Applying the same principles to both sides
One of the things that led to my political change was that I took the principles I’d always held dear and applied them to new information. That process led me to reconsider my political affiliation and changed my voting tendencies. It was lengthy process, but it was a rather simple one conceptually: if you believe in certain principles, you must apply them fairly.
I said it was simple conceptually. But that doesn’t mean it’s simple to execute. In fact, I’ve come more and more to believe it’s very difficult. However, although I probably err to a certain degree, it’s something I am deeply dedicated to attempting to do and I think I often come somewhat close to succeeding. But a lot of people don’t even try. They are partisans above all else, whether they are fooling themselves and thinking they’re being objective or whether they’ve jettisoned any pretense of objectivity and think that the ends justify the means.
That’s another reason I detest those members of the MSM who are partisan to the core but don a false cloak of objectivity without ever demonstrating it. And that’s why I especially value those writers and speakers who actually do stick to their principles no matter where it leads them. For some, it leads to supporting or at least defending people with whom they aren’t politically simpatico but whom they see as correct in a certain instance. And it leads them to criticizing the intense and duplicitous partisanship of much of the press.
Among such principled and objective people are Alan Dershowitz, Glenn Greenwald, Johnathan Turley, Sharyl Attkisson, Bari Weiss, and at times Matt Taibbi. This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list, but those are the figures who immediately come to mind. I don’t always agree with them, but I’ve been impressed by their often-successful attempts to be fair. It’s sad when people like that are the exceptions rather than the rule, but that’s the way it is.
Which brings us to this article from a few days ago by Jonathan Turley:
We have previously discussed the concerted and often embarrassing blackout in the media on stories involving Hunter Biden’s influence peddling during his father’s tenure as Vice President. That includes the burying of the laptop story and the growing contradictions over his father’s denial of any knowledge or involvement in his shady business dealings. Even recent reports that Hunter may have paid prostitutes with his father’s account were blacked out by mainstream media which exhaustively pursued any story related to the Trump children and their dealings and life styles. Now, however, there is a major allegation that Hunter used access to his father to seal previously unknown deals with Mexican businessmen, including Carlos Slim. A picture shows Hunter with the businessmen in the Vice President residence with his father.
As in the past, Americans interested in such stories have had to rely on the foreign press or a couple domestic sites for such information.
The new emails include references to the use of Air Force II by Hunter Biden to pursue the deals — a similar pattern revealed with regard to the China dealings. The emails detail a number of visits to Mexico, including a February 2016 flight on Air Force II with his father. On the plane was his business partner Jeff Cooper, who ran Illinois-based SimmonsCooper. That is one of the largest asbestos litigation firms in the country and Hunter was given 3 percent of Cooper’s venture capital firm Eudora Global, according to emails. President Biden’s brother (who featured in past controversial deals) was also reportedly involved in some of these efforts.
Turley describes the “blackout in the media on stories involving Hunter Biden’s influence peddling ” as “often embarrassing.” In this I beg to differ with him. Turley would be embarrassed to do this, but the members of the MSM and social media (let’s not forget the latter) who have instituted the bloackout are not the least bit embarrassed, although I’m pretty sure they’re not happy to be exposed as doing so. But I believe they are secure (and even proud) in the knowledge that their coverup was successful in electing Democrat Biden (and his aides) and in ridding the nation (hopefully permanently) of the dread Trump. They are also content in their belief that most people don’t even know how the media has prostituted itself along the way. That’s part of what a coverup is all about.
I have always been a contrary thinker. I fell out with the feminists when I realized they had no respect for the older women in my family who had raised their kids, worked in their gardens, and knew how to keep us all going.
Then during the Viet Nam war, I fell out with the protesters who treated the vets like s**t. I remember having Thanksgiving dinner with my aunt and uncle whose son was in Viet Nam doing logistics for the Air Force. I had grown up with him, and he wasn’t a monster.
I also fell out with the Bernstein crew that elevated the Black Panthers to heroes. When I heard them telling blacks that learning to read was “Acting White,” I decided that there was a whole element of society that was not just nuts, but evil.
