This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Doug1943
From the blog of Guardian writer Nick Cohen:
---EVERY liberal I know is dividing between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. I can persuade them to think better of John McCain only by pointing out that he is the one presidential candidate to have come close to decking Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
The marvellous moment is recorded in Dr Brendan Simms’ definitive Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia. To recap , John Major’s government did everything it could to prevent the international community stopping the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia’s Muslims. When Senators Bob Dole and John McCain tried to urge action against Milosevic, Rifkind, then the Defence Secretary, dismissed them as ignorant cowboys.
“You Americans know nothing about the horrors of war,” he cried at Dole, who had, as it happens, been savagely wounded by a Nazi shell in World War II. Meanwhile McCain, who had, as it happens, been tortured for five years in a communist PoW camp, was so enraged by Rifkind’s accusations that a “member of his staff feared he was about to hit him”.
Repeat this story and I promise that even lefties will mutter “respect”. ---
---EVERY liberal I know is dividing between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. I can persuade them to think better of John McCain only by pointing out that he is the one presidential candidate to have come close to decking Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
The marvellous moment is recorded in Dr Brendan Simms’ definitive Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia. To recap , John Major’s government did everything it could to prevent the international community stopping the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia’s Muslims. When Senators Bob Dole and John McCain tried to urge action against Milosevic, Rifkind, then the Defence Secretary, dismissed them as ignorant cowboys.
“You Americans know nothing about the horrors of war,” he cried at Dole, who had, as it happens, been savagely wounded by a Nazi shell in World War II. Meanwhile McCain, who had, as it happens, been tortured for five years in a communist PoW camp, was so enraged by Rifkind’s accusations that a “member of his staff feared he was about to hit him”.
Repeat this story and I promise that even lefties will mutter “respect”. ---
2BGP
LOL That's fantastic!
Any word on how Labour has reacted to the primary (I know, I know, I should be keeping up on these things, but in recent weeks my Isles-watch has been basically limited to whatever The Economist has deemed noteworthy).
Tangentially, I must ask: what has become of the fascist (or perhaps just Radovan Karadžić) loving John Reid since the Brownites have come to power? Has he officially gone the way of the Tory apologists or will he be back to shame Labour another day (if and when the Serbs decide to subject the Kosovars to a little more "tough love")?
Any word on how Labour has reacted to the primary (I know, I know, I should be keeping up on these things, but in recent weeks my Isles-watch has been basically limited to whatever The Economist has deemed noteworthy).
Tangentially, I must ask: what has become of the fascist (or perhaps just Radovan Karadžić) loving John Reid since the Brownites have come to power? Has he officially gone the way of the Tory apologists or will he be back to shame Labour another day (if and when the Serbs decide to subject the Kosovars to a little more "tough love")?
3timspalding
I like this anecdote too. I was in DC during the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, and protested in favor of lifting the arms embargo, so the Bosnians could defend themselves.
That said, I wonder if "Pro and Con" is the right place for this. It seems to me that the group should be for posing pro-and-con questions—for debate. This seems like "political foo" not a debate topic. I'd join that the political foo group, of course.
That said, I wonder if "Pro and Con" is the right place for this. It seems to me that the group should be for posing pro-and-con questions—for debate. This seems like "political foo" not a debate topic. I'd join that the political foo group, of course.
4BGP
The group is Pro and Con, not Pro v. Con. Frequent posters here love a debate, but I, for one, bristle at the idea that we must keep our ducks in a row by limiting certain types of discussions to specified groups. Why? It doesn't work. Overly specific groups thrive and then die. Pro and Con has become the success that it is because of the fact that we, the politicos, have free reign to start a thread about whatever we want to discuss, relate or debate (within the limitations set by the terms of service).
Yes, you are the boss. This is your show, and we are all guests here. That said, I have a feeling that more than a few of us will be jumping ship from this forum if our methods of communication are dictated or otherwise regulated.
Yes, this... from the social democratic left-leaning statist.
Yes, you are the boss. This is your show, and we are all guests here. That said, I have a feeling that more than a few of us will be jumping ship from this forum if our methods of communication are dictated or otherwise regulated.
Yes, this... from the social democratic left-leaning statist.
5timspalding
I'm not dictating! I'm wondering, seriously. It seems to me like the expectation is pro vs. con. But I am happy to be corrected.
