SILLY --- and SHALLOW!
Hugh Hewitt has pointed out the silliness of the Left for several years - from "I voted for it before I voted against it" to "Iraq is George W. Bush's Vietnam." SILLY!
This weekend, while checking a lefty blog I frequent, I ran across a commentary on a particular situation in the state of Oregon that illustrated just as significant a feature of the Left - SHALLOWNESS!
Washington County, Oregon, has just given significant property tax breaks to Intel Corporation, the largest employer in the county, in order to keep them in their county. I thought I would read a diatribe against Corporate welfare as we do when reasonable people suggest tax cuts for corporations in order to allow their growth, and therefore ours; but instead I read that it doesn't seem right, but we can understand why the county has to do it!
It dawned on me - they can understand it when they can "see" and "feel" the effects! But propose something on the "macro" scale, where only intellectual analysis tells us what the results will be, and they are not up to the task!
SHALLOWNESS, along with SILLINESS, ARE THE HALLMARKS OF THE LEFT!
This weekend, while checking a lefty blog I frequent, I ran across a commentary on a particular situation in the state of Oregon that illustrated just as significant a feature of the Left - SHALLOWNESS!
Washington County, Oregon, has just given significant property tax breaks to Intel Corporation, the largest employer in the county, in order to keep them in their county. I thought I would read a diatribe against Corporate welfare as we do when reasonable people suggest tax cuts for corporations in order to allow their growth, and therefore ours; but instead I read that it doesn't seem right, but we can understand why the county has to do it!
It dawned on me - they can understand it when they can "see" and "feel" the effects! But propose something on the "macro" scale, where only intellectual analysis tells us what the results will be, and they are not up to the task!
SHALLOWNESS, along with SILLINESS, ARE THE HALLMARKS OF THE LEFT!
posted by Jim | 2:39 PM
7 Comments:
I find it pretty hard to have a rational discussion about terms like 'silly' and 'shallow' - let's get back to facts.
For example, let's examine the 'Iraq is Vietnam' claim. Clearly on the level of casualties, it's not true. In Vietnam the US lost 50,000+ soldiers, whereas the count in Iraq is somewhere around 1,500 now. However, the cost of the Iraq war is now mounting on $300 Billion, and given the 'stay the course' strategy it's unclear how much more will be spent. I think we would agree that it's still to early to know exactly how Iraq will play out (let's see in 5-10 years, both the impact in the Middle East and the impact in the US from the deficit spending). I'd say that spending on Vietnam had a big impact on the US through the 1970s, and Iraq could have a similar impact.
On the issue of 'feelings' vs. intellectual analysis, my sense is that particularly the Christian Right position on some issues is driven by moral feelings, not intellectual analysis. And that's OK, but let's call it what it is. 'Feelings' aren't exclusive to the Left.
Didn't know if you were still passing by occassionally.
My "irrational" terms silly and shallow were used in a context: silliness with two examples, one of which you comment on and I will respond, and shallowness with one example.
What do you think about the two examples you didn't comment on:
1. "I voted for it before I voted against it" and 2. the inconsistency of disagreeing with W's "corporate welfare" but agreeing with Washington County, Oregon's "corporate welfare."
I stick by my adjectives!
Re Vietnam: having lived as an adult through both situations and having a good understanding of both sets of bureaucrats, I can only tell you that they are not the same situation. Only Ted Kennedy and the hard left really believe that. Yes, they are both costly wars, but that is where the similarity ends.
Re: the Christian Right - I believe an intellectual analysis led them to become the Christian Right - not feelings. An agnostic or atheist would have a hard time believing this, but I believe it totally. How's that for starting an interesting (and probably hot) discussion!
1. I think this comment was very poorly phrased ('silly' and 'stupid' are probably applicable), and I give credit to Republicans for making hay with it. The underlying context was that the terms of the vote changed from the first vote to the second vote, but that wasn't made clear. That said, let's face it, W. doesn't always use the best grammar when he's speaking, and one can find plenty of 'silly' utterances from politicians of any stripe.
2. I'm not sure where the original article can be found, and I'd rather not comment without seeing the full article.
On your last point, I think it's more likely that people put rationalizations around their belief set (I don't think belief sets are very frequently intellectual constructs). I'd say that's why people cling to beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, because they're invested in their beliefs.
Likewise, I think often people vote based on gut feeling about the politician, not a reasoned, intellectual exercise. Often when you divorce the policies from the personality you find that people disagree with the policies held by people they vote for.
Some responses:
1. The cotext was defending voting "no" on financing the war in Iraq. He should have said nothing. Bush's grammer is strictly a grammar problem almost all the time, not a silly defense!
And you are correct - politicians can all sound silly at times, but not nearly as often as the Left does the last 4+ years!
