God Bless America (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by ledocs

Yes, well, thoroughgoing Pyrrhonian skepticism would be inconsistent with affirming or denying any dogma, including any consensus of experts. But no one actually lives his life as a thoroughgoing skeptic. It's a cop-out. The skepticism is selective, adduced for reasons that have nothing to do with epistemology. In the case of AGW, the "skepticism" is about not wanting to give up some economic goods now in favor of the future. Everyone knows that this is what is at issue. At least Jim Manzi has the good faith to concede that point.

I don't think it's that at all. I believe if Conservatives thought it was merely an issue of the responsibilities one generation has to the next Conservatives would support policies aimed at mitigating AGW. Isn't this why we should care about the debt? Instead it's that Conservatives have a deep faith in the free market. That is to say Conservatives believe that once the State acts as an enforcer of contracts then everyone competing against each other for personal gain gives the greatest overall utility for society. Issues relating to AGW seem to contradict this. Therefore the science must be wrong.

*Anytime one talks about groups that compromise millions of people let's all assume that one was talking in generalities.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I don't think it's that at all. I believe if Conservatives thought it was merely an issue of the responsibilities one generation has to the next Conservatives would support policies aimed at mitigating AGW. Isn't this why we should care about the debt? Instead it's that Conservatives have a deep faith in the free markets. That is to say Conservatives believe that once the State acts as an enforcer of contracts then everyone competing against each other for personal gain gives the greatest overall utility for society. Issues relating to AGW seem to contradict this. Therefore the science must be wrong.

You've confused conservatives with libertarians. Understandable, since there is considerable overlap in some areas. However, conservatives, AGW skeptics included, do find more role for government then do libertarians. Most cons wouldn't be for privatizing police, military, etc. Most cons do not believe pollution management should be left up to the market anymore then they believe what their upstream neighbor dumps in the river is a problem for free markets to solve.

I've told you several times why most cons are skeptical. Its because AGW advocates have either chosen, or allowed, AGW advocacy to be a Democratic party issue. The fact that the Democratic party is the natural home of most of those who would embrace such advocacy is no excuse for the irresponsibility of such tactics as supporting Al Gore as the primary spokesman for the cause.

The republican party has been the traditional home of wall street folks and other rich business capitalists. This has not prevented them from infiltrating the Democratic party at the highest levels of power. This is an example of people who are serious about their cause rather then their politics.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

It's Sulla vs. The World in tonight's main event, ladies and gents! Through round 10, Sulla is holding his own in this tag team extravaganza! Can he hold up under the ferocious rhetorical blows from the finest lefty minds the Bhtv commentators have to offer, or will he be worn down and vote for Obama next year?

It's too early to tell, I'd say. Place your bets! Step right up!

I think I'll sit this one out, Sulla. But for what it's worth. I may have to re-evaluate my distaste for dicators. Keep going.

Heh, so keeping going even if repeating the same nonsense means holding one's own?

Okay, I never understood this competition obsession anyway.

I will let you all have fun at it. I've been working in the clinic for 10 hours today and got home without much interest in this kind of game. I've expressed my opinion already, for whatever that's worth.

PS: it's dictators not dicators.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

None of this responds to the comment about "first principles." You have to define what you think is meant by first principles. I don't think anyone sees "being hawkish" as good in and of itself. It's always a means to an end.

That is true. But as you know, in internet debating forums, its often the case that people speak in a political short hand. I didn't mean hawkishness was a "first principle", I meant the view that the United States was an exceptional state, and that in being exceptional, was able to intervene in a unilateral fashion wherever necessary to safeguard its interests. And when possible, bestow the gift of liberty on the victims of despots. To tear the lash from the hand of their overlords.

Now, I know that I still believe the former largely. What I and others have come to believe is that rhetoric about liberation in the later is a bit too First Republic; and frankly, that many of the recipients of this gift haven't really been worthy of it. Having cut his teeth on the annihilation of the Third Reich, Eisenhower rarely had to use such rhetoric when speaking of interventions. But his successors certainly did. Nixon spoke glowingly of the exercise of freedom and liberty in South Vietnam, Reagan in Latin America and Eastern Europe, and both Bushes in the Middle East. The party was united on these points historically because in a Republic of virtue, no price is too high in the struggle against Bolshevism. And we were on board for the effort to chastise the Jihadis who killed so many fellow citizens. But nation building? Many, if not most, of us are getting off the train.

In addition, of course, it's false. Support for business, the then-definition of free markets, etc., has been a hallmark of the Republican party since at least the late 19th century.

The Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt would argue against that. Teddy Roosevelt is the First Citizen of the American progressive movement. He found a nation of brick and left it wall-papered in regulation. It can be argued that Teddy Roosevelt sets the precedent for government intervention into markets; and is the father of anti-business rhetoric writ large in national politics.

Then, of course, there was the progressive Presidency of Herbert Hoover, who was perhaps the nicest man ever to be demonized by the Democratic party. Hoover raised the top income tax rate to 63%, and doubled the estate tax. He launched a massive public works program, some of which you may have heard of. He engaged in protectionism to spur domestic hiring. He even managed to find a way to tax the use of checks.

Eisenhower was a moderate fellow, who sought only to temper the New Deal, not address the fundamental problems with it. Eisenhower presided over a top marginal tax rate if 91%, by the way.

