Kill your beloved historical analogies, and kill your radicalizing of the debate

[jpgray]

They both suck, and neither aids discussion. They are both disingenuous rhetorical tricks used to inflate an argument and squash criticism of that argument.

Got a pleasing historical analogy? Ibn Khaldun on the subject:

Men are naturally inclined to judge by comparison and by analogy; yet these are methods which easily lead to error. Should they by any chance be accompanied by inattention and hastiness, they can lead the searcher astray, far from the object of his inquiry. Thus many men, reading or hearing the chronicles of the past, and forgetting the great changes, nay revolutions, in conditions and institutions that have taken place since those times, draw analogies between the events of the past and those that take place around them, judging the past by what they know of the present. Yet the differences between the two periods may be great, thus leading to gross error.

One ready example of this is people who hold up Nixon's impeachment hearing as an example Bush's can be done as easily. This ignores the Saturday night massacre, the en-masse resigning and convictions of Nixon's administration, the fact that months of Congressional investigation preceding any impeachment hearing had his whole administration tottering to the point that his own party would have supported impeachment. We clearly aren't in a similar situation politically. So while the argument that we should impeach may be good, using the analogy to clumsily beat someone over the head with incorrect history is a bad and insulting move.

Want to radicalize someone's argument? The good ol' reductio ad absurdum? This too often has the effect of refusing to recognize the -middle- in a debate. The form this takes on DU is "So you think (bald misinterpretation or caricaturization)?" For example, let's use the debate over Democrats failing to effectively oppose GOP policies.

Person 1: "I think the criticism of Democrats is way too harsh here"
Person 2: "So you are behind Democrats no matter what they do? Fuck your loyalty oaths."

on the flipside:

Person 1: "Pelosi and Rahm are caving in to the GOP too often."
Person 2: "So you would undermine our party in '08 and help elect the GOP?"

Person 1 in both cases is saying nothing like what he or she is accused of saying by Person 2. Person 2 refuses to recognize a middle ground, and any argument that doesn't agree with Person 2's extreme position is thrown all the way in with the -other- extreme position. In the first example either you support any and all criticism of Democrats, or you're a Dembot who doesn't think critically at all. In the second, either you avoid any serious criticism of the Democrats, or you're a GOP-enabling troll who hates Democrats.

It's nonsense. One can dislike harsh criticism of the Democrats while still believing they deserve criticism. One can also criticize Democrats harshly without enabling the GOP. The exclusive thinking here, the desire to make everyone either the noblest hero or the most depraved villain is silly--most people are in the grey area. These things are rarely black and white.

[Richardo]

1. Me gusta mucho recommending your posts.

:patriot:

[jpgray]

37. Me gustan las palabras

:patriot:

[rug]

2. This reminds me of an oration by Demosthenes.

[jpgray]

10. That's a very nice thing to say!

But with apologies to Longinus I find I flood the audience with words more than I enthrall them. :dunce:

[lateo]

28. Demosthene...Demosthenes

That is French isn't it?

[MonkeyFunk]

3. You consistently post

reasonable, smart threads.

They probably sink like a rock.

[jpgray]

14. The threads I post that break my own rules do way better

The rest of the time I post brilliant things like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2016333&mesg_id=2016528

[Blue-Jay]

4. That's going to whiz over quite a few heads.

Nice job, Hitler.

[jpgray]

42. Beats whizzing directly on their heads

:P

[many a good man]

5. Person 2 is a butthead

Why are there so many Person 2s here lately?

[jpgray]

12. I think under the right (or wrong) circumstances, any of us can be Person 2

I think very few if any are incapable of behaving in a more understanding, reasonable way. But if you feel strongly about the argument and want to win, it's hard not to reach for the blunt rhetorical instruments available.

[cali]

6. Remarkable post.

One of the best i've seen here. Thank you. k&r.

[Vektor]

7. Thank you for this reasonable post. I agree - it's like when the righties say...

..."if you're not with us, you're a terrorist."

Or, "If you don't support President Bush and the war in Iraq, you're a terrorist enabler/sympathizer/commie etc."

It's a false comparison, and I get so tired of hearing such nonsense.

[jpgray]

22. Black and white thinking has a lot of marketing power, but we're here to discuss things, ostensibly

Not to just win a high school debate. And being dishonest in your arguments just kills off discussion completely.

[cali]

8. kick

I nominate this post for one of the best ever posted at DU.

[jgraz]

9. Actually the conversation usually is more like this

Person 2a: "Quit undermining our party in '08 and helping to elect the GOP!!"
Person 2b: "So you are behind Democrats no matter what they do? Fuck your loyalty oaths."


