L'esprit d'escalier
Aug. 29th, 2004 10:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eyelessgameThis is long. I certainly don't intend to let it become a rant. It's an attempt to discern a logical error on the part of some people who agree with me politically.
I was recently raked across coals as the result of an exchange on mush.
I'd allowed as how I wasn't concerned with the truthfulness of claims in Fahrenheit 9/11, only in the movie's effectiveness. I clarified that indeed I do not at this time consider lies, in the service of political causes I support, to be out of bounds of legitimate public discourse, seeing as how blatant and effective lies are obviously part of the Republican political arsenal.
The general consensus of mush was that by saying this I was selling my soul, blinded by hatred of conservatives.
And I lost my temper and logged out. Losing my temper was a big mistake -- I lost the argument, and I believe I should have won it.
Because there's something very wrong here.
I was accused of "selling my soul" -- that I would be "just like them", that if Democrats started lying as freely as Republicans do, the political system would be forever corrupt, and that by supporting distortions or outright lies in the service of Democratic causes I was not merely being partisan but, well, un-American.
(That particular term was never used but I think I can defend it as a synonym for the accusations made. The claim was that a willingness to accept lying on the behalf of the politicians and positions you support is not just hardball politics but would result in the destruction of our political system. Supporting something that could destroy our political system is about as un-American as you can get.)
Now, just a moment. I've been accused of tarring Republicans with far too broad a brush. It's been claimed that when I get red-faced and wide-eyed about the evils that "Republicans" (meaning, in particular, the current administraiton) are doing, that I am in danger of losing all sense of perspective. I am told that ordinary Republicans who support Bush are not all evil, they have not sold their souls, they are not unworthy of respect -- just misguided, proceeding from false principles.
(And as it happens, I agree. I am misrepresented by anyone who says I think most Republicans -- or most Bush supporters -- are anything worse than misguided or wrong.)
But wait. Everyone on mush and I share some conservative friends. And just about everyone on mush shares the conviction that the Republican leadership tells lies more or less routinely.
Yet no one I know has asserted that my Republican friends' positions should be considered outside the bounds of political discourse, or seen as supporting the destruction of the American political system, because of their support for lying bastard politicians. No one seems to think they have "sold their souls" in any serious sense, only that they are misguided and wrong.
Do you see the problem? If I were to be cast out from acceptable discourse, no longer respected, and shunned for thinking political lying is OK -- then what about the Republican friends we all share? I thought we still respected them, while differing from them on what's best for the country. Have they sold their souls too, in the opinions of my friends? Are the Republicans we know as un-American as I've been told I would be if I thought blatant lying in the service of a political movement was okay?
I think no one should consider the statement "it is permitted to lie only if you're a Republican" an acceptable rule for political discourse. If it is not acceptable (not just a mistaken political philosophy, but truly unacceptable in American politics) to support a candidate who happens routinely to lie but who also effectively advances your political causes, then this must be as true for Republican supporters as it is for Democratic supporters.
There can't be two different sets of rules. And I don't think my Republican friends have lost their souls -- I don't disrespect them or their beliefs. I think they're supporting hardball-playing lying bastards, and obviously life would be better if they (and other intelligent, self-respecting conservatives) were to say "I won't support lying bastards even if they are advancing things I believe in." But my conservative friends do not say this -- and by supporting these lying bastards, they get more of what they want done.
And one thing conservatives tried for years to convince me of, and have finally succeeded, is that if you unilaterally disarm, you lose.
So I have for quite a while found myself between a rock and a hard place, it seems. Are my Republican friends not intelligent? Of course they're intelligent. Are they self-respecting? I can't look into their hearts but I believe they are. Are their positions within the bounds of acceptable American political discourse? If I were to suggest otherwise I would rightly be accused of hating all Republicans (or at least considering them un-American). So is it acceptable to support lying as a political weapon? As far as I can tell, D follows from A-C.
