Posted on 10/25/2005 2:24:39 AM PDT by RWR8189
A reader recently sent me an e-mail about a woman he had met and fallen for. Apparently the attraction was mutual -- until one fateful day the subject of the environment came up.
She was absolutely opposed to any drilling for oil in Alaska, on grounds of what harm she said it would do to the environment.
He argued that, since oil was going to be drilled for somewhere in the world anyway, was it not better to drill where there were environmental laws to provide at least some kinds of safeguards, rather than in countries where there were none?
That was the end of a beautiful relationship.
Environmentalist true believers don't think in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis. There are things that are sacred to them. Trying to get them to compromise on those things would be like trying to convince a Moslem to eat pork, if it was only twice a week.
Compromise and tolerance are not the hallmarks of true believers. What they believe in goes to the heart of what they are. As far as true believers are concerned, you are either one of Us or one of Them.
The man apparently thought that it was just a question of which policy would produce which results. But many issues that look on the surface like they are just about which alternative would best serve the general public are really about being one of Us or one of Them -- and this woman was not about to become one of Them.
Many crusades of the political left have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.
T.S. Eliot understood this more than half a century ago when he wrote: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
In this case, the man thought he was asking the woman to accept a certain policy as the lesser of two evils, when in fact he was asking her to give up her sense of being one of the morally anointed.
This is not unique to our times or to environmentalists. Back during the 1930s, in the years leading up to World War II, one of the fashionable self-indulgences of the left in Britain was to argue that the British should disarm "as an example to others" in order to serve the interests of peace.
When economist Roy Harrod asked one of his friends whether she thought that disarming Britain would cause Hitler to disarm, her reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?"
In other words, it was not really about which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.
The ostensible goal of peace was window-dressing. Ultimately it was not a question whether arming or disarming Britain was more likely to deter Hitler. It was a question of which policy would best establish the moral superiority of the anointed and solidify their identification with one another.
"Peace" movements are not judged by the empirical test of how often they actually produce peace or how often their disarmament tempts an aggressor into war. It is not an empirical question. It is an article of faith and a badge of identity.
Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace -- not for actually producing peace but for being part of what was called "the peace process," based on fashionable notions that were common bonds among members of what are called "peace movements."
Meanwhile, nobody suggested awarding a Nobel Prize for peace to Ronald Reagan, just because he brought the nuclear dangers of a decades-long cold war to an end. He did it the opposite way from how members of "peace movements" thought it should be done.
Reagan beefed up the military and entered into an "arms race" that he knew would bankrupt the Soviet Union if they didn't back off, even though arms races are anathema to members of "peace movements." The fact that events proved him right was no excuse as far as members of "peace movements" were concerned. As far as they were concerned, he was not one of Us. He was one of Them.
Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate
[[There is no reasoning with trust ...]]
Flawed reasoning to give yourself an 'out'. You simply dismiss out of hand that someone who disagrees with you can have a reasoned position. I could turn your claim around and say there is no reasoning with an entrenched ideologue. That is not only disingenuous, but intellectually dishonest. What you actually do is prove my point of attributing the conservative rift to a 'them or 'us' attitude, which you exhibit.
I agree.
You make a good point. There are idealogues on both the right and left. People like Dick Durbin, Howard Dean, or the U-Boat Commander are beyond reasoning with, but there are some on the right who are just as self-righteous and narrow-minded. Pat Buchanan comes to mind, but I don't think he's as extreme as he likes to portend.
But they're out there. My dad, as much as I love him, is a born-again Baptist who loves to try and convert me every time he gets the chance. At the same time he keeps up a running correspondence with Bibi Netanyahu, who he considers the greatest conservative since Reagan and Thatcher, yet he tells me that all the Jews are going to Hell for not accepting Christ as their saviour.
I have a coworker who is a devout liberal but was forced to accept an hourly wage without commission, even though he's a good salesman, because he couldn't, and still can't, leave his politics at home. He's never figured out that sermonizing on the evils of voting for a Republican while trying to close a sale is not the best way to make a living, especially in a conservative town where most of your customers are upper-middle class Republicans.
