I'm going to shed some light on an issue that's been bothering me for some time.
Barack Obama is billing himself as a bipartisan candidate. He is advertising himself as someone who will transcend the traditional party divide in Congress and work with both Democrats and Republicans. Sadly, there is no basis for believing this, and to make matters worse history tells us the exact opposite of that which he would have us believe. Contrary to what his campaigners (and the teeming masses that have fallen prey to Obamania) would tell you, Barack Obama is one of the most divisive people in the U.S. Senate.
The National Journal ranked Obama as the Senate's most liberal member in 2007. While this may seem like the highest of accolades to the typical snobby elitist San Franciscan, think (for once) about what this infers: Obama was most likely to vote along the Democratic Party line and was least likely to consider voting favorably with Republicans. Obama's voting record (gauged over 66 votes) gave him a composite liberal index of 95.5. If you compare this to his few previous years in the Senate, you will see that over time he veers further towards the left. He has an average lifetime rating of 88.0. All this data can be found here.
Forget the fact that Obama has never authored a single important piece of legislation. He simply can't break the political divide between Democrats and Republicans on any issue by voting in the opposite direction, or even by working with Republicans on important legislation. He has no history in Congress as a unifier of any kind. I posit that he (along with whomever was rated as the least liberal senator) is the most divisive person in the Senate because of this. He is one of the least likely people to serve as a mediator between the two parties.
The truly amazing thing about the situation is that the person possibly best described as a bipartisan uniter is Obama's opponent: John McCain. Unfortunately, McCain missed more than half the key votes in the economic and foreign policy categories that determined his liberal rating, but on social issues (like immigration) he scored a 59, towards the middle of the pack. I think his lack of votes (due to campaigning) speaks volumes about him, but there are plenty of more important reasons to be disappointed with McCain (and which shall be discussed in a future blog post). In any case, at the very least we have some indicator about McCain's stance on things, and that leads us to believe that he is unconcerned with partisan politics and more concerned with enacting positive legislation. A rating of 59 puts him in the middle, right where a uniter ought to be, not too far towards the left or the right.
More important than his 2007 voting record, though, are the extreme examples of bipartisanship McCain has shown throughout his 20+ years in the Senate. He's co-authored legislation on immigration reform with Ted Kennedy, easily one of the Senate's most left-wing members. He's written campaign finance reform laws with Russ Feingold, another Democrat. McCain was also part of the Gang of Fourteen in 2005, the seven Democrats and seven Republicans that broke the deadlock on confirming Supreme Court appointees. He's even authored climate change bills with Joe Lieberman to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions (this bill was eventually defeated in the Senate). Simply scrolling through McCain's Wikipedia entry can reveal how often he's worked with Democrats on various important issues.
It's hard to fathom how the public has been hoodwinked into this idea of "Obama the Uniter" in light of all this evidence. It's a testament to the effectiveness of the Obama campaign that the public remains blind to this issue. So who is the real uniter here? In my opinion, Obama's move to the center in this election can't discount his history of partisan politics that stymies efforts towards progress. This is especially important in a Congress nearly equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.
If being a uniter were your only criterion for selecting a president, Barack Obama is clearly not the right choice.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Ignorance Is A Convenient Bliss
This is perhaps a discouraging way to inaugurate this blog, but it is certainly emblematic of one of the reasons I choose to write.
Earlier this evening, I went to a bar with some friends, where I engaged in serious conversation with a seemingly nice young man I had never met before. The conversation was certainly erudite as far as trendy bar talk in SF goes, but those who know me well would testify under oath that I would never forego the opportunity to discuss issues of import at any time or in any setting.
So it was this evening, when a spirited conversation about European football (so nice to find a fellow fan of the Beautiful Game in the U.S.) turned into a discussion on politics, fossil fuels, the legitimacy of Barack Obama's candidacy and the Iraq War. This last topic of discussion caused an abrupt and rather rude ending to what I thought was a spirited discussion (something I truly value since it's very difficult to find people willing to engage in this sort of thing).
