Arguments, reasonable and unreasonable
I am always willing to have an argument with someone where there is a reasonable point to debate. However, sometimes a point is so blatantly self-interested that there is no point in discussing it -- it is clearly being made purely for political purposes and not to advance a better understanding. This happens on both sides, of course. What astonishes me is how otherwise intelligent people seem to be so unaware of their own biases; how they, in other words, take a completely unreasonable point that their side is making for political purposes and treat it, like everything else coming from their side, as gospel truth to be defended.
Perhaps I will soon find a good example among Republicans, but for today I want to discuss a post I read relating to Christine Blasey Ford and her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. I'll just put the image here rather than retype the text:
Let's start with the details of this assertion and work our way back to the broader point. The image implies that anyone who voted against re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act in 2013 is ipso facto a misogynist. It must be a very unobjectionable piece of legislation indeed if no reasonable person could oppose it; and the fact that 22 Senators did vote against it ought to be a red flag in that case. Who, after all, would support violence against women?
Well, a quick reading of the Wikipedia page (see, no in-depth research needed) says that conservatives objected to the renewal of the law in 2013 because they opposed extending its protections to same-sex couples and illegal immigrants. Let's just ignore for a moment any possible objections one might have to the original law (some of whose terms the ACLU described as "repugnant" to the Constitution when it was originally passed, according to the same Wikipedia source). Here was an entirely new application of the law as it was voted on in 2013 that, one might think, would be reasonable cause for dispute, even among non-misogynists.
I would bet that the same people who post things like this are among the first to complain that we live in a sound-bite culture and lack serious debates about issues. Well, this kind of post is front and center of what is wrong with our political debate. People pick a piece of legislation opposed (or supported, depending on the need) by some politicans, skip all the reasonable discussion around why someone might oppose or support it, and just post that they are misogynists plain and simple. How can you have a reasonable discussion under these conditions?
Now, to the broader concern, which is that we are pretending to debate the merits of Ford's accusations. Everyone on both sides knew that Democrats would do anything possible to block the appointment of another conservative to the Supreme Court. I don't even blame them, because the Supreme Court makes all the important decisions in our country outside of budget and foreign policy. Affirmative action, abortion, same-sex marriage, campaign financing: all of these issues eventually find their way to the Supreme Court, which rules on them and from whose decision there is no appeal. The Supreme Court is an extremely important legislative body in the United States, and there are few opportunities for influencing its composition. The addition of a fifth reliable conservative would indeed be very bad for the liberal agenda.
Of course, they realized this in 1987 as well, when they made up outrageous claims against Robert Bork and ended up sinking his nomination. That's why Anthony Kennedy has been on the bench these last 30 years, and that's why the liberal agenda has flourished. It is obvious that Democrats would undertake the same measures that they undertook in 1987 to keep another conservative off of the court.
Except that this time, Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, so it's not enough to make insane arguments against the nominee to give Democrats a plausible reason to vote against his approval. Republicans would just ignore the arguments and Kavanaugh would be approved. This time, the hope is that they can delay beyond the next election, which just might bring a Democratic majority into the Senate and allow them to sink Kavanaugh's nomination by the traditional method of voting it down. Hence why Dianne Feinstein held on to the accusation until after hearings were over; hence why Ford is making unreasonable conditions before testifying. (Has anyone in history been granted the right to demand an FBI investigation prior even to making a formal accusation?) There are six weeks until the election, and Democrats will do anything to delay the confirmation vote until then. After the election, they can make the plausible (although not necessarily correct) point that the Senate should not approve a Supreme Court justice during a lame duck session, and then they can get a fresh start, with a majority or at least a closer minority, next year.
Their tactics will include making ridiculous arguments, such as trying to justify Ford's demand for an FBI investigation. And for that, they will make illogical arguments about legislation and misogyny. All that I understand, and I accept (albeit unhappily). But when reasonable people pretend that these arguments serve anything other than a political purpose -- when they pretend that the arguments are real and substantive -- it makes me very sad.
Perhaps I will soon find a good example among Republicans, but for today I want to discuss a post I read relating to Christine Blasey Ford and her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. I'll just put the image here rather than retype the text:
Let's start with the details of this assertion and work our way back to the broader point. The image implies that anyone who voted against re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act in 2013 is ipso facto a misogynist. It must be a very unobjectionable piece of legislation indeed if no reasonable person could oppose it; and the fact that 22 Senators did vote against it ought to be a red flag in that case. Who, after all, would support violence against women?
Well, a quick reading of the Wikipedia page (see, no in-depth research needed) says that conservatives objected to the renewal of the law in 2013 because they opposed extending its protections to same-sex couples and illegal immigrants. Let's just ignore for a moment any possible objections one might have to the original law (some of whose terms the ACLU described as "repugnant" to the Constitution when it was originally passed, according to the same Wikipedia source). Here was an entirely new application of the law as it was voted on in 2013 that, one might think, would be reasonable cause for dispute, even among non-misogynists.
I would bet that the same people who post things like this are among the first to complain that we live in a sound-bite culture and lack serious debates about issues. Well, this kind of post is front and center of what is wrong with our political debate. People pick a piece of legislation opposed (or supported, depending on the need) by some politicans, skip all the reasonable discussion around why someone might oppose or support it, and just post that they are misogynists plain and simple. How can you have a reasonable discussion under these conditions?
Now, to the broader concern, which is that we are pretending to debate the merits of Ford's accusations. Everyone on both sides knew that Democrats would do anything possible to block the appointment of another conservative to the Supreme Court. I don't even blame them, because the Supreme Court makes all the important decisions in our country outside of budget and foreign policy. Affirmative action, abortion, same-sex marriage, campaign financing: all of these issues eventually find their way to the Supreme Court, which rules on them and from whose decision there is no appeal. The Supreme Court is an extremely important legislative body in the United States, and there are few opportunities for influencing its composition. The addition of a fifth reliable conservative would indeed be very bad for the liberal agenda.
Of course, they realized this in 1987 as well, when they made up outrageous claims against Robert Bork and ended up sinking his nomination. That's why Anthony Kennedy has been on the bench these last 30 years, and that's why the liberal agenda has flourished. It is obvious that Democrats would undertake the same measures that they undertook in 1987 to keep another conservative off of the court.
Except that this time, Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, so it's not enough to make insane arguments against the nominee to give Democrats a plausible reason to vote against his approval. Republicans would just ignore the arguments and Kavanaugh would be approved. This time, the hope is that they can delay beyond the next election, which just might bring a Democratic majority into the Senate and allow them to sink Kavanaugh's nomination by the traditional method of voting it down. Hence why Dianne Feinstein held on to the accusation until after hearings were over; hence why Ford is making unreasonable conditions before testifying. (Has anyone in history been granted the right to demand an FBI investigation prior even to making a formal accusation?) There are six weeks until the election, and Democrats will do anything to delay the confirmation vote until then. After the election, they can make the plausible (although not necessarily correct) point that the Senate should not approve a Supreme Court justice during a lame duck session, and then they can get a fresh start, with a majority or at least a closer minority, next year.
Their tactics will include making ridiculous arguments, such as trying to justify Ford's demand for an FBI investigation. And for that, they will make illogical arguments about legislation and misogyny. All that I understand, and I accept (albeit unhappily). But when reasonable people pretend that these arguments serve anything other than a political purpose -- when they pretend that the arguments are real and substantive -- it makes me very sad.
Comments
Post a Comment