Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Decent, honorable men can disagree
St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 2-18-03 | Walt Harrington

Posted on 02/18/2003 6:34:55 AM PST by FairWitness

Edited on 05/11/2004 5:34:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The Presidents Bush and Bush are tough for me even to think about. The men have confounded my hard-earned biases about who is deserving of respect in America. They also have made me abandon the easy and shallow belief that politicians I disagree with must always be bad people at heart. I was reminded of this recently when New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a piece quoting a 1986 Washington Post Magazine profile I wrote on then-Vice President George H.W. Bush. While trolling for bluefish in Bush's famous Cigarette boat off the coast of Maine, I engaged him and his then-obscure son George W. in a debate about the power of social class -- the money, education and influence awarded to people through the accident of birth.


(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: georgehwbush; georgewbush; liberalbias
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: LonePalm
No more FRench, please. We are Americans, and we speak English!

Just kidding, of course. But given our difficulties with the FRench, perhaps just the English version of your tag line would be best.

FReegards.
21 posted on 02/18/2003 8:14:59 AM PST by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
A man who will, no doubt, become a Conservative if he pursues his line of heretical (for a liberal) reasoning.

Welcome, in advance, Mr. Harrington, to the club.
22 posted on 02/18/2003 8:17:25 AM PST by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan; big gray tabby
I agree with big gray tabby that liberals are either dumb/uninformed or purposely evil, evil in that they want power through force regardless of the consequences to others and are perfectly willing to use deception to obtain it. However, I agree with you, ThirstyMan, that the discourse can be civil, as hard as that is sometimes in the face of the above.

Lets take the authors areas of disagreement with the Bushs:

What I've never mentioned is that I didn't vote for George W. I disagree with him on the Supreme Court, environment, abortion, the death penalty and affirmative action. So I voted against this good and decent man. It pained me to do it. ..... Even as President Bush seems to be moving the country inexorably toward war, I can't fall back on the easy explanations of his critics: He's trying to prop up his sagging popularity, or avenge his father's failure to oust Saddam, or save the world for Big Oil. I believe George W. Bush believes Iraq is a deadly threat to the U.S.

Supreme Court: The difference in opinions about the SC is between those who consider the Constitution to be "a living document" and those who believe in a strict interpretation of how it is written, including the amendments. Logically, if the Constitution can be changed outside the parameters set forth by it, it is meaningless - an aglomeration of suggestions rather than the law of the land. To disagree with that one must be either incapable of logical thought or willfully ignoring it for personal reasons. IMO, that makes them either stupid or evil, as big gray tabby said.

The environment: To assume that most of us, a vast majority, don't want a clean environment is foolish. The disagreement is over methods for keeping it that way. Most decisions are a compromise between extreme choices with cost/benefit generally a consideration. It is obvious that many "environmentalists" use lies and junk science, presented with strong emotion, to employ certain methods, methods that have more to do with another agenda than the environment. Those people must either be stupid, unaware that their arguments are based on false information, or they must be purposely lying. That makes them evil, a big gray tabby right again.

Abortion: No matter the argument, common sense tells us that after conception the fertilised egg will become a living human being unless interferred with by nature or man. To pretend otherwise is either stupid/uniformed or evil. Are there circumstances under which society agrees that it is for the common good to take a life? Yes, but to pretend that that is not what you are doing is evil, not stupid. Society has generally agreed that a life should not be forfeited for the convenience of another.

The death penalty: This also relates to abortion but is an area where opinion among men of goodwell and intelligence can truly differ. It boils down to whether the perpetrator or society at large should get the benefit of the doubt.

Affirmative action: IMO, this violates the Constitution in several places, the most flagrant of which is "equal protection under the law". To assume a wrong will correct a previous wrong is to perpetuate wrongs according to whom is in power. Those who promote "a living Constitution" often use certain perceived loopholes, such as the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause, to gain what they want without going through the purposely laborious process of amending the Constitution. People of goodwill and intelligence can disagree on the merit of affirmative action but to embrace it as government policy is to ignore the Constitution, as written. This takes us back full circle to the Supreme court and the argument above.

I agree with Mr. Harrington that well intention people can disagree about many things but some of the ones he lists do not qualify.

Is that civil enough, ThirstyMan?

23 posted on 02/18/2003 8:33:35 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Sr. Bush probably lost his reelection bid because he allowed his handlers to cast him too negatively.

G.H.W. Bush lost for two reasons, well make that three. 1) "Read My Lips". 2) Failure to remove Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. 3)The liberal media and the lying Democrats, as you touched on.

