Contrapuntal, great post.
Thanks. I think it is worth noting that often you and I find ourselves on opposite sides of a political/religious argument. This very thread is an example. I just point this out for those who tend to charge things like “all X’s are Y’s.”
“He wasn’t as bad as a Liberal would have been! That’s what he did right!”
Give up.
Sam: Yeah, I’m saying that Republicans are worse, at least today. The US in the 1970s was very different.
And I can’t make judgments with regards to Canada, though your examples have the ring of plausibility.
On Iraq quite a few have popped a gasket, in my view. It sounds like your acquaintance lost it when you suggested that he sketch a solution to a problem wholly created by those he disagreed with.
But this is a better example, since issues of war basically cloud everyone’s judgment: “Another person on the same day heard me talking about using prices to control traffic congestion, and immediately started muttering about big corporations and the evil rich.”
At least it’s better for me: in the US, advocates of such approaches are typically policy wonks on the left. “Fees” sounds too much like “taxes”. More to the point, those complaining about corporations in the US certainly exist, but as far as I can tell they haven’t had political traction since the 1970s, and within the Democratic party they are overwhelmed by the wonks. A good way to evaluate anticorporate influence within the US left would be study Ralph Nader’s rise and fall.
Again though, I really can’t comment on the balance of influence in Canada, though I will hypothesize that they experience a tussle between Tony Blair-style “Third Wayers” and the more traditional elements of the left.
On preview: Stratocaster: See post 115, where I addressed this.
Gee counterpunctual, it shouldn’t be too hard to locate the wording of the approval rating question, and to see how far the numbers differ among Repubs and Democrats. This is pretty standard stuff – how often is this question asked, monthly? Biweekly? Carry your own water.
Furthermore, I’d say that whining about bias, as opposed to allegiance to facts, logic and the fight against ignorance, is prima facia evidence of a lack of character. Furthermore, since I’m not using these personality traits to undermine any single conservative argument, this is in no way an ad hominum logical fallacy.
Finally, I repeat: reasonable Americans have their work cut out for us. When they view media reports of conservative malfeasance in Washington, conservative hysterics invariably shout about bias. We need a better understanding of the conservative mentality and emotional needs if we are to advance a healthy and strong America.
Thank you for advancing our understanding of the modern conservative mentality via example.
Yes, that occurred to me as well. It says something good about you that you acknowledge such abuses even from those “in your camp,” so to speak–one might say it speaks to your character. Which therefore excludes you from those weak-willed, lily-livered Republicans. 
An awful lot of Democrats supported all of Clinton’s interventions overseas. They supported or ignored his bombing of a factory in Sudan. There were plenty of Democrats who were demanding the overthrow of Saddam, including John Kerry and Joe Biden. The Clinton administration called Iran and Libya the two greatest exporters of terrorism in the world, and were working with the Iraelis on plans to attack Iran by air and destroy nuclear facilities. They even discussed the use of tactical nukes to hit the deepest underground bunkers.
Clinton signed welfare reform and the North American Free Trade agreement with remarkably little complaint from the Progressive Left. Certainly far less than if identical actions had been carried out by a Republican.
Here in Canada, the Liberals promised a lot to progressives, and delivered almost nothing, while simultaneously enaging in massive corruption. But the progressives hung in there, because anything was better than the hated conservatives. Here in Canada, Fidel Castro is beloved by Liberals (Sasha Trudeau went to his birthday party this year), despite being an oppressive thug. If he was a right-wing dictator with identical human rights abuses, they’d consider him a monster.
And look how many ‘progressives’ are willing to overlook Hugo Chavez’s myriad abuses of power and destruction of civil rights in his country. To many, he’s ‘progressive’, so nothing else matters.
This would be called “begging the question.” The syllogism you seem to have constructed goes something like this:
[ul][li]Anyone who approves of the current administration lacks character.[/li][li]Most Republicans approve of the current administration.[/li]Therefore, Republicans lack character.[/ul]You have offered evidence for the second bullet in your syllogism, though Contrapuntal has pointed out the issues with your evidence. What you have not done is establish the first bullet in your syllogism. Want to try again, or will you just continue waving your hands over those weak-minded Republicans?
Much of what you have to say is true. But I have to disagree with you here. The contemporary Republicans are worse - not merely worse than the Dems are now, but worse than either party has been in the last 4-5 decades.