The point of contention was something minor: the number of military personnel currently deployed in Iraq. I can't even remember what the relevance was at this point, but I was attempting to make an argument based on the fact that there were approximately 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq prior to the "surge", and about 150,000 troops thereafter. My opponent (for lack of a better term) insisted there were on the order of 500,000 troops in Iraq (I can't remember if this was his pre- or post-surge value, or if he even made a distinction), and cited his many friends in military service as a reference for this number. Having acquired my numbers from various news sources and websites (it's not like it's privileged information here), I asserted that the numbers he cited based on his sources were decidedly incorrect. At this point, he ended the conversation with a half-hearted "It was fun talking to you, dude," and walked off.
This guy had no reason to believe me over his military buddies, and I wouldn't fault him for doing so, but I have two distinct problems with this episode: 1) the denouement was rude and completely lacking in courtesy, and 2) he passed off the knowledge gleaned from all his friends in the military as factual. Now, I'm willing to forgive and forget on the first item. We were in a bar, there was a lot of alcohol involved, and social grace is not always the first thing we think of when inebriated (indeed, it is often the last). However, the second point is both inexcusable and intolerable.
Please leave your anecdotal evidence at home. It has no factual basis, nor does it grant you any argumentative superiority. Even if this guy has "lots of friends in the military" as he stated, I find it hard to believe he consulted every single one of them specifically to learn how many troops have been deployed to Iraq. And if someone challenges you on your anecdotal data, at least have the decency to admit to yourself (if not the person you're debating) that the information you were told by your buddies could be incorrect. I'm not claiming to be a legitimate source of information, but incongruous statements should at least be checked to determine which, if any, are correct. Clinging to anecdotes and refusing to acknowledge the truth is even worse than being ignorant.
Perhaps I'm overreacting a bit. For all I know, this guy could have run home and fact-checked everything I told him about troop deployment in Iraq. I hope he did. But the point I'm trying to make is that this incident is emblematic of a larger trend I see here in San Francisco, particularly among the snobby liberal elitists I encounter everywhere.
Facts, knowledge and data are like kryptonite to these people. It usually conflicts with what little information they have on any given subject and forces them to admit they are wrong. Most fragile egos can't handle this, so they will end the debate before it even begins when faced with the possibility they might be wrong. They try so hard to appear worldly and knowledgeable about the world, politics, energy policy, etc., but it's quite easy to poke through their veneer with a few simple numbers. It's entirely too convenient for them to ignore the truth so that they might seem (or even feel) right.
We're all guilty of this. Every last one of us, including me. Admitting you're wrong or ignorant is akin to admitting you're stupid, and who would do that in public? The ego is a difficult and fragile thing. It's amazing the stories we concoct and the lies we cling to in order to preserve it. We all want to seem wise and informed, but so few of us put the effort into truly understanding what we think, or why we think it in the first place. The unwashed masses, of course, take the easy way out and consciously avoid these discussions altogether.
Aside from this less-than-astute observation of mine, I learned one other thing from tonight's discussion. Canada is the top exporter of oil to the U.S. Researched and validated for your pleasure here. I suppose it would be too much to ask if the person I debated with tonight took anything home from our conversation, but that won't stop me from arguing with people in public places.
On a final note, I related tonight's incident to someone very close to me, who found fault with my argument. After I told her I had acquired my numbers on Iraq troop deployment from various sources, she insisted I was making a character judgment on the people my "opponent" consorted with by siding with the legitimacy of Wikipedia, the Department of Defense, and news agencies like MSNBC and CNN. There are very few statements that could make less sense. Just because I believe in these sources versus the second-hand anecdotes of a random person I meet in a bar doesn't mean I'm making a "character judgment". What would any normal person believe, some entirely random anecdote, or this and this? It seemed incredulous to her that I would go out of my way to verify my facts before spouting them off in a debate, but the truth is that I find it too inconvenient not to do so.
Earlier this evening, I went to a bar with some friends, where I engaged in serious conversation with a seemingly nice young man I had never met before. The conversation was certainly erudite as far as trendy bar talk in SF goes, but those who know me well would testify under oath that I would never forego the opportunity to discuss issues of import at any time or in any setting.