Then comes Nixon, who was if anything, to Obama's left on economic matters. Wage and price controls, a very left wing national health care plan which would have mandated coverage for employees, and subsidized coverage for the self employed and small business. Nixon creates the EPA, and begins the Affirmative Action program. Clean Air Act, OSHA, and he endorsed the ERA! If Nixon had called himself a Democrat, his domestic agenda combined with getting us out of Vietnam would have made him the greatest hero of the left since FDR. Nixon's top marginal tax rate was 71%.

No...the Republican party has historically been the defender of the market and business only in contrast to how extreme the Democrats are. And indeed, remain. It isn't until Goldwater, who loses, and Reagan, that you see the birth of a Republican party committed to economic principles which align with the innate classical liberalism of the GOP.

Support for an interventionalist foreign policy, especially outside of the Americas, clearly has been a hotly debated or even disfavored position within the party during the period.

I disagree. What you are thinking of was actually the exception, not the rule. You're thinking of post WWI isolationism, which really has more to do with the horrors of the war, and the massive expansion of the Presidency under Wilson, than genuine ideology. If we take as a case study Henry Cabot Lodge, perhaps the most eloquent and interesting of the isolationist crowd, we see that he isn't actually all that isolationist. He said of Cuba:

Of the sympathies of the American people, generous, liberty-loving, I have no question. They are with the Cubans in their struggle for freedom. I believe our people would welcome any action on the part of the United States to put an end to the terrible state of things existing there. We can stop it. We can stop it peacefully. We can stop it, in my judgment, by pursuing a proper diplomacy and offering our good offices. Let it once be understood that we mean to stop the horrible state of things in Cuba and it will be stopped. The great power of the United States, if it is once invoked and uplifted, is capable of greater things than that.

That rhetoric looks very familiar, doesn't it? Substitute Cuba for Iran or Egypt and we could be lifting that quote from the Weekly Standard!

This "isolationist" faction of the Republican party was concerned with keeping the United States out of Europe, not out of the world. This faction was interested in consolidating the gains made by people like McKinley and Roosevelt.

Before this, we have the Empire builders in McKinley and Roosevelt. Cuba, the Philippines, Panama, our Pacific protectorates, Puerto Rico. After Hoover, we have an unflinching commitment in the party to combat International Communism.

So which is more consistent? Is there any doubt that foreign policy has been far more the sticking point for the GOP than economics, in which it has drifted back and forth from left to right?

That there was a brief period of time -- basically, the Reagan era -- when "being hawkish" was seen as a defining aspect of Republicanism (although even that is overstating it), followed by a change in policy under entirely different circumstances -- Bush the dad exercising restraint re Iraq, a focus on global cooperation, and declining to respond with force to any number of events, drawing criticism from Clinton during the '92 campaign for that failure to act, for example.

Well, lets be clear. A hawkish foreign policy, or a manifestation of the American exceptionalism I mentioned earlier if you prefer, doesn't mean military commitments everywhere for their own sake. Reagan deferred to intervene many times, you do have to make choices based on interests. Nor is it opposed to multilateralism, it just doesn't find value in it for its own sake. Bush's concessions to the Coalition were almost all entirely symbolic (Such as allowing Arabs to get the glory of entering population centers first), and in exchange, he got the invasion force he wanted and the deployment paid for by the oil states. While it is true that the Coalition waived off of an outright toppling of Saddam, so did Bush's security advisers for reasons unrelated to diplomacy. And whats more; they didn't think they needed to bother! The conventional wisdom during the period was that Saddam was facing outright rebellion in a dozen provinces, with a rising of both Shia and Kurd, and defections of Iraqi army units. It looked as though the Iraqis would pay the butcher's bill themselves to remove Saddam, so what does it matter if the US delays his removal while buying goodwill from the Allies?

Also, Republicans disagreeing with decisions by Clinton to use force.

But these terms are generic. The Republicans disagreed with Clinton's use of force where American interests were non-existent, such as the Balkans and in Somalia (BTW, it is telling that Roosevelt is so deep in the blood of the GOP that there were LOTS of Republicans on board for even those actions). I see less reason to be in Kosovo, for instance, than I do in Syria. Syria is undoubtedly the author of American deaths. Syria sought to achieve a nuclear capability, and Syria is a destabilizing influence in a strategic region.

Not to say that I'm all that interested in a Libya 2.0, but I wouldn't mind a propaganda campaign urging Jihadis in Iraq or Afghanistan to go home to "help the struggle" in Syria.

That Bush the son returned to the "use force" idea -- in a way that contradicted his own campaign rhetoric in '00 -- hardly makes being a neo con or even some vague and meaningless notion of "hawkishness" a "first principle" of the Republicans now being challenged.

I think I've given a fair amount of clarity on that issue.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

That is true. But as you know, in internet debating forums, its often the case that people speak in a political short hand. I didn't mean hawkishness was a "first principle", I meant the view that the United States was an exceptional state, and that in being exceptional, was able to intervene in a unilateral fashion wherever necessary to safeguard its interests. And when possible, bestow the gift of liberty on the victims of despots. To tear the lash from the hand of their overlords.

I don't agree with everything you said in this post but it was thoughtful and well-reasoned. Not that my opinion matters at all to you, but you are much more compelling when you are describing the history and trends within the GOP than you are when you are trying to shoehorn some of these things into a partisan comparison.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

You know, your parallelism would have much more weight if the 9/11 truth stuff could be found coming out of the mouths of elected democratic officials, and the public statements of liberal public intellectuals, the way birtherism is with GOP officials, presidential candidates and public intellectuals.

