Thirded. The Bushies certainly have made lots of appeals to nebulous fears of terrorism in order to get us to accept large holes in the Constitution and in our civil liberties, and to accept a war that we should have known (and many of us did know) would be expensive, protracted, and unwinnable.
Oh, it's been going on since Cato ended his every oration to the Roman Senate with "Carthago delenda est."
I've never been able to follow the logic behind the argument that allowing same-sex marriage somehow cheapens or weakens heterosexual marriage. If a man is married to his wife, and his next-door-neighbor marries his male partner, how does the existence of the second marriage cheapen the first? How does it diminish the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the first marriage?
Neither candidate, neither campaign, and certainly neither Party has been immune from distorted the facts to suit their purpose. I will give Obama and his campaign credit for doing that less often than his opponents.
People in general like to feel that they are making their political choices based on logic and sound rational reasoning, but in reality almost all of us make our choices based on emotional or intuitive factors and then look for logical arguments to back up the answer we wanted. This is more or less equally true of both left and right leaning voters. This means that a successful candidate is always actually appealing to emotions, values, and prejudices, but since we feel more comfortable about ourselves when we have a nice veneer of rationalization to justify our choice, it's also very useful to present a superficially logical case.
A truly logical case for a candidate is a very complex argument. It requires considering many issues, pulling out a lot of evidence, justifying each piece of evidence not merely in its superficial veracity but in its relevance to the whole argument and its importance relative to other evidence. Important pieces of contrary evidence cannot be ignored or lightly dismissed; they must be rebutted in detail. All of the pieces must be brought into a logical whole, and a case must be made that the goals the candidate is campaigning on are all achievable together even though they compete for finite resources.
In today's world of 30 second TV spots and two minute answers to questions even in debates, nobody has time for real, fully developed logic. If the candidate does make a real, logical case, at book length, almost no one will read it (though many will talk as though they did). Nobody genuinely wants logic. They want a simple, easy to follow case that feels logical.
Only now will I mention my own partisan opinion. The success of the Republican party in the modern political era (starting with the 1980 campaign) can be traced straight to their superior understanding and more effective embrace of the above ideas. Conservatives put a lot of effort into framing the terms of the debate and choosing the labels that will be attached to people and issues while tricking liberals into arguing about substance. (Why do we call the people who want to outlaw abortion "pro life"? Because the right knows how important labels are and they fought hard for it, while the left worried about the issue.) Then, once they've written the dictionary, they can keep reinforcing their emotional message with the semantic content of words. Because the emotional message is in the terms themselves, they can devote a lot of effort to giving their arguments the appearance of logic. They choose their evidence carefully, not for being the best evidence but for being the most convincing in a sound bite. Because they can state their evidence quickly and they don't need to explain it, they have more time to build the argument on top of it with superficial logic. It's actually more logical to present more evidence and explain it better, rather than focusing on the conclusion.
Republicans are very good at appearing more logical than they are.
However, while Republican success was significant in the 80s, their more recent success has been on very narrow ground. In 1980, 1984, and 1988, they won quite handily. In 1992, Ross Perot stole a lot of votes from them in an election that was a lot closer than it looked. In 1996, they lost by a landslide. In 2000 and 2004, the margin of victory was mere thousands of votes in a single state. A fact that the Republican leadership seems to conveniently forget when pushing policies at the edge of constitutionality.
There are signs that voters are starting to think for themselves instead of digesting the slogans on a superficial level. The Democrats won the Congress back in 2006 based on dissatifaction with the Iraq War and the mishandling of the Katrina disaster.
And for those upset with Democrats for not having ended the Iraq War, one needs to read the War Powers Act and look at the actual Party breakdown of Congress. Against an unfriendly President with a valid authorization already in hand, they need a 2/3 majority to override his veto. They don't have it. With a friendly President, it'll be a lot less difficult.
Personally, I think people are starting to wake up to what has happenned. But there's still a lot of gullible ones out there.
I can't take credit for the stuff about logic not driving our choices or about the Republicans using that psychological insight so well. Nor can I remember the names of the author(s) I'm borrowing from.
As for the level of Republican success -- my point is not that they ever really had all of the electorate in their camp (despite the way they tell the story about the Reagan years). My point is that they do much better than they would if both sides campaigned with equal skill in appealing to the way most voters choose. Take away their vastly more effective crafting and delivery of their message or give the Democrats equal ability and I think we have one-party Democratic rule until the Democrats defeat themselves. (Knowing the Democrats, that's probably about one election. *sigh*. I don't have a very high opinion of the Democratic party. Collectively, they're corrupt, bumbling incompetents, but at least they try to do the right thing on many issues. The Republicans are corrupt, well disciplined, frequently competent enough to do just they mean to do, and trying to do the wrong thing on almost every issue.)
Overall, I'd say you have it backwards, but neither side is monolithic in its methods.
