Tom Degan's Rant: Facts Don't Matter?
Left Versus Right
| September 10, 2009
| Tim
Is it important to embrace policies which help, rather than harm people? Is it at all important to tell the truth or to be fair? Is it at all important to live in reality?
A friend of mine relates how long ago, back when she was organizing a leftist anti-war group at her college, she got into a debate with some guy about Ronald Reagan. He pointed out she'd called Reagan closed-minded, hated him, and yet actually didn't know much about him — implying she was being closed-minded. My friend was stopped dead in her tracks: he had a point. She began to rethink some of her assumptions and eventually shifted, politically.
I had a similar experience: I was also initially opposed to Reagan, but when I discovered the lower class had shrunk under his administration (a good chunk of them had moved up to the middle class) I changed my mind about his policies. Like my friend, most of us start out toward the left, and when we encounter uncomfortable facts, or we mature emotionally (or both), we eventually realize we've been on the wrong track and try to turn around.
So by the time we're older, those who haven't shifted in their political views are (a) those who just ended up on the right policies in the first place, (b) those who are severely challenged in fact-perception, and (c) those who have encountered conflicting evidence, but worked hard to ignore it. Since economics is often counter-intuitive, few people end up in (a). Since most people aren't mentally retarded, and we have unprecedented access to other views, few people are in (b). Given the law of averages, and that young people usually start out to the left, most those who are still leftist in their middle age or older are members of (c) — those who don't care about facts as much as maintaining their political allegiances or self-image.
Tom Degan seems like a nice guy. And he probably is. I bear him no ill will — none at all. But he doesn't strike me as particularly interested in honesty or doing good.
Consider this article ("He's Coming for our Children!!!") about Obama's school speech. The main thing which set off the right was Obama's lesson plan, released well in advance of the speech, in which school children were told to "help the president" and write letters to themselves about how to do that — and teachers were encouraged to use those letters to hold the children accountable.
How anyone could possibly interpret the president's remarks to read that he is trying to indoctrinate American children in "socialistic ideology" - when those remarks have not even been written yet - is beyond idiotic. We're talkin' full-blown lunacy here! It is also another clear example of the eye-popping stupidity of more than a few Americans.
I dunno, Tom: How could the White House release an entire lesson plan reflecting that the speech would contain a request for children to "help the president" if the speech, or at least an outline of it, hadn't been written yet? Or isn't it more likely (real mental stretch required here, apparently) that the lesson plan reflected an initial version of the speech which was later rewritten once the cat got out of the bag? (In place of the existence of a lesson plan asking children to "help the president", his column supplies readers with an alternate motivation: Racism!)
Either way, the salient point here is that Tom has written 1,358 words about a controversy, but never even once, in that vast cloud of verbiage, did he even mention the most prominent argument raised by his opponents. Stunning, no? It's a bit like writing about the mysterious sinking of the Titanic without mentioning the words "hardened steel" or "iceberg." How strong does your agenda have to be to act like that? The straw man fallacy is alive, well, and signing autographs on his blog.
Consequently, and given the time elapsed, I have little hope that he'd actually change his mind on healthcare, or even engage the rather serious counter-evidence for his many mistaken assertions on that subject and others. Which is too bad, because the policies he cheers for will actually hurt people. But who cares if we hurt people? It's more important that we continue to believe we're good people, and tell our readers what they want to hear, whether it's true and honest (or even merely fair) or not.
If I'm mistaken, and somehow, Tom, you didn't even know about the existence of the lesson plan, then, to quote Billy Joel: "Show me a sign; send up a signal, I'll throw you a line..." (Of course, that begs the question of how one so ill-informed about a debate could possibly 'educate' anyone about it, but that's a separate matter.)
Otherwise: Best to you Tom. Hope your conscience doesn't keep you up too much at night.
Or does, perhaps.
I grew up in a Rabidly Republican Family. I'm 65 now. As I finished college in 1966(paid for by my trust fund) I moved from the East coast to California. I was thrilled to find the California offered free college education to the intelligent underprivileged who did not have a trust fund to pay for college. This made so much sense to me. As these people graduated from college, they would have a higher salary and be tax payers without debt to increase the income in the government.
I argued for two years with my grandfather (who was grandson of the Governor of Virginia at the outbreak of the civil war) My grandfather hated anyone trying to rise “above his station in life.” In 1968 my grandfather died, and California elected an actor to be Governor. Reagan did away with the free college education for the intelligent underprivileged. I have cried for our country ever since.
I have never registered with a party as I am 100% honest and abhor the machinations of the Karl Roves of this world.
I have three siblings, all Republicans. All four of us in our dotage voted for Obama.
Now the Supreme court has turned our country from the Democracy that my forebears fought for (1630 was the first settler) to a Fascist country, ruled entirely by big business. Karl Rove has now gotten his way. The top 5% of the country will have the wealth (they are the squires), the other 95% will be back in the middle ages (we are the peasants). I lived long enough to see the death of Democracy in the United States
ebdoug,
I see several things in your letter which strike me as being (understandable) mistakes.
1. The basic thinking behind racism (and other bigotries) is to take one example and extrapolate it to an entire group. Apparently, it's a very common tendency, and an understandable one, but it's a mistake nonetheless.
My grandfather hated anyone trying to rise "above his station in life." In 1968 my grandfather died...
This is a bit like saying: "I was harmed by a bad Christian/Buddhist/Atheist/Jew, so I hate that religion, and believe it's false." Well, sure, there are bad people from every possible belief system -- but that doesn't tell us which beliefs are correct or not.