He violated "Read My Lips" because George Mitchell and the Democrats held funding for the Gulf War hostage unless he agreed to a tax increase. They then used it to defeat him. Even after that, Al Gore sold out to the highest bidder, for the amount of time allowed to speak on the Senate floor, before he would cast the deciding vote in favor of the war. Even after Bush gave in on taxes the Dems almost screwed him.

The Dems and other liberals were also among the most vocal about not going on to Baghdad and removing Saddam because it was not specifically authorized by the UN resolution, just kicking him out of Kuwait was. They wailed over the horror of "the highway of death" and insisted that the killing stop. Once again they sandbagged him and used it against him.

Thank God for our present President. He paid attention to the treatment of his father by the left, and to the results.

I am not disagreeing with you just to disagree, only to supplement, I hope. I like the content and the tone of your posts.

24 posted on 02/18/2003 8:50:44 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
common sense tells us that after conception the fertilised egg will become a living human being

No, the tense is that at conception, the zygote IS a living human being.

Cordially,

25 posted on 02/18/2003 9:26:26 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
Of course we are Americans. My family has been out of France for at least 13 generations. Just because the French have short memories that doesn't mean that we should also. The American Revolution would not have been successful without the French.

French is the language of cooking just as English is the language of almost everything else. Garde la Foi is my family's motto. I like it.

Learning French has taught me as much about English as I ever learned in school. Besides, I like the way it sounds. Mrs. Palm likes the sound of it too.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Jamais reculez á tyrannie un pouce!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! Never give an inch to tyranny!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

26 posted on 02/18/2003 9:32:32 AM PST by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Is that civil enough, ThirstyMan?

First of all, I don't mean to say that everyone who disagrees with me is a civil decent human being. Even the author noted that Jesse Jackson and most politicians are not such a people. What struck Walt Harrington about the Bushes is that they were different and genuine, not that they were decent because they were "right" and agreed with him.

I personally have very hard time giving the benefit of decency to ideologues like Daschle and Leahy, especially when they utilize ruthless character assasination to accomplish their partisan goals. [case in point is the Hispanic judge presently under scrutiny]

I think the point is that we must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us is a vile, evil worthless piece of trash. Even if we suspect them to be so we can attempt to construct their position in the best light rather than the worst, with no loss to our own position whatsoever. That's the point of decency here. A decent person is clear in his own position but is amazingly free of condemnation towards others for theirs.

Since you invited comment I'll indulge. You've concluded several times, "that makes them either stupid or evil." You disagree with them and construe the only valid reason for their position to be stupidity or an evil nature. I bet you have some stupid traits and are the victim of an evil nature yourself. I know I am. But I personally don't think that being free of stupidity and evil are the amazing character traits that the author is highlighting as the decent standard of a George Bush.

Can you really respect someone whom you think is both stupid and evil? On FR we indulge ourselves often in bashing liberals because it feels good and we know we are among like believers who won't put us down for saying bad things about liberals. However, there is a cost to us when we judge. We surrender our own decency. We have to go beyond that IF we want to be decent, to imagine them to be operating with the best "light" they have, even if their opinion differs from ours and even if we sincerely believe it to be inferior. Isn't that the trait of decency the author is noting in the Bushes?

I have a lot of liberal friends up here in New England, to say the least. Some are capable of dialogue on issues and some are not. Some rush to judge me, others listen.

What makes this author stand out is that he has reached a point beyond hating another person for disagreeing. He recognizes something deeper. He has seen this trait modeled in the Bush family...people with whom he holds different beliefs but who still respected and cared for him as a person. Odd isn't it? Oddly decent.

That is what I found so refreshing about the article. Walt Harrington identifies and calls us to a higher, more decent place.

27 posted on 02/18/2003 9:37:17 AM PST by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
The death penalty: This also relates to abortion but is an area where opinion among men of goodwill and intelligence can truly differ.

Yes, by orders of magnitude there is a an inversely proportional relationship between abortion and the death penalty, which lamentably, exists by lack of proper moral distinction between between killing the innocent and killing the guilty.

Cordially,

28 posted on 02/18/2003 9:40:09 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
Exactly right. Unfortunately it's hard to make such statements around here without having your post count commented on.
29 posted on 02/18/2003 9:46:20 AM PST by The Lake City Gar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Lake City Gar
Errr.....Make that sign-up date instead of post count.
30 posted on 02/18/2003 9:51:30 AM PST by The Lake City Gar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Thank you for spelling out what was humming under my radar. How can an erudite, learned man take the stances he has without deliberately blinding himself to the violence he begets?
31 posted on 02/18/2003 10:31:24 AM PST by alwaysconservative (In search of a good tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
It baffles me that grown people must convince themselves that those with whom they disagree are stupid or malevolent. It's a poison that creates uncivil debate and self-righteous political correctness.

