Is Madeleine Albright stealing from Billy Joe Mills, or is Billy's notion of "militant moderacy" just as unoriginal as it is irritating and banal?
Whatever the case may be, I largely agree with the commentary in the first link above from Ezra Klein, especially when he says:
The American political spectrum is always shifting, which means any one place on it cannot always be right. In recent years, that spectrum has shifted dramatically to the left. Have Billy's opinions shifted in kind? Have the opinions of other "militant moderates"? Or are they merely appealing to some illusory notion of a fixed middle point in our ideological discourse that doesn't really exist but sounds so warm and fuzzy?
The notion of "militant moderacy" is, by and large, a cheap political trick designed to win over all those Americans who want to "wash their hands of the political mess" and "put a pox on both their houses" and spout off other similarly empty-headed political credos that justify a refusal to engage in genuine political debate - debate which requires the dirty business of taking sides.
Whatever the case may be, I largely agree with the commentary in the first link above from Ezra Klein, especially when he says:
[I]t's telling that in this era of far right foreign policy making, when the liberal critique has been proven right again and again, Albright still feels compelled to ostentatiously announce her distance from those bad leftists -- whoever they are, whatever they believe -- as well.It is yet another example of the intellectual laziness of looking at two sides of an issue and assuming the right course must lie somewhere in between. This same laziness is what causes the mainstream media to ceaselessly fail in their attempts to adequately report the news because they cannot escape from the ideological prison that forces them to feed every single issue to the American people in a "he said, he countered" format that slavishly adheres to balance without any regard for objectivity (indeed, the MSM seems to be under the impression that balance and objectivity are the same thing).
The American political spectrum is always shifting, which means any one place on it cannot always be right. In recent years, that spectrum has shifted dramatically to the left. Have Billy's opinions shifted in kind? Have the opinions of other "militant moderates"? Or are they merely appealing to some illusory notion of a fixed middle point in our ideological discourse that doesn't really exist but sounds so warm and fuzzy?
The notion of "militant moderacy" is, by and large, a cheap political trick designed to win over all those Americans who want to "wash their hands of the political mess" and "put a pox on both their houses" and spout off other similarly empty-headed political credos that justify a refusal to engage in genuine political debate - debate which requires the dirty business of taking sides.
OK, I agree with Brian.
Let the alate pork chops be served.
(OK, maybe not the part about the political spectrum in American shifting to the Left, but that's because I don't see politics as a line, but rather as a plane or a cube.)
As I pointed out in my topic on incrementalism, there are always going to be some issues on which it would be immoral to compromise.
There will also always be some opinions that people hold that are just downright stupid.
Now, do not attempt to infer from this that I am advocating any action by the government to silence the stupid, nor do I wish to denigrate the importance of proffered debate to demonstrate to the viewers at home the difference in the two parts of the spectrum on a given issue.
If someone has an idea or opinion, they have a right in America to express it publicly, especially if it's political. They do not have a right to be either listened to or respected simply because they came up with it.
(NB: I do not agree with Klein that the liberal critique has been proven wrong again and again. They've had as bad a track record as the neo-conservatives. Nonetheless, remember that one of the more unpleasant places in the Inferno was reserved for those who refuse to commit to one side or another--so pick a goddam side.)
Tom
I don't find this serious enough to respond to...there were accusations rather than arguments. But my ego genuinely appreciates being the center of your ire.
the whole entire world is sick of your crocodile tears over radicalism and your feigned appeals to the fictional perfect balance between mass murder and genocide. your "militant moderacy" is really just militance. even the definitions of "left" and "right" in this country are so egregiously fucked that we are rightly the laughing stock of the whole entire planet. HOW DARE you appeal to moderation!
hyperbole? youre a hyperbole. this stupid country is a bad joke.
comments welcome
oh wait now that i read that post i guess i agree in part, although not with a major shift to the left. i guess all my comments were directed at madeline albright and billy
sorry
i wasnt kidding about this shitsplat being a joke though
three little words.....
Prozac.....dart.....gun
Tom
No, Billy, "you are a coward" is an accusation. My post contained a very central argument regarding the impossibility of holding a genuinely "moderate militant" position.
And you are by no means the center of my ire. The lazy tendency of the American people to throw up their hands in the face of debate is the center of my ire. You represent merely one example of that tendency.
Hey Erik, if you can't stand the country, get the hell out. Nothing worse than a bitchy little child complaining about how horrible America is, and then sticking around for the rest of his life. Do the country a favor and just leave. Continue your bitching from Canada or wherever you decide to go.
Alberta is beautiful. Actually, if I was in my mid-20s, I'd be in Edmonton to stay so fast that it'd make your head spin. My life expectancy is low enough that I'm willing to ride this roller coaster down to perdition, but there's no reason for an intelligent person to be on it without a helmet.
Get out before they close the borders. The Wall works just as well to keep Americans in as it does to keep aliens out.
Tom
So, Brian, what exactly is the difference between balance and objectivity? I thought understanding both sides of an issue was an intelligent thing to do.
Maybe you should give some examples of what you're talking about.
Tom, what opinions are you referring to that are "downright stupid"?
And, Tom, what makes you so sure your opinions aren't "downright stupid"?
Balance is presenting both sides of an issue no matter what. Objectivity is presenting the truth when it is knowable and presenting CREDIBLE arguments from various perspectives when it is not. The MSM makes the assumption that IF there is debate around a particular issue, there must be at least 2 CREDIBLE positions on that issue. To make matters worse, they generally assume that there are ONLY 2 credible positions on that issue, generally diluted into a "liberal" argument and a "conservative" argument.