I know some Democrats who are wonderful, nice people. I also know some Democrats who are horrible and abusive. Which example proves whether Democratic policies will help or hurt our country? Neither.
2. I was thrilled to find the California offered free college education to the intelligent underprivileged... This made so much sense to me.
I agree with giving scholarships to the underprivileged, as do most conservatives. The debate is, rather, whether such charity is best carried out by the government, using force, or by free will in private groups.
If you look at the evidence, you'll discover that religious people (who tend to lean right) are far more charitable than their critics on the left. This suggests that those leaning right actually believe in charity — by practicing it themselves, and wanting others to take responsibility for doing it also — and that those on the left say they believe in charity, but tend to want it to be paid for with other people's money (as you also suggest, with your example).
Such people complain about "the rich" and believe rich people's money should be taken away and given to "the other 95%", but don't really believe it — after all, they themselves are in the top 5% of the world's wealth (being Americans, as they are) and they aren't busy donating their own money to the third world, so they also can live at the average third-world standard of living. So they apparently believe such obligations only apply to those richer than they are, not to themselves.
You wept for America when that public scholarship ended — but did you also donate significant money to a private scholarship for the poor? If you did, good for you! — you countered the trend. But either way, that's still the trend.
3. I have three siblings, all Republicans. All four of us in our dotage voted for Obama.
Well, that's certainly worked out well, hasn't it? During the last round of Congressional elections, the media pretended to care about fiscal irresponsibility and accused Republicans (rightly!) of overspending. So now we have Democrats in power, instead, who have demonstrated that, in comparison, the Republicans (who were not fiscally responsible) had nothing on Democrats, who have, essentially, sold all of our grandchildren into fiscal slavery and ruin.
And, that aside, President Obama hasn't (surprise) carried out most (any?) the promises he made before the election (letting people see legislation for a week before voting, televised debates on bills, closing Gitmo, rolling back Bush national security policies, etc.). So perhaps that move, in retrospect, was questionable judgment.
3. Now the Supreme court has turned our country from the Democracy that my forebears fought for (1630 was the first settler) to a Fascist country, ruled entirely by big business
Couple of errors here, as I see it.
First, if you're concerned about "fascism", and want to learn to identify it, then learn about Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. These governments were not ruled by "business." Hitler didn't call in the businesses and say: "What do you want me to do?" (Nor did Mussolini.) Instead, these men ruled and regulated businesses with an iron fist; Hitler even replaced CEO who didn't agree with his policies, as is happening now, for the first time, in our own country.
This revelation may make you uncomfortable, but reality is what it is, and its good to be concerned about learning lessons from history.
Second, you seem to be saying that "fascism" is characterized by the ability to buy and sell things, and speak, freely. I suppose we'll have a perfect "Democracy" when all speech is controlled and centrally regulated?
How very Orwellian.
Me, I think the travesty is that there's a bill (McCain/Feingold) which attempting to tell everyone how much "speech" they were allowed. It says I'm only allowed, what, $4,500 worth of "speech"? I believe that corporations should be allowed to "speak" (didn't the ACLU once claim we should have more speech, not less? do they really believe that?), so I'm glad for that much, but I also think we should get rid of similar limits on your and my speech.
What if the FEC decides the total political "speech" on my blog or another is worth more than $4,500 to a candidate? Then my speech needs to be silenced. This is where the kind of "logic" you use inevitably leads.
Unlike what you're saying, ebdoug, I believe that people can think for themselves. If they're interested in truth, no amount of advertising can change their mind. We've all seen elections where the incumbent greatly outspent and out-advertised the challenger — and yet still lost. We've all seen products advertised with million-dollar campaigns (and a slot at the superbowl), yet the company still went under. My free speech doesn't cause you to become a mindless zombie; that's a very poor argument — you're essentially saying you think free debate is "dangerous" and needs to be tightly controlled. (By people who agree with you, of course, not people who might agree with me.)
I'm sure you're a nice person, but your values, if you prevail, will indeed the death of Democracy.
Best to you personally, though.
- Tim
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Democrats Turning from Afghanistan |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Truman Capote's In Cold Blood »
|
I grew up in a Rabidly Republican Family. I'm 65 now. As I finished college in 1966(paid for by my trust fund) I moved from the East coast to California. I was thrilled to find the California offered free college education to the intelligent underprivileged who did not have a trust fund to pay for college. This made so much sense to me. As these people graduated from college, they would have a higher salary and be tax payers without debt to increase the income in the government.
I argued for two years with my grandfather (who was grandson of the Governor of Virginia at the outbreak of the civil war) My grandfather hated anyone trying to rise “above his station in life.” In 1968 my grandfather died, and California elected an actor to be Governor. Reagan did away with the free college education for the intelligent underprivileged. I have cried for our country ever since.
I have never registered with a party as I am 100% honest and abhor the machinations of the Karl Roves of this world.
I have three siblings, all Republicans. All four of us in our dotage voted for Obama.
Now the Supreme court has turned our country from the Democracy that my forebears fought for (1630 was the first settler) to a Fascist country, ruled entirely by big business. Karl Rove has now gotten his way. The top 5% of the country will have the wealth (they are the squires), the other 95% will be back in the middle ages (we are the peasants). I lived long enough to see the death of Democracy in the United States
Posted by: ebdoug on January 24, 2010 08:15 PM