This is funny because excepting the liberalism-specific piece that I highlighted, everything else is either exactly backwards or applies more to the reverse side.something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.
Irrationality and directing infantile abuse at opponents isn't restricted to the left of course, but it is certainly prevalent among liberals -- many of whom are shocked and horrified at the mere thought than anyone would dare disagree with their deeply held assumptions. Anyone who does so must therefore be evil and acting out of evil motives. Tolerance is one of those virtues the left likes to preach about but almost never practices toward opposing views.
And finally, Paglia's best line:
Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.Obviously that's a massive over-generalization. But it has been true in a general sense as long as I can remember.
Republican conservatives these days are the ones hurling the vast majority of irrational, infantile abuses, at least in public.
And Democratic liberals are the ones more interested in facts and pragmatism. They persist in their delusions on things like the efficacy of state redistributionism, of course, but conservatives have their own delusions on other matters: international relations, what military can or should do, and 'family values'.
Depending on which examples you choose it could definitely be reversed. That's the problem wiht any sorts of sweeping generalizations. But these are interesting because they are friendly fire.
ReplyDelete"And Democratic liberals are the ones more interested in facts and pragmatism."
I've seen zero evidence of this, and massive amounts of evidence pointing the other way.
I would just like to highlight some wisdom from UNRR he wrote over on my blog:
ReplyDelete"Iran would be well within its rights to torture any CIA operatives it captures." -- http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/04/us-military-medical-officers.html#respond
Very sad.
UNRR: I've seen zero evidence [that Democratic liberals are the ones more interested in facts and pragmatism], and massive amounts of evidence pointing the other way.
ReplyDeleteApparently you've been paying zero attention to the entire 2008 campaign, the way both parties have weathered the economic crises, the budgets both parties put forth, and too many other things to list. But since you're a rightist who's comfortable with torture and other international catastrophes, I'm not exactly surprised by your lack of perspective.
Some of Pagila's 'friendly fire' criticism could be useful if she weren't so bizarrely delusioned into thinking conservatives are 'more geared to facts than emotions', 'more ethical', and have a 'sense of fair play', all of which is risibly off the mark right now.
"I would just like to highlight some wisdom from UNRR he wrote over on my blog:'
ReplyDeleteVery sad."
What's sad about it? It's called logical consistency.
"Apparently you've been paying zero attention to the entire 2008 campaign, the way both parties have weathered the economic crises, the budgets both parties put forth, and too many other things to list."
No, actually I've been paying pretty close attention.
" But since you're a rightist who's comfortable with torture and other international catastrophes"
I'm not at all comfortable with torture. There are certain situations in which I think it's justifiable. And obviously I'm not comfortable with "catastrophes," international or otherwise.
"Some of Pagila's 'friendly fire' criticism could be useful if she weren't so bizarrely delusioned into thinking conservatives are 'more geared to facts than emotions', 'more ethical', and have a 'sense of fair play', all of which is risibly off the mark right now."
It seems on the mark, but naturally that depends on perspective.
"What's sad about it?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I think the most important thing is that torture is against the law. It's against U.S. law and it's against the treaties we've signed, such as the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
See Article 2:
" 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. "
Just to highlight that second bit: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
You are welcome to your opinion as to whether torture is ok with you in certain circumstances. You are not entitled to ignore the law.
UNRR: I'm not comfortable with "catastrophes," international or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYes you are, by not acknowledging them as such. Iraq, most of Bush's presidency, the use of torture, all quite calamitous.
I still feel some disbelief when I think of how incredibly lucky we are to have Barack Hussein Obama repairing U.S. relations ("reattaching all the cars on the train") .... someone in the vein of McCain, Clinton, Kerry, or Gore would be falling short of the task at hand, IMO.
Here's the latest example of ridiculous Republican foreign policy thinking. Democrats have their own nuts, too be sure, but their thinking is nowhere near as dominated by them. The elected Democratic establishment actually has reasonable (if in some ways misguided) views on a majority of topics. Not so with republo-conservatism, where the Newts and Bachmanns scream wildly and there's no voice of reason.
Metavirus,
ReplyDelete"Well, I think the most important thing is that torture is against the law."
I don't share that legalistic viewpoint. In circumstances where I think torture could be justified, the law is a lesser factor than other considerations.
If you read what I've written about torture, you will see that I'm not making arguments about the legality of torture -- I leave that to the lawyers. In fact, far from ignoring the law, I am instead arguing that there are situations in which the law should be violated -- or where the law does not apply.
The only legal-ish argument that I make specific to torture, is that there are certain classes of persons in wartime, who have traditionally and customarily been considered illegal combatants and therefore subject to summary execution if captured -- which in my view should also make them subject to possible torture, depending on every detail of the circumstances. But even that's more of a "way it should be" argument than a legal one.
"I don't share that legalistic viewpoint. In circumstances where I think torture could be justified, the law is a lesser factor than other considerations."
