There are only two options

[bryant69]

This is a favorite technique of ideologues.

There are only two options. We can invade Iraq, or we can do nothing and let Iraq blow us up.

And then when anybody questions whether or not we should invade Iraq, you simply assert that that mens they favor doing nothing and letting Iraq blow us up.

There are only two options. We can embark on President Bush's plan to Phase out Social Security, or we can let Social Security go bankrupt.

"So you Democrats favor ignoring the problem and letting Social Security go under?"

This technique can be used by the Left as well as the Right.

There are only two options. We can declare war on the wealthy in America or we can let them have whatever they want.

I don't think the technique is any more admirable when practiced by Liberals.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SheilaT]

1. I've heard that kind of

"There are only two options" thing described as being on the horns of a false dilemma.

There are almost always more than two choices.

I hate most surveys because they don't offer the choice I really want, whatever the question.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. The False Choice Administration

That's how I heard Bush etal described not too long ago. Seemed accurate then; still does.

[Aiptasia]

4. It makes politicians seem decisive

Which is dangerous, because not every issue has two sides. It's a cheap political spin tactic to say if you're not "for" it, you're "against" it.

[leftofthedial]

3. so you are infavor of doing nothing and allowing the repukes

to run roughshod over us and our country?













;-)

[stepnw1f]

5. That is Of Course Your Own False Dichotomy

not mine. Interesting how you chose to reframe the debate.

Pssst... the class war has been waged against the Middleclass and poor since Reagan. So when you say waging a war, you are mischaracterizing the issue altogether. That's almost as bad as me accusing you of being an "apologist for the greedy". Bye for now... I have to go back to work to pay for my mother's meds so she can live a few more years. Enjoy the cocktails...

[bryant69]

6. Cocktails?

I don't drink, but I take your meaning. I think you are making a false assumption about how wealthy I am.

But whatever - if this is the price I have to pay for failing to share your worldview, so be it.

[neoblues]

7. War on the Wealthy? Good idea...

"We can declare war on the wealthy in America or we can let them have whatever they want."

Alas, I've not heard a Democratic leader propose any such dichotomy regarding war on the wealthy (and while it's quite possible, no other examples of Democratic dichotomic arguments come to mind**). Indeed, they're desperately afraid of any mention of "class warfare" and avoid the problem of the massive and growing "wealth gap" like the plague. Some discerning "average" citizens of liberal or progressive minds may well have spoken out on forums or the like by shortening the argument to something similar to your quote... but you've presented it as though it were in real measure equivalent to the same practice utilized by Republicans/conservatives. That seems rather disengenuous given the ubiquity of even more egregious examples owing to the other side as well as the difference in who makes such statements. It's the difference of me saying here that "we have two choices, make war on the wealthy or suffer the destruction of the middle class" versus George W. Bush proclaiming via every form and outlet of public media "we have no choice, it's either make war in IRAQ or suffer war in the streets of America". Not sure, but methinks the comparison might just slighly favor Bush in terms of how many people hear and how much action is implemented. There's no comparision in reality.

War on the wealthy? Not a bad nor inappropriate suggestion. In truth, though, it might be desirable to choose a third course involving a slightly milder choice than "war", nevertheless, the vast majority of people really do need to recognize and respond to the popularly discounted (and cognitively dissonant) reality that a "Class War" actually exists! In fact, it does--even though thus far it's both a mostly unrecognized and decidedly one-sided "War" that's being waged against 'the people'. There can be no doubt that some element of the wealthiest residents of this country (and perhaps worldwide) has indeed taken it upon themselves to demand an even greater share of the available resources leaving practically none (relatively) for the rest of us. Even more maliciously, they consider us (opinion based on their specific actions) to be a desirable part of those resources, a commodity, but as nothing more minimum wage slave production capacity--not even as human and not even worth wasting valuable (therefore an unacceptable cost to production) medical care on.

It's a real war--and an actualy dichotomy exists in some form (either resist or suffer), so it's not wrong to attempt to convince people of this truth.

Now, as to agreeing with you. Sure, it's preferrable to avoid such misleading approaches to framing discussions. Alas, it's just a flaw in human nature to perceive things in black and white and this particular flaw is far more common to those of conservative worldviews. So, while you might have been attempting to present a dichotomous "fair and balanced" argument by admitting such non-preferred techniques being practiced by Democrats as well as Republicans, it's almost an example of making two vastly unequal items appear more nearly equal by mentioning both (though, to be fair, you did give two exemplars of republican falsehoods versus one (reaching) Democratic example--so creating a two to one relationship rather than equality). The real point, though, is that this presentation fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Republicans are all but infinitely more guilty than Democrats of deliberate, intentional (don'cha just love redundancy) and abusive efforts to manipulate people's thinking by means of sophisticated/clever framing and rhetorical trickery. Furthermore, it's not abusive or wrong to respond by equally intentional efforts to reframe issues to reflect and restore the best Truth. One could even argue it's more acceptable/less abusive to use whatever rhetoric is effective when the goal is to convince people of the Truth or the right and best answers (especially when it's used to rebut falsehoods, lies and misleading information intended to promote nefarious, greedy agendas which are generally harmful to the best interests to the majority of the people or the rest of the world)(this last sub-example would be... the end justifies'makes more acceptable' the means--and we're not talking criminal misbehavior here, after all anyway (well, almost--when abused in such volume and for such wrong purposes as done by Republicans)).

**Though, to be fair, given our present oppressive circumstances it would be emminently forgivable if a Democrat did fall back on such rhetorical devices.

[Jed Dilligan]

8. What about fascism?

When they start rounding folks up should we meet them in the middle?

[bryant69]

9. There are only two options

Fascism or revolution.

