Here is one I have never shared. Wright’s Third Generalization:
Whenever someone is in error, he/she will not merely contradict himself/herself, but will refute himself/herself. This does not logically have to happen, but it is what happens consistently.
(Once during a rather nice lunch at a Japanese restaurant with Cornell professor Jeremy Rabkin I shared this. Professor Rabkin replied, “In other words, the truth will always come out”. I rather liked that and have since labelled this “Rabkin’s Corollary to Wright’s Third Generalization”.)
The Anglican Curmudgeon is – and I say this will all admiration – ruthlessly logical. In a recent piece he follows a liberal/Democratic mantra to its logical conclusion. Are you ready? Here goes:
Now just ponder the logical implications of this position [RW - citing an argument in a recent piece by Maureen Dowd] for a moment. Do you see what it implies? Let me spell out the hidden syllogism for you:
A. When the Democrats are not in power, what happens is all the Republicans’ fault.
B. When the Democrats are in power, it is still all the Republicans’ fault.Now, from this beginning, those on the left would like to draw this conclusion:
C. Therefore, whatever happens, and whenever it happens, it is all the Republicans’ fault.
What their petty little minds fail to realize, however, is that this is the only really logical conclusion to follow from the given premises:
C. Why would anyone ever put the Democrats in power, since they can never affect anything for the better, and cannot prevent anything from getting worse?
In other words, all the heat and venom being spilled over former president Bush, former vice president Cheney and the so-called torture of waterboarding just goes to point up that the Democrats themselves are admitting that they are irrelevant. [emphasis in original]
Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.
At Baptistlife.Com – in which I no longer participate – we had an exchange about this with regard to the economy. I pointed out that the bad economy which President Obama “inherited” could indeed be blamed partly on the Republicans and the Bush Administration. I am not aware of any Republican or conservative American who does not concede that Bush 43 and the Republicans during his administration bear at least partial responsibility for the current economic downturn. (Which itself is an important point to which I shall return in a moment.)
But – I argued strongly – if the economy has gotten worse since President Obama took office one cannot blame that on Bush and the Republicans. Once President Obama takes office he effectively – so long as nothing else has changed – takes responsibility for the health of the economy (and foreign policy and so on).
My fellow Baptist friends of course disagreed.
Now granted it is dangerous to use a syllogism to override the gives-and-takes of a more detailed argument… but I would suggest that what the Anglican Curmudgeon demonstrates is applicable here. Do you really want to say no matter what happens after President Obama takes office it is still the fault of the previous administration?
Oh wait – if something bad happens blame the previous administration.
If something good happens let the current administration take credit.
What I find more offensive is this “heads you lose, tails I win” argumentation. It renders you – by definition – unaccountable. There is no evidence that could possibly call into question the effectiveness of your policies. (Harvard economist Greg Mankiw makes a similar point well in a recent post.)
Let me return to this “Conservatives and Republicans are willing to lay some blame at the feet of Bush 43 and the Republicans” point.
Those who support strongly the Democratic party and the Obama presidency – does it never strike them as odd and even problematic that Republicans/conservatives are willing to admit some mistakes and failures…
But does one ever see a liberal or Democrat concede mistakes and failures on the part of President Obama and the Democrats?
This is going to be… what… the third or fourth time I have had to make this point? Here goes:
More conservative participants on this forum have been candid and willing to lay a nice chunk of the blame at the feet of Bush 43 and Republicans in Congress. As well as specific actions and policies by Democrats. The Wall Street Journal piece (or other pieces one could quote) does not “prove that Bush is not responsible for the economic mess”. Such misrepresents both the piece and my own post.
(I will repeat my challenge to more liberal and/or Democratic participants on this forum. If conservatives/Republicans are willing to blame Bush/Republicans as well as Democrats… then are they willing to concede how Democrats share responsibility for the crisis? Bi-partisanship and all that you know.)
More than once I issued this challenge – and to my knowledge never did receive a reply.
As Anglican Curmudgeon asks (in the context of a post on Speaker Pelosi):
What is it about the left’s mindset that makes them constitutionally incapable of ever accepting any responsibility for something that might make them (at least in their eyes) look bad?
Precisely.
Actually there might be an answer. It has to do with psychology and motivations. If one is motivated primarily by ego (the desire to look good and feel good about yourself) rather than by truth (which means you sometimes fall short and are willing to admit it).
Addendum (06/02/09): I later realized there is a serious flaw with the above post and its title. It sounds like I am saying “the Democratic party and/or Democrats are irrelevant – or at least they should be”. That was not my intent. Such an implication would be disrespectful narrow-minded and just all around stupid. The intent was to critique a specific argument or mantra – the one marked in red above.
Readers of this blog may know (or not) that since moving to Louisiana I have (excuse me – had) changed my voting pattern. I have voted for Democrats. Why? Because I am a firm centrist. In New York the Republicans are liberal and the Democrats are very liberal – so I vote for Republicans always because they are closer to the center. Since moving to Louisiana – some Republicans are just so outrageously far to the right that I have voted for the Democratic candidate. We need the Democratic party and Democrats – even if/when I disagree with policies and platforms. A one party state is not healthy.
I mean – imagine if there were only the Republican party and the Republicans were 100% in charge… and it went to their heads. We might get something like – oh I do not know – something like 2000-2008. (Which is not to say the Bush II Administration was all bad by no means. But vastly expanding government and budgets and deficits and frankly President Bush is the one who started all this TARP/bailout idiocy. Some of President Obama’s worst policies are simply expanded continuations from the previous.)
