Bloodless Coup

And of course that's just one example from a speech riddled with inaccurate innuendo and out-right lies.

And I would be honestly interested in what Kerry's done in the last 3 years that's led Zell to go from praising him, to damning him. He wasn't so specific on that aside from the 87 billion dollar vote. I mean Zell himself has said he was just reading the talking points he was handed when he read praise of Kerry in the past. But I'm sure that we all think that this distinguished Senator would never not say what's truly in his heart, or be used as a tool for a particular interest, so tell us Zell - what really led to your change of heart?

You might like this article about modern liberals' penchant for comparting Bush to Hitler, Baltar. I think rational debate was dead long before Zell Miller.
www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg090403.asp

Morris,

I would never claim that the democrats have any moral or practical advantage over the republicans in reasonable rhetoric. My only point was to showcase the obvious lack of logic in this one statement. As I noted, without any real knowledge of Kerry's Senate voting record, I know that Senator Miller's statement is wrong. So does everybody who heard it. It is so extreme as to be obviously wrong. Thus, I wonder why he said it (not in a political sense, that is obvious, but in a "speaking like a rational human" sense). Why say things that you know to be untrue? Senator Miller could have make much the same point (Kerry is an idiot) without making himself look like an idiot.

I'll deal with the Hitler thing later. That's two of your posts I have to respond to. I'm out of town this weekend, but I'll be writing them in my head.

Well, it's hard to expect happiness from Krugman, but today's column is really bitter and depressing.

And on the Hitler subject, he has this to say:

The convention opened with an invocation by Sheri Dew, a Mormon publisher and activist. Early rumors were that the invocation would be given by Jerry Falwell, who suggested just after 9/11 that the attack was God's punishment for the activities of the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way, among others. But Ms. Dew is no more moderate: earlier this year she likened opposition to gay marriage to opposition to Hitler.

Binky, I agree that these comparisons are irrational. I was making the point that conservatives calling someone the worst of the worst is no more irrational than comparing Bush or opposers of gay marriage to Hitler. I didn't watch Zell Miller because I saw two seconds of his anger and that was enough for me. But it's no worse than Howard Dean's or Al Gore's anger at George W. Bush. I'm not saying liberals are worse than conservatives on this, only that this is a tactic used by both parties (and throughout history), and pointing it out only on one side of the debate creates a false dichotomy.

Hey,

I think everybody is missing my point. Zell Miller's statement (and many others; I just pointed to one) was illogical on it's face. It was just plain wrong because of the absolutes he used: "...more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure." Think, logically, about what he is saying: Take any national figure. Find all of their statements on freedom and security (whatever those are). Compare their statements to Kerry's statements. Kerry will (in every single case) be "more wrong, more weak and more wobbly." And Kerry is this way on every single comparison for every single figure. No exceptions.

Zell Miller knew he was saying something that wasn't true. Dean and Gore may have been angry, but I don't think they ever said something that was logically false.

Here's Al Gore:

The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, went even further last week in Germany when he told Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history...This is not normal government policy." In describing the impact of the Bush policies on America's future, Akerloff added, "What we have here is a form of looting."

Is it any less absolutist to suggest this?

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

Morris,

Yes, I think Akerlof's comments, while extreme, are not as absolutist as Zell Miller. Akerlof is saying (to paraphrase): Bush is, on balance, the worst President ever. In other words, looking across all the policies and actions, Bush comes out the worst in a comparison. Notice he is not saying that in every single case for every single policy, Bush is the worst. The gist of Zell Miller's comment is that every single one of Kerry's policies are the worst in comparison to everybody elses policies.

There is a subtle difference, but an important one. Akerlof is making a judgement (which I assume that he thinks he can defend), while Miller is making a statement that (again, I assume) he knows is wrong. Unless you want to argue that Kerry's policies really are the single worst of every national figure over a twenty year period?