Who is this mythical "Person 1" you refer to? They seem far too reasonable for DU. ;)

[jpgray]

11. I think inside each of us is a person 2. Sometimes not very far inside!

But I don't think anyone here is irrevocably that way--usually if you don't take the bait and still respect who you're talking to, you'll find their views go deeper than a knee-jerk pissed off combative response. But you'll get more replies in your thread if you -do- take the bait and unleash your own person 2. :D

[bettyellen]

13. "We clearly aren't in a similar situation politically. " because our leaders don't want it

- it's not because there's been a lack of opportunity.
They are not bothering because they don't have to in order to win. Same as ending the war, only slighly less morally fucking bankrupt.
Just slightly.

[jpgray]

16. That's one of the reasons we're not in a similar situation. It's not the only or crucial reason

People are saying "impeach now!" instead of "investigate all-out now!" and Nixon was dethroned solely through regular ol' vanilla investigations. It's totally understandable that people see those fail and ask for the next step in hopes that -something- will catch the public eye and work out (and it might! I can't claim to know), but saying "impaech now, it worked with Nixon" is not a very useful argument.

I mean, with Nixon we had the same claim to executive privilege we're seeing now, except it was brought before SCOTUS and struck down. That's where the "smoking gun" came from. Now, Nixon was ready to fall long before that SCOTUS decision, but we don't have the same size majority, we don't have the same unity in our majority, and we don't have a years-long police investigation to inform the Congressional investigation. The argument that Congress needs to get tough on this is a great one, but saying it should be easy because of Nixon's fall ignores too many huge differences between the two situations.

[bettyellen]

23. it's disheartening the chances that have been blown since Downing Street...

it's sad the Dems are being reduced to being seen as the lesser of two evils or people you hold your nose to vote for.
But this is where we are. I believe they may actually blow it next November if this continues.

[jpgray]

24. Very true. I don't know anyone on DU who would argue Democrats did everything possible

They plainly haven't.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. All I can do is K&R, but what you deserve is a blow job. -nt

[jpgray]

17. Buy me a drink when I visit Brazil

Or respond to my pleas for help the next time I fuck up installing GNU. :D

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Very well put sir!

[ozone_man]

19. It depends.

"It's nonsense. One can dislike harsh criticism of the Democrats while still believing they deserve criticism. One can also criticize Democrats harshly without enabling the GOP. The exclusive thinking here, the desire to make everyone either the noblest hero or the most depraved villain is silly--most people are in the grey area. These things are rarely black and white."

It depends on what the intent of a particular thread is. Is it totally sincere or is there another agenda? In example 1, a thread titled: "I think the criticism of Democrats is way too harsh here"

It may be totally sincere or it may be saying "stop criticizing the Democrats, because I'm a moderate or conservative Democrat and don't want to change the way they are." So, we have to dissect the underlying meaning or intent often. But, you chose a good example as many threads have that as a title. Person 2 is either a) overreacting, or b) accurately seeing through to person 1's implied meaning, and calling him/her on it.

In example 2, Person 1 seems to be sincere in his criticism, so it is clearly an overreaction of the part of person 2.

It really has to be a case by case basis, whether people are talking past each other or are accurately interpreting the implied meaning of a post.

[cali]

20. Sadly, you seem to have missed the point the OP was making. n/t

[ozone_man]

35. Maybe not.

I agree with the way jpgray says it below. I think the important thing is to maintain reasoned arguments and not to overreact.

When someone says that "we're being too harsh on Democrats", it requires a bit of processing to tell what is really meant by that. Are they trying to squelch debate and criticism of the Democrats, or do they sincerely think they are being criticized unfairly? It has to be considered on a case by case basis. My own opinion is that most of these type of threads are aimed at squelching debate, as in "it's time to fall in line and pull for the Democratic ticket." That's just what it feels like to me and plenty of others. Part of what is great about DU is that criticism of the Democratic party is tolerated, and that criticism is healthy. :)

[jpgray]

21. Absolutely! The point is to not automatically assume intent solely from an innocuous statement

That intent might be there, but assuming it without evidence really breaks down discussion and kills off the middle ground. And the middle ground is where most people are, even the ones who go over the top with their language (on either side). When you get attacked in a radical way, it's easy to get frustrated and respond in kind, even if you don't really believe in the accuracy of the insulting caricature of the other person you create to retaliate. It's just too tempting to reach for that and try to win the debate and/or insult/shut up the other person. In my view that's why we get fifty huge threads of people throwing the same four or five talking points at each other--it's no longer really a discussion, and nobody is really listening to what others are saying. They just assume a motivation and attack that. Sometimes they're right, but too often they're wrong.

