Yes, yes, “facts have a liberal bias”, but the more I read this article, the more sense it made to me.
The money quote is here:
The more I think about it, the more I’m left agreeing with it. It just makes a lot of sense - it would also explain why those on the right are so quick to claim that any data is fraudulent or fake. They don’t care if Obamacare works; it’d just be nice if it didn’t. The belief that big government is bad is not contingent on evidence; it’s contingent on a priori beliefs. I saw a little of this (to their credit, just a little) in the recent Libertarian threads. It also goes a long way towards explaining the “Wonk Gap”.
I do recommend reading the whole article; what I quoted was pretty much the last few paragraphs and rather inflammatory, but I think there’s something to that - it’s not for no reason that Ezra Klein, who ostensibly does nothing but relatively non-partisan analysis, is being slammed by those on the right as “propaganda” for declaring that Obamacare is, as it currently stands, successful. What do you guys think - is this wildly off base?
Conservatives do not hold a “deep moral belief … that big government is inherently wrong” any more than liberals (as the article rightly divines) have any sort of fundamental love of big government (except inasmuch as it serves their actual aims). Conservatives only don’t like government when it tends to take measures that they don’t like (which it often does these days, because it is run by essentially rational, data driven bureaucrats, who have had ‘liberal’ educations ). If we had a nice, strong fascist theocracy, run solidly for the benefit of rural (and rich urban) white males, and that kept the darkies, and the womenfolk, and the poor, and the sillier young people firmly in their places, they would be very happy indeed.
Some conservatives may have convinced themselves that they are motivated by a deep, principled objection to big government, but they are probably kidding themselves, and certainly kidding themselves if they think that is also what really motivates most of their supporters.
I am not, incidentally, saying that conservatives are not truly motivated by fundamental moral principles, just that being against big government isn’t really one of them, isn’t really fundamental.
This sort of straw man view from the Left would seem to indicate that one’s view is shaped by knowing no actual conservatives, (or so few as to be statistically meaningless).
I realize that it is a popular theme, (particularly on the SDMB), regarding American conservatism, but holding onto such a perception of an entire segment of U.S. society inhibits one’s ability to actually understand the perspective of nearly half of one’s fellow citizens and prevents any actual discussion between the two sides.
The opposite opinion believes that liberals are simply interested in big government because they desire to replace all social institutions (family and church) with a nanny government that prevents individual initiative, removing individual responsibility and destroying personal wealth. If you are happy with that characterization of “your” side of the debate, I suppose it makes sense to hold the view you have expressed.
It does little to permit actual dialogue between two sides who genuinely seek the greater good but perceive that good somewhat differently.
I find it interesting that nominally liberal/left-leaning/socialistic interests are so fascinated by big data, which may be the most dangerous human discovery since plutonium. Allaw preserve us when the right discovers it.
The conservatives I talk to don’t care if Obamacare works or not, they are convinced that the democrats are not pushing Obamacare to better the healthcare situation in the US but rather to get more people dependent on government and therefore to vote for the democrats. It all boils down to an opposition to welfare for them. They truly believe the democrats are for welfare because it buys votes rather than to better society.
So the article is quite accurate in my experience… they don’t want Obamacare to succeed because they feel it’s just another form of welfare for lazy people that don’t want to work. I believe that if the data suggested Obamacare was a failure they would definitely use it to bolster their position.
It’s a little offputting to talk about how conservatives don’t care about truth in a matter like Obamacare, considering the number of major lies used to promulgate it (“if you like your coverage, you will able to keep it”, “your premiums will go down”, “I will not raise your taxes/this is not a tax/OK it is a tax”).
There are also liberals who don’t care if Obamacare works or not - they only want it as a stepping stone to single-payer. Indeed, if Obamacare works too well, they will never get to single-payer. So they are hoping it fails in such a way that they can push what they wanted all along as a solution to the problems created by Obamacare.
I can’t believe reasonable people really think partisan denial of facts is only a conservative phenomenon. Anyone who does believe it would be well-advised to examine if he or she agrees with things like -
[ul][li]ACORN never did anything wrong[/li][li]There was election fraud in Ohio in 2004 [/li][li]Romney’s tax plan would have raised taxes on 95% of Americans[/li][li]No WMDs were ever found in Iraq[/li][li]The Social Security trust fund is a debt, not an asset[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
FTR, those are both true.
Not in an absolute sense, possibly (which would make you *technically *correct, the best kind of correct !), but in the sense that “Conservatives talking points about them were complete crap” ? You bet.
ACORN never engaged in the kind of ballot stuffing they were accused of.
As for "WMD"s found in Iraq, they amounted to handfuls of rusty, pre-Gulf War gas artillery shells - certainly not the copious stockpiles of brand new missiles meant for Israel (or worse, the fucking mainland US) or the ubiquitous mobile chem labs allegated by Cheney & co.
Then again, ACORN got dismantled and Iraq got invaded all the same. So, you know. Keep dishonestly fucking that chicken, I guess.
Intrinsically “biased” coverage can occur on both the liberal and conservative side of an issue.
If a reporter addresses the pro-life/pro-choice issue as a public debate where both sides may have good points, there will be many pro-lifers who hold that this is, by its nature, favoring the pro-choice side.
But…if a reporter covers the creation/evolution issue as a public debate where both sides may have good points, there will be many evolution supporters who will suggest this is not an entirely valid way of covering the affair.
I believe it was Tom Brokaw (but memory does not serve) who said that if he gets an equal number of letters from both sides, accusing him of bias, then he’s doing the best job he can of being fair.