Not really. The two parties are not structured in similar ways. The only national voice of the right is through its politicians. The left speaks primarily through culture and the academy. And of course, Democrats were rarely asked questions about 9/11 as an inside job. If they had, I have no doubt that minor Democratic politicians across the country would have said unwise things about it. In any case, Ralph Nader has made some Truther noises. Obviously Cynthia McKinney. And of course there was Van Jones. There was a guy who ran for the Democrat nomination for governor in Texas who was a 9/11 truther, and won about 100,000 votes in the primary. And Rosie O'Donnell. I think Fahrenheit 9/11 has some Truther overtones to it. And of course, it seems to have thrived in the fever swamps of the blogosphere. So it wasn't quite as silent a movement as you remember.

I think its interesting that you don't find how widespread this was on the left to be significant. Does that in any way change your opinion on the balance of sanity between left and right?

So, no, it's not that you 'let birthers walk around or attend a function or ask questions or vote.' It's that you vote for them.

I don't care about it. I think it is a stupid issue, like Bill Clinton being a sleeper agent for the Soviets. I don't know why Obama is entitled to some unique protection from fringe slander when no other President is. What are we, the Red Guard? Do we need to point and shame anyone with a weird opinion of Obama?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don't agree with everything you said in this post but it was thoughtful and well-reasoned. Not that my opinion matters at all to you, but you are much more compelling when you are describing the history and trends within the GOP than you are when you are trying to shoehorn some of these things into a partisan comparison.

Thanks. I don't agree with much of what you say about our contemporary politics either, but I think you are sincere in your politics and acquit yourself very well in these discussions as a person of the left and as a gentleman. It's been fun going back and forth.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

If they had, I have no doubt that minor Democratic politicians across the country would have said unwise things about it. In any case, Ralph Nader has made some Truther noises.

Ralph Nader? Are you talking about the Greens or whateever party he's founded now or are you talking about democrats?

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I think its interesting that you don't find how widespread this was on the left to be significant. Does that in any way change your opinion on the balance of sanity between left and right? .

I don't think it was widespread on the left. There was one poll that purported to show that, with a very poorly worded question and no information available on the sample. It's inconsistent with most other polling, with the behavior of the overwhelming majority of elected officials and the whole mainstream dem media.

And you can point to one elected dem official you think might have endorsed it and one former appointee who at one time much earlier signed a petition that could possibly be construed as consistent with trutherism if you twist it, and a guy who hasn't been a democrat since he ran against the democrats several times in presidential elections.

I think the fair thing to say is that there's a poll that is consistent with your view, possibly, and a lot of stuff on the other side that is inconsistent with it.
I suspect our thresholds are different. Given that I am not at all a fan of Michael Moore, but I couldn't see any trutherism in F911.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Ralph Nader? Are you talking about the Greens or whateever party he's founded now or are you talking about democrats?

I am talking about the left more broadly.

I don't think it was widespread on the left. There was one poll that purported to show that, with a very poorly worded question and no information available on the sample.

If PPP didn't remove the poll, I'd be able to show you two. However, I'm sure you consider TPM to be a more than sufficient source for reference, and they mention it:

But Democrats shouldn't be too eager to laugh at this. On the other side of the political spectrum, there's some significant 9/11 Trutherism among Dem voters. We've got 32% of Jersey Democrats who say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In addition, another 19% of Jersey Dems are Truther-Curious, in the undecided column.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t----oh-my.php

Now that is different than the Scripps poll. The reason I remember this poll is that Rachel Maddow and friends made great fun of the "Anti-Christ" Obama views of Republicans, and ignored this portion of the poll.

What do you think? Two polls?

It's inconsistent with most other polling, with the behavior of the overwhelming majority of elected officials and the whole mainstream dem media.

What poll from the time contradicts it?

And you can point to one elected dem official you think might have endorsed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2QoQ...eature=related

and one former appointee who at one time much earlier signed a petition that could possibly be construed as consistent with trutherism if you twist it,

I'm actually glad you mentioned this. Obviously, it is unambiguous. It is called "We want real answers about 9/11", which means that they don't have them. Their questions are:

Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41026093059633

Daniel Ellsberg and Jeneane Garafalo both signed this petition: BOTH regular guests on the Olbermann show and neither were ever questioned for this, the Birtherism of the Left. So did Howard Zinn! Incredible!

[brucds]

harkin - your attacks on Krugman are deranged.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

These two videos seemed apropos of this discussion.

From humor to hero worship:
What's football without flags?

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by whburgess

I've told you several times why most cons are skeptical. Its because AGW advocates have either chosen, or allowed, AGW advocacy to be a Democratic party issue.

So there's nothing inherent in conservatism that is skeptical of environmental science and regulation, which might have led the movement to deny the science from day one? Splitting hairs between libertarians and conservatives on pollution is a fragile task. The former is always going to be bit crazier, but in both the bias is just cooked right in.

I mean, libs are biased towards over-regulation, right? I'm just not sure at this point there's any regulation out there threatening the globe like global warming is. And the past few decades have shown just how welcoming movement liberalism has become to business. That animosity peaked over half a century ago, whereas the right is currently at the zenith of its own hysterical demogoguery, anti-governmentism. For so long, the rhetoric has been this big government bogeyman, such that any problem requiring a government solution is pretty much out of the question prima fascia among mainstream conservatives today. Hence, broad denialism.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Ocean

PS: it's dictators not dicators.

"Sara demo ki kara ochiru."

A Japanese proverb: "Even monkeys fall from trees."

