Thought for the day: It just occurred to me that there’s a noticeable theme, cutting across various issues, to a number of the arguments I’ve been reading and hearing lately from many Republicans and conservatives. That theme is cognitive dissonance. For instance:
• Obama’s soft-on-terror stances are endangering America by dismantling crucial Bush policies. This proves the Republicans were right about him. Also, Obama’s “hope and change” mantra was a fraud, because he’s keeping many Bush policies in place. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” This proves the Republicans were right about him.
• It’s terrible that the media keeps dragging Sarah Palin’s young children into the political arena. Family should off-limits. Also, it’s terrible that Obama is telling the media not to stalk his young children on Martha’s Vineyard. Such a presumptuous demand would only be made by someone who thinks knows he’s got the media in the tank. The media sux!
• We must cut the deficit! We must stop profligate spending! We must not expand government! Also, don’t you dare make any cuts to Medicare! And if you even try to reduce spending, that automatically means you’ll “ration” care. DEATH PANELS!!!
(As best as I can tell, that last one is actually the core conservative argument against ObamaCare. It could perhaps be summarized as: “Keep your big-government paws off my Medicare, you free-spending, cost-cutting, deficit-enlarging, grandma-killing, socialist bastards.” WHAT?!?)
Not that Democrats and liberals aren’t also prone to make disingenuous, inconsistent or hypocritical arguments, mind you… but this phenomenon has been pretty egregious on the Right lately, methinks. (And, crucially, media bias notwithstanding, conservatives seem to be better at getting people not to notice when they’re engaging in blatant doublethink and doubletalk.)
Such as convincing people to continue parroting on about liberal media bias? At this point the media is so damn scarred about being accused of having a liberal bias that they don’t even do their job. That is to say, they shouldn’t be bothering to make it seem like there is a reasoned argument between the two sides of a reasonable argument (lumped together as one side, because people that watch TV are apparently to stupid to look into the nuances of what is, ultimately the real debate.) and the off the deep end insane no basis in fact or reality or even semblance of reason and really should just be ignored side.
For example, there is a reasonable debate to be had on health care. But the media keep making it a debate between nothing and death panels. Which is total bullshit.
Or, for that matter, there is a debate within the scientific community as to just how evolution works. But that isn’t taken as a reason to investigate this rather interesting topic. No, it’s used to have a meaningless debate between rational scientists and creationist religious nut jobs. In which both sides of the argument are, for some reason, treated as equal. No, perhaps if we are discussing what should be taught in Sunday school that would be one thing. But we are not. No we are talking about what should be taught in a science classroom. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, creationism is not science it is theology and has no place in a science classroom. Personally, I think public schools should do a broad theological survey, there is a hell of a lot of really interesting stuff to look at and a lot of good philosophical thinking and similarity across world religions. Just pretending all of that doesn’t exist is kind of silly. There really is a heck of a lot in theology that is crucial to understanding history, to understanding philosophy, and to understanding politics. All of this can be much better understood if you have a broad understanding of world religions past and present.
The trouble is that would be reasonable. But religious groups don’t want schools to teach a broad understanding of religion on the macro scale. They strictly want their beliefs taught to the exclusion of all others. The founders of the US were smart enough to realize there would never be any sort of agreement on just which religion should be taught and that this would be the source of major argument, so they decided the government would just completely ignore the subject. The result of this is public schools pretty much can not teach you anything about a religion unless it is dead. And even major private universities that see themselves a secular tend to take the same tack. Unless it is dead we ignore it’s existence in general education. Better to do that than risk pissing people off. Problem is, you end up with people that posses major educational gaps. Something you will notice if ever you watch a Baptist argue with a Mormon argue with a Catholic argue with a Lutheran about religion. And now I’m way off topic. So we’ll call this end of comment.
“And, crucially, media bias notwithstanding, conservatives seem to be better at getting people not to notice when they’re engaging in blatant doublethink and doubletalk.”
Of course they don’t notice, that would require them to think for themselves, to question their world view, to consider, for a moment “what if I’m wrong on this issue, what if there is a middle ground, what if the world isn’t black and white”.
The Republican party is the ideologically lazy party. They are the party that says you are either with us or against us. There is no middle ground. Health care reform = SOCIALISM!!!!
How can you even begin to have a discussion on fixing problems when the other side either claims the problem doesn’t exist (even when its staring them in the face) or thinks that the way to fix the problem is to keep doing the same thing that got us there in the first place?