[renie408]

25. I think I love you. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. As someone who frequently disagrees with you..K&R

From my viewpoint we have managed to have spirited debates with each other, without giving ground, or indulging in egregious insults, and end up (at least on my part, and I suspect yours) that we have had in interesting discussion with someone who disagree with us.

[jpgray]

27. Thanks! For my part I really value our discussions, and you make your case well

Goes to show making the best case for an opinion doesn't include accusing everyone who disagrees of being stupid or wrong, nor is an obsession with "winning" the best motivation for debate. I really appreciate getting to understand the point of view of people who disagree with me, since inevitably we all have our own biases and blind spots, and others can point out things we can't or don't consider on our own. Sometimes I get too snarky or dismissive, but I think I'm a big enough cesspool of self-doubt that I can usually ask "Am I wrong here? Is the other person right?" and to me that makes a big difference.

[skipos]

29. So what is the proper response to the "Clinton is a Republican" hogwash?

I had a tough time dealing with the "Gore=Bush" lie back in 2000 as well.
Clinton is my last choice for 08 but yeesh, it is getting annoying around here.

[jpgray]

31. I would compare statements and votes of Clinton to those of GOP candidates

In almost every case you will find a significant difference, though it may be too small for the liking of many, on civil liberties and foreign policy, which are two major concerns next year. If they argue those differences are irrelevant, I would caution the person against getting so big picture that they forget what Chomsky says about the office's power magnifying small differences in opinion into vast differences in the effect of those opinions. In the Senate for example someone who pushes for a harsher prison than Gitmo and someone who reluctantly allows Gitmo to exist both vote "yes," but while both are bad one is clearly more dangerous than the other. If you refuse to admit -any- Clinton stance is too conservative or worryingly so, that person is probably not going to take you seriously. Because some of her stances -are- very conservative.

But above all try to engage the person beyond the talking point and see what that person really thinks. Nobody really believes mathematically Clinton=Republican, it's more likely they believe she is too much in line with Republican stances on the issues. Try to find out what they really believe and discuss that, rather than saying "So you thought Gore and Bush were the same in 2000?" That's likely to shut down debate and cause a flamefest pretty quickly. It's just as unlikely that the person believes Gore and Bush were the same as he or she believes Clinton is wholly Republican--you just have to get past those talking points as best you can to see what the person actually thinks.

note: I don't support Clinton at all, but though too conservative for me she is not a Republican.

[hfojvt]

44. it may depend on what you think a Democrat and a Republican should be

Ironic that the person you are responding to has an icon of the Kansas governor. Here in Kansas, I am kinda fuming that we do not have a Democratic party. The Democrats we have - Boyda, Moore, and Sebelius seem more like moderate Republicans to me. Boyda and Moore are both members of the Blue Dog coalition. My introduction to Moore came in 2002 when he ran for re-election. He ran ads boasting "he voted for the Bush tax cuts". Not knowing anything about him, I logically assumed he was the Republican.

Especially when Democrats become Me2 Democrats, there is not that much difference between them and a moderate Republican. They accept most of the Republican talking points. Republicans say "I will cut taxes". Me2ers say "Me too". Republicans say "I will fight the terrarists". Me2ers say "Me too". Republicans say "I will grow the economy".

Well, at least the voters have a choice. They can vote for live, or they can vote for Memorex, the echo, the recorded copy.

It's tougher for me, perhaps, because DLCers, while being conservative on economic issues, are still liberal on social issues. Whereas I am the opposite - more conservative on social issues and more liberal on economic ones.

[Batgirl]

30. this really pinpoints the origins of so many flamewars

There have been times when I didn't resist the temptation to be person #2. Not realizing I was merely revealing my own asininity rather than the other person's.

Really good thread; K/R.

[jpgray]

36. I think it's tough not to be emotional when the stakes are so high

But as long as we can treat each other with respect, that shouldn't be a problem.

[lateo]

32. Brilliant!

[tandot]

33. Boy, did you hit the nail on the head. Thanks.

K & R

[AuntPatsy]

34. Puts in all in perspective, very well done.

[JVS]

38. Do you renounce your "Thaelmann called the SPD 'Social Fascists'" analogy?

[jpgray]

40. Yep.

I have my -own- beloved historical analogies, thanks. :D It is in almost all cases a sneaky rhetoric trick to try to gloss up an argument.

[JackRiddler]

39. You know this is a logical and reasonable post...

but it's not necessarily empirical. What is the actual role of the Democrats in Congress since their return to majority? Your examples while sound on internal logic and suggestive of ideal behaviors we all should inspire to also happen to convey an implicit belief that the role of the Democrats (their leadership and most of their senators and reps) has been well-intended and partly constructive. I don't believe either, for the majority of the Democrats, and therefore judge them more harshly.