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I am talking about the left more broadly....
But Democrats shouldn't be too eager to laugh at this. On the other side of the political spectrum, there's some significant 9/11 Trutherism among Dem voters. We've got 32% of Jersey Democrats who say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In addition, another 19% of Jersey Dems are Truther-Curious, in the undecided column.....

Now that is different than the Scripps poll. The reason I remember this poll is that Rachel Maddow and friends made great fun of the "Anti-Christ" Obama views of Republicans, and ignored this portion of the poll, etc.

It seems to me, after 9/11, there were all sorts of debates about whether Clinton or Bush were responsible because of something they did or didn't do. The polls include what has been called the "silly bugger" factor, i.e. there is always some number of people who believe, or will say they believe, the most outlandish thing. What actually counts is how many people of significant influence are pushing hateful, violent or completely stupid ideas. I think US conservatives are in the lead on that. For example, I don't remember ever seeing a whole gang of Democratic candidates for high office pushing either hateful or ludicrous ideas. I suppose it depends on your definition of hateful and ludicrous. For me, that includes promoting hate against some group based on factors such as their religion, denying accepted scientific theories, claiming the president is the next thing to an enemy of the state who wasn't born in the country, etc. But that could just be me. P.S. the Republicans have the only politicians I know of who show up at political events carrying guns, outside of maybe places like Afghanistan (possibly). That strikes me as incredibly weird and disturbing. But, again, maybe it's just me.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

That is true. But as you know, in internet debating forums, its often the case that people speak in a political short hand. I didn't mean hawkishness was a "first principle", I meant the view that the United States was an exceptional state, and that in being exceptional, was able to intervene in a unilateral fashion wherever necessary to safeguard its interests. And when possible, bestow the gift of liberty on the victims of despots. To tear the lash from the hand of their overlords....... etc.

A lot of what you said doesn't sound like "first principles" to me, as a non-American. It sounds like American nationalism. First principles, to me, includes such things as basic human rights, you know, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be incarcerated without a trial, freedom from hatred based on factors like race, religion, etc., freedom from being victimized by aggressive warfare, extreme poverty, and so on and so forth.

PS: I also find your comments intelligent and interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't be bothering to challenge them.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

So there's nothing inherent in conservatism that is skeptical of environmental science and regulation, which might have led the movement to deny the science from day one?

I mean, libs are biased towards over-regulation, right?

Of course conservatives are skeptical of regulation, and this skepticism regarding regulatory solutions are going to bleed over into skepticism regarding the premises of those solutions.

But they can be won over and this is the task of anyone who is pushing a cause requiring government action and regulation. I think most conservatives are for zoning laws, for example. Most of them are for laws regulating smoking in public. Most of them are for strong laws regulating driving and alcohol. According to this recent poll, 61% of republicans opposed Gringrich's recent proposal to abolish the EPA, which exists for no other reason then to regulate potential polluters.

I'm just not sure at this point there's any regulation out there threatening the globe like global warming is. And the past few decades have shown just how welcoming movement liberalism has become to business. That animosity peaked over half a century ago, whereas the right is currently at the zenith of its own hysterical demogoguery, anti-governmentism. For so long, the rhetoric has been this big government bogeyman, such that any problem requiring a government solution is pretty much out of the question prima fascia among mainstream conservatives today. Hence, broad denialism.

This sort of exaggeration is what happens when you're caught up in political fervor. Most Republicans are not zealots at anything. They're just generally conservative people more skeptical then most of federal government programs. AGW advocates and spokespeople can keep on with the politics rather then the cause, but the more they do it, the less credibility they have.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Unit

Sure. As I said appreciation for free-markets is correlated with the degree of education.


Maybe the back-and-forth was too fast and it just didn't occur to him that that was the question.


I'm just saying it's inconsistent with *not worrying* about govt encroachment into free-market practices becoming permanent or affecting other liberties.



Agreed.

I guess number 3 is the only place we seemed to disagree. I don't think possibly interferring with, or inconveniencing somebody's right to make as much money as possible, although perhaps not wise, is on the same level with such things as interferring with the sovereignty of other nations except explicitly and solely in cases such as threatened and imminent mass murder or genocide, normally with the appropriate legal approval before or after the fact, or in response to an attack by a foreign state, or abusing basic human rights, etc.

[piscivorous]

Of course you know the 1997 Mr Krugman will be voting for Governor Perry on the SS issue while the

I like Freeman's idea of providing each individual with a trust fund when young rather than retirement benefits when old, but we had better realize that this is a significant change in the character of the social insurance system. Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)

But then I guess everyone is allowed to change his mind

What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.

From hater to lover in 13 years!

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by whburgess

.......This sort of exaggeration is what happens when you're caught up in political fervor. Most Republicans are not zealots at anything. They're just generally conservative people more skeptical then most of federal government programs. AGW advocates and spokespeople can keep on with the politics rather then the cause, but the more they do it, the less credibility they have.

It's important to distinguish between scientists who are providing facts based on their research for the consideration of policy makers and political activists. A few people are both, of course, but not a whole lot, I think.

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Of course conservatives are skeptical of regulation, and this skepticism regarding regulatory solutions are going to bleed over into skepticism regarding the premises of those solutions.

The above is my main point. It's also true we both agree that alarmists playing politics is another reason for Conservative skepticism. We disagree on the relative importance of these two things, but this isn't something amenable to facts overmuch as it's just a function of how reasonable we see the right being.

