From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 23:32:57 MDT
Jeff and Lee are debating exactly how
*wrong* one side or the other will
turn out to be in the 18th-21st ideo-
logical struggle between left and right.
Basically, Lee says that neither
side is factually incorrect about
anything; that the base of the
disagreement is quite deep on
all issues.
Jeff agrees that on *some* issues
this is the case, such as, for
example, the degree to which economic
inequality is unacceptable. On other
issues, however, Jeff insists that
the issue of values doesn't *not*
play a significant role, and the
right are derelict in their
responsibility to face the facts.
One such issue is "global executive
homicide".
Such, anyway, is Lee's (my) summary
of the debate so far, and Jeff is
invited to edit and correct the
above remarks.
> Only politeness and timidity keeps
> us from taking the crucial step
> past correctness and incorrectness,
> to the issue of right and wrong.
I am not offended, and hope that some
good comes of it.
> A person who is misinformed can
> discuss an issue, be wrong, yet
> not be guilty of bad faith. [It]
> happens all the time, so abundant
> is misinformation. But after a
> while it becomes difficult not to
> conclude that there is more going
> on in these disputes over facts than
> naivete and lack of sophistication.
Naturally, I totally agree, but for
a different reason than you! ;-)
> Because the vast majority of those
> involved are well beyond innocence,
> ignorance, and lack of sophistication.
I say it's "values" and you say:
> That something more is self-interest.
> Thus is born the self-justifying
> mythology--Divine right of kings;
> social Darwinism, etc)-- of
> "conservatism": "I've stolen as much
> as I can, now it's time destroy the
> truth/evidence about how I got it,
> so I can hold onto it (as long as
> possible)."
Well, Jeff, that's a credible accusation
against those who are said to hold power
in Western society: corporation exe-
cutives, politicians, heads of government
bureaus, and so on. But it seriously
fails to address the millions and millions
of people---perhaps 5-30 percent of the
population, who adopt conservative views
despite the personal payoff. I once myself
voted *against* a proposal that would have
benefited me as a college student, because
of principle. The measure passed anyway,
IIRC, and I accepted the government assistance.
> > Do you have any good examples where
> > history has indubitably concluded
> > that one side was *right* and the
> > other *wrong* in any intensely
> > ideological debate?
>
> Sure: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.
Your examples are good, and I stand
corrected.
> Why so clearly wrong? Because they were
> both the enemy and the losers. But the
> clarity of these crimes combined with
> the exclusively 'enemy' nature of the
> perpetrators is suggestive.
This is incredible. Now you, Jeff,
appear to be taking my position, and
I yours! I claim that within our
debating community (say the Anglo-
sphere) only misinformation-information prevented
liberals from sooner recognizing Stalin
as wrong. Had they been convinced
early on of his decimation of the
Russian people, and the complete
phoniness of the show trials of 1936,
they would never have defended him.
Likewise, some American conservatives
defended Hitler because he was an
ardent anti-communist, but quickly
changed their minds in 1940 and 1941.
Later, when the extent of Hitler's
crimes became more widely known,
I'm sure there was embarrassment.
> Suggestive that there are crimes
> of equal clarity committed by 'our'
> side and 'our' allies. Vietnam,
> Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Taiwan*, all
> of Central America.
;-) it's a little confusing when you
say 'our'. One might think that you
mean "the left"!
We have debated (a little) who was
right about Vietnam. Naturally my
side submits comparisons such as
My Lai: 300 people killed
Khe Sahn: 6000 people killed
and determines that America and its
allies are less blameworthy than
their opponents in general. Listen,
I'm sure that this is immensely
frustrating, but do you seriously
question that conservatives actually
believe this? Or do you think that
they have succumbed merely to "my
country right or wrong" or to the
profit motive? What about Australian
right-wingers, or what about Polish
conservative thinkers who ideologically
line up with the West? What are their
motives?
> The Russkies shoot down Flt 007
> and it's "Monsters!" The US shoots
> down the Iranian airbus, and it's
> "Whoops! Sorry. Accident."
I totally agree with you here: the
Russians, it turns out, made a nasty
mistake, and so did the Americans.
Now, as to whether the Russian *mistake*
was in part due to a coldness of a pilot
and his commanding officer, I can only
surmise. And as for the American error,
I have no information at all. Not that
it matters, because I'm agreeing with
you here.
> Osama kills three thousand Americans
> and it's barbaric savagery.
Well, to some. But phrases used in
the newspapers should not be attributed
to your ideological adversaries like me.
