Don't derive your views from reaction and devotion to personages

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I grew up in a world where Alger Hiss was innocent. Richard Nixon's big break-out political side-show that got him the 1952 VP nomination was the exposure of Democratic State Department guy Alger Hiss as a Russian agent. He was not convicted of that, but was convicted of perjury. The incriminating witness was Whittaker Chambers. The case involved microfilm being hidden in a pumpkin, which sounded pretty far-fetched.

Hiss was a liberal intellectual type... the type we like. Nixon was obvious scum. The red-scares, witch-hunts and black-lists were disgusting.

It was OBVIOUS that Hiss was innocent. It was an article of faith with all Nixon-haters, who were the cream of the nation. (For real. If you were not a Nixon-hater you were not paying attention.)

But it turned out (decades later, after Nixon was dead) that Hiss actually was a Russian spy.

And that disclosure was a RW "win" and a LW "loss" because people, right and left, had chosen sides in the question based on what they thought of Nixon, of Truman, of Ivy League schools, of communism, of how the war in Korea was going... on all sorts of things that had little to do with the narrow issues of the Hiss case.

Lessons I learned from that:

1) Don't tie your ideas and principles to persons, either for or against.

2) Don't reach conclusions based on who is lining up with who. The good guys are right more often, but not right always.


I remember the Kerry/Bush debate where Kerry said we had to consider the "global view" in dealing with terrorism.

The RW pounced that Kerry said we need Finland's permission to defend ourselves. Duers started 100 threads defending Kerry's view that we need the input of other countries... a politically weak position at that point in time.

But Kerry, being an over-educated stiff, was using "global" to mean total, complete, all-encompassing... to consider every aspect of terror policy... which was actually the most sensible usage in context. (If he meant "international" view he would have said international view... between nations.)

Watching the Dem-leaning politi-web convulse into defending something Kerry 1) didn't mean, and 2) was desperate to distance himself from, was a real lesson in the dangers of thoughtless reaction. The pugs framed the question and we sought to take the opposite side of the question without pausing to even recognize that the question being posed was a false one.


Scott Ritter was right as an arms control expert. I wouldn't hire him as a baby-sitter.

Jeremiah Wright wasn't actually the coolest guy on Earth.

Rick Warren is a total degenerate.

Jane Hamsher was a liberal blogger who has gone off the rails, and thus is no longer typical of any liberal POV.

Grover Norquist is shit. (A surprisingly good stand-up comic, though.)

Rahm Emanuel is an a-hole... doesn't mean he's a literal criminal, though.

President Obama is disappointing, but not in any particularly surprising or novel way. Way better than the alternative.

Despite being a despicable person, Sarah Palin did give birth to her infant child.

And so on.

[havocmom]

1. Thank you for sane advice

This black/white thinking here lately is way too Rovian for DUers. Can't figure why it is so common now, unless it is a paid invasion. Please show me another reason so many DEM posters are being so fucking rigid about insisting we be in lockstep and if we go off in one topic, it means we are GOP in all topics? It really baffles me.

[BeFree]

4. Baffling?

Baffling that if the pubbies are for it that we won't get in bed with them while leaving our dem family members starving for our love?

Its a damn thick line that is wisely never crossed when they are a wall of NO and our people are trying to make progress. A thick line that should be crossed only with a damn good reason. I've yet to see any damn good reasons to leave our dems and caucus with the pubbies.

Might be too simple for some, but historically correct.

[havocmom]

5. Nuance

Too oft missed, evidently

Lock step is not a good method, unless everyone is in favor of going over the edge.

It is not 'either or' but the fact that gray areas usually exist,which, I believe, the OP is advocating.

It is open discussion with attention paid to facets which enable more productive solutions with less falls into the hell of unintended consequences which I added.

Disagreeing with some agendas is NOT 'caucus with the pubbies'. Especially amusing when one considers how many advocates of 'shuddup and tow the party line' re the HCR Lieberman managed to get DEMS to capitulate themselves into.

Joe spoke at the GOP convention, or something, didn't he? And too many of us not enamored of these legislative shams at Health Care 'Reform' have been attacked here as being GOP.

Nuance. Guess the ability for it lies in a recessive gene or something.