But I'm not sure the people who raked me across these coals have followed that logical path yet.
It does not appear to bother my conservative friends that their political leaders lie like rugs, so long as the causes they believe in are advanced. Why therefore should it bother me if the politicians I support are liars? I do not condescend. I refuse to accept any attitude of "one must make allowances -- he is, after all, a Republican". Either lying is an acceptable (if regrettable, and preferably avoided) form of political discourse, and liars can be supported by men and women of (albeit partisan) goodwill so long as the liars are also effective politicians, doing good work as their supporters count it -- or else lying is wholly unacceptable, and the supporters of liars must be taken to task not for their political beliefs but for their anti-American support of the lying bastards who are literally seeking to destroy the American political system.
If the former is the case, it's possible that I'm owed an apology. If the latter, I think there are some people who need to start being a bit harsher on the Republicans they know... and perhaps I'm still owed an apology.
Or maybe I'm not owed an apology, because the rule really is that Republicans can lie but Democrats can't... in which case, as far as I can tell, I should start condescending. I hear it's an effective political tactic.
I was recently raked across coals as the result of an exchange on mush.
I'd allowed as how I wasn't concerned with the truthfulness of claims in Fahrenheit 9/11, only in the movie's effectiveness. I clarified that indeed I do not at this time consider lies, in the service of political causes I support, to be out of bounds of legitimate public discourse, seeing as how blatant and effective lies are obviously part of the Republican political arsenal.
The general consensus of mush was that by saying this I was selling my soul, blinded by hatred of conservatives.
And I lost my temper and logged out. Losing my temper was a big mistake -- I lost the argument, and I believe I should have won it.
Because there's something very wrong here.
I was accused of "selling my soul" -- that I would be "just like them", that if Democrats started lying as freely as Republicans do, the political system would be forever corrupt, and that by supporting distortions or outright lies in the service of Democratic causes I was not merely being partisan but, well, un-American.
(That particular term was never used but I think I can defend it as a synonym for the accusations made. The claim was that a willingness to accept lying on the behalf of the politicians and positions you support is not just hardball politics but would result in the destruction of our political system. Supporting something that could destroy our political system is about as un-American as you can get.)
Now, just a moment. I've been accused of tarring Republicans with far too broad a brush. It's been claimed that when I get red-faced and wide-eyed about the evils that "Republicans" (meaning, in particular, the current administraiton) are doing, that I am in danger of losing all sense of perspective. I am told that ordinary Republicans who support Bush are not all evil, they have not sold their souls, they are not unworthy of respect -- just misguided, proceeding from false principles.
(And as it happens, I agree. I am misrepresented by anyone who says I think most Republicans -- or most Bush supporters -- are anything worse than misguided or wrong.)
But wait. Everyone on mush and I share some conservative friends. And just about everyone on mush shares the conviction that the Republican leadership tells lies more or less routinely.
Yet no one I know has asserted that my Republican friends' positions should be considered outside the bounds of political discourse, or seen as supporting the destruction of the American political system, because of their support for lying bastard politicians. No one seems to think they have "sold their souls" in any serious sense, only that they are misguided and wrong.
Do you see the problem? If I were to be cast out from acceptable discourse, no longer respected, and shunned for thinking political lying is OK -- then what about the Republican friends we all share? I thought we still respected them, while differing from them on what's best for the country. Have they sold their souls too, in the opinions of my friends? Are the Republicans we know as un-American as I've been told I would be if I thought blatant lying in the service of a political movement was okay?
I think no one should consider the statement "it is permitted to lie only if you're a Republican" an acceptable rule for political discourse. If it is not acceptable (not just a mistaken political philosophy, but truly unacceptable in American politics) to support a candidate who happens routinely to lie but who also effectively advances your political causes, then this must be as true for Republican supporters as it is for Democratic supporters.