As to your own historical comparison: Yes, Watergate was very different. The difference is that the Bush regime has done far worse in the way of open and brazen criminality ("open and brazen" being the key, regardless of who has killed more people) and waged war on the Constitution, proceeding from an announced doctrine of unitary government that Nixon would have never dared to espouse. And the cases against them are much more clearly established. And yet there have not been "months of investigation" to precede an impeachment. And who is responsible for that? If the political balance seems not to favor it (which is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing, by the way), this is essentially the product of the Democrats' failure to stay on point with regard to Bush regime criminality. The difference is that Congress long ago preemptively surrendered all powers of oversight let alone opposition to a hyper-Nixonian grab for unitary power. Not on 100 percent of the issues but on 100 percent of the issues relating to war and "security," which is the game.

[jpgray]

41. I would argue that Democratic leadership has been ill-intentioned and unconstructive

The only caveat there is that the GOP is wholly bad-intentioned and destructive. What people decide based on those two mostly undisputed factors is where the real argument is. People who say the GOP and the Democrats are the same, -and- people who say the Democrats are somehow not at all to blame either are both either not being serious or haven't thought critically about what's going on, in my view.

[JackRiddler]

56. It's not about saying they're the same...

The debate surely is not about the GOP at all, but about how one should react to the Democrats given the manifest decisions of their leadership and, often, a majority of their members in Congress. Does it help to support anything "ill-intentioned and unconstructive"?

[BelgianMadCow]

43. Recommendation for the truth of Grey

well spoken

[marions ghost]

45. Excellent points

I was just thinking about how much I see 'historical analogy' used as instant rebuttal, in a way that's calculated to persuade & distort rather than enlighten.

While I get a lot out of the historical facts that people often have at their fingertips here at DU, I know the difference between using political history to support a good point and using it to draw meaningless (but logical-sounding) "instant" comparisons.

We are definitely NOT in Kansas anymore. Drawing parallels in American history to today is an exacting business--not for those who don't have the depth. References to our history can be useful to point out how things are NOT the same as in the past as well as how they may be similar. But in any case, you really have to have complete command of the subject before spouting sound bites containing "historical
facts." And in this era of media distortion & spins & lies, those facts are becoming ever more ephemeral.

[jpgray]

49. Right--it's those hasty, inattentive analogies that are the problem

[bridgit]

46. Yes, but, Charles Manson played guitar it was just that we never bombed his guitar strings...

had he not been silenced by so pernicious a system as we live in; his truth could have been understood more readily but he was. And so he has fallen like so many would-be wannabe world leaders into a 3 hots & a cot, interview-less oblivion brought about by the most evil America since America. We would have killed him, the poor industrially mistreated Charlie. But were *too* busy killing other people.

edited for the: *too*, see, it's right over there, cause we care about the shitty little stuff :patriot:

[mmonk]

47. There is nothing similar. There is nothing to learn from history

as it never repeats. No crime has ever been committed before that ever bears similarity to any crime today. All is new. All is well. Do nothing as you are on a unique adventure which never requires old knowledge nor recognition.

[jpgray]

48. I'm curious as to where you got that argument from my post?

[tandot]

50. I just wanted it to give a morning kick

I can't believe that it is not higher up on the greatest page.

[arendt]

51. In your title, you equate historical analogies with "radicalizing the debate"...pot meet kettle

Your title "radicalizes the debate", while your post pretends to logically deconstruct
such radicalization.

As mmonk points out, you have effectively devalued history.

What are you going to do for an encore? Attack "pointy headed liberals" because
they remember history? Attack Jews because they "never forget"?

Your title reveals the truth. The rest of your post is camouflage.

arendt

[bridgit]

53. i had trouble with this: "One can also criticize Democrats harshly without enabling the GOP"

Criticizing dems vigorously is one thing, healthy & expected; but "harsh" dem criticism of dems ends up in too many republican sound bites and i rather do not encourage such ends

[jpgray]

54. Actually, I discuss two separate things

Inattentive, lazy historical analogies, and claiming people are saying things they plainly aren't. What you've done is the latter--nowhere in my post will you find a claim that no historical analogies should be used, or that all historical analogies are radical.

[arendt]

55. Technically true, but that's not what your TITLE implies. n/t

[jpgray]

57. You can't always fit the whole content of an argument into the title, and how does it imply that?

The title asks people to stop two things--historical analogies and unfair radicalization of debate. To know what the argument defines as the behavior that needs to be stopped, probably best to read beyond the title, no?

[Mike03]

52. Excellent, thoughtful analysis

It's gratifying to see a thread like this.

K&R

[jpgray]

58. Thanks.

And yeah, I'm kicking this, just because of the Dachau-Gunatanamo comparisons I'm seeing.