Expat, you are not the only contrarian out there. We may not be legion, but we exist, biting our tongues sometimes, speaking out sometimes.
I used to side reflexively with environmentalists, but I’ve nearly tuned them out now. I have to force myself to listen fairly.
The divide in the nation hit me full force in the past week, when I stopped in to visit an old friend whom I hadn’t seen in many years. This woman is a brilliant retired scientist. She really believes there are white supremacists everywhere. She gets her news from Google News. It was horrifying.
“at times Matt Taibbi.”
Can you specify major cases, where he failed to meet that standard?
Another one deserving mention is J.H. Kunstler, tho he rarely gets as specific about politics as do those in your list.
And, less well-known, is Archdruid J.M. Greer.
Part of the problem is that just about everyone is acting like *lawyers*…by which I most definitely don’t mean that they’ve been studying the laws, learning to conduct a logical and persuasive argument, etc…rather, that they are behaving like advocates who have a client. They want to seek out information which will further their client’s case; contrary information, they are interested in only so far as they can figure out how to negate or minimize it.
With the politicization of almost everything, people feel like they can’t let The Other Side win on *anything*, because that might impact issues that they really care about.
There *are* some prominent Leftists who through their honesty and fair-mindedness deserve to be struck from the Lists of the Damned.
Come the Counter-Revolution, one has visions of Greenwald on the gallows getting a medal for his rare journalistic integrity before the long drop for scandalising public morals with his ‘marriage’ and ‘child rearing’. Veganism being an aggravating factor.
@David Foster: Bold Broad Brush Strokes, and a Big-hearted Charitable Holistic Whole Person Approach. None of this scrivening away at keyboards. See preceding para 🙂
One of the things that led to my political change was that I took the principles I’d always held dear and applied them to new information. That process led me to reconsider my political affiliation and changed my voting tendencies.
neo:
Once upon a time I thought that was the distinguishing characteristic of liberals. Later I learned I was mistaken.
One might make an academic argument it was true of the Classic Liberal, but that species went conservative or went extinct sometime in the 60s.
Zaphod:
You’re one of very few with that particular vision regarding Greenwald, as I explained in an earlier comment.
Glenn Greenwald’s latest; “An Ugly War Among Leftist YouTubers Shows Two Common, Toxic Pathologies Plaguing U.S. Politics”
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/an-ugly-war-among-leftist-youtubers
Not to worry, the “Toxic Pathologies” Greenwald describes are happening entirely on the left. They’re eating each other. Moderates who speak out are being destroyed and canceled. Which is resulting in an increasingly deranged radical left. Which is leading to more liberals quietly walking away.
It’s still true, “Those the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
I would add to the short list of honest leftists Kevin Drum, who drew my attention in 2004 by investigating the Bush TANG story and concluding, much against his desires, that it was a hoax. Lately he has written,
On Thursday I posted a series of charts that all documented a similar theme: Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right. . .
I’ve made this point many times before, and I want to make it again more loudly and more plainly today. It is not conservatives who have turned American politics into a culture war battle. It is liberals. And this shouldn’t come as a surprise since progressives have been bragging publicly about pushing the Democratic Party leftward since at least 2004.
Now, I’m personally happy about most of this. But that doesn’t blind me to the fact that “personally happy” means nothing in politics. What matters is what the median voter feels, and Democrats have been moving further and further away from the median voter for years:
Some of his charts are at the link.
@Neo:
Come any *successful* Counter-Revolution, it’ll be the Views of the Few that prevail.
–> John Harrington on Treason Never Prospering.
Do you think that society at large just woke up one morning and decided that Trannies should be the latest Vessels Bearing all Virtues to be pedestaled alongside the Magical Light Bearing You-know-whats? I think not. The Views of the Power-wielding Few prevailed.
Personal tolerance and human charity is doubtless an admirable fact. Like all of us, I’m sure, I find that general guiding principles and ones friends and acquaintances aren’t always 100% congruent and it’s possible to rub along as private individuals more often than not. That’s the personal sphere. Once we get into whether or not Socrates had it coming, it’s a whole other argument.