The Dems hold no monopoly on virtue, and are certainly not angels or immune to corruption. But how far back does one have to go to find an instance where either party rivaled today’s GOP? A looong way, baby. The current incarnation of the GOP is one for the ages.
It’s great to be evenhanded, but being evenhanded doesn’t require claiming that every party is as corrupt as this one, any more than being evenhanded requires claiming that every basketball player is as good as Michael Jordan at the peak of his game.
Please understand me though: I don’t want to lose the big picture. Some liberals do complain about greedy corporations and evil Republicans. Others think that evangelicals are (stupid) dupes.
I’m saying that “Evil” and “Stupid” don’t really cover matters – they reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of why people align themselves with one party or another.
For much of the 20th century, economic issues predominated, but lately methinks they’ve lost much of their traction, much to the benefit for the Club for Growth cabal.
No. We need to think about the modern conservative psychology and how it differs from traditional conservatism: otherwise I’d expect future conservative Presidents to successfully conduct a base-first strategy.
Statocaster: Read the post again. It’s about the variance in approval ratings more than the levels. Though the levels, when offset against the performance of this administration, cause one to have some doubt.
Others: again, modern conservatives don’t evaluate administrations on the basis of performance, only fealty to their pre-conceived notions. We need to find some method of addressing this.
Deliberate mangling of my username noted.
I suspect you misunderstand the way things are done in GD. It is wrong of you you to expect me to carry your water. You have made the claim, you must substantiate it.
I am honestly lost. Where is this whining about bias?
Lost again. Does it have to be a single argument? Claiming that Republicans lack character is *not *ad hominem?
If you are using me as an example of “modern conservative mentality,” you have missed the barn door by about a an acre or so. Knowing that you wield a rather large brush, I am not surprised.
Let me re-post what I think are significant questions; questions that you seem to have dismissed.
Simplified, you claimed to have substantiated a claim. Nowhere is it evident in this thread that such has occurred. Please disabuse me of this notion if I am wrong, or have the character to admit that you are.
To re-phrase as a question: How does supporting the job Bush has done reveal a lack of character? Hint: it would behoove you to provide a working definition of character, and how one goes about deriving such. Further hint: “My post is my cite” carries no weight. Or water, if you prefer.
Too much credit given there.
Tu quoque is the argument of last resort for both Bush-supporters and self-styled above-it-all independents of the eccentric-ideologue type. “Yeah, well, your guys are just as bad! Or at least they *would * be!” is virtually never offered with any actual examination of its factual support, unfortunately, and this case is no exception.
You’re missing the point. I’m asking you to give us evidence that the statistic you provided is reflective of respondents with a lack of character. Asserting it yet again is not evidence.
Let me help you out. You can’t. It is simply your opinion. Your opinion on that particular point seems to be, “The majority of those who support the current administration lack character,” regardless of any nuance of opinion your own cite shows (as Contrapuntal already pointed out). Or, worded differently, “Anyone who doesn’t share the basic opinion M for M holds for this administration lacks character.” Different version of the same assertion. But in either manifestation, it is unprovable, being simply your nonsensical opinion.
Which brings us right back to where I started with you. It’s this kind of inane blather that gets this board pegged as a leftist echo chamber. Now, let’s lather, rinse, repeat.
You *really *need to be more precise in your terminology. No kidding. One modern conservative who behaves differently puts the lie to your entire premise.
Would I be paying attention to him if he were a right-wing dictator? I doubt it; if he were, he’d be even more unexceptional than he is now. Tell me, for instance, that he’s any worse than the rulers of some of those former Soviet republics in central Asia - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Turkmenistan, and others that nobody here on either side of the political spectrum gets around to getting worked up about very often.
IOW, much as I hate the phrase, I call bullshit. I say it’s the other way around - the right wing has paid little attention to far worse dictators around the world, and has homed in on Chavez with laserlike intensity for one reason: he’s ruling from the left.
No. You misunderstand matters.
I made an argument which concluded that too many Republicans lack character. Conclusions can be substantiated with argument and/or facts.
Contrapuntal and Stratocaster initially responded to my conclusions, but left the argument unaddressed.
When challenged (by others initially) to elaborate upon my argument, I did so.
