Faith vs. Reason
Mar. 19th, 2008 01:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribTwo days ago, I bitched about how this "economic stimulus" package was a crock, and getting serious about alternative energy would be a better use of money.
One Mr. JLawson of www.rustedsky.net posted a reply, the gist of which was that "the Democrats had blocked action" on this and would continue to do so. My immediate reply was that I was confused - didn't the Republicans control the Congress and the White House for six years? During that time, what exactly did they do with regards to alternative energy? Also, didn't they control Congress for six years of Clinton's administration? In other words, at what point in time do problems become the fault of the party actually in power?
Then I recalled that I'd discussed this phenomenon before, in my analysis of logical thinking. Mr. Lawson, to use the analogy of the post, loves peas. Therefore, any solution that suggests a diet of peas might be detrimental to health must be wrong. It's a article of faith, not a matter of reason.
One Mr. JLawson of www.rustedsky.net posted a reply, the gist of which was that "the Democrats had blocked action" on this and would continue to do so. My immediate reply was that I was confused - didn't the Republicans control the Congress and the White House for six years? During that time, what exactly did they do with regards to alternative energy? Also, didn't they control Congress for six years of Clinton's administration? In other words, at what point in time do problems become the fault of the party actually in power?
Then I recalled that I'd discussed this phenomenon before, in my analysis of logical thinking. Mr. Lawson, to use the analogy of the post, loves peas. Therefore, any solution that suggests a diet of peas might be detrimental to health must be wrong. It's a article of faith, not a matter of reason.
Well, I don't remember the peas part...
Date: 2008-03-20 04:01 am (UTC)Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to see them get serious about alternative energy. But observe what's actually going on.... Did Ted Kennedy encourage the wind farms off Cape Cod, or has he been doing his utmost to block them building where he might see them while sailing?
Drilling in ANWR - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21cnd-congress.html?pagewanted=1 - "Senate Blocks Arctic Drilling" - It failed by 4 votes. But it was attached to a military spending bill - guess the Democrats got a two-fer on that one. (I really dislike that sort of tactic, by the way. I'd rather see bills stand or fall on their own rather than lumping a bunch of them into one.)
Shall we talk about Social Security? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100872.html has this little bit.
--There's a long tradition of demagoguery on entitlement reform, but refusing even to discuss the challenge plumbs new depths of cynicism. A decade ago, Democratic centrists such as Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska argued that runaway entitlement spending would rob the rest of the budget, draining money from social programs that liberals are supposed to care about. Today, a pragmatic Republican such as Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah can propose a progressive fix to Social Security that does not involve personal accounts. But Democrats won't come forward to support him.
In rejecting Social Security discussions last week, the Democrats painted the conservatives' petition as a Trojan horse designed to get personal accounts back onto the table. Even if that were true, since when was all mention of personal accounts taboo for Democrats? A decade ago, a majority of the appointees to Bill Clinton's Social Security commission came out in favor of personal accounts. Even the dissenting minority was open to the idea of investing Social Security funds in the stock market. --
When you have a bare majority of members (on either side) - you need cooperation to get anything passed that needs a 2/3rds majority. That cooperation's been lacking, and there's sufficient animosity built up that we're not going to have Congressional cooperation for a long time to come, barring some major sea change in how they get along.
At what point do the problems become the fault of the party in charge? They always are, sir, if you change 'fault' to 'responsibility'. However, if the party that isn't in the majority actively blocks the attempts of the party in charge to fix things the party that isn't in charge has been screaming about, they share in the responsibility. Indeed, they may eventually become completely responsible when their time comes. (At which point they'll ignore them - but that's for another time.)
Perhaps a better analogy is a sports team. Take a 5-man pickup basketball team. Two of the men can't stand one of the others and will trip him up whenever possible, 'accidentally' bump him, won't pass to him, block his shots. You got two guys playing that are trying to play basketball - but the two who are after the one screw things up for them all. How far do you think that team will get?
It's not an article of faith - it's a conclusion drawn from a lot of observation. I gave up believing in politicians back around the time Clinton got elected in '92. Now the best I'm hoping for is benign neglect from them.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll gladly return it!
JLawson
www.rustedsky.net