That was an extremely insigtful post. Whether we want to admit it or not, we who follow politics are partisan at least to some degree. I readily admit I sometimes take a position because it’s thought to be the conservative view and in opposition to the left-wing stance. In 2004, I intentionally ignored the problems I had with Bush in order to prevent Kerry from being elected.
Sickoflibs has advanced the proposition that runs counter to the logic advanced by people with whom we identify. He rightly says that logically you cannot conclude that increased economic activity comes only from tax cuts when it is coincident in time with increased spending or printing of money. It seems to me that he is defended his position vigorously and within the bounds of fair argument. My own opinion is that we do not know the degree to which tax cuts can be credited and spending or printing must be calculated. In trying to answer that question I went to the source cited by sickoflibs and found it credible. Seems to me we can grapple with the logic of his argument or we can go to the ad hominem. The ad hominemis ultimately self-defeating. No man this side of the cross is infallible and pedigree is no way of determining truth. I am struck by this quote which I have saved:
...these source of a doctrine, news item, or any other statement carried more weight than the content of it; the feeling about the source preceded and determined the true believers reaction. " In other words, Dennis, Foster and the founders did not credit the overwhelming evidence of Stalin's crimes until an authoritative Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, ruled that they were crimes. (p. 39) "In Denial" by Haynes's and Klehr,
So William Duranty of the New York Times gets the Pulitzer Prize while he fails to report the 7 million Ukrainians were murdered by Stalin. He was seduced by authority rather than reason and observation.
The Soviet Union imploded because it could not correct itself and it could not correct itself because it resorted to the ad hominem as the means of determining truth.
So I am regretfully equally disappointed in your post number 60 as I am encouraged by your post number 61. Your post number 61 reads as follows:
Levin is smarter and wittier than you could ever dream of being. How many number one best sellers have you written?
Adolf Hitler sold more bestsellers than Mark Levin, does that make him more correct than Mr. Levin?
Conservatism will prosper or founder not based on whether we are gung ho but whether we have a rigorous devotion to wherever the truth might lead us, as you have rightly acknowledged in your post number 61.