When I read a post like this one, I don’t know why I bother with this blog. The James says it better than I ever can.
All too often, I find people making arguments that are completely unpersuasive, but very confirming. By that I mean they have no hope of persuading someone to change their mind, but they do confirm someone’s previously held belief. This isn’t a left/right thing, as such arguments are made by people of every political persuasion.
The arguments are often quite logical – but the chief defect is one of the starting assumptions. For instance, if you start with the assumption that Bush or Clinton is an evil man, why all sorts of things that don’t make any sense otherwise suddenly do. Bush toppled the Taliban just for an oil pipeline – why sure! Clinton ran drugs through Mena airport – makes perfect sense! If you start out with the assumption that the Democrats or Republicans truly are the party with people’s best interests at heart (and needless to say the other party is out to “get” the people), it makes perfect sense to view the identical actions of the parties in completely different ways.
I know I’ve given a lot of thought to my positions. Obviously, I’m right. And if you disagree, why you can’t simply be mistaken. No, because you couldn’t honestly come to a different conclusion than me, you have to have ulterior motives. OK, honestly this is something I struggle with — along with plenty of others. But too many have seemingly thrown in the towel on this and adopt this outlook wholeheartedly. And then their opponents aren’t mistaken, but liars. And then it’s OK to hate your opponents, because they are liars and deserve it.
