Assuming all my assumptions are accurate, tell me why I should change them

[jpgray]

This is my least favorite variety of political argument, and I'll explain how it works by example:

1. I assume Obama is a corporate stooge, determined measure for measure to undermine Democratic ideals at the pleasure of his masters. Why should I take seriously cheerleaders and apparatchiks who tell me I ought to work or vote for him? In the end, how can any good thing he's done overcome the sad fact of his betrayal?

2. I assume Obama is the only hope for Democratic ideals, and harsh criticism will destroy him if it is not confronted and neutralized. Why should I coddle the whining of basement-dwelling bomb-throwers who tell me I should be disgusted with him? In the end, how can any mistake he's made overcome the grim truth that he must be supported at all costs?

From here you can come up with examples for any issue. Manning's leak? The TSA? Better to decide on a worldview and sift the evidence than reverse the process, if you're interested in arguing like a political pro. My overall view on every issue here mentioned has changed a number of times, mostly as people I respect disagree with me. In the above formula, there is no room for disagreement, only for dismissal or validation.

(Assuming my assumptions are accurate, that is.)

[ananda]

1. Okay..

.. Obama is definitely a corporate stooge.

But he was never our only hope for democratic ideals.

That hope resides in the people.

[jpgray]

2. Is stoogery the only possible explanation?

Is it the likeliest? The simplest? The best? How might one expect the US Chamber of Commerce to react if this view is correct?

[dennis4868]

3. I don't think a corporate stoog...

Would pass financial reform and make the credit card companies be more honest... Has he been very tough on wall street- no, but you can't say he's a corporate stoog...

[jpgray]

5. Any pat explanation tends to get labyrinthine very quickly to explain all evidence

Fortunately there is no necessary reason to resist a complicated view of the world if it better explains the world.

[Old Codger]

7. Maybe Occams razor would work

Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

[jpgray]

9. Well, let's apply it to the two above scenarios

How might the corporate stooge theory explain the actions of the US Chamber of Commerce? Why would they appear to desire the overthrow of the party that is led by a corporate stooge? Why would Obama engage in anything, however tepid, that is opposed by financial and corporate interests? What is the simplest explanation for each?

How might the ideal hope theory explain the unforced errors of Obama? The hiring of Summers and Geithner? The deal with Billy Tauzin? The reluctance to hold strongly to progressive positions that poll well? The validation of GOP narratives of the party as anti-business, overly-partisan, and fiscally irresponsible? Adherence to the idea that the market solution is the best solution to a crisis of demand?

What emerges from this analysis, in my view, is that by the Razor neither "simple" theory ends up looking very simple.

[Old Codger]

10. Agreed for sure

Nothing in any of this equation is "simple" Occam's Razor is only an "attempt" to simplify any set of circumstances it can still end up quite complicated and many layers deep.

[stray cat]

4. Tell me what you are going to do to make things different then

clearly its not posting on DU

[jpgray]

6. What I usually do--volunteer and vote.

[Monique1]

8. There are corporate stoogies here

Need I say more?