I was passing through a discussion on Moveon.org's website; the topic was the new slogan Move.on created for Fox News. The slogan is beside the point, largely because it is lame, bereft of anything interesting. What did interest me was something in the comments thread I fell on as I rushed through:
And this rejoinder:Liberal_Goof_Ball: "When Bush was president and gas prices went up all the Liberals blamed the high prices on Bush, but now that gas prices have doubled, all the Liberals say it's not Obama's fault. What a bunch of Liberal LIARS!"
Kevin Hadley: "By your statement then you must blame Bush for the rise in gas prices when he was president. Do you also blame him for the rise in the federal deficit, the rise in federal debt, the increase in spending that all took place during his tenure?"
I am not here interested in the bombast penned by Liberal_Goof_Ball. I am not prone to opine in ALL-CAPS that liberals are liars. What interests me is the facility with which Mr. Hadley responds; his response comes to him with such ease, confident in its logic. But I ask you, is Mr. Hadley one whit logical?
Why bother asking. Of course he isn't. Liberal_Goof_Ball could simply reply: "I don't blame George W. Bush or Barack Obama for high gas prices." Indeed, there are other responses he could give, including ones that blame either president. Plus, he could explore the whole problem liberals have with a double-standard; and that was, in fact, his point: liberals DO have a double-standard. Do conservatives? I don't know.
For now, I will plead agnostic in order to think about it. But it is amusing that Mr. Hadley left room for only ONE option: "You MUST blame Bush..." No, one mustn't at all.
Peace.
3 comments:
Philosophical consistency is rare in political discourse, these days. Sadly, I tend to find it more to the left than the right, though neither side is immune. Call it a postmodern abrogation of truth in favor of the all important narrative of the moment.
Cheers.
Dear Randall,
Agreed.
Here's my observation; I wonder if it holds true.
In debate, liberals rarely represent their opponents' views honorably or completely; they always, or nearly always, present them in the weakest possible manner (if they present them at all).
Conservatives do not do this. In fact, conservatives enjoy showing off: they like to erect their opponents' views in the strongest possible light in order to show off how much stronger their own arguments and positions are. If an argument can be presented in its strongest possible terms, and a conservative can show its fatal flaw and hence present a stronger argument, he or she will do it.
I am not saying this is always the case, only that it is mostly the case.
Peace.
In debate, liberals rarely represent their opponents' views honorably or completely; they always, or nearly always, present them in the weakest possible manner (if they present them at all).
Precisely. Of course, there's also the all important "straw man" which the pummel if all else fails. The example you cite in your post, i.e. the false choice, is particularly useful for the left as well, such as "Obamacare or Death For Millions."
Cheers.
Post a Comment