Ben:
Sometime last week, I encountered for what must have been the one millionth time the tiresome complaint that our president ignores dissent.
I like to dissect and analyse, so I got to thinking, what does it actually mean, to ignore dissent? What is the complaint really about? Is the complaint really about "we had another opinion but it was rejected"?
And it hit me while watching History Channel -- ignoring dissent: it's a feature, not a bug!
The reason why is evident in the short and simple flowchart below:
Ben Levy's Evaluation and Dissent Flowchart for non-Trivial Strategic Decision Making.Of course, for purposes of this flowchart, dealing with dissent through Forced Exile, Firing Squad, etc, is really just an extreme case of Ignoring it. I should add, the case of "considered the dissent, but rejected it for one or more reasons" is not really the same as "ignoring", but has been included as such here, as the American Left, at least those levelling this charge at the White House, no longer seems able to make the distinction.1) Evaluate Decision. Is there dissent?
A. Yes. Proceed to Step 2.
B. No. No? Bull. Unless your problem is trivial (Who wants Ice Cream?) there is always dissent. You've simply managed to ignore it already. Proceed directly to Step 2.A
2) Do you wish to Ignore Dissent?
A. Yes, Ignore Dissent. Implement Your Decision. You're done!
B. No, Do not Ignore Dissent. Review situation, and generate New Decision. Return to step 1.
Irwin:
If our president "ignores dissent," it's probably because he disagrees with the dissenters' positions. In effect, he "dissents" from their views. By objecting to this, the left itself "ignores dissent." They demand agreement (to their views), and any disagreement is, prima facie, "ignoring dissent."
It's all pretty circular.
IMBUSH PEACH!
Ben:
That was the concept. There is no way to get out of the circle and reach "implement decision" unless you first reach "yes, ignore dissent". This isn't just a Bush thing, it's universal, but it struck me as slightly humorous that the pundits and critics don't see that.
There simply isn't any such thing as a decision implemented without ignoring dissent.
It's a non-existent alternative, and I've noticed the Left is really good at comparing real world decisions and events to non-existent alternatives. Sort of like the absurd comparisons with "real" communism. You know the drill:
Capitalist: Communism sucks. Look at what happened in communist nations.
Communist: But those weren't REAL communist nations. REAL communism, like the kind implemented in some other universe we can glimpse through a drug-induced haze, doesn't have those problems.
This is the whole concept behind the phrase, "I'm not deaf, I'm ignoring you."
Jim:
To those who have absolute certainty in their own beliefs, anyone not acting in accord with them has to be "ignoring" rather than "disagreeing," or "seeing things differently." Alternatively, they have some sinister ulterior motive (Big Oil, Halliburton, etc.).
It's just too mind-bending for the true believers to think that someone could genuinely believe something different.
Steve:
A similar tactic, IMHO, is the call for a "dialog" when your side has lost the debate. The is what Mearsheimer and Walt are doing. They want a "dialog" about America's support for Israel. It is blatantly dishonest. What they are really saying is we want America to stop supporting Israel and if you don't agree with us you are not being open minded. If you consider our opinions and reject them you are not having a "dialog".
People don't ask for a "dialog" unless they know where it wants to go and don't want to come right out and say it. Suppose I wanted to have a "dialog" about whether Measheimer and Walt were idiots (all in the spirit of open inquiry of course). They would be correct in assuming I was not so subtly calling them idiots.
Hey! Did the list allow you to publish that? Trotskyite splitter followers of that imperialist popinjay Hitchens, no doubt.....
I would offer some alternative ideas here, but what would be the point? You've obviously already decided.
Sorry. Couldn't resist that.
Yes. It has seemed obvious to all but the most partisan hacks that "ignore dissent" is simply a euphemism for "disagrees with me and has the authority to do something about it."
It is interesting how the nature of language used to a large degree determines the nature of the debate. Kudos for pointing out the circular nature of the rhetoric.
And, in that vein, have you read Hitchens' review in the Atlantic of Updike's latest novel? The novel is all about a sympathetic muslim youth driven to terrorism in the heart of NYC ... and apparently is wretchedly badly written as well as the product of sloppy thinking.
Hitchens' review was worth the cost of the annual subscription. It's available online here .
Too bad the whole thing isn't available. More of the review can be found via Orbis Quintus.
If reasoning like this were to take hold, it would put a serious crimp in "speaking truth to power".
"Hey! Did the list allow you to publish that?"
Hey, anything you post to an email list may be used against you . . .
This was from my NYC Liberal Hawks list. I didn't get permission and in fact one member asked me to delete part of it, which I did.
Another frequently abused term is "Justice", which as near as I can tell is basically a left-handed way of saying "Give me what I want".