Oct 25, 2010 at 11:16 AM
President Obama recently said the following:
Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country’s scared.
In light of these comments (more detailed report on them here), here is a poll:
Posted in:
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
Follow-up question: Do YALers think that non-libertarians are [1) ignorant, 2) irrational, 3) tyrannically inclined, or 4) some combination of 1-3] for opposing their political ideology?
I wouldn't go as far to generalize that someone who opposes libertarian principles -- a spectrum itself, not clearly defined -- are they themselves irrational, because that, in and of itself, would indeed be an irrational assertion…the point, I believe, Mr. Fowler was trying to make.
I'm not sure how one rationally establishes a claim (or the hint thereof) via a poll, but I don't think that's exactly what Obama was saying. I'd bet Obama thinks many people who oppose his policies do so on irrational grounds, and some do so on reasoned principle. At least that's what he has said when dealing with Republicans in the past.
IMO on a regular day almost all political discourse quickly swerves into the irrational lane and is largely settled by votes cast with only superficial consideration. Why else would millions of dollars be spent on idiotically irrational attack ads? And these aren't regular days. Currently the voices on the right are loudest, and the popular ones (Beck, Hannity, Palin, etc.) are tragilariously irrational.
"IMO on a regular day almost all political discourse quickly swerves into the irrational lane and is largely settled by votes cast with only superficial consideration. Why else would millions of dollars be spent on idiotically irrational attack ads? And these aren't regular days. Currently the voices on the right are loudest, and the popular ones (Beck, Hannity, Palin, etc.) are tragilariously irrational."
Not sure I can argue with that. =)
I prefer not to mince one's words, or to speculate what desired meaning those words may have; Obama's deleterious policies give any liberty minded individual enough to argue about, so I prefer to place my contempt with what really matters.
If I didn't give you something to argue with, I didn't go far enough, did I? ;)
Even studied, influential libertarians are a bit guilty of this irrationality. Glenn Beck gives mysterious credit to Charles Koch (Koch Industries which funds think tanks [Cato Institute], Tea Party stuff [Americans for Prosperity Foundation - http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/secret-special-interests >:D], and undoubtedly a number of darkly-narrated attack ads).
'Beck appears to be a fan of the Kochs; in the midst of a recent on-air parody of Al Gore, Beck said, without explanation, “I want to thank Charles Koch for this information.”'
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?curren...
"If I didn't give you something to argue with, I didn't go far enough, did I? ;)"
Or perhaps we're in agreence...
"Even studied, influential libertarians are a bit guilty of this irrationality. Glenn Beck gives mysterious credit to Charles Koch (Koch Industries which funds think tanks [Cato Institute], Tea Party stuff [Americans for Prosperity Foundation - http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/secret-special-interests >:D], and undoubtedly a number of darkly-narrated attack ads)."
No one person is completely immune from some level of irrationality -- we are in fact, human, after all; but, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at here...=/
There are lots of points one could make. The obvious one related to this post is that not only is much of the opposition to Obama irrational in nature and fueled by irrational media, but key libertarians are quite comfortable playing a cynical role in all that irrationality as it serves their interests.
And then a libertarian blogger on a blog devoted to often suspiciously reasoned propaganda suggests that this rightwing anger is better characterized as a rational response to Obama's policies, to be supported by a group think opinion poll no less. The ironies are nearly endless.
"The obvious one related to this post is that not only is much of the opposition to Obama irrational in nature and fueled by irrational media..."
Indeed, much of the opposition towards Obama is based on irrationalities and personal biases, which is typical of any politician or political ideology (see Wesley Messamore's article on Freiburger's opposition to Ron Paul); though, much of the opposition is also based on sound, rational judgment of his deleterious -- Bush era like -- policies.
"...but key libertarians are quite comfortable playing a cynical role in all that irrationality as it serves their interests."
When we say "key libertarians" are we talking about Beck, Palin, and those of their ilk, or are we talking about the Ron Pauls out there? Because the distinction between the two, and their arguments, is quite clear. =)
"And then a libertarian blogger...suggests that this rightwing anger is better characterized as a rational response to Obama's policies..."
I believe Mr. Fowler's argument took issue with Obama's supposed assertion that when one opposes his policies, such opposition MUST be based on irrationalities, or personal prejudices -- an obvious overgeneralization (on Obama's part). I don't think he was trying to rationalize all of the rudimentary, and rather subjective, arguments brought against Obama and his policies, though I could be wrong.
"...to be supported by a group think opinion poll no less."
We can only speculate what Obama meant here:
...which would appear to only be half true, because we know that some of the charges brought against his policies are sound, logical assessments, while others are just angry, rightwing rhetoric. As an aside, it's the internet, so I wouldn't take too much away from an obvious ad hoc "group think poll."
The issue I have, is not necessarily how Obama defines the arguments brought against his policies, but instead, how he has chosen to defend them. I believe this, more than anything, is the crux behind Mr. Fowler's point. Obama, apparently, has chosen to defend his policies -- in public anyway -- by claiming that those who are in opposition are merely basing their claims on some level of irrational thought. Sort of sounds like the "I'm right, and you're wrong" argument to me, completely avoiding the context behind arguments made by those like Ron Paul, and (cowardly) preferring to play the rhetoric game with those like Beck and Palin. =/
There are two ways to go about it. You can take a compass and draw a perfect circle and make two perfect eyes as neat as can be. Or you can do it freehand and have some fun with it. Like I did. Give it character.
Iraq Dinar