But they can be won over and this is the task of anyone who is pushing a cause requiring government action and regulation. I think most conservatives are for zoning laws, for example. Most of them are for laws regulating smoking in public. Most of them are for strong laws regulating driving and alcohol. According to this recent poll, 61% of republicans opposed Gringrich's recent proposal to abolish the EPA, which exists for no other reason then to regulate potential polluters.

Yes. Sometimes when one party manages to gain control and push something through it becomes self evident that it was a good idea. Now both sides will want it. This doesn't contradict anything I said; Why Conservatives and Libertarians are skeptical of science that leads to conclusions they don't like and why this happens for AGW. This isn't partisan. Both sides do it. We are talking about AGW which is why I'm focusing on Conservatives. If we were talking about GMO's I would be harsh against Europeans, which in the popular discourse stateside are associated with Liberals.

... btw. For every time I hear an alarmist mention Inconvenient Truth & Al Gore I hear about him 100x from a self-proclaimed skeptic. I don't think Gore is the spokesman, SPS's just want him to be.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Ooooooooh. I didn't think the question was very confusing. The tone of the question basically asks respondents if they feel if there is malfeasance afoot in the government's response, for-knowledge, and participation in 9/11. Believing in any of those things is conspiratorial.

I disagree. The difference between foreknowledge and participation is as big as the difference between believing that FDR knew in advance that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor (he probably did), and believing that the US helped Japan to carry out the attack. Here is the question again:

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"

It is not totally irrational to think that some members of the Bush administration---the neo cons---were hoping for a casus belli to launch a war in the Middle East. They had been beating the drums of war for some time over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Personally, I doubt that anyone knew in advance how serious the terrorist threat was or exactly when an attack might occur, although they did know something about the possibility of an attack. But once 9/11 happened, the neo-cons took advantage of the situation and set the "machine infernale" in motion.

The poll runs together two questions. They should have been asked separately.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Florian

The poll runs together two questions. They should have been asked separately.

From your lips to God's ear.

[ledocs]

Sulla, you changed the thesis for which you were arguing. The thesis in bold immediately below is just wrong.

Now, I never heard an apology to the administration or the Republican party. I never heard Democrats take these people to task. I never heard the left accuse its ideological confederates of being irredeemable partisan hacks, or hateful lumpen proles, or idiots. Indeed, this point of view was so uncontroversial it wasn't even considered a problem by the people vetting White House advisers when they put Van Jones into a position.

The thesis being defended is elided into the thesis that mere public rejection of 9/11 conspiracy theories is inadequate, what ought to have been done was to expel “truthers” from the Democratic Party somehow or to prevent them from voting Democratic or otherwise to ostracize them.

No I am not wrong on this point. The exact, same effort, if not more, was done on the right regarding Birtherism. Those efforts were deemed insufficient by the Left. National Review rejected birtherism from its beginings. So did the Weekly Standard. So did the Wall Street Journal. So did FOX news. Big deal, your compatriots on the left said. Because we let the Birthers walk around, or attend a function, or ask questions at a town hall, or vote, we were complicit.

I actually know very little about “truthers,” about their sociology. I suspect that the same could be said of you, STD. I know one guy from my pro basketball online chat group who is a truther, and I told him that the whole theory was nuts. On the other hand, this is a theory which had a lot of currency around the world, I am told, in France, for example, where at least one best-selling book was published, and in the Arab world, obviously. I would want to know a lot more about “truthers” than can be gleaned from a poll purporting to show that 21% of self-identified Democrats thought it was probable that the US Government had been complicit (in ways other than incompetence) in the events of 9/11/2001.

As regards the idea that the Democratic Party should somehow reject the votes of truthers, or at least not seek the votes of truthers, I’m not sure how that could be done, even if the Party wanted to do it, which I am sure it does not. I strongly suspect that being a truther is usually a marker for a lot of other things that I, and the Democratic Party, would consider to be more important about the voter than his or her beliefs about how 9/11 occurred. Americans generally believe crazy things in very alarming percentages. But I would want to know what the correlation is between “truthism” and income, employment, race, and educational status, for example.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Florian

Sorry, I misunderstood that you were joking because I thought you had misunderstood that I was joking...

I am glad all misunderstandings are swept aside.

Of course I agree that isolationism is impossible, indeed absurd. Ron Paul seems to belong to another era in thinking that the US can isolate itself from the rest of the world, as it did after WW I. But the alternative you are proposing is equally unrealistic. The American response to 9/11 was misguided and based on false assumptions. The threat of terrorism should not have been treated as if it were the equivalent of a declaration of war against the US. It was also extravagantly expensive for the little it accomplished, even if the invasion of Iraq did get rid of Saddam Hussein. (Need I remind you that the actual casus belli---the supposed weapons of mass destruction--- was trumped up?)

Here are some pertinent reflections of a British journalist on the 10th anniversary of September 11:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ptember-11-era

I am not proposing anything. Nobody should expect US to be the international samaritan. So US has to look out for its national interests and sometimes those interests require backing some very nasty people around the world.

My point is that Bush's agenda was at least possible even though it was very hard to accomplish. Paul's agenda is impossible, you can't go anywhere from the get-go. And in my opinion this is an important difference.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by whburgess

I think the mentality that enables this type of thinking is a deep line of division between most Americans and the left. It's as apparent as it is incomprehensible to most Americans, for example, that only a leftist would find this an offensive reaction to the killing of OBL

Thanks! I had not seen that Martin Short farewell, it had me laughing throughout.

History still has to play out the good, the bad, and the ugly, in the Arab spring. But I think any honest historian will give the democracy agenda and regime change in Iraq its critical historical role.

As time passes W looks better.

