one was talking about Republican memes, but I have to go and bring it up. I'll try to be better.
I think Kyle is getting us back on track in the convo with his last post. It seems to me that basic reason that Democrats and Republicans each thing they are doing the best job is because each side has different ways of evaluating the situation. At risk of oversimplification, Republicans measure (economic) policy based on things like self-responsibility and self-reliance, and how well the government either empowers it or stays out of the way. Democrats can be said to measure policy based on ensuring there's a social net to catch those who fall on the worst situations.
The funny thing is, these things aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that each side sees the other as pushing policies that give way to abuses that hurt their values. For instance, Republicans don't necessarily believe there should be NO welfare, they are just disgusted by what they see as rampant abuse by people who refuse to take responsiblity for themselves. Democrats don't want a fully socialized economy, but they see deregulation as allowing large companies to wield power over consumers and workers.
Jeff, I agree that we probably need another thread for this conservatism definition you have. I have one main quibble with it, namely the "Conservative Revolution" of the 90s, which certainly had no desire to be slow in its changes. And if liberals are the ones lately who, as Kyle says, aren't really putting out new ideas, but merely trying to stop new conservative ideas, then who exactly are the conservatives in this picture?
And, in the interest of keeping on track, I'll leave at that, but I do have to say two things: 1) Biden was just a random example from my short-term memory, but I don't feel like transcript hunting, so we'll just agree to disagree; 2) I'm not rude, you babies 8^)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 6, 2005 21:07:35 GMT -5
Very cool posts, Chris and Kyle. I actually think that we might get somewhere if we keep going on this way.
I just finished watching West Wing, and now I'm watching Rome, so not much time to post here, but Chris: I think I remember conservatives in 1994 describing their revolution as "putting the brakes" on liberal ideas that were demonstrably ineffective. In any case, I was referring to conservative values rather than policies. I am sure conservatives would like their policies adopted as quickly as possible!
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 6, 2005 21:18:17 GMT -5
2) I'm not rude, you babies 8^) Up until your last post you've been unpersuasive. That's all I was saying.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 6, 2005 23:31:21 GMT -5
Thanin: I was a high school art teacher for 2 years. I heard from Rick that you are an art student at OU. Is there anywhere on this board that has discussions about fine art? My view of contemporary art is a little too lengthy to go into hear and if I ever have the time to read all of that that Jeff posted I might get in on that. Well the closest the boards has to that are the few random links that feature art. Sometimes discussions happen from that. In fact there's a link currently on there that I've yet to respond to... disjunction.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=DavidArt&action=display&thread=1131233231
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 7, 2005 11:45:39 GMT -5
It's okay, Thanin, I don't think I was trying to be persuasive in that first post, just trying to express frustration. Like a driver is not trying to be persuasive when he lays on the horn in traffic. 8^)
Jeff: I'm so pissed that I missed the West Wing. I didn't realize that it was going to be a LIVE debate until I read about it on CNN this morning. Grrrrr!!! Is there a forum on Rome (which I'm really digging)? I'll go look
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 7, 2005 12:11:47 GMT -5
I hear ya man, I hear ya.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 7, 2005 16:57:25 GMT -5
Wow I just reread my post to you Jeff and it sounds horrible, even though it didn't feel that way at the time I wrote it. I wasn't saying you sound pompous or condescending. I was saying I sound that way when I speak, but it’s unintentional. I was just using that to demonstrate how someone can come across in a certain way without meaning to. I really wasn't saying you sound that way, but I know it reads like that was my intent.
Sorry about that!
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 7, 2005 17:32:36 GMT -5
Actually, I really think you have a point. I've been mulling it over, and I think you are right, especially concerning my discussions of religion. These have been too theoretical where they should have sounded a note more consistent with a complete attitude of a whole person, as partial and tentative as those mostly are. I've never thought I had the only or even the best answers, but I have argued for my views, and perhaps this is not really what anyone else needed to hear from me.
I took your criticism as honest and accurate. I saw nothing in it that you should feel bad about. In fact, thanks for being a good enough friend to speak openly.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Nov 13, 2005 11:29:22 GMT -5
I just caught the end of Meet the Press this morning and the little bit of the interview with Howard Dean really helped to bring home my view of how I think the Democratic party is failing it's constituants. I'm going to paraphrase but here is the jist.
Tim Russert was trying to ask questions about the Democratic views on issues. He listed off polls that suggested that the American people think that the Dems. don't have a clear plan for what they want to do.
He then says that the Dems have no clear plan for Social Security, the war in Iraq , and a couple of other issues...
Dean then says that they do have a plan and the people will begin to know thatose plans the closer we get to the 2006 elections.
Russert asks again about the actual plans and his response took the cake for me:
Dean: It's not our job to put forth ideas...it is our job to get rid of this corrupt administration.
He was correct when he continued to say that Dems did not control the White House, Senate, or House of Reps. But I think that that just affirms the point that I have been trying to make. The leader of the Democratic party said that it is not Democrats job to come up with ideas, it is only their job to get rid of Republicans.
After watching this interview I also came away with another thought. It appeared that the Dems might in fact have ideas, but they are choosing to wait to announce them until it will benefit only those who are trying to get elected. It is not hard to come to that conclusion. If they, both elected and election hopefuls, did in fact care about the people, they would bring up these ideas now...to help the people now...
It seems incredabaly self servinf to wait until an election cycle. Wow I hope for the Dems sake that the war is still going on, or that Social Security is still screwed up come election time or else we'll never get to know the Democratic ideas.
|
|