One of the reasons I've always managed to convert people to a conservative or even less liberal way of thinking is that I don't try and force it down their throats. Yeah, it can be fun, like my Earth Day encounter, to point out certain hypocricies of the left, but I prefer to do it slowly, and let them bring up the subject. Reasonable conversation goes a lot farther than full-bored fanaticism.
That is a flawed conclusion. My statement was that when the opposition argument bottoms out on "trust," dialog on that issue leads nowhere. That position isn't all or nothing against any person. It is the closing off of discussion by the person who asserts that "trust" is the justification for holding a position.
I could turn your claim around and say there is no reasoning with an entrenched ideologue.
That is a variation of the same argument, and I agree - some people on some positions argue irrationally.
What you actually do is prove my point of attributing the conservative rift to a 'them or 'us' attitude, which you exhibit.
The rift exists. Both sides blame the other. Both sides assert they are right. One side uses arguments that bottom out on "trust."
Sowell is saying the same thing I am. Do you disagree with him?
[[My statement was that when the opposition argument bottoms out on "trust," dialog on that issue leads nowhere. That position isn't all or nothing against any person. It is the closing off of discussion by the person who asserts that "trust" is the justification for holding a position.]]
You create a semantically circular argument, but you skew it when you assign 'trust' to one side, the opposition and claim it to be the sole reason for their position. Both sides engage in 'trust', one in a persons track record, the other in a 'belief' that their ideological position is correct. What is interesting in that concept is that 'trust' in a belief has no documented track record to be based upon other than opinion.
[[The rift exists. Both sides blame the other. Both sides assert they are right. One side uses arguments that bottom out on "trust."
Sowell is saying the same thing I am. Do you disagree with him?]]
See my response above, both sides argument bottom out on 'trust'. To claim otherwise is fallacious. Sowell did not say the 'same' thing you are. You serendipitously skew his words to support your argument. His focus was on beliefs and not 'trust', and more about ideological entrenchment of those beliefs, an unwillingness to compromise, an inflexibility hidden under the guise of self-aggrandizing claims of adhering to 'principle'. That 'principle' based in the entrenched 'trust' of ones beliefs.
My position vis-a-vis Miers has been supported with an analysis of her writings, etc. to support a conclusion. That argument can be rebutted substantively. But if the object of the argument is whther she has a traditionalist judicial philosophy, the pro-Mires argument is short on facts to support its position.
We're not arguing ideology, I don't think. The question at hand is whether or not Miers subscribes to a traditionalist jurisprudence, ala Thomas or Scalia. And in that discussion, we have the benchmarks of Thomas and Scalis to work comparisons against.
both sides argument bottom out on 'trust'
If that's the way you see it, then there is no point in discussion.
one in a persons track record, the other in a 'belief' that their ideological position is correct
See above. This isn't about my ideological postion. I could mount the same arguments I have regardless of my personal ideology.
You are painting as equially strong rational grounds, the notion of "trust in a persons [I assume GWB's] track record" and "belief that an ideological position is correct." To the extent that each represent rigidity without reason, they are the same.
See my response above, both sides argument bottom out on 'trust'. To claim otherwise is fallacious.
.... 'nuff said.
I started reading it a couple of years ago. It is not light reading. I had to return it to the library before I was finished. I hope to complete it some day. It is a wonderful book, though it requires thought and concentration to work through.
Moral Absolutes Thomas Sowell Ping.
Insightful article about why some people - particularly leftists - hold certain beliefs. Not because their beliefs actually do any good - in fact most cause great harm - but because their beliefs make them feel good about themselves. It's all about feeling good about themselves. Living in castles in the air does nobody any good, and meanwhile, in the real (albeit temporal) world, fantasy beliefs cause actual harm to real people.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: It's all part of the "I am God" mindset. Whatever I believe is true - because *I* believe it! My own mind (and the minds of others - at least the parts my mind agrees with) is the arbiter of truth, reality, right and wrong.