The point: Contrapuntal and Stratocaster provide fine examples of the modern conservative mentality. When they read something they don’t like, their first impulse is not to reflect upon the argument – they even remain oblivious to it. No, instead they prattle on about the bias of a message board open to all. A fine whine.
This is funny. No, you didn’t. You offered an opinion as fact. When called on it, you offered more opinion.
This is funny too. Take it from me, Contrapuntal is not a fine example of the modern conservative mentality. You’re just chockfull of wrong conclusions you’re certain of, ain’t you?
Measure, thank you for the cite. In terms of proving that Republicans stand by their man more than Dems do, well we’d need those historic norms. When Truman was in the dumpster did the Dems still mainly support him or not? As Carter declined in popularity? My guess is that the Pubbie core is more ideologically driven and so more likely to stay on board than the fractious by nature Dems are, but such a case has not been proven so far, and even if so hardly bespeaks a lack of character, just a different sort of character.
There was no argument. Really. No argument. All you did was assert your opinion. As **Stratocaster **has pointd out, you argued circularly.
See above. A simple assertion is not an argument. At least outside of a Monty Python sketch.
Wrong again. When challenged to provide a cite, you did so, although said cite undercut your assertion as much as it supported it. You had *substantiated *nothing, and your claim to have done so was a false one. Your continued denial on this point suggests to me that you are either ignorant of even the most basic elements of a debate, or unconcerned as to whether what you speak bears any resemblance to the truth.
If your argument was different from the one described by Stratocaster, please explicate it to me.
Please please PLEASE try to read carefully. No one has asserted a bias. No one. What **Stratocaster **said was that the board is *perceived *that way, not that it *is *that way. And by no means was it a whine.
If you truly believe that most Republicans lack character (let me remind you that I have asked you to define your terms, and explain how you can detect such a lack, with no response) then you are guilty of what seem to accuse others: a belief in dogma over critical thought. You will not profit from such a mistake.
Gang, I’m going to have to return to the boards later, but…
-
Apologies to both Contrapuntal and Stratocaster for misspelling their usernames. It was careless. (Apropos nothing, I see that Contrapuntal means, “1. of or pertaining to counterpoint. and 2. composed of two or more relatively independent melodies sounded together.” New word for me.)
-
Approval ratings are really tracked regularly and really fall under common knowledge, in my view. (Admittedly, there’s the possibility that the Times’ version used a different wording.)
-
“Where is this whining about bias?” In my experience conservative media criticism centers on bias --in their terminology-- whereas liberal media criticism focuses on extremism and facts not stated or manufactured.
-
"Claiming that Republicans lack character is not ad hominem? "
It is only ad hominem logical fallacy if the smear is used to defeat an argument. In my case I was arguing against the contention that Republicans were evil or stupid: rather, I suggested that their documented attachment to George Bush and preferences for media sources that molly-coddle their dispositions indicated a lack of character. It is necessary to understand apologists for corruption and incompetence if we’re to build a strong America. -
“If you are using me as an example of “modern conservative mentality,” you have missed the barn door by about a an acre or so. Knowing that you wield a rather large brush, I am not surprised.”
Zing!
- “To re-phrase as a question: How does supporting the job Bush has done reveal a lack of character? Hint: it would behoove you to provide a working definition of character, and how one goes about deriving such. Further hint: “My post is my cite” carries no weight. Or water, if you prefer.”
Zing!
Insofar as survey evidence is concerned, I’m discussing populations, not individuals. If approval ratings for GWBush within a population don’t fall following the Katrina fiasco, that indicates that either they don’t care much about the welfare of certain New Orleans residents (which I don’t believe) or they have such an emotional attachment to GWBush that they can’t bear to change their opinion of him. Either way, this doesn’t suggest strong character.
Good character is composed of many qualities. Determination. Honesty: with themselves and others. A healthy appreciation for empirical investigation and reality-based decision making, as well as the virtue --no necessity– of second-guessing oneself in an uncertain world.
Those with weak dispositions have greater emotional needs however. They have to keep telling themselves that things are great, regardless of the objective circumstances. Tough minded analysts, on the other hand, know that optimism makes a poor substitute for a fealty to the factual situation.
Agreed.
Disagree, for reasons given earlier.
I’m still behind on my posts, but I’ll have to continue later…