Reposting this from 2006.
The world of politics is never pretty and often very ugly.
One of the most ugly features is how the politicians switch facts around to protect their argument. They determine a conclusion that fits their needs, and then find the facts that support their conclusion, almost an intellectual reverse engineering.
It's not all that hard, we teach it in every school that has a debate team. You are assigned a topic, and have to develop an argument to support it. The validity or accuracy of the facts you present is unimportant unless they are challenged by your opponent. Preparation becomes the driving factor: are you able to anticipate the challenges and overcome them? The bottom line is that in the end, the facts don't matter. Just the Feel. Can you offer convincing sincerity? Confidence? Can you sway them with an emotional plea? All powerful weapons.
Now consider that in relation to politics. Politicians often present information based on how they want us to Feel, without regard to the facts. The sell us on the emotional appeal.
The Bush administration was soundly thrashed by liberals for what they allege is fear mongering tactics, whether it is Social Security (the SS system will collapse), Al Qaeda (terrorism and 9/11), Iran and North Korea (nukes in the hand of dangerous countries) or countless other examples seen hourly at the Daily Kos. The Bush Administration provided examples of things that were dangerous, to provide the Feel of security with them at the helm
The Democrats for all their piety are also masters of this game, only their goals are different. They try to scare us about Abortion (women dying in back alley abortions), taxes (your children will bear the burden tomorrow of the tax cuts today), the war in Iraq (endless examples of a war we cannot win, replete with dying soldiers and civilians) and locally it even jumped into the arena of gas taxes, when politicians and local bloggers told their readers about the death traps on the road, despite the fact their plans didn't even fix the problems they cited. To them, the Feel they seek is betrayal of the Republicans and distrust.
The problem with these two primary examples is the Bush administration has more facts to support their spin; their Feel. Iran and North Korea do present dangerous places to have Nukes, Al Qaeda really does hate America and Social Security really will collapse without some manner of reform.
The Media used to pride itself on providing a check on the twisting of truth, but in recent years they are complicate in the twist. They publish stories without verification, like the Koran abuse story last year.
The penalty for their lie was minimal, on a personal level, they just had to run a retraction. OOPS. Sorry. Pity the 100+ people killed in the riots that their irresponsible publishing set off can take no comfort that Newsweek retracted the story and really feels bad about it.
Dan Rather ran the story on the Bush National Guard memos without actually verifying their authenticity, and they got heavily stung when the memos were proved fake. They made a half hearted rationalization, saying that the physical memos may be faked, but they reflect the actual events. Convenient that there is no evidence to dispute that. Even the most hardy liberal blanched a bit on the silliness of that. The Feel that Bush was a cowardly deserter made the facts irrelevant.
The anti war people are another shining example. Cindy Sheehan can cry about how Bush is a murderer, but it is patently untrue. When dealing with her son's death, rather then face the facts, she finds the Feel. Her son did not, could not have reenlisted for dedication to the Army and the Country, because he must have shared her anti war views. If he didn't share her anti war values, then she has failed as a mother. So she knows he must have been deceived. She Feels outrage and righteous anger, not just on her views, but on his behalf, regardless of what his actual feelings about the war might have been. The Fact is that we will never know for sure, but the circumstances indicate he was willingly doing what he chose to do. But that doesn't Feel good.
LT Wateba at Fort Lewis is also engage in a personal deception. He does not want to go to war, so he has allowed himself to be convinced, all legal evidence to the contrary, that the war is unjust and unlawful, therefore not only can he Feel justified in violating his oath, he can actually preen about his duty demands he not go, and not only that he is helping the soldiers he abandons by not going. He is a hero, fighting to end the war, a noble martyr to the holy cause. Surely a righteous Feeling, eh?
The Liberal love to point to crime, how prison is bad, and much more effective it is to understand the criminal, to Feel his pain, his anger and his sickness. And so guilty people go free to commit new crimes. But rather then concede their policies Feel good, but suck at results, they simple blame a new factor. Racism. Economic disadvantage. Etc. Anything to avoiding making the criminal Feel responsible, or to Feel punished.
Somewhere behind this mess is a lost concept: The truth. Sadly it is so often completely twisted into a convenient package that it is almost useless.
The fact is that truth matters, and people should demand it. They are smarter then these deceivers are, with their hubris stiffening their spines as they embark on deception after deception.
A few great examples:
I can go on for days but you get the point. We are living in a land of glamours, of illusions and pretenses. Rationalizations, sophistry and mitigation. The politicians weave a spell of deceptions, armed with pseudo facts like polls, surveys and focus groups.