> The US inflicts a thousand 911's on
> SE Asia, and it's "a noble cause".
> Only a child or a corrupted intellect
> could accept this dichotomy.
Since I'm not a child, ;-) you imply
that my intellect is corrupted. I, on
the other hand, suggest that we have
each merely keep ingesting facts in
accordance with our prior views for
such a long time that our positions
seem eminently reasonable to each of
us.
Of course, conservatives claim that
Communist totalitarianism did the
job in Cambodia, and that what happened
to the South Vietnamese was so bad that
actions taken to prevent it were in
principle justified. Yes, I know you
disagree; but that's merely because
you've ingested and incorporated certain
facts and have judged certain other facts
to be of less salience, just as I have.
That's all, isn't it? Or do you seriously
believe that my intellect is damaged (and
it's *perfectly* all right to be honest
here, as I will not be offended).
> > You mean because they refuse to see the light as
> > propounded by your own personal political god?
>
> Let me boldly speak the name of he who you--out of
> politeness, or else as a wry reference to a prior
> characterization of mine--have left unnamed: Chomsky.
> Regarding 'the light' however, I must object. When
> indisputable documentation of historical fact is
> presented, then 'the light' goes on in one's head if
> and only if one opens one's eyes. The refusal is the
> blindness--and the discredit--of he who WILL NOT see.
You also have to account for the strange
fact that the followers of Chomsky
constitute an amazingly small percent.
They are probably outnumbered even by
those who agree with Buchanan on almost
everything.
How does it happen that the writings
of Chomsky appeal to *you* so *very*
much, but only perhaps, say, to one
in ten people on this list?
Now, Jeff, to answer my own question
concerning libertarianism, I will
say this: the reasons that only 5%
of the people display much in the
way of libertarian sympathies are
basically that (1) free-market
economics are not widely understood
by people at large, and (2) the
libertarians share the value of
self-reliance to an unusual
extent in the general population.
>> Jeff, do you suddenly think
>> that it's going to be REVEALED
>> whether the conservatives or
>> the progressives were *right*,
>> and all on the losing side who
>> are honest will suddenly confess
>> their errors?
>
> [Jeff] Regarding world homicide
> and the theft which motivates it,
> the truth is already revealed.
> The 'losing' side (as regards the
> facts, 'winning' side as regards
> the power struggle) the
> conservatives, never confess.
We are at loggerheads here, then,
because your explanations reduce
to iterations of the wrong-doing
of the other side. (Not that that
is necessarily objectionable by
you.)
> [Jeff] There were documents and
> corpses I wasn't told about at
> the time [before I became a
> progressive]. These informational
> disadvantages, augmented by
> appropriately configured lies
> (appropriate to the interests
> of the ruling class) substituted
> for facts, misled me.
;-) We shall have to discuss the
existence of the "ruling class".
I don't happen to believe there
is such a thing. I actually would
enjoy you starting a separate
thread about it.
> I would like to think that EVERYONE
> desires to find the truth, but that
> but that we all face obstacles.
Yes; though we must not forget those
on this list who are so inured to
the "absurdities" of the other side,
so despairing of reconciliation, that
they merely exchange cheap shots with
each other. I could name names... ;-)
but your name and mine would not be
among them.
>> I think that you are dodging the question.
>
> [J] You're right. At that moment I
> didn't want to say, "Conservatives
> bad, progressives ("liberals"...).
> But I chickened out.
That's okay! But we must get to the
truth of our views here. I won't
hold it against you ONE BIT if you
think that all conservatives, including
me, are brain damaged. You are entitled
to your opinion! ;-)
> > So, yes, one side is far more
> > resistant to the truth? You
> > do mean one of (left, right)
> > I take it?
>
> [Jeff] Yes. I mean the right.
> But, when I think of how many
> leftists seem totally flaky to
> me, I have to admit--and readily,
> too--that the left/right diff-
> erence is miniscule.
I would like very much to hear
more. Now I think that Patrick
J. Buchanan is out of his skull
on most issues, but I don't think
him flaky. Hmm. Examples?
> *Little known bit of historical
> trivia. When Chaing Kai Shek
> retreated to Taiwan, the island
> had a separate culture and
> political class (not communists,
> either). Chaing wiped out 20,000
> of them in the process of assuming
> power there. Didn't read about
> that in your history books, did ya?
Nope, you got me there. In our bi-
polar world of the 1960's that
wouldn't have made it into the
American history books---he was
an ally. However, I'm not at all
surprised to hear it, given what
I know about Chaing's ruthlessness.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:25 MST