Do you remember how much abuse he got from left in civil liberties issues? None of them has improved under Obama and I know only one man on the left (and I admire him immensely for that) who still talks about it: Glenn Greenwald.

Another issue he gets blamed for is the financial crisis and housing bubble. But again I think Bush had very little to do with it. I am sure it would have happened with Kerry or Dean in White House too. You could argue that the crash would come even sooner since they probably would have given Fannie, Freddie and FHA more rope to hang everyone with it.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by whburgess

But they can be won over and this is the task of anyone who is pushing a cause requiring government action and regulation.

Can they? You would probably know better than me. From where I sit there seems almost total agreement that no government solutions exist.

Originally Posted by whburgess

This sort of exaggeration is what happens when you're caught up in political fervor. Most Republicans are not zealots at anything. They're just generally conservative people more skeptical then most of federal government programs. AGW advocates and spokespeople can keep on with the politics rather then the cause, but the more they do it, the less credibility they have.

And most progressives were not communists. But there was a large amount of apology for a radical view of America, based not in reality but in extreme dogma. I think a similar phenomenon is occurring on the right.

Anyhow, I've just noticed the similarities, and I don't have much more insight into it than how it might explain what seem to be otherwise very irrational and overly dogmatic stances, coming from leading lights of the movement, not the least a majority of the Republican presidential contenders, as well as congressional majorities.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

As an aside, anyone who actually does polling and surveys for a living will tell you that compound questions are a very good way to get unreliable and/or uninterpretable responses because you have no way of knowing which of the options the person is actually endorsing and it's easy for peoplle to misunderstand the question.

This is why such questions are objectionable in a court of law or deposition.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I don't think it's that at all. I believe if Conservatives thought it was merely an issue of the responsibilities one generation has to the next Conservatives would support policies aimed at mitigating AGW. Isn't this why we should care about the debt?

No -- conservatives didn't care about the debt at all for years and years.

I do think that there's a dislike of interference with the economy in certain ways, but this is not consistent. IME, plenty of people who are upset about the idea of the government encouraging green energy or ways of reducing our energy use aren't bothered at all of the same kinds of incentives (tax, for example) when given to oil companies or the like.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

No -- conservatives didn't care about the debt at all for years and years.

Nor spending.

From what I can see, the concerns, beyond the opportunistic ('now it's a democratic president, so deficits and spending suddely matter') appear to be two-fold:

1. progressive taxation.
2. progressive spending (i.e., spending designed to reduce inequities or improve opportunites for the lower classes, vs. spending to improve the lot of the already privileged and/or select favored constituencies).

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by stephanie

No -- conservatives didn't care about the debt at all for years and years.

I do think that there's a dislike of interference with the economy in certain ways, but this is not consistent. IME, plenty of people who are upset about the idea of the government encouraging green energy or ways of reducing our energy use aren't bothered at all of the same kinds of incentives (tax, for example) when given to oil companies or the like.

Yeah, conservatives only seem to make an issue of deficits when they want to blame Democrats for it.

Dick Cheney to Paul O'Neill:

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

We won the (2002) midterms. This is our due.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by ledocs

The only odd thing here is that some of the same people who will pay for insurance against a catastrophe in their own lives, or the lives of their immediate family, are very reluctant to pay for insurance against a catastrophe to future human generations.

This is what seems odd about the "skeptic" position to me.

Again, I've noted before that my experience of skeptics (who also happen to be engineers who work in the oil industry) is not people who doubt that there is global climate change to which human action is contributing. It's the more reasonable sounding position that the effect of this is not necessarily as bad as many believe, that the alarmist views of it are not sufficiently supported or more debateable than those who hold them acknowledge, so on.

The problem with this view, though, is that the arguments for action or inaction that follow from it make no sense. I don't know enough about the issue to do more than trust experts, and I'm not so arrogant that I think I have some ability to discern better than the consensus of experts what the reality is. I'd be doing nothing more than asserting what I wish to be true if I were to insist they were wrong and some other view right. But I also am aware enough of the fact that people, including experts, can be wrong about things that I'm willing to take a pretty open position with respect to the science. I see no reason to doubt that there is climate change to which human action is contributing, but to what extent the human action is leading to disaster and how soon and how much we need to cut down on emissions, I don't know. More importantly, I accept that there's some debate -- the extent of which can be discussed if people are interested -- as to the effects.

But even if one takes the most skeptical position, one still has to concede that there's a risk. Normally if one doesn't know the results of an action but knows it could be very bad, one takes precautions and at least considers trying to minimize the risk. It seems to me this is consistent with the Dem position on carbon emissions or recycling or the dreaded lightbulbs and so on. Certainly, the Dem policies aren't remotely consistent with a strong belief that alarmism much be true. They are quite mild and consistent with the normal economic response to such things, even apart from any grand claim about an effect on the economy (costs that are felt by people other than the buyer and seller usually aren't taken into account in the price, so are an appropriate reason for a tax or other mechanism to account for the costs). Similarly, the arguments for reducing emissions, improving gas mileage, more efficient buildings, recycling, so on, can all be addressed on their face as to the actual benefits of any policy, but none of them rely on some notion of alarmism. In fact, they are the sorts of things I'd expect "skeptics" (not denialists) to be doing.