Zaphod:
Not necessarily. And which “few”? The “few” you happen to be describing?
You remind me of a bizarro version of those people who think The Handmaid’s Tale has a good chance of coming true if the right ever took power.
Your ability to tell the future isn’t especially impressive or persuasive at this point. What is more impressive is your desire to take extreme and cynical positions that you think are going to shock and/or rile people. You’re a smart and/or clever person and a colorful and interesting writer, though.
neo. I note you reference The Handmaid’s Tale. And people who believe it may come to be.
It’s hard to read into people’s minds. But I am put in mind of people who said, sixty or seventy years ago, that they believed “1984” was going to happen. I got the impression they didn’t really believe it in the usual sense, but wanted to look to themselves and others as if they were wiser and more wisely cynical than the rest of us.
Besides, if the handmaid is going to be how it’s going to be, don’t we–the rest of us–have to do as we’re told in order to avoid it?
Funny thing is that Brave New World happened first.
@Neo:
I’ll settle for being the Unholy Fool. Gardens need manure!
aNanyMouse:
I don’t have the time to go back and read all of the articles by Taibbi that I’ve ever read (and some are no longer online). But I recollect finding more of his stuff questionable than when I read the work of Turley or Dershowitz, for example. Although I don’t agree 100% with any of them, Taibbi’s work seems more scattered and more emotion-based, and in particular he seemed to retain a high degree of Trump Derangement Syndrome long past the point where I thought he might drop it.
Agree about Taibbi.
Even though he was sufficiently clear-sighted to see the madness—even depravity—of the Left (in his case, focusing mostly on “journalism”), he just couldn’t/can’t seem to get beyond the TDS that those utterly demented and depraved journalists were promoting.
IOW, castigating the wholesale lies on the one hand, and—seemingly (or let’s say, “for all intents and purposes”)—believing them, and promoting them, on the other.
But then that seems to be the case for those such as Bari Weiss. And all too many others.
As for Dershowitz, well, yes, certainly heroic; but when I read just the other day (in a Newsmax article) that he felt he had to remind his readers of his “bona fides”—by announcing that as a long-time Democratic, in spite of his staunch defense of the Constitution and Law (and ergo or Republicans and—shudder—Trump), he voted for Biden/Harris—I had trouble keeping down my despair (even disgust).
Oh well…just another “What is WRONG with these people” moment….
So much for IQ, judgment, discernment, “smarts”, intuitive, love of country, love of society.
So much for Goodness….
But…I guess one must continue to stress the value and beauty of America and what it stands for, viz. that one can CHOOSE to destroy it. That one has that inalienable right…
RIGHT?
“But…I guess one must continue to stress the value and beauty of America and what it stands for, viz. that one can CHOOSE to destroy it. That one has that inalienable right…
RIGHT?”
It’s Self-evident, Sir!
(That high-pitched spinning noise we hear is coming from Carl Schmitt’s grave.)
Barry Meislin:
I think I understand Dershowitz. He’s older than the others and has been a Democrat way longer. Plus, he once wrote or said somewhere that he thought he was more effective criticizing the left as a Democrat. He may be correct about that, but at this point I’m afraid he’s been demonized so much by the left that he’s just preaching to the choir on the right.
“…criticizing the left…”
Actually, he’s defending the Constitution and the rule of Law.
But since the Constitution does, at times (or more than “at times”) happen to support contentions and policies of evil Republicans, miserable Deplorables (and the devil, Trump)—and conversely does not ALWAYS support the Democrats—then for the latter it MUST, “ipso facto”, BE an extremely flawed—even irredeemable—document, which therefore requires “fixing”. Or shredding.
Ditto for anything else—e.g., the Electoral College—that they believe stands in the way of their glorious future.
And, finally, ditto for the USA entirely, which since it is imperfect must be “fixed” or “shredded”. I.e., fundamentally transformed (TM).
Actually both—as befits the Crusaders they have become. Doing so is nothing less than their moral imperative. Their ethical duty….