2. http://basie.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_basie_archive.html
If you go to this link - BASIE! - and scan down to April 22 for "Oregon County Buys off Intel to Stay." He is an interesting 21 year old college brainwashed lefty who reads mostly the NYT and WAPO and follows lots of lefty blogs - but I like him because he is a bass player and likes jazz.
I key on his sentence: "I certainly don't advocate Hillsboro letting Intel leave." Why not? Seems inconsistent to complain about corporate welfare at the federal level and then approve it at the local level! The money all goes to the same place! But as an Oregonian he can "FEEL" the pain of Hillsboro - shallowness and the reason for this blog.
3. This is a real interesting example of how perceptions of a situation are different between the Left and Right.
I would debate you all day long on how the Left is an ideology of non-intellectual constructs, but is simply a construct of "feelings." Examples are endless: a popular one is "abortion on demand" to ease the pain of the woman while not appropriately evaluating the effect on the society in general. Don't want to debate that subject (it has been beaten to death!), but do you see my point about "feeling" versus a more intellectual approach?
Likewise I would defend that any religious person (and particularly the "Christian Right") have evaluated intellectually their constructs, or they would not be religious! I do not believe that children simply accept their parents inputs like automatons - of course they do until their formative age - but after that they go through a fairly rigorous evauluation. It is not done because of "feelings" at all.
I think you view of this may be they "feel" people are better being a Christian or they "feel" better, but that is a different sense than we are talking about.
I wonder what the majority of lefties feel about this?
On the intellectual basis of certain positions: yes, I agree that people certainly examine & evaluate their beliefs (though they often fall pretty close to the tree). And also people don't necessarily take all the positions of their affiliation; in the US at least, I suspect many Catholics have a different position on birth control than the church.
Then there are folks like Creationists, which according to some polls seem to be a growing segment of the population. I don't see that as an intellectual position, since there does not appear to be any possible evidence that would change their minds. I think an intellectual position has to attempt to deal with the established evidence.
For me the classic stance of the Left is that government action can be positive, whereas for the Right there is more confidence in individual action. Both sides seem to take up civil liberties and free markets when it suits them.
However in recent years it seems to me that the two positions have shifted; the budget got balanced and welfare was constrained under a Democratic administration, and under Bush the government is growing fast (not a single veto of a spending bill)!
But in the end I think the two parties, for all the talk, tend to govern in a similar fashion; there are differences at the margin, but general agreement about most things. Notice how hard it is now for the Republican Congress to find any government spending that they are willing to cut (for all the talk about cutting back the government, I think all politicians are addicted to government spending in their home district).
All good points.
Creationism has never been a problem for me and I actually consider myself one (HOLD ON - I'LL EXPLAIN): the stereotype Creationist believes the bible literally and I have a problem with that since I believe the bible is a set of parables; if I am correct, then the only difference between me and the sterotype Creationist is time (seven days versus several million years)!
I've always liked the term "Intelligent Design," because I feel it allows for this time differential. Most seem to not like the term because they think it is just a replacement term for the stereotype Creationist. I disagree.
I can only guarantee that with this Christian, non-church attending, righty, a lot of intellectual analysis of religion and conservative positions go on!
Back to politics - only two comments: I won't argue with you that the deficit decreased during the last Democratic Administration, but if you think it was political will that did it - as most lefties seem to - you are kidding yourself. It was a terrific economic bubble that increased tax revenues beyond any projections.
Here's my take on the inability of W's administration to control spending adequately: I think at least he, if not all the Republicans, knows that a dramatic cut in government expenditures would have shocked the nation so after several decades of excessive spending, that he would never have seen a second term. Look what the Democrats do over the appointment of a judge! or modifying Social Security! What do you think the chances are of cutting programs? Zero, until the Republicans get 66 Senators. (I am not naive enough to think this is the only reason, but I believe it does set W's priorities; we have to accept a set of politicians who have been trained in the theater of deficit spending - and work with our votes to change this style!)
Enough - tell me what you think of E. J. Dionne referenced in my next post!
A few last comments here, then I'll move on to the other posts.
On the Creationist issue, the main problem I have is the push to include Creationism as an alternative 'theory' in science classes. I think that effort totally distorts what science is all about; testing theories with the evidence and refining the theory as you go along. If they want teachers to state that there are still unknowns, OK, but I don't think Creationism belongs in a science class.
Agreed that the positive budget situation of the late nineties was not purely due to a Democratic administration; I'd say there was actually a fairly healthy need for each side to compromise (which seems to be missing at the moment). With the current administration if we every got close to closing the deficit I suspect the situation would be changed quickly by more tax cuts.
Post a Comment
<< Home