ReplyDeleteWell, I happen to be a lawyer and can tell you unequivocally that torture is in fact illegal.
If you think that there are certain circumstances in which people should break the law and torture anyway, then I'm sure you'd agree that --in the interest of upholding the rule of law -- the people who decided to break the law and torture people should submit themselves to justice and plead their case.
Although there is no "exceptional circumstances" defense to the crime of torture, I'm sure it would make you feel nice to hear them admit that they did in fact torture and they're damn proud of it. They would be tried and convicted but at least they'd have their day in court.
As to your only "legalish" argument: "
The only legal-ish argument that I make specific to torture, is that there are certain classes of persons in wartime, who have traditionally and customarily been considered illegal combatants and therefore subject to summary execution if captured"
I hate to tell you this but there aren't any classes of wartime prisoners that a government is allowed to "subject to summary execution if captured". A wartime power must take such prisoners into its custody and treat them humanely. The reason for this is to avoid Iran, for example, beheading any of our soldiers that they capture in retaliation for our "summary executions" of people from their side that we capture.
It's all well and good for your to have your opinions. But they're not grounded in U.S. law, international law, religious ethics, or any other sound theory that you've been able to explicate.
You simply feel in your gut that it's satisfying to torture dirty brown sand mooslems because some other dirty brown sand mooslems killed amuricans on 9/11
Gherald,
ReplyDelete"Yes you are, by not acknowledging them as such. Iraq, most of Bush's presidency, the use of torture, all quite calamitous."
That argument is quite a stretch.
"Here's the latest example of ridiculous Republican foreign policy thinking."
That's not my thinking. I agree that attacking North Korea would be crazy. I've got a couple posts up about that.
Metavirus,
"Well, I happen to be a lawyer and can tell you unequivocally that torture is in fact illegal."
Again, I'm not disputing that. Although the definition of torture is subject to interpretation. Many things we do in our domestic prison system could be construed as torture. But I was opposed to Bush's weasel-like attempt to use an extremely narrow definition of torture.
"If you think that there are certain circumstances in which people should break the law and torture anyway, then I'm sure you'd agree that --in the interest of upholding the rule of law -- the people who decided to break the law and torture people should submit themselves to justice and plead their case."
Bush should have taken full responsibility and risked impeachment, yes.
"I hate to tell you this but there aren't any classes of wartime prisoners that a government is allowed to "subject to summary execution if captured". A wartime power must take such prisoners into its custody and treat them humanely."
And I hate to tell you this, but that's not how it has worked for most of history. Illegal combatants such as spies, saboteurs, and francs-tireur were subject to summary execution.
"The reason for this is to avoid Iran, for example, beheading any of our soldiers that they capture in retaliation for our "summary executions" of people from their side that we capture."
That has absolutely nothing to do with any argument that I've made. I'm not talking about soldiers or other military personnel of another state. I'm opposed to military use of torture, and to torturing members of other military forces.
"It's all well and good for your to have your opinions. But they're not grounded in U.S. law, international law, religious ethics, or any other sound theory that you've been able to explicate."
Again, I'm not making legal arguments and I'm an atheist. My arguments are based on history, logical reasoning, and personal opinion.
"You simply feel in your gut that it's satisfying to torture dirty brown sand mooslems because some other dirty brown sand mooslems killed amuricans on 9/11"
No, actually I don't, and if you aren't capable of rational argument, don't waste my time. BTW, it's Muslims, not "mooslems." And what are "amuricans." ? Save the racist nonsense for fellow left-wingers who might appreciate it. Why are left-wingers incapable of arguing without resorting to ridiculous personal attacks?
"Bush should have taken full responsibility and risked impeachment, yes."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting admission from you. So, by the same logic, those involved in torture should come forward and bring the cold light of scrutiny to their activities? If you really believe this then I'm sure this means that you support a fact-finding investigation if the people involved (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith, Yoo, et all) don't voluntarily come forward and reveal the actions they took in our name, amirite?
"No, actually I don't, and if you aren't capable of rational argument, don't waste my time. BTW, it's Muslims, not "mooslems." And what are "amuricans." ? Save the racist nonsense for fellow left-wingers who might appreciate it. Why are left-wingers incapable of arguing without resorting to ridiculous personal attacks?"
The deliberate misspelling of the words was intentional and is a commonly used device that people use when sarcastically mocking their opposition.
I find it rich that you whine about me not being able to engage in rational argument. I just spent way too much of my day outlining for you a series of rational arguments about why torture is illegal and wrong.
In response, as always, you spend your time evading every substantive point except, perhaps, your admission that torture is in fact illegal. You do not put forward a logical justification for why our executive branch of government should be given carte blanche to torture people at will. You do not put forward a logical justification for why you believe its a good thing for the CIA and our military to haphazardly torture people. You just put out feelings and conjecture and whine about people not paying you the proper respect.
When you happen to come forward with some reason why someone would have a reason to pay you any respect, I'll be happy to treat you with the respect you deserve.