6BGP
"Progressives and Conservatives: Here is a place where you can meet, argue, discuss, throw imaginary tantrums, ask questions of each other and share a virtual beer or coffee together." -Arctic, our illustrious founding father
In other words, everything is up for discussion at our veritable table, and all forms of discussion are welcome at said table.
It is true that anecdotes and dry socio-political analyses will always draw a smaller crowd than a rollicking debate, but that does not mean that we should engage in self-censorship by limiting ourselves to a certain style of political engagement.
If we do not let the forum be all things to all people, participation and membership will decline, and, ultimately, the group will wither away.
In other words, everything is up for discussion at our veritable table, and all forms of discussion are welcome at said table.
It is true that anecdotes and dry socio-political analyses will always draw a smaller crowd than a rollicking debate, but that does not mean that we should engage in self-censorship by limiting ourselves to a certain style of political engagement.
If we do not let the forum be all things to all people, participation and membership will decline, and, ultimately, the group will wither away.
7Doug1943
Political struggle should not be analogous to physical struggle.
In physical struggle, you seek to overwhelm and annihilate your opponent, through superior strength and skill.
But politics is different.
In the first place, physical struggle is almost always between two sharply differentiated opponents.
But politics is a spectrum. In fact, it is an n-dimensional set of spectrums -- we can differ with each other, along a spectrum, on a whole range of issues: how much of a "forward" foreign policy we should have, how much and what kind of a welfare state we should have, immigration policy, "social" conservative issues, cultural questions...
Someone who is all the way over on the Left, or all the way over on the Right -- and even here the implied linearity is a huge simplification -- and who is absolutely rigid in his positions, is not going to be very interesting to argue with. And in fact, we have no one like that in this group, so far as I can see. (Occasionally, someone who seems to approximate that description drops in, fires off a few posts, apparently realizes that the environment is not congenial, and leaves.)
So, although we can roughly differentiate between the "Pro" camp, and the "Con" camp here, there is still the possibility that you can convince someone in the other camp of the wisdom of your own position on this or that issue. Or even someone on your own side, who disagrees with you.
And the price you should pay for that possibility, is to be open to the possibility of being convinced in turn on this or that issue by someone on the other side. Or at least to appear to be open.
But why should you care whether or not someone on the "other side" changes his mind on some issue, if he is still going to vote for the Other party?
Because America is a fifty-fifty nation. Sometimes liberals will be in power, sometimes conservatives, and both will be in power in various states and localities. And there can be wise liberalism, and foolish liberalism, just as there can be wise conservatism and foolish conservatism.
Of course, I define wise liberalism as liberalism which tacitly acknowledges what I take to be the principal insights of conservatism: a skepticism about the benign quality of human nature, and thus caution in intitiating radical social changes. A liberal will have his own definition of wise conservatism.
And since I know liberals are going to be in charge of the direction of the state, at least some of the time, I want to influence them as much as possible, even if I cannot convert them.
So I don't think that every post has to be made with the object of sparking an immediate angry confrontation between Pros and Cons. (Although I do hope I have fulfilled my quota with respect to these, too.)
In physical struggle, you seek to overwhelm and annihilate your opponent, through superior strength and skill.
But politics is different.
In the first place, physical struggle is almost always between two sharply differentiated opponents.
But politics is a spectrum. In fact, it is an n-dimensional set of spectrums -- we can differ with each other, along a spectrum, on a whole range of issues: how much of a "forward" foreign policy we should have, how much and what kind of a welfare state we should have, immigration policy, "social" conservative issues, cultural questions...
Someone who is all the way over on the Left, or all the way over on the Right -- and even here the implied linearity is a huge simplification -- and who is absolutely rigid in his positions, is not going to be very interesting to argue with. And in fact, we have no one like that in this group, so far as I can see. (Occasionally, someone who seems to approximate that description drops in, fires off a few posts, apparently realizes that the environment is not congenial, and leaves.)
So, although we can roughly differentiate between the "Pro" camp, and the "Con" camp here, there is still the possibility that you can convince someone in the other camp of the wisdom of your own position on this or that issue. Or even someone on your own side, who disagrees with you.
And the price you should pay for that possibility, is to be open to the possibility of being convinced in turn on this or that issue by someone on the other side. Or at least to appear to be open.
But why should you care whether or not someone on the "other side" changes his mind on some issue, if he is still going to vote for the Other party?
Because America is a fifty-fifty nation. Sometimes liberals will be in power, sometimes conservatives, and both will be in power in various states and localities. And there can be wise liberalism, and foolish liberalism, just as there can be wise conservatism and foolish conservatism.