Instead, of course, people who claim to be skeptics, who admit that the majority of the science is against them but question whether the question is settled, use that perhaps reasonable position as a basis to mock certain of these kinds of efforts and to oppose the rest as apparently not worth doing unless we have proof certain that calamity will strike within our lifetimes. But if we had such proof, the kinds of mild proposals in question would be far from sufficient. So the argument over the reasonability of the skeptic position really seems beside the point to me.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by ledocs

As regards the idea that the Democratic Party should somehow reject the votes of truthers, or at least not seek the votes of truthers, I’m not sure how that could be done, even if the Party wanted to do it, which I am sure it does not.

With respect to any conspiracy theory that becomes politically significant, I think the leaders of the party should make it clear that the claims of the theorists are rejected. They should do this even if they fear the theorists will conclude they are part of the evil power structure and reject them.

This is why the Truthers in the Dems didn't bother me -- I'm skeptical about the survey quoted, but even if some large number of Dems at one point were Truthers in some sense (despite the fact I've never met a Truther who is also a Dem, vs. politically alienated), there was never any sense that the Dem congressmen or politicians or anyone else in leadership or in mainstream media was encouraging the view. Instead, they were making their views on what had happened with 9/11 clear, and those views were inconsistent with Trutherism. As others have pointed out, plenty of liberal and left media criticized Trutherism and tried to debunk it. Now, it's probably true that part of this includes a denial that the source of Trutherism was the left vs. other groups (the Slate series I cited would agree with this), but all I'm concerned about is that the political power of Trutherism or the types of groups that supported it was never such that the leadership gave any credence to it or seemed uncomfortable rejecting it.

That was not the case with Birtherism or the related ideas about Obama being a secret enemy of this country.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I didn't mean hawkishness was a "first principle", I meant the view that the United States was an exceptional state, and that in being exceptional, was able to intervene in a unilateral fashion wherever necessary to safeguard its interests. And when possible, bestow the gift of liberty on the victims of despots. To tear the lash from the hand of their overlords.

This is at least more precise, but I don't think it substantially changes the argument, as I don't believe this was in any sense a historical "first principle" of the Republicans. American exceptionalism, sure, but not the alleged implications for foreign policy.

Foreign policy is really a bad choice for the point you are trying to make (Republicans argue about first principles and that's good; Dems don't, and that's bad), because the parties have largely agreed over the course of much recent history on the relevant "first principles" and the rest of the arguments, not on first principles, have gone on and continue to go on in both parties in much the same way. At different times different views are dominant in each and, similar, the size of certain minority views vary, but it doesn't support your initial claim at all.

What I and others have come to believe is that rhetoric about liberation in the later is a bit too First Republic; and frankly, that many of the recipients of this gift haven't really been worthy of it.

I don't see how this is you changing your mind on a "first principle" as opposed to the implications of a view you continue to hold, but I actually would be interested in your elaborating on this separately if you wish to go into it. Personally, I've changed my mind on analogous issues, but I don't think that means a change on first principles.

Nixon spoke glowingly of the exercise of freedom and liberty in South Vietnam

I think this demonstrates too much focus on the types of rhetoric people use, since you are glossing over real differences. Obviously, if one chooses to intervene (or to defend a prior intervention), one will discuss the benefits thereof, including freedom. But that isn't the same thing as claiming -- which the Republicans for the most part have not -- that intervention is always a good idea or even acceptable to spread freedom. That really was rather unique to the Bush administration (and, no, I wouldn't agree with your grouping Gulf War I under that category -- that's a straightforward response to an invasion of a country for which we feel some responsibility, whatever else one thinks of it).

But nation building? Many, if not most, of us are getting off the train.

It's again a little hard to claim nation building as a first principle that is being challenged newly in the Republican Party when George W. Bush criticized it during the 2000 campaign. The policy of the '00s has to be seen in many ways as more a reaction to a new event -- 9/11 -- than some first principle that is now being challenged. (And again the term "first principles" makes no sense when we are talking about means to achieve an end.)

The Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt would argue against that.

Agree, but it was atypical, an exception, so I think the point stands. His predecessor, successor, and the mainstream Republicans even during his administration largely carried on the tradition. (He also obviously was more interventionist than many Republicans who followed him and the Republican mainstream for large parts of the succeeding history.)

Eisenhower was a moderate fellow, who sought only to temper the New Deal, not address the fundamental problems with it. Eisenhower presided over a top marginal tax rate if 91%, by the way.

None of this contradicts anything I said, you know.

If your point is that the Republican view that taxes are always bad was not a "first principle" prior to Reagan, well, I'd agree with you and point out that even Reagan was a lot more moderate on the question than many of his current day successors. But I don't see how this supports your original point, that arguing over "first principles" is some virtue that exists in the Republican Party.

Part of your problem is you haven't identified what you mean by "first principle" and, in particular, how one identifies it in different time period. It seems to me that you are denying that the Republicans of the '50s were pro business (which they obviously were) simply because the circumstances of the times meant that they had quite different positions than today (it's like claiming that Kennedy would have supported Grover Norquist because he supported a cut in what were extremely high rates). I mean, I can see people in the 19th century who supported women's right to vote as feminists even if they would have been personally horrified by some of what that term usually implies today. That's because the principle I'm talking about is there.

You're thinking of post WWI isolationism, which really has more to do with the horrors of the war, and the massive expansion of the Presidency under Wilson, than genuine ideology.

You are wrong. Citing Cuba doesn't help your argument, because as I said before we treated engagement in the Americas differently.

