The anger is the argument
The call for civility in public debate has become a cliché. The argument is straightforward: if people just made their arguments with less heat, less anger, and more reason, everything would be fine. We would all get along. But it’s not that simple. It is not a case of anger augmenting the argument, it is a case of anger replacing the argument. The rise in anger and apocalyptic language on the right tracks the quality of the argument inversely. How better to hide behind a ludicrous argument than with some red-faced screaming with dark overtures? And the crazier than argument, the more extreme the rhetoric. Glenn Beck, anyone?
Take a cold dispassionate look at the positions of the right over the past few years. The financial crisis was not caused by excess leverage and risk-taking on Wall Street that led the global economy to tank. It was caused by loans forced onto poor people and minorities by corrupt government entities, egged on by ACORN. The problem was not too little regulation, but too much, led by a socialist president. The massive expansion in the deficit did not reflect a recession-led collapse in revenue and rise in automatic spending like unemployment benefits, but a wild spending spree on “big government” projects. The loosening of fiscal policy (both automatic and discretionary) made the recession worse, not better. The high debt is the leading cause of low growth, even while interest rates remain at an all-time low. Cutting taxes doesn’t increase the deficit. Spending money on unemployment benefits makes the recession worse, while giving tax breaks to the richest makes it a lot better. Government interference in health care is evil, except when it is a single-payer system called Medicare. The Affordable Care Act represents a government take-over of healthcare, instead of an attempt to being the uninsured into the private insurance net through the use of subsidies and an individual mandate. What was Republican orthodoxy in healthcare as late as the 1990s is now a totalitarian attempt to suppress freedom. The Affordable Care Act would mean bureaucrats deciding which grandmothers to kill, while the current system of massive rationing by cost is simple the market in action. Climate change is a conspiracy, with a large-scale doctoring of the data, and also because it was very cold last winter.
I could go on and on and on. It is of course a natural human instinct to see no flaw in your own position, and nonsense in the positions of others. But what has happened over the past few years on the right is an disintegration of intellectual honesty that is almost unprecedented in modern times. With no light, only heat can win the day, especially when the media have utterly forsaken their public watchdog role. If it is a giant socialist plot to destroy civilization, and lock everybody up in soviet-style gulags, then the policy details seem suddenly irrelevant, don’t they? It can be an effective strategy. But this strategy has consequences. Dark consequences.
Take a cold dispassionate look at the positions of the right over the past few years.
As a general matter creating and slaying villages of strawmen, affixing the strawmen with the name of you ideological opponents, then claiming that they are intellectually dishonest and that this has ‘dark consequences’ is a poor way of making a point, particularly when you preface it by claiming it is a ‘dispassionate look’.
Dispassionate look, my foot; this post is just more partisan blather where the bad guys wear black hats and disagree with me and therefore are responsible for all that ills this fallen world. The clumsy (and demonstrably false) assertions of blame in the AZ shootings are pathetic.
Are you seriously implying that the Republicans have not become dramatically more “unserious” over the past few years, especially on economic issues? I tried to be very specific here, as one who follows these debates carefully. I gave many examples. Not only are these examples not strawmen, many – if not most- are conventional wisdom on the right, and any deviation is regarded as treachery.
And please tell me where this post mentions the Arizona shootings?
I am making more modest claims, MM.
1. That many of your examples are strawmen and/or held only by the uninformed (which are plentiful in both parties).
2. That economic unreality is a democratic rather than a Republican vice (keep in mind that Obama’s electoral economic plan was less taxes + larger federal outlays = a reduced deficit – with ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ as the way to make that dubious formula work – Obama even claimed he would be going line by line through the budget). All politicians tell people the lies they would like to hear, and Obama’s proposals were hardly economically serious.
3. As to the AZ shootings, your post is about the topic of civil discourse – one of the primary themes of the AZ discussions – and its reference to ‘anger’ with ‘dark consequences’ make it quite clear that you are using the shootings as a backdrop to get some digs in at Republicans (as was clear in your post the other day also).
I join you in disliking much of the right. Where we part ways is that you seem to be head over heels in love with the left, and – as a result – seem to be utterly incapable of balanced analysis. Instead, we are inundated with these posts about evil, threatening “other” who post a threat to civilization. Lost in the rhetorical shuffle is the point that demonizing ‘the other’ – as you are so fond of doing – is itself a form of hate. And possibly a more insidious form as tries to dress itself up as a ‘dispassionate look’ at why those who disagree with you in matters political are fools, charlatans, and villains.