Actually the mind of God is the decider and creator of right and wrong, truth and reality.
[[My position vis-a-vis Miers has been supported with an analysis of her writings, etc. to support a conclusion. That argument can be rebutted substantively.]]
Let me state one thing first, I do not disavow your right to your opinion, nor a view it is necessarily incorrect. But writings are not a substantive means of judgement, were that the case, Thomas would not be on the Court. His previous writings, prior to being seated, were not up to 'intellectual snuff'. His positions might have been clearer, but there is no proof she may or may not be of similar bent. One side grasps at anecdotal evidence and extrapolates or divines her position. When that extrapolation or divination is contrary to what the person, herself says, and those who know her say, it reveals that the argument breaks down to one side wanting guarantees, i.e. a paper trail to hang their hat on.
Actually, there are three sides in this debate, anti-Miers, pro-Miers, and the I need to know more. I fall in the latter group, I am leaning against her now, after staking a middle ground while more information was still coming out. My position has shifted due to what I feel is ineptitude in the presentation of this nomination. Only Miers performance in the hearings is left that could make me switch from opposing her. Can she pull it off ? I don't know, I am skeptical, but I am keeping an open mind.
[[This isn't about my ideological postion. I could mount the same arguments I have regardless of my personal ideology.]]
Certainly it is about ideological position, people want some guarantee of her judicial philosophy. You would not be mounting your argument if she had the paper trail you desire.
[[You are painting as equially strong rational grounds, the notion of "trust in a persons [I assume GWB's] track record" and "belief that an ideological position is correct." To the extent that each represent rigidity without reason, they are the same.]]
I contend there is a slight difference. Trust in a track record, you are correct, GWB's on judicial nominations, has a factual basis, all his past nominations. One should not be swayed by the diversion of citing Bush's choices in other areas of policy, of which there are some I disagree with, that have no relation to his judicial nomination track record. Trust in one's beliefs has no such track record to call upon. Instead, it is usually based on the opinions put forth by pundits who may share your ideological inclination and beliefs. I find pundits are much better at hindsight then foresight, at least as far as their track records go.
His judicial nomination track record is not helpful in the Miers case either. The past track record was based on a vetting process that was not followed for Miers.
Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.
[[His judicial nomination track record is not helpful in the Miers case either. The past track record was based on a vetting process that was not followed for Miers.]]
And you know what vetting process was employed with Miers how ? Did someone in the White House tell you ? Or is this based on some pundits opinion ?
[[Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.]]
Of all the things I have seen you write, this makes the least sense. Were this concept to be employed, there would be no such things as a track record to be cited on any issue, each decision would have 'a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future' decisions.
My cheap and tawdry two-cents' worth:
Liberals are much like people who have fallen out of love, but are willing to fight to the death [figuratively of course, liberals don't raise a fist except for peace] to keep the relationship alive. They start saying "I love you" too often in an attempt to convince themselves of the lie and to manipulate their partner into saying it back. The more people speaking the lie, the easier it is to pretend it's true. After a while, they themselves are so convinced the lie is true it becomes the moral highground from which they play king of the mountain. They dance around on top goading passers-by to try to knock them off. The rest of us just watch the scene wondering when the fool will realize his footing is washing away faster than a 10 million dollar home in a mudslide.
That's what I think at 0530 anyway, I'll read it again later and see what I get out of it.
She [Miers] was in charge of the White House selection of a chief justice nominee, vetting candidates' records and often playing the tough questioner."We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_what_s_known
If Miers' fits the pattern of past nominees, the WH would express what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.
The WH has not done this.
Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.
Of all the things I have seen you write, this makes the least sense. Were this concept to be employed, there would be no such things as a track record to be cited on any issue, each decision would have 'a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future' decisions.
I'm not citing the track record - I'm evaluating ONE nominee, Miers. You are correct, if I were evaluating a track record, the others are a necessary part of the evaluation. But citing a track record is a weak defense of this nominee, and in fact works against this nominee -- see Souter, O'Connor, etc.
