Putting a pretty bow on it....

Over the last couple of weeks I have been in a number of lengthy political arguments with conservatives via Facebook. It has been illuminating.

Those who know me well, know that I am not an overtly aggressive person, but I can be combative when discussing issues I view as matters of fact (i.e what were the employment numbers from the 90's as compared to the 00's, increases and decreases in real wages, health insurance enrollment or poverty statistics). Anything that there is documented evidence or data for, I feel on much firmer ground when discussion.

Both of the major discussions I had, started from different points but converged in an interesting way. One started from a commenting stating that the Bush Administration oversaw the "greatest economy ever". The other began when I made a comment about Mrs. Sarah Palin in which I provided a quote from her about her support for the TARP program, when Bush implemented it during the last presidential election. The quote was a nonsensical collection of republican boilerplate, which showed no grasp of the relevant policy or its implications. That to me was terrifying.

From those two points the conversations spiraled down in the same way and the "arguments" of the individuals in questions had the same whiff of sententiousness and a heavy reliance on argumentum ad populum. I will not re-litigate those arguments here, but I wanted to comment on the general tenor. What I saw was a complete disregard of any data which contradicts their perspective, an unwillingness to provide any support for their assertions and a willful misreading of their opponents arguments. It was somewhat maddening.

I am fully aware that once an argument starts that no one will ever change their opinion based on that discussion. It is profoundly human failing. It is alright to appear stupid or even bigoted, but wrong is never an option.

Okay now that I have gotten that substantial preamble out of the way, I really just wanted an excuse to post a couple links that caught my eye.

First off that, Argumentum ad Populum (additional analysis here) that I spoke of before:

Taibbi: To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that they’re just crazy. If somebody is able to bridge the gap with those voters, it seems to me they will have to be a little bit crazy too. That’s part of the Tea Party’s litmus test: “How far will you go?”

Gergen: I flatly reject the idea that Tea Partiers are crazy. They had some eccentric candidates, there’s no question about that. But I think they represent a broad swath of the American electorate that elites dismiss to their peril.

Hart: I agree with David. When two out of five people who voted last night say they consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, we make a huge mistake to suggest that they are some sort of small fringe group and do not represent anybody else.

Taibbi: I’m not saying that they’re small or a fringe group.

Gergen: You just think they’re all crazy.

Taibbi: I do.

Gergen: So you’re arguing, Matt, that 40 percent of those who voted last night are crazy?

Taibbi: I interview these people. They’re not basing their positions on the facts — they’re completely uninterested in the facts. They’re voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that’s enough for them.

Gergen: The great unwashed are uneducated, so therefore their views are really beneath serious conversation?

Taibbi: I’m not saying they’re beneath serious conversation. I’m saying that these people vote without acting on the evidence.

Gergen: I find it stunning that the conversation has taken this turn. I disagree with the Tea Party on a number of issues, but it misreads who they are to dismiss them as some kind of uneducated know-nothings who have somehow seized power in the American electorate. It is elitist to its core. We would all be better off if we spent more time listening to each other rather than simply writing them off.

In my opinion this discussion perfectly distills that logical fallacy. Simply because large numbers of people believe something does not always make it true. Sixty years ago in the United States, large swaths of Americans believed that blacks were less deserving of equal treatment then whites. Or if you prefer a non-racially charged analogy, during the dark ages large portions of the afflicted communities believed that carrying flowers protected you from the Black Plague.
To take Taibbi's point the people he interviewed would eschewed any data that disagreed with them. In his estimation that made them crazy.

Now the next two blog posts are Palin related (here and here). Mrs. Palin, has changed the political equation, she has touched a nerve politically and the pundits (and her opponents) have been slow to realize this. As the able guys and gals over at Balloon Juice explain in the most plain language I have seen:

This is a standard beltway political analysis, and it reflects a basic misunderstanding of Palin’s strategy in general, and specifically why Palin doesn’t give a shit about Michelle Obama’s gender or popularity.

Palin’s goal is to mobilize a base of Fox-watching, resentment-driven primary voters. These people are mainly white and male, and they do not like Michelle Obama. Palin’s characterization of Michelle Obama as an elite black woman who thinks she knows better just stirs the pot of resentment that Palin thinks will drive her primary victories. In the eyes of the typical Palin primary voter, Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity program is in no way “benign”—it’s another example of that uppity Princeton-educated black ballbuster thinking she knows better than real Americans.

Second, if Palin does get the nomination, she’ll be a weak candidate with little or no positive agenda. So, she’ll have to attack Michelle and Barack Obama, Sasha, Malia and Bo, repeatedly and without regard to their poll numbers. She will run a constant Twitter and Facebook attack machine with the goal of making Obama look weak if he doesn’t respond, but also making him look like he’s picking on her and her family if he does. Her strategy for attracting women voters will be to make Obama look like he isn’t tough enough to defend his wife and family, and then to make him look like a jerk for attacking poor defenseless Sarah.

Palin will be able to pursue this strategy in large part because she won’t be subject to the same media rules as her primary or general opponents. The mainstream media dutifully reports her every tweet but is unable to question her directly on the horseshit that she spews. My guess is that she won’t travel with any press but Fox and associated friendly outlets. She’s shown a basic capability of participating in a debate and not making a complete ass of herself, if she’s prepped correctly, so she’ll probably outperform the low expectations that will accompany that little ritual.

My point isn’t that she’s unstoppable, just that the campaign analysis in the mold of Teddy White and Jack Germond isn’t the way to understand the Palin project. She isn’t part of that system, and she doesn’t play by its rules.

And this reflection from Andrew Sullivan:

There is no maturity here; no self-reflection; no capacity even to think how to appeal to the half of Americans who are already so appalled by her trashy behavior and cheap publicity stunts. There is a meanness, a disrespect, a vicious partisanship that, if allowed to gain more power, would split this country more deeply and more rancorously than at any time in recent years. And that's saying something.

Say what you want about our current president, from his statements and actions he just doesn't have the same disdain for his opponents as this woman shows.

Now none of these were fact based arguments other then looking at the on record quotes of individuals and evaluating those statements. What they do illustrate is an unwillingness to entertain doubt. That there are times when you ideology is not sufficient to address all issues, and that even sometimes it may be incorrect.

And as Master Kenobi tells us, "Only a sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.". So when I see arguments that lack support other then the force of opinion, I will do my best to attack and probe them. Why? Because I must. It is the only way to better the discourse we have.

-Cheers