Diogenes, where are you?
The following is from a letter to a youthful enthusiast:
You asked if I had read any of Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, I have, or at least I've tried. I find his writing to be fairly obscure, written, I suppose, for an insider-group to whom his jargon is well known. He seems to me to lose focus, to go on too long, and not to know when to stop after a point is made. He could be right or wrong, but I find him unconvincing because he is not concise in his arguments.
I think he suffers from a problem described by Nicholas Kristoff (who was writing about something unrelated in the NY Times). He said (liberally emended), "The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that [some] groups are too often alarmists. [For whatever reason,] they've lost credibility with the public. Some do great work, but others can be the [left on the fringes -- right, left, or otherwise]: brimming with moral clarity and ideological zeal, but empty of nuance."
I put Bush, LaRouche, religious fundamentalists (Baptists, Muslims, Catholics, whatever), the Sierra Club, OPEC (maybe), and too many others into this class. They lack credibility with me because they are so totally sure that their way is THE way that they don't hear or see other sides as having any merit. In my world view, even the "bad guys" have a point, however obscure it may be. To deal with them in whatever fashion, one must be aware of their self-justified motives.
What do you think?
posted by AkLewy at 10:28 AM
2 Comments:
How about the DNC? The RNC? The Green Party - let's not leave Ralph Nader off the list? Environmentalists? Secular humanists? Mini Cooper owners? Macintosh users?
I think people naturally approach discussion with the idea that they are in the right. In the world of politics, though, any discussion of how the other side might have a point is seen as a weakness to be exploited and can totally undermine getting the results someone wants.
Trent Lott's career has been capped because of that stuff. Any time anyone accused him of being insensitive or wrong-headed, he'd be out on the media circuit apologizing for anyone that could get a microphone in his face. Compare that to Arnold Schwarzenegger's handling of his "girlie man" comment. His career is still upward bound.
If Bush, as a particuarly polarizing example, wavered for an instant, the wolves would be all over him and he'd jeopardize what he wants to achieve and he'd become wholly ineffective. Consider the airplay received when he slipped up and said something about the US not being able to ever eradicate terrorism. What incentive does he have to publicly consider other points of view? I suspect the answer is, "None."
Most everyone else on your list is in the same boat.
Of course people (lawyers excepted) approach discussion convinced they are right. But most folks, presented with convincing arguments, will at least consider them. The ones that bother me are those that are so convinced they are right that no other view can be considered. Often, people who hold other views are not even tolerated. You don't agree with me? Here. Hold this bomb.
I don't see why even politicians have to consider themselves infallible. Of course, I'm not known to be typical. If I were, we might not be in a war. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I don't even want everyone to agree. Perfect I am not. Besides, complete agreement would be boring and ruin the journalistic careers of all the bloggers.
Bush is, indeed, polarizing. His rallies are packed with supporters but no dissenters. His administration is heavily into writing "press releases" packaged as news and not disclosing the source. He is a particularly extreme example of one-sidedness.
This discussion started with Mr. LaRouche, however. Does he hear other views? Do his followers?
Post a Comment
<< Home