Yep. That pretty much sums up how the leftists think. Think of how they treat Tammy Bruce, Andrew Sullivan, Nat Hentoff, and Clarence Thomas.

32 posted on 02/18/2003 10:35:27 AM PST by alwaysconservative (In search of a good tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative
honorable \a-ne-re-bel\ adj 1 : deserving of honor 2 : of great renown 3 : accompanied with marks of honor 4 : doing credit to the possessor 5 : characterized by integrity honorableness n honorably \-ble\ adv (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Someone who resorts to lies when useful to twist or obfuscate does not possess integrity. That is the key to the dishonor of the lieberals, the liberals who compose the vast leadership of the fatuous democrat party, the Axis of Acorns ... bitter little nuts unfit for aural consumption.

33 posted on 02/18/2003 10:45:28 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
I was just funnin' with you a little bit.

I have no animus against the FRench, personally, and I recognize that the American Revolution succeeded in part because the FRench helped us.

HST, the following story probably expresses the general feeling Americans have for the FRench:

Tom Delay (#2 Republican in the House) is reported to have asked a FRench reporter, who was giving him a hard time, if he (the reporter) spoke German.

The reporter replied that he did not.

"You are welcome," Delay is reported to have said.

'Nuff said?
34 posted on 02/18/2003 11:17:00 AM PST by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Those who spout the "reasonable people can disagree" argument, are most likely those have been, or are about to be, proven wrong and unreasonable.

(That's my quote; I'm scrambling to find my © symbol.)

35 posted on 02/18/2003 12:15:22 PM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
You can't fake decency like the Clintons have done for years! Al Gore couldn't fake it either....he spent so much time trying to fool us with his political correctness and the harder he tried the brighter Bush's honesty and decency shone through!!!!
36 posted on 02/18/2003 1:56:08 PM PST by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Bush lost because he pissed off the gun owners.
37 posted on 02/18/2003 6:41:03 PM PST by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
It is re-assuring to know that there are some liberals who still think for themselves, who have the decency to at least question what they believe, and undertake to know why we believe differently.

For all the venom-spouting liberals today that hate George W. Bush's guts, this man at least knows that Bush believes in his cause.

Never, ever underestimate our President to bring those in the darkness into the light. Truth has a funny way of making itself known!

38 posted on 02/19/2003 2:20:54 AM PST by scott7278 (Peace had it's chance, now it's bombs away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
"Maybe it's me, but I'm not in the mood to be receptive to a moral lecture about uncivil debate and self-righteous political correctness from someone whose mother did not kill him, but who nevertheless supports the theft from others of that which he himself was allowed to retain and professes to value."

With all due respect, the point of the article is not abortion but civility and decency in our disagreements. That is a noble cause, whether liberal or conservative. It's not fair to dismiss his views simply because he was not aborted, which is not immediate to the issue at hand.

Truth is truth, no matter the source. The pronouncement of the need to be civil is true, whether from a liberal's lips or a conservative's lips, because truth stands on it's own.

We are called to speak the truth in love. Some care about the truth, but it's not very loving. Others care about love, but it's not based on truth.

Speaking the truth in love is how to best reason with people, to debate them. Liberalism crumbles under it's own weight, and so we must beat them in the arena of ideas.

The simple fact that he believes the pro-life movement has "good reasons" for what we believe, should cause us to not come against him, but to debate him on that issue -- and the others -- to show how inconsistent and illogical his positions really are.

We, as those who love and cherish truth, must be extremely careful not to give the other side any ammunition to use against us. We should be more truthful, more loving, and more humble than they are, and then just watch their ideas fall by the wayside one-by-one.

An idealist? Not really. To tell you the truth, I'm a realist, because truth has a funny way of showing itself when nothing hinders it. May our words always be seasoned with salt!

39 posted on 02/19/2003 3:23:36 AM PST by scott7278 (Peace had it's chance, now it's bombs away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scott7278
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with everything you have said, save one thing, and that is that Harrington in his writing is the one who brought mentioned the 'issue' of abortion among other things, not me. I appreciate your statement of the fact that truth is truth, no matter what its source, and I do appreciate Harrington's recognition of that truth. I simply wanted to go a step further and point out the obvious inconsistency of his argument that "decent, honorable men can disagree", with his position on abortion; namely, that someone has to survive in order to be able to display the qualities of decency and honor (one's life being a necessary, though not necessarily the sufficient condition for those moral values.) His own professed values about decency and honor undercut his position on abortion because decent and honorable people do not murder the inncocent.

Like you, I value civility and decency in our disagreements, and it is precisely because I value those moral obligations that I think it fair to dismiss his views on abortion as self-refuting, and contradictory to the values of decency, honor and civility.

Cordially,

40 posted on 02/19/2003 8:35:34 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson