Clinton: Bachmann "pretty stupid"

Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN) ^ | 9/20/10 | Bob von Sternberg

[Nachum]

When Bill Clinton came to town this week to raise bucks for Mark Dayton's gubernatorial bid, he also held a late-night fundraiser for state Sen. Tarryl Clark, who's trying to unseat the Sixth District congresswoman.

According to Salon's Joe Conason:

"Your opponent," he told Clark, "is the ultimate example of putting ideology over evidence."

"I respect people with a conservative philosophy," he continued. "This country has been well-served by having two broad traditions within which people can operate. If you have a philosophy, it means you’re generally inclined one way or the other but you’re open to evidence. If you have an ideology, it means everything is determined by dogma and you’re impervious to evidence. Evidence is irrelevant.

[Allegra]

I like Bachmann.

Now that Billy-Boy is trashing her, I like her even more.

[pogybait]

Here's the evidence.

[Spok]

“Clinton: Bachmann “pretty stupid”

How much does he pay his writers to come up with these brilliantly articulated insights?

[Islander7]

[tet68]

“... the ultimate example of putting ideology over evidence.”

I thought that was when the democrats voted not to
impeach him.

[alpo]

The one for Jane (Wheeee, that was fun) Fonda will be a bit longer.

Nickname is statement she made after taking a spin on NVA AA cannon.

[TigersEye]

"That’s how I see Rep. Bachmann. She’s very attractive in saying all these things she says, but it’s (it is) pretty stupid."

"It" depends on what the meaning of "is" is, eh Slick Willy?

[r9etb]

I don’t see it as useful as you do. The GOP could have used more adherence to their core ideology and a lot less pragmatism when they had power.

A core philosophy is a tremendously useful thing. A core ideology is a straightjacket that prevents one from moving when necessary.

Had the GOP properly understood the philosophy of conservatism, they might have adhered to it. And we might have been able to nominate credible conservative candidates.

Faced with the acknowledged apostasy of the GOP on many issues, understanding the philosophy of conservatism might have allowed conservatives may to formulate compelling arguments, both to chastize those who fell away, and to convince those who do not understand or agree with us.

But all too often we have no arguments to offer, no philosophy with which to educate the unconvinced. We just have "positions," which we demand that others accept without question or modification.

On those lines, we might consider why it is that the left is pretty much always able to thwart or modify a conservative plan, just by dragging up and publicizing a few people who will be negatively affected by it.

There's a reasonable possibility that we conservatives may be wrong on certain points of the policy -- we might consider going about it a different way, perhaps. An ideology does not allow any leeway to switch directions. A philosophy does.

[dirtboy]

A core philosophy is a tremendously useful thing. A core ideology is a straightjacket that prevents one from moving when necessary.

And the point you are trying to make is? A philosophy is useless when it is discarded for political expediency. To me, limited government should by its nature be ideological and not subject to the kind of overweening compromise we've seen from too many Republicans over the last decade. What you are basically selling is pragmatism in a nice suit - but it still has a hollow core.

[TigersEye]

An ideology does not allow any leeway to switch directions. A philosophy does.

What exactly is the difference between a political ideology and a political philosophy?

[SparkyBass]

Hey Bill, she’s pretty, stupid.

(it’s all in the way you say it)

[BibChr]

So, how stupid? Lie-under-oath stupid, or get-yourself-pleasured-by-a-subordinate-at-work stupid?

[r9etb]

And the point you are trying to make is? A philosophy is useless when it is discarded for political expediency.

And an ideology is worse than useless if we keep pounding away at it despite the fact that it's not working.

To me, limited government should by its nature be ideological and not subject to the kind of overweening compromise we've seen from too many Republicans over the last decade.

No. Limited government works if the people who live in that society are generally self-policing (Adams' "moral and religious people"). Once the society loses general agreement on principles, then limited government becomes "wholly inadequate" for the government of the actual population.

Principles are understood and argued as a matter of philosophy. Ideology does not require understanding, and it positively rejects argument. Ideology demands unquestioning acceptance of a stated principle; and it does not allow one to question whether or not that principle is true or might need to be altered.