Of course, I define wise liberalism as liberalism which tacitly acknowledges what I take to be the principal insights of conservatism: a skepticism about the benign quality of human nature, and thus caution in intitiating radical social changes. A liberal will have his own definition of wise conservatism.
And since I know liberals are going to be in charge of the direction of the state, at least some of the time, I want to influence them as much as possible, even if I cannot convert them.
So I don't think that every post has to be made with the object of sparking an immediate angry confrontation between Pros and Cons. (Although I do hope I have fulfilled my quota with respect to these, too.)
8geneg
In #7, Doug says, "and {someone} who is absolutely rigid in his positions, is not going to be very interesting to argue with. And in fact, we have no one like that in this group, so far as I can see."
I guess I shall have to redouble my efforts! Or is it people just ignore me? Oh, my!
I guess I shall have to redouble my efforts! Or is it people just ignore me? Oh, my!
9Doug1943
Gene: Here is a tip on how to provoke a response from the other side: say something like "Of course, conservatives believe ..." and then write down something that some conservatives believe, even something that a lot of conservatives believe, but at the same time something that not necessarily every conservative believes. All of the latter will immediately reply.
10timspalding
Of course, both conservative and liberals believe that evil is good. (Steps aside and away.)
12timspalding
He didn't. Liberals did.
13timspalding
(Just for the record, I had to choose one or the other for it to work rhetorically. I am officially neutral!)
14Mr.Durick
13> We know from the '60's that that is probably true. But why then do conservatives believe evil is good?
Robert
Robert
15Arctic-Stranger
for the record:
A) I am beholden to Tim as Founding Father.
B) I started this place because conservatives were complaining the liberals were taking over their group. I thought the interplay was worthwhile, but I also understood why they might want a group of their own. So I started Pro (Progessives) and Con (Conservatives). The pun in the title was a hopeful nod to a fruitful, ongoing debate.
Other than the thing about not attacking people, which most people have honered with honor (We have very few flags thrown), I was hoping for open, honest debate on subjects near and dear to the heart of posters.
Although I sometimes think of it as the monster I created, I must say my expectations were met, and exceeded.
Thank you, members.
A) I am beholden to Tim as Founding Father.
B) I started this place because conservatives were complaining the liberals were taking over their group. I thought the interplay was worthwhile, but I also understood why they might want a group of their own. So I started Pro (Progessives) and Con (Conservatives). The pun in the title was a hopeful nod to a fruitful, ongoing debate.
Other than the thing about not attacking people, which most people have honered with honor (We have very few flags thrown), I was hoping for open, honest debate on subjects near and dear to the heart of posters.
Although I sometimes think of it as the monster I created, I must say my expectations were met, and exceeded.
Thank you, members.
16enevada
Persuasion, hmmm, interesting. In all honesty, I’ve yet to be persuaded by anyone in this forum to change an opinion – often, I refine or re-evaluate a position, but – to date – no one has ‘convinced me otherwise’ on a number of topics.
I see the value of both types of discussion – and, I’m a runner, so the analogy that works for me is that conversation on LT among like-minded peers (Political Conservatives, Catholic Tradition) is my daily training – the long-runs, the hill-work, all in all the more valuable experience. The discussion in a group of diverging opinions (Pro and Con) is the occasional road race – let’s see how I do out in the field. It is often for entertainment rather than edification. But it gets one out of the house, away from the din of the echo chamber, and it forces you to interact in a civil, slightly formalized setting.
My sense is the Pros far outnumber the Cons here, and there is an awful lot of “here, here!”, which may distort the experience for some.
I see the value of both types of discussion – and, I’m a runner, so the analogy that works for me is that conversation on LT among like-minded peers (Political Conservatives, Catholic Tradition) is my daily training – the long-runs, the hill-work, all in all the more valuable experience. The discussion in a group of diverging opinions (Pro and Con) is the occasional road race – let’s see how I do out in the field. It is often for entertainment rather than edification. But it gets one out of the house, away from the din of the echo chamber, and it forces you to interact in a civil, slightly formalized setting.
My sense is the Pros far outnumber the Cons here, and there is an awful lot of “here, here!”, which may distort the experience for some.
17Doug1943
If we look at just American society over the past century or so, we will find big shifts in the center of gravity of public opinion -- both to the "left" and to the "right".
As an example of the former, the acceptance of, if not enthusiastic agreement with, a role for the Federal Government in establishing minimal norms of social welfare, and in putting its weight in scales against racial oppression.