Given that choice I would pick revolution, I suppose.

On the other hand, if I conclude that that is a false dichotomy, I might pick something else entirely. Like Key Lime Pie.

But if you only see two options, than Key Lime Pie looks a lot like fascism. I guess it depends on who's worldview I'm going to live by.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. So you would have eaten key lime pie

while the SS picked up all the Jews on your block?

[bryant69]

11. No of course not

They hadn't invented key lime pie back then - I probably would have gone with apple strudel.

So when your revolution takes hold (assuming you get everything you want), how exactly are you going to persuade people to give up their posessions?

[Jed Dilligan]

12. Revolution will happen when they have no possessions to give up

There's 2 million homeless on the streets of the US every night, and when that goes up by a factor of ten the revolution will be here. Where it goes will all depend on the leadership. If it goes fascist, we will have "moderates" to blame, just as they are to blame in the case of the Third Reich. The "moderates" will be those with a little bit left, sucked into fascism by their desire to preserve it.

These Weimar Republicans will have their chance to stand up and stop it, just by changing their bourgeois minds, but they will probably fail to do so because they are too busy eating their strudel.

[bryant69]

13. You didn't really answer my question

But I suppose that's not really the point, is it?

Like I said in the other discussion, we are enemies - any opportunity you can take to demonize me, I suggest you take it. Certainly there's little worse you can call me than a nazi collaborator, but you should try. People who share in your manichean world view will praise you for it. And here in reality, it will really cause me very little harm. So knock yourself out.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. You make this so personal

I just asked a really simple question: if the country goes fascist, do you see your vaunted Third Way out of it?

You answered, somewhat flippantly, but unequivocally, yes. That because of your aversion to revolutionary action, you would have done nothing to stop the round-ups of Jews under Hitler. I took that at face value, so here's your chance to distance yourself from the comment.

I doubt that many people would argue with my analysis of how middle-of-the-road Germans looking the other way allowed the holocaust to happen.

[bryant69]

15. It is personal

You put a hoop in front of me and I choose not to jump through it.

But, just for fun, let me give the the correct moderate answer.

"Of course I wouldn't have. But conditions today are not the same as they were then. That is the source of our disagreement, Mr. Dilligan. You claim that the world is in one state and I claim it is in different state. Would you try to put out your neighbors house if it were on fire? Yes. Does that mean you are running into your backyard right now with your hose? No. Because, presumably, your neighbor's house is not on fire. It's the same here. If we were in a fascist state where the only response was revolution, I would like to think I would be on the right side. But sinde I don't believe we are in a fascist state where the only response is revolution, I am not going to run out and get my hose, so to speak."

[Jed Dilligan]

16. Well, all I can say to that is keep dreaming. nt

[bryant69]

17. And you keep enjoying your paranoid delusion. nt.

[Jed Dilligan]

18. Ad hominem number what is it?

I've lost track. Sloppy sloppy.

[bryant69]

19. I just repeated what you said and changed it slightly

Did we both do adhominem attacks? or was just mine an ad hominem attack?

Clue me in - you are better at that kind of stuff.

[Jed Dilligan]

20. The "paranoid delusional" part

Pretty serious allegation if you know anything about psychiatry.

[bryant69]

22. Ok I apologize for that

Let's just say that in my opinion you are living in a dream world, and in your opinion I am living in a dream world.

Is that balanced?

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Sure

But I would like to know what's so different between this and (let's say) 1937 in Germany.

[bryant69]

26. Do you think it would do any good to debate that?

There are a few similarities of course - particularly in the realm of torture and detainment.

But we have a Republican Party that is largely imploding and an America that has turned against President Bush and his plans. Several key Republican proposals went down in flames, notably the plan to phase out Social Security (although that was a year ago now).

Anyway - as I type and think of stuff I already hear the responses.

Democrats have a good chance of taking the house in the fall and a good chance of getting the presidency in 2008. Have you ever heard of Diebold? And even if they get into power, how do we know these pansy Democrats are going to change anything.

The Media is taking Bush and Republicans to task the way they wouldn't two years ago - what planet are you living on - the Media is Bush's lap dogs and always will be.

The American people are clearly fed up with Bush and his incompetence - That only makes him more dangerous - a rat is at it's most dangerous when he's cornered. He can't run again, what has he got to lose by declaring martial law!

Maybe you are right and I am a moral coward - wanting to see hope where none exists, because I have enough money to go to the movies twice a month.

Maybe there really are only two choices.

[Jed Dilligan]

28. I suppose not

But it sounds like you probably will do the right thing when the time comes. I hope for general humanitarian reasons that you are right, but I really don't think anyone can fix us at this point. The decline began under Nixon, Bush is just here now. He'll go and the damage will still be done and not undoable. It will reach a point where we have to choose between militancies, either for or against the flag, government, system. I was born against these things but I understand many will come to my side when the situation grows more visible.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Much as I like the Communist Party, they are also

to blame in the case of the Third Reich. Indeed, the German Communist Party was convinced that the Nazis were a transitory phenomenon anticipating the general proletarian revolution. As a result, the German Communist Party saw as their main foe the German Democratic Socialist Party. The two parties individually were each smashed by Hitler.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. I'm not arguing for old-school communism

I'm arguing that radical structural change is happening no matter what, and if the left doesn't take charge of it the right inevitably will.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Hmm, I'll have to give that some thought. I only wanted to

point out that it wasn't only moderates in Germany who bore responsibility for that third-rate clown Hitler coming to power.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Since we've lost the "War on Terror," how about a "War on Greed"? n/t

[porphyrian]

29. If everyone would just accept the fact that I'm always right...

...and do what I tell them unquestioningly, then all of the problems would be solved.