I understand that politicians like to obfuscate and hate having to make hard choices, but I have no idea how you can say something like that “economic unreality is a democratic rather than a Republican vice”. That’s just so off-the-scale wrong.
Yes, politicians all over the world like to give easy solutions and make vapid statements. But they don’t in general make the kinds of insane economic arguments that Republicans now make on a routine basis. We are not talking about the fringe, we are talking about the mainstream. And that is the problem. The kinds of economic debates you see in other countries are light years ahead of here. For example, Irish primetime TV regularly hosts economic discussions on such topics as the difference between restructuring senior versus subordinated debt. And here? Socialist plots to destroy freedom! What has happened to this place? It certainly was not always like this.
On 3, I was actually thinking more about the death threats to Joseph Cao, which I just heard about this weekend, as a reason why he would not vote for the final Affordable Care Act. As a deep admirer of Cao, that sent chills down my spine. But yes, the general point holds too: this kind of over-the-top language in a country that refuses to get serious about gun control is a recipe for disaster.
“economic unreality is a democratic rather than a Republican vice”
The lower case ‘d’ in ‘democratic’ means a vice pertaining to democracies and democratic forms of government, not the Democratic party (upper case ‘D’); the point was not partisan – neither party is economically serious. I suppose you regard statements by Republicans as crazier than Obama’s absurd budget rhetoric during the election. To me, conservative claims that cutting taxes will increase revenues are equally implausible as Obama’s pledge to balance the budget by going through the budget line by line and cutting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’. Neither claim is true; in fact, both are demonstrably false. What’s odd is that you see fit to denounce the former as if it signaled the end of civilization, while the latter is passed over in silence.
It’s common for children to divide the world into ‘good people’ and ‘bad people’ and to assume that each is easily identifiable; this is a common and understandable fault in children. And it can be a profitable fault in the political blogosphere as catnip for partisans on both sides. But it’s a tiresome and transparently silly game in the end; and this post (with its clumsy demonization of your political opponents) is a prime example.
MM,
You might note that John Henry is actually quite careful in his use of capitalization:
but I have no idea how you can say something like that “economic unreality is a democratic rather than a Republican vice”. That’s just so off-the-scale wrong.
He argues that lack of economic seriousness is an attribute of democracies (not Democrats) rather than Republicans strictly, and this is really pretty hard to contest. It would, in all honesty, not be remotely hard to assemble and equal and opposite list of complaints which are common wisdom among Democrats and yet are deeply foolish at an economic and policy level. On macro economic and policy topics, common wisdom on either side is pretty foolish — heck, even the wisdom of the NY Times editorial page is often fairly foolish.
Now, I can agree with you that there has been an increase in irrational, populist rhetoric on the right since Obama’s election. I haven’t enjoyed seeing it, just as I didn’t enjoy seeing it under Clinton. But it strikes me as no more severe than then, and perhaps less so. (Remember at this time in Clinton’s presidency we had people asserting that Bill and Hillary were actively having their rivals assassinated.) And surely you can sympathize with the fact that losing can empower the irrational elements within a party. Your own party went completely bonkers after the 2000 election, it it being totally standard to call the election a coup, and with tone defined by the fact a major portion of the left seemed to think that the president’s name was “Bushitler”.
I didn’t think that was right, and I don’t think it’s right for people on the right to do the freak-out routine about the Democratic administration, but to pretend that the irrationality and furor is someone that exists primarily on the right is seriously off base.
From an article in the Times titled Founder of ‘Civility Project’ Calls It Quits:
Minion:
“I could go on and on and on. It is of course a natural human instinct to see no flaw in your own position, and nonsense in the positions of others.”
Why, then, do you go on and on? Why not drop the hectoring tone and consider the generous tone President Obama employed this evening in Tucson? How does it serve you and us to continually paint conservatives in the most grotesque possible light? Where is the generous spirit to match your considerable intellect? Do you think we don’t know how you feel?
Hi Mike, first I must point out that these people are in no way conservatives. They are radical individualists which is clearly in the liberal tradition.
I don’t think I’m porting them in a grotesque light, I think I’m pretty much summarizing their economic policy positions over the past few years, which border on the insane. And because the substance is so weak, they need to argue based on tone.
It wasnt always like this. What in God’s name has happened? I want nothing more than for this madness to end, and for civil dialogue to be restored, and the details of policy are important once again.