The rest of your discussion is interesting, although we have many points of disagreement. Before going off after any of them, though, I guess I need to understand how they relate to your point. I don't see how any of your arguments are supporting your idea that the Republicans are arguing over first principles in a way the Dems aren't or that argument over first principles is good. Maybe we should start by your spelling our what you mean by "first principle," because I don't see how the normal meaning of the term matches up with the argument you are making at all.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

I disagree. The difference between foreknowledge and participation is as big as the difference between believing that FDR knew in advance that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor (he probably did), and believing that the US helped Japan to carry out the attack. Here is the question again:

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"

It is not totally irrational to think that some members of the Bush administration---the neo cons---were hoping for a casus belli to launch a war in the Middle East. They had been beating the drums of war for some time over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Personally, I doubt that anyone knew in advance how serious the terrorist threat was or exactly when an attack might occur, although they did know something about the possibility of an attack. But once 9/11 happened, the neo-cons took advantage of the situation and set the "machine infernale" in motion.

The poll runs together two questions. They should have been asked separately.

Even if you feel that the other question is less sinister, it does suggest a specific foreknowledge, which is complicity in the atrocity. That is different from what you say that you believe, which suggests that someone knew about a possibility of an attack, but they didn't know where or when. Those are distinctly different beliefs.

If an American leader knew when and where and how the attack was to take place, and voluntarily took no action, I would consider him to be as responsible as the terrorists themselves. I think that is the view of the people answering in the affirmative to this question, too. They consider the Bush administration either equally responsible for the act or partially complicit in order to achieve policy goals by deliberate inaction.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Even if you feel that the other question is less sinister, it does suggest a specific foreknowledge, which is complicity in the atrocity. That is different from what you say that you believe, which suggests that someone knew about a possibility of an attack, but they didn't know where or when. Those are distinctly different beliefs.

If an American leader knew when and where and how the attack was to take place, and voluntarily took no action, I would consider him to be as responsible as the terrorists themselves. I think that is the view of the people answering in the affirmative to this question, too. They consider the Bush administration either equally responsible for the act or partially complicit in order to achieve policy goals by deliberate inaction.

Then you must consider FDR responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor since he took no action to prevent it although he almost certainly knew about it in advance and could have taken steps to prevent it.

I didn't mean to imply that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 or even partially complicit in it. They were, however, happy that it happened.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Florian

I didn't mean to imply that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 or even partially complicit in it. They were, however, happy that it happened.

Tell me more!

[Florian]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Tell me more!

Of course they were happy or, should I say, fortunate (the etymological sense of happy): 9/11 gave the neo-cons a pretext to wage a war that they had been wanting to wage for a decade.

That's all I can tell you. History is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

Then you must consider FDR responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor since he took no action to prevent it although he almost certainly knew about it in advance and could have taken steps to prevent it.

I'm not sold on this theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor, though I have read some things about it. I'm not saying that the tactic is beyond FDR; he had sailed some US cruisers in Japanese waters in order to provoke the Japanese into firing at them some time before Pearl Harbor. But I find it hard to believe that FDR would want to lose the Pacific battleship line in spectacular fashion, allowing the Japanese to run through the Pacific unchecked for seven months. Not to mention the expense of these ships.

I didn't mean to imply that the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 or even partially complicit in it. They were, however, happy that it happened.

I doubt it. There are cheaper ways to go to war with Iraq; remember that the reason political resistance to the war was so anemic was that Iraq had been an enemy of the United States for about ten years by that point. The Democrats were as invested as Iraq as an enemy as we were, and Clinton was able to find reasons to bomb the Iraqis. Saddam was a serial violator of his treaty obligations; reason could have been found there.

[Unit]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

I guess number 3 is the only place we seemed to disagree. I don't think possibly interferring with, or inconveniencing somebody's right to make as much money as possible, although perhaps not wise, is on the same level with such things as interferring with the sovereignty of other nations except explicitly and solely in cases such as threatened and imminent mass murder or genocide, normally with the appropriate legal approval before or after the fact, or in response to an attack by a foreign state, or abusing basic human rights, etc.

But that's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing the danger that some liberty-reducing policies made during "war"-time become permanent infringements, with the danger that some short-term interventions in the labor-market, such hiring millions of state-workers, end-up becoming permanent distortions.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I'm not sold on this theory about FDR and Pearl Harbor, though I have read some things about it. I'm not saying that the tactic is beyond FDR; he had sailed some US cruisers in Japanese waters in order to provoke the Japanese into firing at them some time before Pearl Harbor. But I find it hard to believe that FDR would want to lose the Pacific battleship line in spectacular fashion, allowing the Japanese to run through the Pacific unchecked for seven months. Not to mention the expense of these ships.

I found this on the web.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/574

There will never be conclusive evidence proving that FDR did nothing to prevent an attack by Japan. But there is good reason to believe that Roosevelt thought that only an act of aggression against the United States would jolt the country into the European war. Remember things looked pretty desperate in 1941, and the US was still sitting on the sidelines.

I doubt it. There are cheaper ways to go to war with Iraq; remember that the reason political resistance to the war was so anemic was that Iraq had been an enemy of the United States for about ten years by that point. The Democrats were as invested as Iraq as an enemy as we were, and Clinton was able to find reasons to bomb the Iraqis. Saddam was a serial violator of his treaty obligations; reason could have been found there.

Whether or not "there were cheaper ways to go to war with Iraq," there were no reasons, under international law, to invade Iraq, overthrow its leader and occupy the country. 9/11 provided the necessary cover for the neo-cons. I doubt that the American people would have been as staunchly behind their president if they had not been deliberately misled into believing that Iraq was somehow related to 9/11 and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US---remember all the absurd propaganda about weapons of mass destruction?