I realize this following analogy is ironic, but I think its apt. Arguing health care with the majority of the right using facts and data is kinda like trying to convince an Atheist God exists by using the Bible. In both cases the opposition refuses to accept the source of what you are basing your argument on as anything but hogwash.
I once tried to have a discussion about World War II with my grandparents. Having studied it from both an American and Japanese perspective I was pointing out the somewhat flawed belief in America that the Japanese people thought the Emperor was a God. Their conception of divinity and the beliefs of the Japanese people was colored by Western reilgious thinking. When I tried to explain that no, they didn’t think he was actually a God, they told me I was wrong. Despite the fact that my information came from sources who had either been to Japan or were from Japan. Sources who were acknowledged scholars of the Japanese and their history. Clearly I (and my sources) were wrong, because darn it, thats what they had been told to believe back in the day and they were right. Nothing was going to change their mind. I could probably have walked the Japanese Emperor right up to them and have had him tell them that no, he wasn’t a God and thats not what people actually thought, and they still wouldn’t have acknowledged it. They KNEW they were right. That was all they needed to know. (P.S. they are also staunch Republicans who love Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush and Fox News. Shocking isn’t it?).
How can you even begin to have a discussion on fixing problems when the other side either claims the problem doesn’t exist (even when its staring them in the face) or thinks that the way to fix the problem is to keep doing the same thing that got us there in the first place?
I dunno, how can I argue with someone who thinks this is the sum total of the opposition to Obama? There are competing plans right now; the problem is, THOSE aren’t the ones being considered and put to a vote. And they won’t be until this one is killed.
I realize this following analogy is ironic, but I think its apt. Arguing health care with the majority of the right using facts and data is kinda like trying to convince an Atheist God exists by using the Bible. In both cases the opposition refuses to accept the source of what you are basing your argument on as anything but hogwash.
You don’t say. I seem to recall a certain someone, I won’t name names, positing that after passage of this bill, at some distant time in the future, there might be a decision between care for the elderly/”unfit” and saving costs, and that in order to do the latter the former would be reduced. And this person was widely harangued because since these “death panels” are not in the bill, that won’t and can’t ever happen.
That’s been the core of the argument against the supposed conservative “lies” concerning health-care: The public option will lead to government control? “No it won’t, it’s not in the bill.” The bill is the Bible, and all who disagree with it are heretics who spread untruth.
A few observations…
The most vocal critics of Obama as a fraud when it comes to hope and change seem to on the far left, not the right. Think gay marriage proponents and anti-war groups who wanted troops withdrawn immediately. If there are those on the right who seem to be highlighting how Obama has disappointed those groups on his pledge for hope and change, it’s not because they want him to fulfill those promises so much as they’re having fun calling him a liar, liar pants on fire.
It is awful to drag children into the public view. I respect the president’s call for privacy. What I don’t respect is the secret service confiscating cell phones at a public eatery to prevent pictures of the Obama girls. Given your stance on cops seizing cameras, I’m pretty surprised you didn’t have a comment about those actions. I guess everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance now and then.
Finally, of course there’s cognitive dissonance when it comes to Obamacare. You put the senior citizens in bed with the insurance industry, make room for the doctors, and leave the foot of the bed for those of us who are happy with our insurance and you’re going to get wildly disparate views from the “opposition.” The fact that you believe there is a “core” criticism suggests to me you’re oversimplifying the situation along a Palin and death panels vs. Obama and reining in health costs dichotomy. While that dichotomy might make it easier (and maybe fun) to call those opposed to Obamacare blithering idiots a la Palin, it doesn’t really advance the cause of Obamacare as it alienates some of the groups from whom Obama needs support.
And one final note on the brazen stupidity of our grandparents who cling to their experiences and beliefs, and now represent (metaphorically) the futility of discussing anything with those not on board with Obamacare…
I’ll take the wisdom of your grandparents (and mine if they were still alive) over such condescension any day.
Cognitive dissonance?!? I’ve got a great one for you…how about lefty activists attacking a Democratic party headquarters? For some reason they concentrated on windows that had references to Obamacare..I wonder why someone would do that?
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13199902
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/20548292/detail.html
Mike, um, no, the people who declare that Death Panels are real and that the Government is trying to destroy private insurance industry are the Bible thumpers. There are many of us on the side of health care reform who are willing and ready to discuss this bill and how it could be improved. We have not been met with anything but the ludicrous claims I mention above. The myths, the lies, spread by people who are either too stupid to think for one second about what they are saying, too lazy to actually question what they are told to say, or who KNOW they are lies but use them to inflame the base because they don’t give a DAMN about this country and are in it for their own glory and power, i.e. Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, et al.