I’m reminded of an episode of the TV show Yes, Minister, an excellent British political satire. The main character, politician Jim Hacker, has pledged to reduce bureaucracy. Newly elected, he directs his staff to (bureaucrats themselves) to do a study and see who can be eliminated. To his horror, he soon learns it will be reported that the ranks of his department have increased by 200 people. His staff tells him that those people are being hired to conduct the study that Hacker himself requested.
It is not impossible for people (to which category politicians fervently aspire) to hold mutually incompatible ideas. I’m willing to take conservatives at their word that they oppose big government. I’m also willing to accept that they want government to stop abortion, illegal immigrants, gay marriage, voter fraud, removing terminally ill people from life support, etc. Life rarely presents those contradictions as starkly as can happen in a TV show.
Speaking of ACORN, even if he was referring to the “ACORN helps pimp and prostitutes, encouraging them how to lie for tax purposes” accusation, that was a hoax too.
Now, that was reported just last year, after ACORN was already disbanded and still accused by the right of that and other fraudulent accusations, any moment now we will see those sources from the right that were wrong making corrections and apologies on the air and their web sites…
I can think of good points on both sides of the pro/anti abortion debate. I can’t think of a single good point on the pro-creation one. Care to enlighten me?
Part of the underlying phenomenon is that the US Democratic party subsumes reformists, policy incrementalists, policy interventionists and governmental skeptics. Health care reform is a decent example of this: Obamacare had a public option. The public option was dropped and we were left with Romneycare. This framework was espoused by the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s, passed by Governor Romney and almost entirely uncriticized by major Republican candidates back in 2008.
A data driven approach is actually pretty conservative when you think about it, if you believe that conservatism implies caution. Data can only encapsulate aspects of what we’ve tried after all. It’s also very liberal as well, if you mean connected with the European enlightenment. Post enlightenment thinkers that conclusions should be grounded on empirical investigation and careful reasoning, as opposed to instinct, special pleading and feelings. Given the track record of the scientific endeavor, a lot of this turns on the character of the political advocate and lack of the same.
I can’t either… I’m only saying that a reporter who tried to present a “balanced view on both sides of the issue” would be, in my opinion (yours also?) failing to do his job properly. The ostensible fairness and even-handedness would, in fact, be improperly favorable to one side.
The same is true for urban legends. A reporter who presented “both sides, fairly,” of the Birther, Truther, or Apollo-Hoax conspiracy theories may present himself as even-handed…but is, in truth, giving too much credit to such loads of horse-poop.
However, a reporter who just comes right out and says, “The Birthers are nuts and don’t have a leg to stand on” doesn’t sound fair and objective. Our schoolyard upbringing in fairness doesn’t apply to cons, fads, hoaxes, lies, cranks, crackpots, and other sewage.
This is all a variant on the “Reality has a bias” problem.
I wasn’t accusing him of lying. I *did *say both of his points were technically true, didn’t I ?
They’re also, as asserted, intellectually dishonest as all getout. And the fact that those misleading talking points, as relentlessly and unabashedly repeated by the media at the time, ended up getting results was disheartening.
I’ll take the knock for jerk phrasing, I suppose. I should have known better.
The problem with this is that once they were exposed as lies, liberals stopped telling them. Many also chastised Obama. But in the end, what matters is still “does this work”. And the point the article above was making is not “conservatives don’t care about the truth because they’re dishonest”, it’s “conservatives don’t care about the truth because they already know Obamacare is against their worldview”.
Any significant number thereof or group you can point to? And keep in mind that this is, again, a false equivalency. It’s not that they don’t care because of a priori political views, it’s that they don’t care because they know a system which has proven itself to almost certainly work better and would much prefer that. I think you’ll find that at least the more pragmatic among them agree that it would be a good thing if Obamacare succeeded.
But it’s not about partisan denial of facts. It’s about saying “okay, there are those facts, but it still limits liberty and therefore cannot be good”. But even taking this on its premise… why not? Conservative news sources are constantly and consistently terrible, both in terms of honesty and accuracy. The lies you can dredge up on the left are meaningful, but only on the right do they keep getting used as talking points long after they’ve been debunked.
Citations needed. ACORN was completely absolved of all wrongdoing ages ago; Romney’s tax plan was exceedingly vague but the only actual analysis performed seemed to indicated that it couldn’t get away with the goals it had stated without raising taxes on the bottom 95%; and what little WMDs were found in Iraq were basically useless - not a threat to anyone. They’re also not central parts of Democratic policy by any stretch of the imagination (nor are the other things on your list - in fact, most of us think those who assert voter fraud in Ohio in 2004 are conspiracy theorists).
Contrast that with “death panels”, “Obama raised the debt more than everyone else combined”, “Death spiral”, “Global warming is a hoax”, “Obama has created more government jobs than other presidents”… There is no equivalency.
The scientists are right; Brokaw is wrong. Replace creation/evolution with flat-earth and geocentrist vs. modern cosmology and you’ll see the flaw here. Sometimes, there is absolutely a right and a wrong side to an issue. In American politics, this demand for centrism is really quite toxic. This assumption that, “Hey, republicans abused awful lie X, therefore there must be some equivalent on the left”… No, sometimes there is no equivalency. Sometimes, one party really is more wrong than the other.
Absolutely untrue. Multiple ACORN workers were convicted of both misdemeanor and felony counts. And even if you wanted to narrowly construe your statement to refer only to ACORN the corporation, it’s still untrue:
Fair enough. My mistake. Let’s shift the statement to “nothing horribly significant”. Certainly not the widespread voter fraud touted by its detractors, or the assertions in the O’Keefe video - and those were the things that brought ACORN down. It’s a shame “one count of paying people to register” is not a huge headline that gets the base all fired up.
(Also, in fairness to you and everyone else reading, I should note that you did in fact already bring this up in the Voter Fraud thread in the pit. I just forgot. My apologies.)