P.S. By the way, you again demonstrate your ignorance of the law by claiming that summary executions are a storied part of our current experience.
ReplyDeleteSummary executions are actually illegal in most of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR - 1966, Article 6.1)
"According to international law, summary executions are illegal as it is the denial of the right to life with fair trial."
ReplyDeleteUNRR: That argument is quite a stretch.
ReplyDeleteA recent historian ranking pegged Bush as the overall sixth-worst president (I don't think Harrison counts). For international relations he was ranked second-worst. So I don't think it's a stretch at all to see him as catastrophic for international relations, much less 'quite a stretch'.
(BTW the survey ranked Reagan #10 overall, which I think a little off. He beats out Wilson for sure.)
That's not my thinking. I agree that attacking North Korea would be crazy. I've got a couple posts up about that.
Sure. But aside from considering your biases, this was never about you personally. You and Paglia were generalizing about liberals and conservatives. Remember?
"n interesting admission from you. So, by the same logic, those involved in torture should come forward and bring the cold light of scrutiny to their activities? If you really believe this then I'm sure this means that you support a fact-finding investigation if the people involved (e.g. Rumsfeld, Feith, Yoo, et all) don't voluntarily come forward and reveal the actions they took in our name, amirite?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a whole other issue. But no, because the time has passed. Bush is out of power and it can't be done without a political witchhunt. Even Obama appears to recognize that. Criminal investigations of outgoing administrations for policy decisions is a really bad idea, and will do far more harm than good.
" find it rich that you whine about me not being able to engage in rational argument. I just spent way too much of my day outlining for you a series of rational arguments about why torture is illegal and wrong."
Actually you haven't. You've been arguing about something that I already conceded -- that torture is illegal. Illegal does not equal wrong.
"In response, as always, you spend your time evading every substantive point except, perhaps, your admission that torture is in fact illegal."
I haven't evaded a single point. You are just arguing past me from a legal perspective, which I don't care about and have clearly stated as much.
You do not put forward a logical justification for why our executive branch of government should be given carte blanche to torture people at will."
I have numerous posts on torture, and of course I don't argue for that at all. I'm not reposting them all here.
"You do not put forward a logical justification for why you believe its a good thing for the CIA and our military to haphazardly torture people."
see above. And I just said I'm against the military torturing anyone. And I don't want "haphazard torture." My criteria for the possible use of torture are very specific.
"When you happen to come forward with some reason why someone would have a reason to pay you any respect, I'll be happy to treat you with the respect you deserve."
Then why are you arguing with me at all? Generally if I choose to argue with someone, I try to answer their arguments, rather than launch personal attacks. It's called basic common courtesy.
""According to international law, summary executions are illegal as it is the denial of the right to life with fair trial.""
How many times do I have to write that I'm not making a legal argument? Do you just enjoy demolishing strawmen?
"By the way, you again demonstrate your ignorance of the law by claiming that summary executions are a storied part of our current experience."
Never argued that. Another strawman.
Gherald,
" So I don't think it's a stretch at all to see him as catastrophic for international relations, much less 'quite a stretch'."
Again, I'm not a big defender of Bush. So yes, it's a major stretch.
"Sure. But aside from considering your biases, this was never about you personally. You and Paglia were generalizing about liberals and conservatives. Remember?"
Ok, point taken.
Metavirus,
ReplyDeleteOne other point... I've found that when arguing with someone with an extremely different political viewpoint, it is useful to keep a tight focus on specific points of debate and not introduce other arguments. Otherwise it becomes unmanageable since underlying assumptions are so different.
"Illegal does not equal wrong."
ReplyDeleteWith a statement like that, I see that any substantive argument will have absolutely no effect on you. No sense in continuing the conversation if that's truly where you're coming from.
"One other point... I've found that when arguing with someone with an extremely different political viewpoint, it is useful to keep a tight focus on specific points of debate and not introduce other arguments. Otherwise it becomes unmanageable since underlying assumptions are so different."
Thanks. I'll be sure to bear in mind the advice of someone that is such a staunch devotee of rational discourse and fact-based arguments.
"With a statement like that, I see that any substantive argument will have absolutely no effect on you. No sense in continuing the conversation if that's truly where you're coming from."
ReplyDeleteI guess you think the Nuremburg laws were right, not wrong. Because after all legal equals right in your world. But thanks for conceding that you are incapable of rational debate or even grasping the most basic arguments. I'll stop wasting my time.
"Thanks. I'll be sure to bear in mind the advice of someone that is such a staunch devotee of rational discourse and fact-based arguments."
Irony is lost on you.
"I guess you think the Nuremburg laws were right, not wrong."
ReplyDeleteGood to know that the Geneva Conventions, UN Convention Against Torture, U.S. Law and the other relevant laws of most of the civilized world on torture are on par with the Nuremberg laws. Thanks for that revelation.
I'm just curious, what was your childhood like? I'm trying to imagine what influenced the development of your rational and emotional faculties...