Not only am I willing to hear open minded critical debate on this bill, i WANT open minded critical debate on this bill. I want a sane counter voice to cause the Democrats to have to defend the bill and therefore point out what is really good and what should go. I want the same thing on just about everything before our government these days. Two rational but not necessarilly in sync parties are GREAT for America because it causes us to refine our ideas. But one mostly rational party, and one party thats off its nut does no one good.
The GOP has the opportunity to present itself as a mature and reasoned voice for ideals such as fiscal conservativism, individual liberties, limited government. What they are doing however is being a strident, shrill voice of opposition at all costs. They want anything they disagree with even a little to go down in flame, damned be the consequences. They are so unwilling to compromise or consider the middle ground or steps in between, so focused on absolutes, black and whites, that rather than helping to focus the efforts of economic reform, they told us to do the same things that put us in the mess and screamed SOCIALISM at the top of their lungs. It didn’t matter to them that their “solution” would cause millions of people to lose their homes, their jobs, their income, and even their lives. It was an abstract to them that they had to BE RIGHT.
I would not only welcome a rational reformation of the Republican party, I hope for it. I am not a Democrat. There are many things about their party I wish would change, but they are by far the best alternative when the other choice is to join a party led by a hate mongering racist drunk on his own power, claiming to be a Christian in word, but definitely not in deed, and those like him.
And one final note on the brazen stupidity of our grandparents who cling to their experiences and beliefs, and now represent (metaphorically) the futility of discussing anything with those not on board with Obamacare…
I’ll take the wisdom of your grandparents (and mine if they were still alive) over such condescension any day.
You would take stubborness and refusal to consider alternatives, to re-examine the facts, to never admit to being wrong as the best option? Just because they are old? Wisdom is not a factor of age, the simple fact that I can find two people of a given age who have diametrically opposed reactions to the same question proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I love my Grandparents, they have many great qualities. But I do not refuse to see their flaws. I will not simply defer to them when I know they are wrong, simply because they were born before me. To do so is not only foolish, I believe it is disrespectful, because it treats them as if they were inherently right, something I believe only one person ever born can lay claim to.
As I said to Mike, I welcome a reasoned and critical critique of Obama’s goals.
Shrill, strident cries of death panels and socialism and other demonstrable lies are not that. They are not reasonable disagreement, they are garbage. It is possible to disagree with the Obama plan, to believe that it is not the solution we need without resorting to fanatical behavior. The President and other Democrats are going to town hall meetings, meetings that are open not to hand picked audiences ala George W. Bush but to everyone. One needs no proof of this beyond the whack jobs who show up exhibiting the extremeist behavior they do. This is America, they get to have their opinion and express it. I don’t have to respect them for it however. No, I find them to be harmful and dishonest and a poor example of what American’s can be. Not because they disagree but HOW they disagree. With lies, with slander, with extremism. They are the anti-thesis of wisdom and strength of character.
Disagreeing is fine, but do so with honesty, integrity, and a willingness to listen to what the other person has to say. Be willing to seek common ground and compromise to find a solution that is acceptable to as many as possible.
This scorched earth strategy so embraced by the vile leaders of the GOP like Coulter, Limbaugh and O’Reilly (make no mistake, THEY wield the power) is appalling and sickening. It is not patriotic. It is not American. It is just plain wrong.
The tree…
They KNEW they were right. That was all they needed to know.
The apple…
I will not simply defer to them when I know they are wrong…
Such delicious irony.
It didn’t matter to them that their “solution” would cause millions of people to lose their homes, their jobs, their income, and even their lives.
Prove this and I’ll concede every argument I’ve ever made to you.
The tree…
They KNEW they were right. That was all they needed to know.
The apple…
I will not simply defer to them when I know they are wrong…
Such delicious irony.
How is it ironic? My knowledge of what was right was based on direct understanding, study, and testimony of Japan and its people. I had professors who were experts on Japan, who had BEEN to Japan, who KNEW the Japanese and in some cases WERE Japanese.
Their knowledge was based on what they heard during the war over 50 years ago, based largely on propoganda and from people who had never been to the country and didn’t know the country or its people.
I knew what I knew based on facts and verifiable information. They knew what they knew based on the belief that it was right because some one told them and they were older.
