Arizona law was irrelevant to Jared Loughner's purchasing the gun. The background check is federal, and he passed it. Yes, his carrying concealed to the Safeway, without a permit, was legal under Arizona's new law, but if it hadn't been, would he have been dissuaded? He headed off to commit murder; he was already far over the line where a concealed-carry law would have made any difference to him.
"...is evidence that he's a poor President, but not that he's..."Whatever comes before the "is" may be accurate, and thus people may make normative judgements on their basis, but bogus, strained conclusions (in this case: "the antecedent confirms he's a Muslim! Lets everyone go around saying Obama is a Muslim!") say a lot more about the critic than their target. It ends up being an act of self-nullification of any substantive critique they might have offered.
Here at Winds, one of the original purposes of this blog, and a reason I liked it, is to note and condemn things that poison the debate regardless of whether it's done by "our side" or against it. The knowledge by the fine and wise people who founded this blog, and gave me the opportunity to post here too, that meretricious arguments such as those not only inflame the debate but are self-defeating. Improper arguments may warm the hearts of some of the readers (in the "red meat" sense), but they also discredit those who make them in the eyes of fair observers. Or should. One of the reasons why I dislike the modern Left is that they are allowed to get away with this sort of behavior, since they still have the preponderant control of the "opinion-leading" institutions. Of course, one of the reasons that control may ebb is precisely because, in allowing many to get away with such things and even make careers out of it, they're undermining their own credibility, though at a more glacial pace than many think.
But that's no reason for the other side to become just the flip side of the same coin, because the same fair observers will see them as no different rather than a real alternative.
As for me, and connecting this to the other posts in the series: I don't know what Obama's heart is. I don't know what his real faith is (I highly, *highly* *HIGHLY* doubt it's Islam, however). Perhaps he's a sincerely devout Christian. He says he's a Christian. As Dave Kopel points out, no one doubts Carter is a sincere Christian. People who oppose President Obama's policies and behavior, I highly doubt they do so because they think he's a Muslim but would support those same policies and behavior if they became convinced he was a devout Christian ("Well, if he was, then his policies and behavior would be different!" is a non-argument, as there are many devout Christians who have the same political beliefs and behavior as he. You may think they're politically and even theologically misguided, and I might agree - after all, everyone's a heretic). No, as with the Blogchair Psychoanalysis, they first oppose his policies, and then latch on to something ("he's a bad President by reason of crazy!" or "he's a bad President by reason of Islam!") that claims to explain it, but really doesn't.
To me, the Alinskyist Argument makes more sense, because it's definitely connected to everything Obama has said and done. But even there, so what: A lot of people on the Right these days, while simoultaneously condemning Alinskyism, in the next breath proudly proclaim they are using Alinskyist tactics against Progressives, turning the tables on them. Huzzah!
Well, I'm all for the turning of tables, and holding people (especially the governing class) to the same standards they hold others to. But it's rather ironic for people to say "OMG, this Administration is full of Alinskyists, and Alinskyism is bad! Have you read Rules? You should!" (you really should) "I have! It's evil! And here's what I've learned from it, and this is the Alinskyist tactic I'm using today!"
That's the common thread in this series of posts: that the tactics the Right despises in the Left, some elements of the Right are gleefully adopting themselves, even while still deploring the tactics. Now, this can be done to some degree and in certain ways, but done in the way these have, it's as I said: poisonous and self-destructive.
| Direct Link
| 6 Comments
|
| Printer-Friendly
But while 76% of Mainstream voters think the United States should continue to build the fence, 67% of the Political Class are opposed to it.We need a constant stream of polls showing "N% of the general electorate has this view, X% of the political class believes the opposite."
Not because the majority is always right, but because it's absolutely critical to repeatedly demonstrate on a range of issues how detached the governing class is from the people they govern, how alienated they are from the society they rule.
Which is also why, alas, such breakdowns are unlikely to get widespread mention in the Official Press.
| Direct Link
| 3 Comments
|
| Printer-Friendly
That said, some criticisms are just mindless. People on the Right such as myself and, I presume, the fine people at American Thinker, properly despise it when the Left subjects conservatives (either politicians or as a whole) to distant armchair psychoanalysis. So why are they engaging in it?
It doesn't seem to be along the lines of what I admit is one of my favorite strategeries, that of hoisting them on their own petard, subjecting them (the President in this case, the Left in general) to the same standards they subject everyone else to to demonstrate how fail and inconsistent the standards are. No, that piece seems perfectly earnest on its own terms. Right down to concluding "adult children of alcoholics...keep them out of the White House"
Well, a good Liberal/Left/Progressive, whatever writer could - and should - use my aforementioned favorite tactic in response to that: Does the author really mean Ronald Reagan should have been kept from the White House? Reagan was also an adult child of an alcoholic, and, unlike Obama, experienced it up close.
Criticisms of these sort, blogchair psychoanalytics, are insipid and self-defeating regardless of who engages in them. They do nothing to advance the debate, and a lot to poison it. I mean, c'mon, who is fooling who here? Nobody is fooling anyone but themselves. People who think Obama or Reagan should have never been President don't do so because they're the product of alcoholic households or for any other psychoanalytic reason, and nobody who does think either were or are fine Presidents are going to be convinced otherwise by bogus arguments of this sort. The psychoanalitic deligitimization comes after already deciding they don't like their policies. It's never "you know, I really like what this guy's trying to accomplish and support his policies, but he's probably got this deep-seated mental disorder I attribute to him. He might be unfit for office by reason of crazy."
You know what would be a fun experiment? Find 1000 people who approve of the President, have them read that article, and see how many changed their minds and now think he's unfit for the office. Would there be one such person?
| Direct Link
| 9 Comments
|
| Printer-Friendly
The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of TheNew York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. That's a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.
First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that's easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it's less charming.