Minion is Canadian, I am more European than I am American; to the ears of almost the whole rest of the world, you Americans who call yourselves “conservatives” have misappropriated the word, and made it mean something that, in almost all other political traditions, means “liberal.” Don’t you know that the radically laissez-faire economic system that you folks (I’m deliberately avoiding “you people,” in order to be civil, crf. below) favour is called “liberal” elsewhere in the world for a reason? That “liberalism” is based on Enlightenment political philosophy as well as a certain kind of 18th century anthropology that is in REBELLION against the kind of conservatism that Edmund Burke and John Henry Newman are known for elsewhere in the world. Catholics who support the “Social Darwinism” and the radical individualism of the “free market”–as well as what John Paul II called the “commodification of life”–are in no way aligned with the ancient as well as the modern Doctors of the Church.
I keep hearing this. But what I think is missing in this argument, is the fact that “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms. “Conservative” means you want to preserve the status quo, and “liberal” means you want to change it (in a nutshell).
But whether at a given time one is conservative or liberal, depends on what the status quo is at that time. Yes, at one time “conservative” meant wanting to preserve the ancien regime, and “liberal” meant a desire for democratic self-rule (again, in a nutshell). But we are no longer living in that context. There is virtually no one who still wants to “conserve” the ancien regime, because the ancien regime has long since been obliterated.
“Conservative” nowadays, in the modern American political context, means wanting to conserve what are thought of as the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which to modern conservatives means minimal government involvement in the lives of the people. “Liberal” means wanting to continually “evolve” our concept of government for the sake of promoting what they conceive as social justice. (In a nutshell.)
I understand that people in other countries may use the terms differently, but that’s because the context in their countries differs from ours. That can’t be helped. I don’t believe the solution is to hearken back to definitions of terms which were arrived at within a context that no longer exists.
Well, Angellius, why don’t you just come out and say that you don’t value the “conservatism” of traditional Christendom? Burke didn’t want to preserve the ancien regime per se; he wanted to preserve traditional indigenous CULTURES, and he recognised that “19th century liberalism” (what you Americans call “conservatism”) was a virtual wrecking ball toward those kinds of societies. Also, the positions of the so-called Founding Fathers toward their equivalent of “19th century libaralism” was a lot more nuanced than you’re representing it. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson would have been in favour of unregulated banks, either.
Oh, and by the way, Angellius, the adjective that 19th century liberals like Bill Buckley and Maggie Thatcher, who call themselves “conservatives,” use to contemptuously describe “wet Tories” (i.e. REAL conservatives) like me, MM, Lord Byron, Benjamin Disraeli, Dwight Eisenhower,and Edward Heath) is “paternalistic.” I doubt that John Paul II would cringe at being called “paternalistic,” and neither do I. Social justice concerns (as well as a sense of the inevitability in any human society of hierarchy) ARE a part of REAL “conservatism”–as contrasted with the benighted American thing you folks mistakenly call “conservatism.”
Digby writes, “why don’t you just come out and say that you don’t value the “conservatism” of traditional Christendom?”
Why? Because it’s not true maybe?
I have said more than once on this blog that I do not necessarily believe American-style democracy is even a good form of government, let alone the best, based on some of Leo XIII’s teachings, among other things. I think you may be putting me in a box based on the fact that I sometimes play devil’s advocate against the liberals here (or should I say “liberals”?).
Digby writes, ‘… as contrasted with the benighted American thing you folks mistakenly call “conservatism.”’
As I said, we call it conservatism based on the American political context, and within that context it is a perfectly apt and correct name for it. Not even American “liberals” dispute that point (although conservatives sometimes question how liberal American liberals really are). You might try being a little more broadminded about it. ; )
My apologies to you, then, Agellius (and also for mispelling your moniker, TWICE). Sometimes it’s hard to tell, on the internet, when somebody’s playing “devil’s advocate” (which I do all the time, with SOME of my students). Anybody who respects the encyclicals of Leo XIII deserves my respect.
Digby:
I’ll tell you what it is: I tend to play devil’s advocate on the conservative side because I was once a staunch Republican — after having spent all of my upbringing and my young adulthood as a Democrat. After several years as a Republican I started to develop the idea that even the Republican side wasn’t “conservative” enough, at least not in the Catholic sense. This was largely thanks to the lectures of Dr. John Rao, who introduced me to the encyclicals of Leo XIII.
So if I come across as a Republican on here, that’s because I sympathize more with the Republicans on most issues — their positions come more naturally to me than the Democrats’. But it’s also for the purpose of testing out Republican “doctrine” — I’m genuinely interested in finding out if it can be refuted, and open to hearing it refuted. But at the same time I see myself as putting Democratic doctrines to the test as well by arguing against them. While in reality my ideal government is not Democratic government or Republican government, but government that submits its laws to God’s laws, whatever form that might take.