[BeFree]

6. So

You have yet to show us a damn good reason to reject and indeed oppose what the majority of the party is undertaking.

Its fine to express displeasure with the rate of progress. But it is stupidity to fight our members who are striving to make progress.

You can go your own way. But when your own way does damage to this party you can be said to be playing on the other team. It is black and white.

Your choice.

[stevenleser]

2. I somewhat agree. However...

I am not sure Sarah Palin giving birth to a child says anything good or bad about her. It just says she had sex and didnt have an abortion. And while many here rail against Rahm Emanuel, other than the "despicable sins" that he happens to have dual nationality, and friends in the financial industry, and was appointed at one time to the board of Fanny Mae (or was it Freddie Mac?) I havent seen any concrete, fact based and supported reason why he should upset me.

And as far as Obama being a disappointment, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. The point about Palin is...

It was widely--not majority, but widely--believed here that Sarah Palin had faked giving birth to Trig.

There was no compelling evidence for such an extraordinary claim except the idea that she's such a fucked up person that any fucked up thing about her must be true.

And when some pointed out the insanity of the theory they sometimes got a dose of, "Why are you standing up for Sarah Palin?"

But what was being defended was reason, not Palin.

So I thought that binary-reactive flap was a good example of the sort of thing I mean.

[sandnsea]

7. In other words, just because you think something,

it doesn't make it so.

Kerry is not an over-educated stiff. He likely did mean global in the global world view, considering other countries as is evidenced by his interactions as Senate Foreign Relations Chair. And if you're wrong on those two, you might want to consider that you're wrong in being disappointed in Obama too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Dumb

Sorry, you are wrong all day.

Or else the Kerry campaign was lying.

Take your pick.

[MH1]

8. Thank you for the "global" point about Kerry

I was gnashing my teeth at the blogosphere buying into the right wing frame on that one ... I guess I'm an overeducated stiff, too, because I knew EXACTLY what he meant when he said it, and I couldn't figure out why liberals let themselves get rolled on that one.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one...

[sandnsea]

10. Kerry didn't believe in an international effort against terrorism?

Really??

[MH1]

11. Of course he did ... but the debate point that the o.p. referred to,

was NOT about that and was taken out of context. The RW spun it as Kerry saying we "need to get permission from other countries" when in the context of that statement, Kerry was referring to looking at the problem broadly, considering all aspects. That is a common use of the word "global" when talking about problem solving. I was sure that was what he meant and the o.p. confirms that. But of course Kerry does believe in taking an international view also, but confirming that would have confirmed the RW spin about "permission".

[sandnsea]

13. needing "input of other countries"

"a politically weak position at the time".

Which is bullshit. Kerry made many remarks about the need for global, international, cooperation on terrorism. Whether that statement meant global in the entirety sense, or global in the international sense, it would be Kerry's position either way. And the OP would still be wrong in his assessment of the Senator's over-educated stiffness and weak position on national security and foreign policy.

[MH1]

18. Well I think the way the right wing framed it, it WAS

a politically weak position. The right wing was successful in making common sense look bad. That's what they do.

You know I don't agree with the disparaging reference to Kerry BUT I took that as a bit tongue-in-cheek by the poster, who I don't recall as a serial Kerry-basher.

Anyway I guess we just interpreted it differently. Happy holidays! :)

:toast:

[PurityOfEssence]

12. This should be a must-read for everyone here

There's a codicil to all this, too: the ego of certainty and the raging need to never admit a mistake is equally destructive.

No belief system exists for any period of time without it answering some human need, and having at least a shred of "truth" whether in its proposed premises or simply in its rules. (Many of the comportment rules of most religions are truly honorable, whether the cosmology is poppycock or not...)

This is bigger than all of us, and we need a little humility to get things right at this very dangerous crossroads for mankind and the biosphere. Assholish screaming-down of those who don't toe the party line is deeply destructive. In the same breath, putting oneself above the fray of compromised politics and demanding pristine beauty in all policy is as egocentric as party-unity thuggery.

Good job! Keep up the good work, dammit!

[Forkboy]

14. So you're saying you like Sarah Palin?

:hide:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Drats! And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling Forkboy

[Forkboy]

17. hehe

I've been on DU too long, sorry. ;)

[AVID]

16. so...stay reality based? yes. thumbs up! k&r