http://jtidwell.net/writing/reason.html
But the most unsettling aspect of this presidency has not been its
political positions, nor its policies, nor its actions. It’s the lack
of any counterbalance to Bush’s ideological orthodoxy. And that lack
of balance is leading us in a dangerous philosophical direction.
I don’t think that all positions should be balanced. If someone gets
up and argues in favor of Jews existing, I don’t think that civil
society demands that a Nazi step up to the plate to argue the other
side. Now, I’ll *allow* the Nazi to speak, but I don’t think that
we’re much better off inviting the Nazi to the lectern.
Similarly, with about 80% of the Bush policies, I don’t think that
there’s “another side” to the debates that makes a lot of sense.
(By the way, debate on how the War On Terror is run is in the other
20%: there is a lot of good arguing to be done, even though - in the
end - I’d still end up on Bush’ side).
Congress, of course, has offered almost no check on presidential
power. With both houses held by Republicans, most of whom are loyal to
the President, there is little that Bush can’t push through Congress
simply by asking.
Disagree entirely.
We have not yet repealed the income tax, abolished the IRS, privatized
social security, or drilled for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.
The reason that the administration doesn’t seem to lose too many
battles is that it is very good at figuring out which battles are
winnable, and which are not.
The justice department has thankfully offered some resistance to the
two partisan branches, as in the recent Supreme Court decisions
bolstering prisoners’ rights to due process.
A decision that I entirely disagree with (although I admit that I have
not read the legal papers, so I might be talking out my butt).
One point I hear again and again is that the Gitmo prisoners are not
getting trials. I deeply do not understand this objection.
It is not alleged that they broke laws; therefore there is no trial.
In WWII we did not allege that German troops that we captured had
broken American laws. There was no need for a trial. There was
merely a need to keep them out of circulation until combat operations
were over (whether that took 4 years, or 14). Some minor tribunals
are called for, to make sure that the folks in the pens were actually
caught on battlefields…but other than that, there is no need or
reason to assemble evidence, take fingerprints, etc.
Even the 2000 election results, as close to 50/50 as an election can
get, did nothing to curb the ideology of the conservatives as they
came into office. It was anything but a mandate. The country is not
strongly Republican — it is evenly split,
What I take away from this is not a mandate for compromise, but a
mandate to scale back the power of government. No party ever wins a
huge mandate - they get 55% of the popular vote. The fact that we
then consider it normal for the winning party to then muddle about
with all sorts of intrusions into citizens lives is outrageous.
Given that only 55% of the voters agree with the winning party , the
winning party should really restrict itself to the powers set forth in
Article I , section 8.
Mint some money, build some post roads, send negotiators to NAFTA, and
butt-the-@#$$%-out of everything else.
A good leader does not just “stay the course.” A good leader listens
to evidence, makes a decision, and then continually reevaluates the
fitness of that decision as events unfold. Reality is messy, and
despite our efforts, it does not always conform to our tidy
ideological models. A good leader has the courage to see a decision
through, but enough humility to accept that he may occasionally be
wrong.
Agreed.
If I thought that Bush had been wrong about something, I’d want to see
him change course.
I think he has been wrong about a few minor things, and he has changed
course - the handling of Fallujah, etc.
I don’t think that Bush has been wrong on Iraq.
IMO, Iraq is going wonderfully well. Our total casualties to liberate
a nation of tens of millions, geographically split the Arab world into
two disjoint chunks, gather mountains of information on the behind the
scenes goings on of Iran, the Palestinians , the UN, Russia, etc., are
amazingly light: around 1k dead.
To me, this says “outstanding political strategy; outstanding military
execution”.
Scientists, engineers, and academics tend to dislike President
Bush.
Two out of those three tend to live on the government teat.
Intellectuals are usually vaguely successful - they have their little
ivory tower sinecures, but they are often risk averse. They often
look at the business world and wonder “how did that guy get so lucky?
All he does is sell cement! I’m 10 times smarter than him! What’s
wrong with our society that I’m not rewarded 10 times what he is?”.
Thus, intellectuals almost always head the siren call of greater
government control over the economy, and greater intellectualism in
government.
I’ve changed my opinion since I was a teenager - I think that
*intelligence* is a great thing, but that intellectualism, while a lot
of fun in parlor society (and around the poker table) is not a good
thing in a leader. I *want* a bit of a cowboy in the saddle.
Sometimes sophistication gets in the way of calling a spade a spade.
Reagan was ruthlessly mocked by the intelligentsia for his lack of
nuance. So is W.
I think both are far better presidents than, say, Carter, or Kerry
(would be).
All the trappings of science (or economics, or even history) have a
single goal. Reproducible experiments, the scientific method,
statistical analysis, peer-reviewed journals, years-long clinical
trials, chains of logic, ideas about falsifiability — all of these
force the scientist to confront the question: “might I be wrong?”
And this is a perfect expose of the arrogance of intellectuals: the
only reason that they come to the right conclusions in the lab is
because they perform experiments, know their subject matter, and look
at the results. …yet when it comes to politics, most of them leave
these tools at the lab bench, and depend on their hunches and a little
bit of intelligence…but it’s not intelligence alone that leads to
correct findings in the lab; it’s looking at data.
I’ve met so many folks who are brilliant in their own areas, but are
politically and historically naive. They compare what the free market
actually does to what they think government *could* do. Instead of
comparing *data*, they’re comparing a small subset of the data on one
side, with hopeful dreams on the other.
They are often actively resistant to talk of history or human
character - they are more likely than most to defend socialism or
communism, not because it actually works, but because it “should”
work. When talk turns to uncomfortable truths like broken inner city
culture, they get defensive about data they don’t want to hear, and
are more prone to lash out at “racists” than they are to listen to -
in your words - data that might force them to ask the question “might I
be wrong?”.
Evidence shows that the more educated one is, the more extreme one’s
political beliefs are likely to be. Folks self-select what they’re
going to read and listen to, and then they build models that describe
the world…and they’re very averse to changing these models.
The plumber with a high school degree and a year of college sort of
likes candidate A, but realizes that candidate B makes a good point
about policy X.
The PhD in Sociology has a four hour speech about his theory about how
all political history since 1880 is really about control of bauxite
and the dichotomy of words and meaning in the hands of the white male
technocratic elite.
And little things like “your theory was tried, and 10 million people
starved to death” isn’t enough to convince him that he’s wrong.
He’s got a world view, and a self-view, that are resistant to change.
The same is true about fields as diverse as history, finance, public
health, anthropology, military operations, and computer networks. They
each use the same rational mode of inquiry,
I think that the implication of this sentence breaks down because the
various groups do not swing all in the same direction.
What will we choose for ourselves in 2004?
I agree with, but detest, the assumption in the sentence - that “we”
are choosing something for “us”.
I want to choose X,Y,and Z for me…and I have no problem with you
choosing A,B,and C for yourself.