I think this is not just Akerlof's view (probably borne out of a poor relationship between Germany and America at this time) but also Al Gore's. It seems to me what you're saying is when it's Zell Miller talking against Kerry he's just ranting, but when it's Gore it's a well thought out argument, a bias of your politcal orientation that has nothing to do with sound arguments. I'm sure nobel prize winner for Economics Frederick Hayek could make a convincing argument that the worst president ever was FDR because of the huge beauracracies he created with so many government projects, but the point is it adds nothing constructive to say this. If "looting" is truly Akerlof's concern, why wouldn't Harding's teapot dome administration be the worst ever? Even if you conceded that Kerry had the worst record on defense and intelligence, or I said that Bush was the worst with looting, wouldn't it be better to compare what each of these presidents is going to actually do rather than compose a top ten worst list? This IS absolutist thinking and it doesn't help.

While it is true that Baltar is anti-Bush, I find the assertion that he is pro-Gore or a lockstep democrat quite amusing. I know that as a group the main contributors to bloodless coup have inside information on each other gleaned from the cooperative planning and construction of this site. However, it's also been pretty clear from his posts and comments that Baltar is hardly the liberal lackey you suggest with "bias of your political orientation that has nothing to do with sound arguments."

Why do I mention this? Especially since Baltar could defend himself if he cared to? Well, let's just call it a teaching moment. Or say it's because in all the debates I think there is a tendency to assume a certain profile for posters that leads readers to skim over what is actually written. This isn't just a problem with bloodless coup, but in general debate about politics, but I find it particularly annoying because while bloodless coup has been consistent in its critiques of the current administration (and especially its foreign policy, our particular area of interest), it is bi-partisan. Maybe it's because this is an election year, I don't know. Perhaps if you remember my comment s couple of weeks ago about 'where have all the true conservatives gone?' you understand my attachment to real discussion among people who disagree across party lines, or hold dissenting views within their own party, but can actually listen to each other, without thinking "oh, right wing wacko/liberal nutjob, tune out". And I'm not trying to take Morris - our most reliable and consistent outside commmenter - to task; he just happens to be the lucky poster who got me thinking about this.

Thankyou, Binky, for responding to absolutely nothing within my argument, and instead suggesting that I'm wrong about your friend. This is the point, exactly. It's not about whether someone is a Democrat or Republican, I'm still a registered independent. It's not about whether someone is a conservative or liberal. When all we get out of this discussion is a sense of belonging (not that that is in any way unimportant), we're not really learning anything, and that's when rational debate dies. I don't care how Baltar is registered, who his heroes are, what I care about is his readiness to accept that the exact thing for which he criticizes others (absolutism akin to Zel Miller) is what he engages in when he talks about how anyone might be the worst anything. What does it accomplish? If you don't like Bush's policies, talk about the reasons you don't like them. To do otherwise is to say someone's bad because they're bad. How does that help?

Morris, you write: "If you don't like Bush's policies, talk about the reasons you don't like them. To do otherwise is to say someone's bad because they're bad. How does that help?"

Funny, I'd swear I complained some time ago that you were showing an unfortuante habit of focusing more on the writers of this blog's supposed beliefs and personality traits (many of which you have had a habit of guessing incorrectly) than engaging their ideas. As I recall you responded with a lengthy digression into how you can't understand someone's responses to and thoughts on issues without knowing about them at some deeper level. That would seem to make Baltar's personal characteristics a matter worth noting, if only as something that we would have thought you'd be interested in.

Also, that you wrote this post at all makes little sense given its content. If it bothers you so much (all of a sudden), practice what you preach.

Armand,
That's a good pick up by you, I wondered after I wrote this if I would be asked to clarify. The point of this thread, in its title even, is the death of "rational" debate. What I'm saying is that within this specific teleological approach, Democrats and Republicans both have room for improvement. I think debate can serve a multitude of purposes, one of which is rational debate for the purpose of education. I just find it a little inconsistent that within a thread about this very topic (rational debate) that it should be ignored as a manner of critique. I think the meaningful part of a person's being that is of interest to me in fulfilling other purposes of debate has little relationship with being conservative or liberal; these are not what I would call meaningful human values, only shorthand that does little to explain a person's individual experience of their world without further explanation.