The opinion of conservatives in 2008 on these issues would seem like Bolshevism to the conservatives of 1928.
As an example of the latter -- two examples -- we may note the sobering up of the mainstream of American liberalism, with respect to the Soviet Experiment, which occured after WWII. Liberals and Stalinists were bosom buddies in 1939, and locked in bitter struggle in 1949. Or look at the liberal attitude towards crime and welfare as a result of the experiences of the 1970s and 80s: Clinton "triangulation" was not just political opportunism, but represented a shift in the center of gravity of liberal understanding of the underclass.
Of course, events played a major role in all of these changes. But so did political debate.
Few people have Road to Damascus conversions -- they change gradually, over time. And these changes may not be reflected in explicit changes of previously-held positions, but in a the taking up of a position on new issues, which reflects the experience -- and perhaps the arguments -- to which the person involved has been exposed.
Anyway, since I think my politics are correct, I want to try to convince other people of them. Since I think that at least some of the "other people" who do not agree with me are reasonable people, I want to try to convince them of my arguments. I believe events will work with me on this.
And, of course, all this goes double, triple, when younger people, who are still in the process of forming their opinions, are considered.
As an example of the former, the acceptance of, if not enthusiastic agreement with, a role for the Federal Government in establishing minimal norms of social welfare, and in putting its weight in scales against racial oppression.
The opinion of conservatives in 2008 on these issues would seem like Bolshevism to the conservatives of 1928.
As an example of the latter -- two examples -- we may note the sobering up of the mainstream of American liberalism, with respect to the Soviet Experiment, which occured after WWII. Liberals and Stalinists were bosom buddies in 1939, and locked in bitter struggle in 1949. Or look at the liberal attitude towards crime and welfare as a result of the experiences of the 1970s and 80s: Clinton "triangulation" was not just political opportunism, but represented a shift in the center of gravity of liberal understanding of the underclass.
Of course, events played a major role in all of these changes. But so did political debate.
Few people have Road to Damascus conversions -- they change gradually, over time. And these changes may not be reflected in explicit changes of previously-held positions, but in a the taking up of a position on new issues, which reflects the experience -- and perhaps the arguments -- to which the person involved has been exposed.
Anyway, since I think my politics are correct, I want to try to convince other people of them. Since I think that at least some of the "other people" who do not agree with me are reasonable people, I want to try to convince them of my arguments. I believe events will work with me on this.
And, of course, all this goes double, triple, when younger people, who are still in the process of forming their opinions, are considered.
18Arctic-Stranger
Anyway, since I think my politics are correct, I want to try to convince other people of them.
But your politics are wrong, Doug. Mine are correct.
But your politics are wrong, Doug. Mine are correct.
20Arctic-Stranger
Don't you mean God has me on his side?
22Makifat
So, to get back to the pro and con of it, the fellow who painted my house number on the curb a couple of weeks ago (a Reagan Republican, he assured me)told me that John McCain was NOT a hero.
After all, the F-16 (or whatever he was flying) was such a sophisticated aircraft that only a total incompetent could have been shot down by the Viet Cong (who were apparently shooting rubber bands). So I guess Big John bought himself that ticket to the Hanoi Hilton!
(Sarcasm alert!) Does this mean there will be a reprise of those cute little Purple Heart band-aids at the Republican Convention? Oh how we love our troops, unless they are so maladroit as to have gotten themselves injured.
Has anyone else heard any "he's no hero" propaganda about McCain?
After all, the F-16 (or whatever he was flying) was such a sophisticated aircraft that only a total incompetent could have been shot down by the Viet Cong (who were apparently shooting rubber bands). So I guess Big John bought himself that ticket to the Hanoi Hilton!
(Sarcasm alert!) Does this mean there will be a reprise of those cute little Purple Heart band-aids at the Republican Convention? Oh how we love our troops, unless they are so maladroit as to have gotten themselves injured.
Has anyone else heard any "he's no hero" propaganda about McCain?
26Arctic-Stranger
Codyed, can we take three silences as a no?
27Makifat
I'm worried that he's had a seizure and is trying to dial 911!
I will be SO embarassed if I turn out to be right.
Dude! Say sum'in!
I will be SO embarassed if I turn out to be right.
Dude! Say sum'in!
28Arctic-Stranger
Now watch him go back and delete them, making us look like fools.
It's worse than that! He's dead, Jim!
Take his wallet.
It's worse than that! He's dead, Jim!