There can't be two different sets of rules. And I don't think my Republican friends have lost their souls -- I don't disrespect them or their beliefs. I think they're supporting hardball-playing lying bastards, and obviously life would be better if they (and other intelligent, self-respecting conservatives) were to say "I won't support lying bastards even if they are advancing things I believe in." But my conservative friends do not say this -- and by supporting these lying bastards, they get more of what they want done.
And one thing conservatives tried for years to convince me of, and have finally succeeded, is that if you unilaterally disarm, you lose.
So I have for quite a while found myself between a rock and a hard place, it seems. Are my Republican friends not intelligent? Of course they're intelligent. Are they self-respecting? I can't look into their hearts but I believe they are. Are their positions within the bounds of acceptable American political discourse? If I were to suggest otherwise I would rightly be accused of hating all Republicans (or at least considering them un-American). So is it acceptable to support lying as a political weapon? As far as I can tell, D follows from A-C.
But I'm not sure the people who raked me across these coals have followed that logical path yet.
It does not appear to bother my conservative friends that their political leaders lie like rugs, so long as the causes they believe in are advanced. Why therefore should it bother me if the politicians I support are liars? I do not condescend. I refuse to accept any attitude of "one must make allowances -- he is, after all, a Republican". Either lying is an acceptable (if regrettable, and preferably avoided) form of political discourse, and liars can be supported by men and women of (albeit partisan) goodwill so long as the liars are also effective politicians, doing good work as their supporters count it -- or else lying is wholly unacceptable, and the supporters of liars must be taken to task not for their political beliefs but for their anti-American support of the lying bastards who are literally seeking to destroy the American political system.
If the former is the case, it's possible that I'm owed an apology. If the latter, I think there are some people who need to start being a bit harsher on the Republicans they know... and perhaps I'm still owed an apology.
Or maybe I'm not owed an apology, because the rule really is that Republicans can lie but Democrats can't... in which case, as far as I can tell, I should start condescending. I hear it's an effective political tactic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-29 11:42 pm (UTC)"It is wrong for eyelessgame (as a liberal) to support lying by his political party." is not parallel to "It is okay for conservative friends to not be bothered by lies of their political parties."
I say this is not parallel, because we have not established that the conservative friends believe their political parties are lying, nor that they think that lying is okay. They may simply believe the lies they are being told.
Separately, I think that if you asked the people in the room, they would find it equally wrong for either party to lie. I know I do.
This is not to say that I think the lying going on constitutes the end of the world. Or even our political system. I happen to think our political system is broken far beyond what damage lying by politicians is going to do. But I'd still rather not be lied to, regardless of who's doing the speaking.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 05:06 am (UTC)But it seems more likely they either believe the politicians are telling the truth, if sometimes heavily varnished, or have rationalized it as an unpleasant necessity, or at any rate no worse than what the other side is doing. People are real good at clinging to beliefs that make them feel safe. That doesn't actually make them bad people.
Deliberately deceiving the people you are sworn to serve is actively Bad. I doubt a successful politician can always avoid doing it, but I do believe they should never try to, still less consider it an acceptable campaign tactic.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 05:17 am (UTC)As much as I dislike Bush and disagree with his policies, I am not actually committed to defeating him "at any cost". There are costs that I am not willing to pay. Tossing him out in favor of another politician who has received the message that it is not only okay but necessary to lie to the public in order to gain and maintain office is not a win.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 06:09 am (UTC)Some of those goals are conduct-related. "We will stand for these principles." Others are accomplishment-related. "We will achieve this."
In the abstract, it seems to me that it's all about the weighting of the goals. How much can you compromise to win? Well, how much do you gain by winning, and how much chance of winning does that compromise buy you?
Personally, I think that some forums for public discussion are now places for discussing the myths about the candidates, while there are still presumably somewhere forums where candidates, to some degree or another, discuss the truths about themselves. Presenting reality in a myth forum like, I dunno, prime time political commercials---that's a silly idea.