The details of policy are of no consequence at all any more. That is the first problem. The sort of division in the US has nothing at all to do with policy and has everything to do with philosophy. The American people are either dividing or being divided into two camps with differing philosophical systems. The two sides look at the same mountain and come up with answers just as much un-like one another as those of Rome’s Latin theology and Byzantium’s Greek/Oriental theology.
And lest the “two camps” be taken over direct, there are obviously sub-camps within these, plus others outside these two, and a considerable degree of cross communication between some of the sub-camps even across the divide between the two major camps. None the less the point holds. Differences are ever deepening on matters of first principals, on the very notions of how to think about issues, and other rather important matters. On matters of policy preference once you get down to details Americans have a great willingness to come to compromise or consensus and don’t seem so far apart, but they aren’t very happy about it at all any more. They will still come to agreement and do the work of governing, but usually at least one side, and sometimes even both, walks away feeling as if it has been had and that the other side got away with… larceny…
Exactly!!
p.s.
The phrasing “these people” or “those people” is considered by some observers of rhetoric to be condescending or dehumanizing, or at least that is what I was told by some rather sharp left-leaning professors in college.
Political Speech has become advertising. This is especially true on the right although there is always plenty of nonsense on the left.
Advertising is all about moving the market, moving the product. If the product sells the advertising is a success. The fact that the product is inferior or garbage or does not correspond to the sales pitch is irrelevant.
Mass media Political speech is mostly a branch of Corporate advertising.
Don’t worry though, the Tea party will save us.
You might note that John Henry is actually quite careful in his use of capitalization…He argues that lack of economic seriousness is an attribute of democracies (not Democrats) rather than Republicans strictly..
Understood, and my mistake. I missed the nuance, as I frequently eschew capitalization.
If you want to get into the problems with democracy, and pandering to the masses, you are pushing an open door here, but that’s another post.
The point I am making here is rather simple – that the specific economic policy arguments of the broad right (Republicans, tea partiers etc) have taken a dramatic turn away from rationality in recent years. It wasn’t always like that. It isn’t like that in other countries, even when there are sharp policy differences between parties.
I agree that the Clinton era was bad, but I think this is worse. Why is it that Republicans get so angry when they lose power. You draw parallels with 2000. I would say the Democrats were remarkably restrained for what was in all likelihood a Supreme Court coup. It was the Republican activists who were loudest and most threatening during the recount. And as for the “Bushitler” nonsense, yes, of course there is some awful stuff on the left, but it has not penetated the mainstream political debate, with the possible exsception of Alan Grayson, who lost his seat. There are clear differences. I still don’t have a well worked-out explanation for this.
I wish there were a back channel method of communications at VN like there is at dotCommonweal so that this communication could be private. There isn’t, though, and I believe this needs to be expressed.
When I was a novice in a religious community *many* years ago we had formalized processes for what was then called fraternal correction. Such communications began with the phrase “It seems to me, my very dear brother, that (you *or* we) sometimes….” to be followed by the specific correction offered. Clearly “we” was the better choice because it acknowledged that we all fall short.
Minion, it is *precisely* because your analysis is so rigorous and your perspective so unique that I regret the tone you tend to employ in this venue (and I too often employ in my daily life). It is clear in this and other threads that I’m not alone, that there are others who resonate with a good part of your message but find the style off-putting. What works in some settings…legal chambers, perhaps?…can have unintended consequences in other settings. Some forms of advocacy actually push people away from one’s point of view.
There is no need to portray issues in a starkly manichean fashion. In fact, the longer I live the more paradoxical and ambiguous policy issues appear. Persuasion is one objective of those who attempt dialogue here. It never works to seem to poke others in the eye in order to make a point.
I presume to know where your heart is. You betrayed it in your comment on Obama’s speech last night when you called it marvelous. Your passion and love for truth are unmistakeable. Please don’t give us an excuse to write you off.
I’m unaware of “back channels” at dotCommonweal or elsewhere, but feel free to e-mail me at morningsminion@gmail.com.
Mike: I tried to say something similar but somehow it didn’t make it past the censors…
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/09/violence-government-violence-and-anti-government-rhetoric/
“I long for the day that our political and media figures get as indignant about innocent Americans killed by their own government—killed in fact, as a direct and foreseeable consequence of official government policy that nearly all of those leaders support—as they are about a government official who was targeted by a clearly sick and deranged young man.”