The media seeks ratings and scoops, not facts and news. Not to expose the truth for its own sake, but for ratings dominance.
Everyone says they care about the truth, and they do: The truth they manufacture. They create the truth as they go by cherry picking the facts, wrapping it in a pretty bow and shoving it in our faces.
I hate to break it to them, but the facts really do matter and the ends do not always justify the means. And the people they are trying to hypnotize really can see past it.
Sure, there are those who are on the same page, the willing victims of deception. They want Bush to be a liar so they accept the stories about how he lied. They enable the deceivers.
But there are a lot of people who really do care about honesty, and they look past the games and constructs and find the real Truth.
The politicians might want to remember this, and make an attempt to be honest before their actions land them on the unemployment line. The media will find their subscriptions and ratings suffering.
They may not like how that Feels.
If one were to believe everything they read on soundpolitics.com, the Republican party could do no wrong.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 9, 2008 08:08 AMGuitarpayr is right. But it is easier if you can simply dismiss all of his arguments as coming from SoundPolitics, right?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2008 08:34 AMI do think we're accomplishing more negative than positive with our war, but that's my personal view and I'm not rabid in it.
But I take an Ayn Rand style stance against socialism, so don't associate me with those folks, man.
As for your assertion that conservatives take a far more reality based view, I do agree. I just think that a lot of folks here on SP claim to be conservative and have completely bastardized what it means to be conservative, while at the same time doing nothing but pointing at liberals with the blame for all their woes... but offering no real solutions, and certainly no really conservative ones.
When called out about it, they claim that true conservatives aren't electable around here, but as I've said a few times in the past few days, the pseudo conservatives that are elected give free markets and conservatism a bad name because they don't implement the real thing, if they do anything at all.
It gets really old. I'd love to discuss real ideas and policies but all I can find on here is a bunch of complaining about what the liberals have done today.
I'm a problem solver by nature. I'm a management consultant by profession. I do get very passionate and opinionated and even engage in a little name calling myself once in awhile, so I can understand it on some level, but at some point, we have to look at problems with an open mind and feed in solutions and analyze objectively and logically what comes out, without referring to dumb buzzwords or things like that.
I really wish I could find a place where people do that besides my work.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 10, 2008 12:08 PMFair enough. Sorry for lumping you in with the wrong group.
I disagree that conservatives are not electable. And let's just set aside the conservative label for a second. The problem is that politicians have packaged themselves up to a large degree as aligned with certain constituencies, etc. They are not really individuals with independent thoughts. Take Gregoire. She's completely a tool for the State Employee Unions, WEA, etc. And to be fair, Rossi has his own issues and alignments. What's needed to counter that is a truly individualist candidate, with a clear and principled ideology. That would be much closer to what we are looking for and electable. The trouble is that we never come close to that because we get very flawed libertarian candidates or otherwise. They are very focused on being libertarians, and not simply on principled leadership, and are usually not at all pragmatic, or even close to the mainstream alignments on either side. Part of that too is the people make vast assumptions by simply seeing either an R or a D after a name.
But it is appropriate to complain about what the left has done, and wants to do to WA, because they are in power and have been in power for quite a long time. They are responsible for WA as we know it today, whether they admit it or not.
Yeah, I'd like to see some solutions too, but take 520 or the Viaduct, it's just back and forth bickering all in WSDOT, Seattle and State leadership that is entirely controlled by the left. There are no solutions and it is their fault.
Many principled individualists, particularly engineers, have put forth decent solutions to repair or replace the Viaduct with an Elliot Bay bridge. And the costs for those projects are far less, than what is proposed by the state. But the hidden environmental agenda of removing the viaduct entirely, fighting with the construction unions that want the contracts to build a super-massive underground tunnel create gridlock. And both are a phenomenon of the statism of today's WA left leadership.
And to be sure their would be some nepotism amongst a conservative candidate as well, but it would probably be less that what we see from all of the myriad of lobbyists of the statist left and it would do one key thing, and that is create some room for change.
There won't be any progress at all, until the pendulum is at least allowed to swing the other way. The true genius of Madisonian government, is that the balance of powers are so busy fighting back and forth, that government can't get anything done. Which then leaves the door open for private industry to solve the problems, or at least allows the government to be conciliatory towards both sides.
The best thing you can do, aside from proposing solutions, is vote Republican, at least down-ticket here in WA, if for no other reason that to swing the pendulum such that government is forced to do something different than it is doing now.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2008 01:45 PM