Are you trying to argue that a nominee cannot be evaluated without reference to the nominator's track record?
That my friend was a perfectly logical and justifiable question to bring to the table. Don't ever let it happen again!..... /s
Another great Sowell piece. Thought you might be interested.
[[If Miers' fits the pattern of past nominees, the WH would express what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.
The WH has not done this.]]
I admit the White House has not done a good job in presentation of Miers, which is why I am now leaning against her nomination. Writings, or lack thereof, are not a sound basis for total rejection and pre-judgement. Nor is it evidence of a lack of or different vetting process, unless you are alleging that because she could not vet herself, somehow, the process was different.
[[I'm not citing the track record - I'm evaluating ONE nominee, Miers. You are correct, if I were evaluating a track record, the others are a necessary part of the evaluation. But citing a track record is a weak defense of this nominee, and in fact works against this nominee -- see Souter, O'Connor, etc.]]
You are isolating one nominee from all the others, and to not consider Bush's track record, which reflects on his judgement of judicial nominees, is dismissal of a relevant fact, and as such, skews your opinion. Were a track record being cited as the sole reason for confirmation, I would agree with you. I only cite it as one reason, among others, including the opinions of those who know her (which, in my opinion, is more valid than the opinions of those that don't) to wait and see and make my judgement based upon the hearings. That is where your argument falls apart, I am not calling for her confirmation based upon Bush's track record.
I find the incessant throwing up of Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy as examples to be a case of comparing apples and oranges, and providing a stronger argument against your demand for Miers having a paper trail. All three of them had paper trails, none of them ended up being conservative, not one of them was personally known by the president that nominated them.
[[Are you trying to argue that a nominee cannot be evaluated without reference to the nominator's track record?]]
No, I am certainly not. You can do so, but it skews your evaluation. What I am arguing is that the nominator's track record is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.
You did see where staunch conservative judge Charles Pickering, who knows her, has endorsed her ?
----
PICKERING: John, you know, I think her resume speaks for itself. She has a very impressive resume. And one of the strengths that I think she has is that she has real-world experience.
I think it's unfortunate that we think someone has got to come from the bench or someone has got to come from academia to sit on the Supreme Court. During the history of our nation, half of the judges that served on the Supreme Court did not have previous judicial experience, so this is not a new phenomenon. This is not a new situation.
And the fact that she has had real-world experience, she was an experienced litigator. She served in local government, state government, and federal government. I think that's to her advantage. I think that's a prospective that the Supreme Court by and large misses.
GIBSON: Judge Pickering, what I'm going to hear and what I know you're going to hear is conservatives saying, "Look, we want a battle-tested nominee like Judge Pickering. We want somebody who's made decisions and had to stick by them. We want somebody who isn't going to wilt under this liberal pressure."
PICKERING: I understand that and I respect that and I think that is a position that, you know, certainly everyone has a right to a position that they want to choose in this, but she's been there before. She's been in litigation. She's represented clients who had $100 million at stake. She has had to advise the president.
You know, for people to suggest that the counsel to the president is not a significant position. She advises him on things that he does all over the world. She's had to stand in the trenches and fight before. I think she'll be able to hold her own with the justices of the Supreme Court.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172016,00.html
Sowell was also one of Friedmans best and brightest students, so it makes sense.
"Writings, or lack thereof, are not a sound basis for total rejection and pre-judgement."
I've been following this discussion and I appreciate that it's a rational one and not a namecalling contest, but I have to disagree with you here, KMAJ2.
If Miers had written of her secret yearnings for Karl Marx or her love for Hitler, would you disagree that such writings were a sound basis for total rejection. I think your complete disqualification of writings as a basis for rejecting a nominee is too harsh.
I still think the best argument raised against her is based upon her writings--in favor of the WH position as Bush's counsel, which will force her to recuse on many highly important cases (including Guantanamo cases that Roberts will also be recusing on as a DC Circuit judge who worked on that court's opinion). No one has yet managed to address that concern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.