If Schmitt (and so many others of his oh-so-earnest ilk from both the Right and the Left) has anything to teach us it is that one must be extremely wary of and vigilant toward—to the point of abhorrence—utopian thinkers.
Teach us that the glaring attractions and subtle seductions of utopia, of perfection, MUST be illuminated by flashing red lights and screaming sirens signaling “DANGER AHEAD”. Extreme, unavoidable danger.
It would appear that since the Constitution RECOGNIZES human fallibility and the potential for evil—and tries to formulate a theory, and practice, of government that limit the former while thwarting the latter—it is therefore THE MOST HUMANE political blueprint ever created by humankind.
For recognizing innate human fallibility and trying to work WITH it, despite it, IS the ANTI-UTOPIA (not the dystopic).
The founders had no illusions. And this informed their deep and abiding humanity, which was reflected by the documents they crafted.
No mystery, then, that these great—but eyes-wide-open—humanists were so well versed in the Bible and history—from both of which modern-day Crusaders, with their visions of a “perfect” society, dream of “liberating” themselves.
Clearly (to paraphrase), the Perfect Society is the enemy of the good. And those clamoring for it are paving the way to chaos and perdition (and all too often, personal gain).
@Barry Meislin:
You might find this amusing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_Loophole
But I suspect that you are an element of the Set of people knowing the story already.
Actually no, I didn’t know about it. (Truth is, I really don’t know much about these things but count on a certain intuition, which all too often gets me into trouble…)
But might it be just another reason why the Democrats are so adamant about “the need” to pass the egregiously-named H.R.1 “For the People” (heh) Act….? (Just another Sorosian/Orwellian designation of the type they seem to have perfected).
I.e., H.R.1 would provide them with another avenue to achieve the absolute power they so absolutely crave….including, the ability, if necessary, to “amend” Article V itself (that is, if I understood the link correctly).
IOW, “covering all the bases” (which they were able to do so magnificently in November 2020)—and which I imagine (though it doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination) is why the Democrats MUST prolong the COVID crisis indefinitely—or at least until November 2022, and possibly November 2024.
“But since the Constitution does, at times (or more than “at times”) happen to support contentions and policies of evil Republicans,” – Barry
https://notthebee.com/article/why-the-4th-of-july-may-make-your-kid-republican
It’s actually riffing off of the Declaration, but same idea.
Democrat Propaganda Ministry, and propaganda spokesman have no morals.
@ Barry M, can you specify major cases, of Ms. Weiss believing/ promoting the lies?
One example should suffice (and you don’t have to try too, too hard to catch the rampant insanity that saturates her “thinking” and thus the deranged irony of her “warning”):
From her article “American Liberalism in Danger” (Oct. 15, 2020)…
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked
“…There is also the X factor of Donald Trump, which is impossible to overstate. Understandable hostility toward him has prevented many Jews from seeing the problem on the other side. To even look away from the obscenity in the White House for a moment strikes many, as they have told me, as irresponsible or beside the point.
“I share with the majority of American Jews’ disgust toward Trump and Trumpism, which has normalized bigotry and cruelty in ways that have crippled American society. That truth doesn’t detract from another: There is another danger, this one from the left. And unlike Trump, this one has attained cultural dominance, capturing America’s elites and our most powerful institutions. In the event of a Biden victory, it is hard to imagine it meeting resistance. So let me make my purpose perfectly clear: I am here to ring the alarm. I’m here to say: Do not be shocked anymore. Stop saying, can you believe. It’s time to accept reality, if we want to have any hope of fixing it….”
That second paragraph is a real doozy.
The only possible conclusion is that she’s just another purported liberal who’s brain has turned to mush.
Should be: “…whose brain…”
Whenever you see an apparent double standard, it’s actually an unspoken single standard, mostly taking the form we’re good/right because of who we are no matter what we say or do or why.
It is self-deluding to think that this is found only among people who are our political opponents. I see plenty of people everywhere doing it. When it’s not aimed at you it may be harder to see. People who vote D do not have differently wired brains. The only way to not become a person like this is to watch yourself and people you agree with and call it out when you see it.