Take his wallet.
29codyed
Actually, I tried posting a message but there was a database hiccup.
Anyway, there is an organization called Vietnam Vets Against John McCain. Whether or not they are reliable source of information remains to be seen. But it would be interesting if the Dems used this information against McCain.
I just want a good fight.
Anyway, there is an organization called Vietnam Vets Against John McCain. Whether or not they are reliable source of information remains to be seen. But it would be interesting if the Dems used this information against McCain.
I just want a good fight.
31Jesse_wiedinmyer
I see the value of both types of discussion – and, I’m a runner, so the analogy that works for me is that conversation on LT among like-minded peers (Political Conservatives, Catholic Tradition) is my daily training – the long-runs, the hill-work, all in all the more valuable experience. The discussion in a group of diverging opinions (Pro and Con) is the occasional road race – let’s see how I do out in the field. It is often for entertainment rather than edification. But it gets one out of the house, away from the din of the echo chamber, and it forces you to interact in a civil, slightly formalized setting.
That's not a viewpoint that makes any sense to me. And I in no way mean that as a personal attack, E. It's just completely foreign to the way that I approach such things. My practice of my belief is more along the lines of working in a soup kitchen.
But the base metaphor of belief as competition or struggle just isn't something that resonates with me on most levels. It's kind of the same way with Doug's assertions that he sees himself as someone whose job it is to rally the troops around the flag with the big 'C' on it.
My positions aren't necessarily to be defended or strengthened simply because they're my beliefs. If anything, they should be modified or discarded depending on their suitability to life.
I'm probably not articulating that very well, but there's just something about that statement that seems odd to me.
Codyed, can we take three silences as a no?
I think that depends on which state you reside in. Some of them still believe that silence equals implied consent.
That's not a viewpoint that makes any sense to me. And I in no way mean that as a personal attack, E. It's just completely foreign to the way that I approach such things. My practice of my belief is more along the lines of working in a soup kitchen.
But the base metaphor of belief as competition or struggle just isn't something that resonates with me on most levels. It's kind of the same way with Doug's assertions that he sees himself as someone whose job it is to rally the troops around the flag with the big 'C' on it.
My positions aren't necessarily to be defended or strengthened simply because they're my beliefs. If anything, they should be modified or discarded depending on their suitability to life.
I'm probably not articulating that very well, but there's just something about that statement that seems odd to me.
Codyed, can we take three silences as a no?
I think that depends on which state you reside in. Some of them still believe that silence equals implied consent.
32enevada
#31: Belief? I was talking about discussion, which is something far less - akin to a hobby, a sport, or exercise. The practice of my belief is something far greater, and nothing I'd be inclined to share with strangers. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
33Doug1943
Surely everyone here has certain values -- probably pretty much the same ones, or at least with a lot of overlap -- and we see politics, broadly defined, as a method of defending or implementing those values?
We both see a lot of poor people, say.
Some of us see them as just the unfortunate losers in life's lottery, with the non-poor as the lucky winners. No one should get blame, no one should get credit. It was all an accident. Thus the state should take from the winners and give to the losers. Only fair. Others of us see personal responsibilty as integral to personal freedom, and are inclined to see the plight of the poor as the result of the behavior of the poor, which we do not wish to reinforce by state-mediated forced income transfers from those who have played by the rules.
Of course, both of these characterizations are caricatures. Most reasonable people would recognize some truth in both of these propositions. We just assign different proportions to it.
In any case, living in a democracy, I want to see what I consider the right ideas for ending poverty prevail. So I take part in political debate.
That, at least, is my rationalization. There is no doubt also a component in my motivation that directly descends from my ancestors' pleasure in counting coup.
We both see a lot of poor people, say.
Some of us see them as just the unfortunate losers in life's lottery, with the non-poor as the lucky winners. No one should get blame, no one should get credit. It was all an accident. Thus the state should take from the winners and give to the losers. Only fair. Others of us see personal responsibilty as integral to personal freedom, and are inclined to see the plight of the poor as the result of the behavior of the poor, which we do not wish to reinforce by state-mediated forced income transfers from those who have played by the rules.
Of course, both of these characterizations are caricatures. Most reasonable people would recognize some truth in both of these propositions. We just assign different proportions to it.
In any case, living in a democracy, I want to see what I consider the right ideas for ending poverty prevail. So I take part in political debate.
That, at least, is my rationalization. There is no doubt also a component in my motivation that directly descends from my ancestors' pleasure in counting coup.