So it was this evening, when a spirited conversation about European football (so nice to find a fellow fan of the Beautiful Game in the U.S.) turned into a discussion on politics, fossil fuels, the legitimacy of Barack Obama's candidacy and the Iraq War. This last topic of discussion caused an abrupt and rather rude ending to what I thought was a spirited discussion (something I truly value since it's very difficult to find people willing to engage in this sort of thing).
The point of contention was something minor: the number of military personnel currently deployed in Iraq. I can't even remember what the relevance was at this point, but I was attempting to make an argument based on the fact that there were approximately 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq prior to the "surge", and about 150,000 troops thereafter. My opponent (for lack of a better term) insisted there were on the order of 500,000 troops in Iraq (I can't remember if this was his pre- or post-surge value, or if he even made a distinction), and cited his many friends in military service as a reference for this number. Having acquired my numbers from various news sources and websites (it's not like it's privileged information here), I asserted that the numbers he cited based on his sources were decidedly incorrect. At this point, he ended the conversation with a half-hearted "It was fun talking to you, dude," and walked off.
This guy had no reason to believe me over his military buddies, and I wouldn't fault him for doing so, but I have two distinct problems with this episode: 1) the denouement was rude and completely lacking in courtesy, and 2) he passed off the knowledge gleaned from all his friends in the military as factual. Now, I'm willing to forgive and forget on the first item. We were in a bar, there was a lot of alcohol involved, and social grace is not always the first thing we think of when inebriated (indeed, it is often the last). However, the second point is both inexcusable and intolerable.
Please leave your anecdotal evidence at home. It has no factual basis, nor does it grant you any argumentative superiority. Even if this guy has "lots of friends in the military" as he stated, I find it hard to believe he consulted every single one of them specifically to learn how many troops have been deployed to Iraq. And if someone challenges you on your anecdotal data, at least have the decency to admit to yourself (if not the person you're debating) that the information you were told by your buddies could be incorrect. I'm not claiming to be a legitimate source of information, but incongruous statements should at least be checked to determine which, if any, are correct. Clinging to anecdotes and refusing to acknowledge the truth is even worse than being ignorant.
Perhaps I'm overreacting a bit. For all I know, this guy could have run home and fact-checked everything I told him about troop deployment in Iraq. I hope he did. But the point I'm trying to make is that this incident is emblematic of a larger trend I see here in San Francisco, particularly among the snobby liberal elitists I encounter everywhere.
Facts, knowledge and data are like kryptonite to these people. It usually conflicts with what little information they have on any given subject and forces them to admit they are wrong. Most fragile egos can't handle this, so they will end the debate before it even begins when faced with the possibility they might be wrong. They try so hard to appear worldly and knowledgeable about the world, politics, energy policy, etc., but it's quite easy to poke through their veneer with a few simple numbers. It's entirely too convenient for them to ignore the truth so that they might seem (or even feel) right.
We're all guilty of this. Every last one of us, including me. Admitting you're wrong or ignorant is akin to admitting you're stupid, and who would do that in public? The ego is a difficult and fragile thing. It's amazing the stories we concoct and the lies we cling to in order to preserve it. We all want to seem wise and informed, but so few of us put the effort into truly understanding what we think, or why we think it in the first place. The unwashed masses, of course, take the easy way out and consciously avoid these discussions altogether.
Aside from this less-than-astute observation of mine, I learned one other thing from tonight's discussion. Canada is the top exporter of oil to the U.S. Researched and validated for your pleasure here. I suppose it would be too much to ask if the person I debated with tonight took anything home from our conversation, but that won't stop me from arguing with people in public places.
On a final note, I related tonight's incident to someone very close to me, who found fault with my argument. After I told her I had acquired my numbers on Iraq troop deployment from various sources, she insisted I was making a character judgment on the people my "opponent" consorted with by siding with the legitimacy of Wikipedia, the Department of Defense, and news agencies like MSNBC and CNN. There are very few statements that could make less sense. Just because I believe in these sources versus the second-hand anecdotes of a random person I meet in a bar doesn't mean I'm making a "character judgment". What would any normal person believe, some entirely random anecdote, or this and this? It seemed incredulous to her that I would go out of my way to verify my facts before spouting them off in a debate, but the truth is that I find it too inconvenient not to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)