That is if you really believe in the principle that principles should be applied equally, not all of us really do despite what we say…
Frederick et al:
The left has a counter for that. They deploy the term “whataboutism”, and…they win. The term has been assigned sovereign powers to destroy any argument and anybody making such an argument.
They lie. They know they lie. They, more than likely, know you know they lie. But they will not be called on it, they will not be convinced to change when a double standard is detected (as if it were news to them) and one’s effort to do so only proves you’re even more ignorant or dishonest or deplorable than they had already thought.
Now, I make my usual exception for the cohort I refer to as “mush heads” who don’t actually know they lie. From time to time a small bit of discomfort can be detected as what they say bumps up against something they accidentally remember knowing, or the logic seems incredibly silly. But “whataboutism” is deployed and they are reassured.
I address the term by saying I’m not trying to convince them of anything but how dishonest/silly/illogical they look to normal people. And if they didn’t want to look like that, they could keep believing but if they kept quiet, fewer people would know.
I don’t think this makes any progress, but nor do any other actual arguments. So I may as well indulge my well-known mean streak.
Or perhaps put them on notice that they need a new schtick.
@Richard: The left has a counter for that. They deploy the term “whataboutism”…
Yes, I’ve heard that one. So what’s the counter you most frequently see on the Right? Because Leftist brains are not wired differently. Like every other conceivable group of humans, there are fools, knaves, and honest people trying to do their best, in varying proportions.
The Left has no lock on vice. So, if you spot it and call it out when it’s done by someone on the Right, you are still yourself an honest man. If you can’t see it or won’t call it out, then the other two descriptors I used may fit better.
(I say, you not meaning “Richard Aubrey” but impersonal “you”, like the British-sounding “one”.)
I belabor this because you can’t fight effectively if you are wrong about the nature of your enemy. I see a lot of people talking about the Left as though they represent some different order of humanity. That misperception is very useful to the real enemy and you can’t fight him with his weapons on his ground.
So, speaking of principles, what are those of the left/demokrats/socialists/progressives?
Well, look no further, investigate no further, than examining the principles of Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Castro, Chavez/Maduro, Kim Jong, et. al.
That’s all one need do.
It’s pretty simple, really.
Some folks – like those who founded our Constitutional Republic believe INDIVIDUAL rights predominate and are part and parcel of being a human.
Leftists, demonkrats, et. al., believe that govt – ruled by them, of course – should determine how people should live and what they believe.
Note how those who are big fans of leftist ideology – Sanders, AOC, Pelosi,Schumer, all demonkrats, et. al., – REFUSE to leave the imperialist, racist USA and move to Cuba or N.Korea or anywhere else (not even France or Bolivia or Nicaragua or Venezuela or some black ruled Caribbean or African hell hole) .
Why?
Because the rulers there have already absconded with whatever power and riches are to be had – in the best traditions of socialist dictatorships (see, the nomenklatura of the former USSR) , and if AOC , Sanders, et. al. desire to have such riches – and they do – they must find them here in the USA.
It really is too bad that execrable human scum like Sanders, AOC, Bidet, Schumer, et. al., cannot be deported and forced to live in those nations they so admire.
Oh well, maybe one of these days.
I learn about the left when they back up an argument under assault by facts. What they go to is indicative of who they are. Accusations of racism, dismissing the horrors of, say, Pol Pot’s regime by referring to different cultures or whatabouting yet again…slavery, trail of tears, so forth.
There are any number of horrors which don’t impress them, as long as they’re committed by enemies of the US/west.
Or, as one very nice church lady said, with a sniff, of the dead women and children at Waco, “They were a cult.” That’s who the left is, the very nice church lady, your kid’s social studies teacher, the staff of pretty much any news organization.
Now, some other tragedy, say, of George Floyd, is for the ages.
Matthew Shepard….Jesse Dirkhising.
They don’t give a–find an obscenity and make it go exponential–what happens to the innocents if it would reflect badly on their heroes.
neo, zman is no more “smart” or “clever” than Obama. And his oily narcissistic smarm is anything but “colorful” or “interesting”.