Rebecca-gumi
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 06:10 am (UTC)Rebecca-gumi
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 08:16 am (UTC)As a member of that discussion in which you felt raked over the coals, let's look for logical errors, then.
But wait. Everyone on mush and I share some conservative friends. And just about everyone on mush shares the conviction that the Republican leadership tells lies more or less routinely.
Here is your first logical error. I stated several times my beliefs on the issue. That the Bush campaign lies through abstraction and misdirection, but doesn't lie directly. (see spinsanity for what I believe is a very good view of exactly how the administration uses misdirection to lie without lying). While I don't like the distinction, it's an important one. If you say "Lies lies lies!" you're obligated to say what the lie is. And believe me, I've been trying to convince some of my conservative friends that the administration is lying for some time now, and the best I can get is that they're being misleading, but politicans do that all the time. So does everyone who has a message to tell on TV.
Yet no one I know has asserted that my Republican friends' positions should be considered outside the bounds of political discourse
Logically speaking, this is a straw man. You can't win the original argument, so you're bringing up a somewhat tangential argument that you believe you can win, but even if you win this argument you won't have won the argument on your original point.
I think no one should consider the statement "it is permitted to lie only if you're a Republican" an acceptable rule for political discourse.
While this is true, it is part of the Straw Man.
But my conservative friends do not say this -- and by supporting these lying bastards, they get more of what they want done.
I have already pointed out your assumption that your conservative friends believe the Bush Administration is guilty of outright lies. This assumption is incorrect. Therefore, what follows is incorrect.
I refuse to accept any attitude of "one must make allowances -- he is, after all, a Republican".
I refuse to accept any attitude of "one must make allowances -- he is, after all, a Republican".
Now you're drawing the metaphor out even further. I don't know of anyone who's said this, or anything remotely like this, myself.
Now, since you're looking for an apology, let me summarize the discussion:
Me: Eyelessgame, you should go look at this website which talks about all of the weaknesses in Moore's arguments. I think they'll be good for you to know what's wrong with them.
Eyelessgame: I don't care if Moore was lying, so long as he was effective.
Me (and others): That stance is destructive and wrong.
.
You appear saying the end justifies the means. Flat out.
Because the other side does it, we can do it.
We had the discussion, and there isn't much more to add to it, beyond my belief that that way lies madness and destruction. But everything else aside, that's the real argument. And now matter what argument you try to use, or what logic you try to bring in, you are trying to justify the end and ignore the means. That is a slippery slope. If you wish to take that stance, feel free. But do not expect to be able to stand upon the moral highground in future arguments, should you choose to argue from this swamp.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 08:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 09:14 am (UTC)So, we can bring the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth into play, as an example of outright lies in the interest of electing Bush. There's a _lot_ of evidence that supports Kerry's side of the story - including every single miltary document from the time. Including sworn statements from people in the video that they were under fire. I've been convinced that this is not just spin, but flat-out lies.
(There's a lot more spin, of course.)
But, once you reach the conclusion that you have these bald-faced lies happening, and they're being soundly refuted in all non-Fox News media outlets, and they're still working, what do you do? I share the temptation. By allowing deliberate lies by third parties, and consistently refusing to denounce the statements made, that's a powerful media tool.
But it's playing with fire. They mostly got away with the Swift Boat story this time - it polarized both bases, and left the undecided voters confused about Kerry's war hero status, which was the goal. But these things can backfire. If a moderate voter figures out that they are being flat-out lied to, and that the party is complicit in it, there's a good chance they'll turn Democrat for the long-haul. Most swing voters aren't paying that much attention (or they would've made up their damn minds already), but it's a risk.
And it's not like we have to lie. There's plenty of damning truth. We don't need to do things like say "I don't know if George Soros gets his money from drug cartels. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't." like speaker Hastert just said. (Which is incredible. And it's not lying, but in my opinion, is worse. See todays Talking Points Memo for references.
It just seems like that way lies madness.