Losing Argument
I was telling a friend--who's a committed partisan--that I believe both sides of the divide are about the same, morally speaking. They disagree on substance, which is what matters, but neither is especially worse when it comes to deceit, hypocrisy, corruption, etc., and neither is especially better when it comes to honesty, fairness, etc. But, I noted, both sides claim they're better, because people evaluate evidence that goes with their beliefs differently from how they evaluate evidence that goes against their beliefs. Thus, for instance, when they're called names by opponents, that shows how nasty those people are, but when they call their opponents names, they're simply speaking truth to power.
It then occurred to me then how pointless this argument can be in practice. If I'm correct that people can't see their own biases, it also means it's almost impossible to get a partisan to agree that I'm correct.
By the way, my friend disagreed, saying that the liberals were fairer and more honest than conservatives, and, in fact, the main reason they don't succeed as much as they should is that they're too reasonable, while their opponents will stop at nothing.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 AM
6 Comments:
I think of myself as a partisan, but I agree with you completely (it's why I'm not an angry partisan). I believe politicians on both sides more than not truly want to do the right thing for the country and their constituencies. They don't want to hurt the other side, they believe the policies they support will help everybody, even if the other side doesn't see it.
This, I'm not distraught over Democrat election victories - I trust that when push comes to shove, Democrats will try to do the right thing and on many many issues, Republicans and Democrats will agree whatthe right thing is. It's on the borderlines, with political questions, where mudslinging and gamesmanship creates the great divide of partisanship. I also don't think things have been much different in the past, except that maybe the general public was more aware that both sides are loyal to the union in the past. Today, its amazing how quick we hear assertions that so-and-so is a traiter and should be impeached.
That's one of the things I like about this blog. I'm very much a non-partisan, and truly believe that -- with numerous individual exceptions -- people in public service basically mean well for our country and are basically patriotic. I'm a firm believer in not attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by misinformation, stupidity or ignorance, which covers most disputes nicely.
I take the dark view of the above- everyone is equally short-sighted (and political views can change on a whim)and is more concerned about beating their competitor/adversary (like the "Judean Peoples Front" line from Life of Brian) than in any conception of the common good.
It is not so much that I must win as it is that they must lose
The real problem with attributing malice to others is it's a way of avoiding a debate on the substance.
I'm definitely to the right of center politically, and definitely prefer the Republicans (even while I curse them) over the Democrats 98% of the time. But I completely agree with LAGuy on his point.
Then again, I'm one of those conservatives who never would have voted for Bill Clinton, and yet was bewildered at my friends on the right who saw Clinton as the most evil radical of all time. I tried to convince them that while he was firmly on the liberal side of the spectrum, he was closer to the center on economic and foreign policy issues than the Democratic nominees from 1976 to 1988. And they just refused to agree. Was that me, or them? I still don't know.
It was them.
The guy in office always seems like the worst there is. Except that actually was true about Bush.
And Obama.
Post a Comment
<< Home