George Will nails it.. again

[zsdersw]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html

It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson's occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.

The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.

And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate."

Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.

A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.

Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech - the results of individuals' insanities - to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.

On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions - the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization. Walking to Washington's train station, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted, "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!" On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.

On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz ("I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people - the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.") was executed, not explained.

Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the "real" culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a "climate of hate" in conservative Dallas, the "paranoid style" of American (conservative) politics or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that "many on the right" are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . ." The "directly" is priceless.

Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the Tea Party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared Tea Partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African American, ergo . . .

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

Indeed, for the bolded section.

 

[feralkid]

Indeed, for the bolded sec...here he sets up and knocks down the strawman?

 

[zsdersw]

You mean where he sets up and knocks down the strawman?

It's not a strawman.

 

[Thump553]

Definately is a strawman. About the nth-hundredth one we seen from "conservatives" explaining what a boogeyman progressivism is. Frequently followed by a longing for the good old colonial days.

Will can do a good column, but this is not one. Unfortunately nearly all of his good ones are about baseball.

 

[zsdersw]

Definately is a strawman. About the nth-hundredth one we seen from "conservatives" explaining what a boogeyman progressivism is. Frequently followed by a longing for the good old colonial days.

Will can do a good column, but this is not one. Unfortunately nearly all of his good ones are about baseball.

Nope. Progressives are the ones who ushered in the need to explain various wackos who do wacky things and view society as a thing to be engineered by government.

 

[werepossum]

I agree that it's a good column, with one caveat. Had it been John Boehner who was gunned down, the natural inclination (at least of many) would have been to blame progressives and their own culture of hate and violence. Will is spot-on about our need to remove dangerous randomness from human behavior, and spot-on about progressives' using any such attack to make political hay, but I think he overplays his conclusions. The tendency to blame the "other side" is at least as strong as the tendency to blame conservatives. Kennedy being a Democrat, the "explainers" (being progressives themselves) blamed conservatives. When Reagan was shot and Ford was shot at, no such tendency was apparent.

 

[Genx87]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html



Indeed, for the bolded section.

I actually felt this was one of the most power statements in this piece.

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

When presented with an alternative viewpoint the left falls onto racism or bigotry. That isnt intellectualism but a tactic to not debate the issue.

 

[zsdersw]

I actually felt this was one of the most power statements in this piece.



When presented with an alternative viewpoint the left falls onto racism or bigotry. That isnt intellectualism but a tactic to not debate the issue.

I felt the section that I bolded was strongest because it didn't use just one person as the basis for being critical.

 

[Genx87]

I felt the section that I bolded was strongest because it didn't call out one person.

While he called out one person. It was discussing a broader group of people. I agree both sections were strong. It was a really good piece about what happened in the aftermath of a tragedy.

 

[feralkid]

It's not a strawman.

Says you.


I find it Will's work to be effete, narcissistic and rather desperate lately.

This is a classic example.


Not only does Will use a strawman argument, but he heaps on a good dose of circular reasoning.

Some of his points are valid, and I agree with them; it is the way he arrives at his conclusions which can be so flawed and annoying.

He should know better.

 

[Martin]

Nope. Progressives are the ones who ushered in the need to explain various wackos who do wacky things and view society as a thing to be engineered by government.

Whether a by government or people, it doesn't matter. To see why that bolded statement is bullshit go through the following exercise: take whatever your core beliefs are, then ask yourself if you would still believe them if you were born 100 years ago? Would you still believe them if your parents emigrated somewhere else when you were 2 years old? For example, if you believe in racial and gender equality, would you have believed it in 1911? If you don't believe in universal healthcare, would you still dislike it if you grew up in Norway? If you believe you should tip for good service, would you have still believed it in 1911 when most Americans considered tipping a practice associated with servitude to European upper classes?

Now, if you're a bit honest, you should realize how ephemeral and arbitrary the majority of things people believe in are and how quickly they can change (quickly here means a generation or two). And of course leftists want to change society to be more left, but conservatives want to do exactly the same, but with their beliefs. To say otherwise would be exceptionally disingenuous.

 

[nick1985]

Says you.

Its not a strawman

 

[feralkid]

Its not a strawman

That's all you've got?

Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

 

[feralkid]

While you're looking it up, check out "Begging The Question"

 

[nick1985]

That's all you've got?

It was about all you had. You disagree so you throw a tantrum screaming "STRAWMAN!!!"

 

[feralkid]

It was about all you had. You disagree so you throw a tantrum screaming "STRAWMAN!!!"

No one threw a tantrum.
No one screamed.
What's the matter with you?

 

[Lemon law]

Once again George Will sets up a strawman and is barely able to knocks it down.

Because at the end of the day Jared Laughner will either be executed or given life imprisonment. Meanwhile, in the fever of the times, he will be picked apart, psychoanalyzed, and be the subject to every explanation possible.

The George Will myth is that the same pychobabble was not practised on the killers of Garfield and McKinley. And if you read accounts at the time, its clear that everyone and their brother and law became very familiar with the lives of these assassins too. In an futile attempt to make sense out the senseless, a pursuit that never goes out of vogue.

The only real difference between now and a more distant past is that that justice, or the lack of justice in the courts simply proceeded at a far far faster pace. And there were fewer appeals. From crime to execution often took less than six months. And now if we can execute someone in ten years its fast.

 

[Jiggz]

It was about all you had. You disagree so you throw a tantrum screaming "STRAWMAN!!!"

The "kid" must have thought this was a kid's forum and even had the audacity to ask if you knew what a "Strawman" is!!! I guess we should all be thankful he didn't pull the "Race card" LOL

 

[sandorski]

When years of rhetoric suggesting a certain action is preceded by an event which looks like the action suggested, you'll have to forgive us for jumping to a conclusion too early.

 

[feralkid]

The "kid" must have thought this was a kid's forum and even had the audacity to ask if you knew what a "Strawman" is!!! I guess we should all be thankful he didn't pull the "Race card" LOL

What is your problem?

He hasn't shown that he understands what it means.

How is that audacious?

 

[101mpg]

most overused word of the year: strawman

 

[feralkid]

I agree that it's a good column, with one caveat. Had it been John Boehner who was gunned down, the natural inclination (at least of many) would have been to blame progressives and their own culture of hate and violence. Will is spot-on about our need to remove dangerous randomness from human behavior, and spot-on about progressives' using any such attack to make political hay, but I think he overplays his conclusions. The tendency to blame the "other side" is at least as strong as the tendency to blame conservatives. Kennedy being a Democrat, the "explainers" (being progressives themselves) blamed conservatives. When Reagan was shot and Ford was shot at, no such tendency was apparent.

He is not talking about "removing" randomness from human behavior.


He bemoans what he sees as some people's inability to accept the "randomness factor" and instead blame things like heated political climates, racism, poor parenting, shitty mental health care, whatever..


He's essentially saying he misses the days when people would say "shit happens, what can be done" and is apparently tired of people attempting to use reason to explain such contemporary horrors as the Tucson massacre.

 

[feralkid]

most overused word of the year: strawman

If you had said "most over-used debate technique", you'd be correct.

"most misunderstood word of the year", perhaps.

 

[matt0611]

When years of rhetoric suggesting a certain action is preceded by an event which looks like the action suggested, you'll have to forgive us for jumping to a conclusion too early.

excuses excuses

 

[sandorski]

excuses excuses

Weak