Obviously the GOP has fallen afoul of compromise and even abject surrender. The question is, why?

I think there are three big reasons.

First, the politicians don't understand or even agree with the philosophy. For the former ... they need education. For the latter, we need to nominate better politicians, which requires both us and them to better understand and argue the conservative philosophy.

Second, traditional conservative positions are not necessarily completely correct; and for certain, when the left inevitably puts a human face to conservative positions, it causes discomfort leading to political losses. At the very least, we need to adjust the way we argue our case -- but we tend not to do that; we seem tied to an an unyielding, ideological sense of our principles, and as such we do ourselves a disservice.

Finally, having been burned by adherence to conservative ideology, and having no clear understanding of the underlying principles and what is, or is not, negotiable about them, Republicans frequently cave to pressure, rather than being branded as "mean."

[Fredgoblu]

If you have an ideology, it means everything is determined by dogma and you’re impervious to evidence.

Ah...so when the vast majority of blacks, Jews, working poor, union members, New Yorkers and Californians consistently vote as a bloc, they are idealogues. Geez...why doesn't he just state the obvious?!?!?!

[r9etb]

What exactly is the difference between a political ideology and a political philosophy?

The best definition I've seen for an ideology is, "that set of beliefs that are beyond question." They're ideas that are held to be absolutely true, and against which no contrary arguments or evidence will be recognized as valid, regardless of the merit of the opposing view.

As an example of ideology, we might hold up the "young Earthers," who stoutly reject all science and evidence pointing to an old earth, in preference to an age inferred from the Biblical text. Their own particular view of the Biblical text is quite simply not open to question.

A political philosophy likewise espouses a set of principles, and like an ideology, these can be strongly held. But a philosophical approach also demands that new evidence and compelling counter-arguments have to be taken into account.

The need to change does not necessarily mean that the underlying truths of the philosophy have changed; but it could mean that our understanding of that truth has improved; or simply that there is a change in the circumstances within which that truth must be applied.

[TigersEye]

Where did you find that definition?

ide·ol·o·gy noun

plural ide·ol·o·gies

Definition of IDEOLOGY

1 : visionary theorizing

2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

I would have to go with #2 c in the political context obviously.

phi·los·o·phy noun

plural -phies

Definition of PHILOSOPHY

1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts

(2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology

(3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary

b (1) archaic : physical science

(2) : ethics

c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

2 a : pursuit of wisdom

b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

3 a : a system of philosophical concepts

b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought

4 a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

I would go with #3 b or #4 a, leaning more towards #4 a, for a political context.

I don't see a major difference between ideology and philosophy as used to describe political views. I don't see any inherent rigidity in ideology either.

[KC Burke]

Russell Kirk had a deep mistrust of “ideology” as he traced its heritage. For the why and how of that you can read his essay which I have always found to be very thought provoking as to why conservatives have “principles” rather than an “ideology.”

Go:
http://www.isi.org/books/content/149150chap1.pdf

[r9etb]

Thanks for that link. You can find the entire book here.

I believe it was Kirk, or someone paraphrasing him, who provided the working definition I used.

[r9etb]

I don't see a major difference between ideology and philosophy as used to describe political views. I don't see any inherent rigidity in ideology either.

OTOH, you undoubtedly have had the experience of trying to talk to somebody who is not willing to budge from an obviously irrational position, because "it's just true."

Clinton's (and Kirk's) definition of an ideology refers to that sort of belief.

A man who is not open to reason or evidence, is generally called an ideologue, as opposed to "reasonable" or "rational."

Even if you want to use different words -- fine by me, just tell me what words you're using -- the underlying point remains the same.

[TigersEye]

OTOH, you undoubtedly have had the experience of trying to talk to somebody who is not willing to budge from an obviously irrational position, because "it's just true."

Clinton's (and Kirk's) definition of an ideology refers to that sort of belief.

Sure, but not in regards to conservative political views. Your example of a "young earther's" views would be one but that's not an ideology or a philosophy that's a doctrinal dogma.