Most liberals that I know are proud of living in "the reality-based world" and will cite examples when arguing; most of the conservatives I've argued with recently believe that their belief makes things so. Their arguments are predicated on creating fear and awe of authority. There are, however, liberals who make unfounded assertions, and conservatives who cite cases.
I could prove to you that it's the liberals who are the descendants of the Enlightenment, but then I'd have to kill you from my uncontrollable rage. But with compassion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Republicans seemed to be hogtied to the War on Terror the way that medieval Popes were constantly preaching crusades.
The Religious Right has always played on bogus fears about "traditional American values"
It's so unimaginative and manipulative that it's sickening.
no subject
I've never been able to follow the logic behind the argument that allowing same-sex marriage somehow cheapens or weakens heterosexual marriage. If a man is married to his wife, and his next-door-neighbor marries his male partner, how does the existence of the second marriage cheapen the first? How does it diminish the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the first marriage?
no subject
Comparing Obama and McCain, the Democrat uses more facts and logic in his appeal than the Republican
no subject
no subject
no subject
A truly logical case for a candidate is a very complex argument. It requires considering many issues, pulling out a lot of evidence, justifying each piece of evidence not merely in its superficial veracity but in its relevance to the whole argument and its importance relative to other evidence. Important pieces of contrary evidence cannot be ignored or lightly dismissed; they must be rebutted in detail. All of the pieces must be brought into a logical whole, and a case must be made that the goals the candidate is campaigning on are all achievable together even though they compete for finite resources.
In today's world of 30 second TV spots and two minute answers to questions even in debates, nobody has time for real, fully developed logic. If the candidate does make a real, logical case, at book length, almost no one will read it (though many will talk as though they did). Nobody genuinely wants logic. They want a simple, easy to follow case that feels logical.
Only now will I mention my own partisan opinion. The success of the Republican party in the modern political era (starting with the 1980 campaign) can be traced straight to their superior understanding and more effective embrace of the above ideas. Conservatives put a lot of effort into framing the terms of the debate and choosing the labels that will be attached to people and issues while tricking liberals into arguing about substance. (Why do we call the people who want to outlaw abortion "pro life"? Because the right knows how important labels are and they fought hard for it, while the left worried about the issue.) Then, once they've written the dictionary, they can keep reinforcing their emotional message with the semantic content of words. Because the emotional message is in the terms themselves, they can devote a lot of effort to giving their arguments the appearance of logic. They choose their evidence carefully, not for being the best evidence but for being the most convincing in a sound bite. Because they can state their evidence quickly and they don't need to explain it, they have more time to build the argument on top of it with superficial logic. It's actually more logical to present more evidence and explain it better, rather than focusing on the conclusion.
Republicans are very good at appearing more logical than they are.
no subject
However, while Republican success was significant in the 80s, their more recent success has been on very narrow ground. In 1980, 1984, and 1988, they won quite handily. In 1992, Ross Perot stole a lot of votes from them in an election that was a lot closer than it looked. In 1996, they lost by a landslide. In 2000 and 2004, the margin of victory was mere thousands of votes in a single state. A fact that the Republican leadership seems to conveniently forget when pushing policies at the edge of constitutionality.
There are signs that voters are starting to think for themselves instead of digesting the slogans on a superficial level. The Democrats won the Congress back in 2006 based on dissatifaction with the Iraq War and the mishandling of the Katrina disaster.
And for those upset with Democrats for not having ended the Iraq War, one needs to read the War Powers Act and look at the actual Party breakdown of Congress. Against an unfriendly President with a valid authorization already in hand, they need a 2/3 majority to override his veto. They don't have it. With a friendly President, it'll be a lot less difficult.
Personally, I think people are starting to wake up to what has happenned. But there's still a lot of gullible ones out there.
no subject
I can't take credit for the stuff about logic not driving our choices or about the Republicans using that psychological insight so well. Nor can I remember the names of the author(s) I'm borrowing from.
As for the level of Republican success -- my point is not that they ever really had all of the electorate in their camp (despite the way they tell the story about the Reagan years). My point is that they do much better than they would if both sides campaigned with equal skill in appealing to the way most voters choose. Take away their vastly more effective crafting and delivery of their message or give the Democrats equal ability and I think we have one-party Democratic rule until the Democrats defeat themselves. (Knowing the Democrats, that's probably about one election. *sigh*. I don't have a very high opinion of the Democratic party. Collectively, they're corrupt, bumbling incompetents, but at least they try to do the right thing on many issues. The Republicans are corrupt, well disciplined, frequently competent enough to do just they mean to do, and trying to do the wrong thing on almost every issue.)
no subject
Most liberals that I know are proud of living in "the reality-based world" and will cite examples when arguing; most of the conservatives I've argued with recently believe that their belief makes things so. Their arguments are predicated on creating fear and awe of authority. There are, however, liberals who make unfounded assertions, and conservatives who cite cases.
no subject
no subject
no subject
;)