Examples are myriad. Political debates often times center upon arguments not over our values, or our national priorities, or other things that are obviously debatable, but rather on different version of reality. These different versions should, generally speaking, be verifiable by institutions like the media (with certain obvious exceptions concerning when reality is not knowable). The evolution debate is one example of how an entire issue can exist despite a clearly observable reality, but this problem exists more pervasively in the WAY politicians argue their points, in ways that literally EVERYBODY knows is dishonest, but which the media is too cowardly or lazy or indoctrinated or bought and paid for to call them on. And the way they justify it is by saying they have to be BALANCED. They DON'T need to be balanced, they need to be HONEST. There is a difference.
The obvious problem here, Brian, is that people don't agree on what is credible. When brilliant minds can't come to a consensus, surely the masses or such fine institutions such as the media won't be able to.
... of course you probably rationalize this problem away by concluding those who don't agree with your versions of reality are either not intelligent (or maybe you'd say "intellectually lazy") and/or simply insane.
Kofi,
You're assuming these disagreements are always honest disagreements founded on good faith. I think we both know that's not the case a lot of the time when politicians (on both sides of the aisle) make their arguments, and I think the media knows it too. The media lets politicians get away with it because they, like you, assume that if a disagreement exists, the only fair way to handle it is to treat everybody as though their ideas are credible when, in certain instances, WE KNOW THAT IS NOT THE CASE. And I don't mean we, the liberal intelligentsia. I mean we, observers of reality. As much as some might like to argue that evolution isn't real, or that the children of gay parents are at a disadvantage, objectively verifiable observations exist to the contrary that should not be ignored just b/c some people would LIKE to ignore it.
The point here isn't to deny the existence of disagreement, but to address the manner in which we approach that disagreement. We tend to be focusing on my commentary on the media, which is fine, but my central point related more to the political ideology of the center, and the way it IS intellectually lazy, however much you dislike the phrase, because the center is always moving and cannot be seen as consistently right. The media, by and large, pushes a centrist position, which is its own form of bias, and which it can get away with because people conflate centrism with balance and balance with objectivity.
This argument has been done before. It comes up every time you complain the world doesn't fall in line with your core beliefs. You're still wrong. Refer back to your old posts as to why.
Militant moderacy: Because I don't agree with the outer margins of either party's platform, they are equally dangerous to the world, and people at those ends must be categorically dismissed. Also, because I speak out against these people, I am by definition an excellent measure of the median public opinion.
(Boiled down to its component parts, consists of two claims: balance defines objectivity, and factual accuracy defines simple truth.)
Brian,
I still don't think you make your point.
Say the topic is gay parenting. The Republicans in their debate site statistics saying it's harmful and Democrats site statistics saying it's not harmful. How should ABC News cover that story? What would the difference be between balanced and objective?
Brian, the whole damn point of throwing the word "militant" in front of moderate is to combat the intellectually lazy point that you've tried to make...was that not obvious enough? Is it really necessary for me to say that again? What's more lazy, joining one of two herds or breaking off from everyone and having no safe political home and no party platform to blindly conform to???
This quote basically explains it all:
The late Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, who was one of the first to reject McCarthyism, said, "It is time that the great center of our people, who reject the violence and unreasonableness of both the extreme right and the extreme left, searched their consciences, mustered their moral and physical courage, shed their intimidated silence, and declare their consciences."
"...objectively verifiable observations exist to the contrary that should not be ignored just b/c some people would LIKE to ignore it."
Pfft, and you and the media (how's that for balanced) promote global warming as fact, hence doing just what you denounce.
Aside from that, I don't get how you can describe people as intellectually lazy simply because they don't completely agree with the left OR the right, thus putting themselves somewhere in the gray area in between. But as always, we do enjoy your sweeping generalizations.
For Karen:
Some opinions and beliefs that are downright stupid....
1) The greater the number of scientists that agree with a theory, the more likely that the theory is correct.
2) The Earth is flat.
3) The Sun is made of anthracite and that material's combustion provides earth's heat and light
4) Increasing tax rates always provides an increase in revenue.
5) Increasing tax rates always provides a decrease in tax revenue.
6) If you cut the horns off of a bull and a cow, their offspring will not develop horns.
This is the sort of crap that does not need debate. One can determine this by years of observation and study. I'd recommend 40 or more.
Tom
Okay, Tom, those ideas are really really stupid--maybe not the first one--but the others. Brian says numbers 4 and 5 are the kind of ideas he's talking about--if someone makes those statements, the MSM should point out that they're wrong.
Say 100 scientists agree that the WTC attacks were orchestrated by the government and that the buildings were brought down with the help of explosives planted with the authority of good ol' George W.
If that number increases to 300, does that make this crackpot theory any more true?
I'd sure as hell hope that's not the way of thinking around here, or else we're all in big big trouble.
4 and 5 are only dumb because of the absolutes.
Absolutely, Kofi. Anytime I see the word always in a statement, alarm bells go off. It doesn't always mean something is stupidly wrong, but it is often the way to bet.
Interesting thing about #6--all of Soviet biology was based on that premise for about 30 years. I'm sure that every Soviet scientist living at that time loudly supported it.
Tom
Tom, regrading #6 and the Soviets: in 30 years did they not try it once?
Honest to God, Kofi, I couldn't make this shit up if I tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
This is a great cautionary tale in respect to science and government. The Nazis are better known for their perversions of science, but Von Braun's rockets actually worked.
Tom