If you honestly place more value on the age of the person than on the source of that knowledge, then I’m sorry but I can’t consider anything you say with an ounce of credibility.
Age DOES NOT EQUAL accuracy of information. To believe that is to eschew actual critical thinking in favor of laziness. Precisely the problem perpetuated by people like the right wing king pin Rush Limbaugh.
Mike,
Without government intervention banks would have failed. Major U.S. industries would have gone under. That means people would lose their jobs, their income, their ability to support themselves. This would have had a ripple affect to related industries, communities, etc. It’s happened before, its called the Great Depression. People lost their homes, their jobs, and in some cases their lives. This is what we faced if we did nothing and let the market correct itself. The raw free market is an uncarring mistress. The cost of letting it sort itself out wwould have been the affect on peoples lives, ACTUAL peoples lives. It is not some academic abstraction, its real life and it affects real people. If you need examples of what could have happened in real life I encourage you to travel to the upper midwest and meet the people who were allready affected by the struggles of the auto and manufacturing industries. Go visit towns where buisness after buisness is closed. Where people are struggling to get by. Without intervention that problem wouldn’t have magically gone away, it would have continued getting worse long before it turned around.
Real people. Real lives. The right wings answer was to contiue the same policies that put is in that situation in the first place. They placed ideological correctness over the affects it would cause to real people.
Uhhhmmm…just for the record…which administration began the intervention in our economy to protect the economic system when the recession started?
David, we are in a world where everything is debated as though the ideas were equal regardless of facts. We have gotten to this point due to conservative screaming and babbling about bullshit and liberal bias etc. Unfortunately for conservatives facts tend to have a liberal bias. The conservative solution to this problem is simply to dismiss facts as in any way relevant to an argument. It is lazy thinking, and it’s also how they get away with all of the double think stuff.
When facts become irrelevant to an argument why trouble yourself with what can be supported by them. Or, for that matter trouble yourself with rational argument at all. Just keep repeating the talking points until your are blue in the face and hope that’s enough to win and keep everyone’s heads in the sand and or up their asses.
It is a deeply unfortunate state of affairs. The only solution to this is to do something the media is scared to death of doing, stop giving any credence to the bullshit babbling. If someone has a supportable position on something that’s one thing. When their statements are laughable on their face, don’t let them on the damn air. But news organizations are too scared to be labeled biased to bother with fact checking. As soon as fact checking went out the window you get the bizzaro land style arguments and thinking of people like Johanna, Mike, and Gharie. It’s unfortunate that they are completely unable to think for themselves but that’s what happens when you let other people do all your thinking for you and stop bothering yourself with reality.
The Republican party does a remarkably good job of making people think that the interests of those at the very top of the party leadership are the same as their own. The Democrats, for their part, are too populist and completely unable to come up with anything approaching a unified message or position. It leads directly to the stagnant disaster we currently call government. Which ultimately is a win for the conservatives, so there really is no impetus to change.
Gahrie, the only reason the Bush administration did anything was a) to provide a blank check to his friends in high places so they could keep their bonuses. And b) because when the Republican party did nothing following the 1929 market collapse it led to one of the most catastrophic election losses in US history, 20 years with next to no chance of winning the White House, over 40 years minority status in the House and decades of minority status in the Senate. Simply put for Bush to do nothing would be to banish the Republican party to another half century in the wilderness and possibly kill the party off completely given that, based on the cycles of US history we are about due for a fairly major party re-alignment. Nobody wants to be remembered as another Herbert Hoover. Or worse Millard Fillmore who saw the demise of the Whig party all together.
gahrie, that would be the same administration who got us into this mess, and did so with a democratically controlled congress and in the face of huge right wing criticism. The fact that Bush was willing to start the effort is one of the few things I think he did right over the past 8 years, but don’t mistake that for being a credit to the rest of your misbegotten party.
That was an awkward statement. The problem was caused when the GOP controlled congress. The effort to FIX things or atleast stop them from collapsing altogether was when the Democrats controlled congress. Again, kudo’s to Bush for one of the few decisions I think he got right in his Presidency (the others IMO being the initial invasion of Afghanistan and his stance on the immigration issue).
David, his stance on the immigration issue was and is completely untenable. The only functional way to deal with illegal immigration is to hold business accountable in a serious way for the people they hire. The only way to do that is to have a legitimate and reliable means to demonstrate citizenship. If you think we can do either of those things in this country, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’m looking to sell. I was think of putting it on ebay, but if you’d like to make an offer…