Argument Pet Peeves

And Also: John Edwards spoke at the church where Martin Luther King Jr. (happy birthday!) gave his remarks against the war in Vietnam as well in the promotion of social justice to promote his own related concerns. I admit that this sort of thing appeals to me. (Is he the man to promote it as President? Another question. Admitting he was wrong helped. But, darn he was wrong!) Peace and justice. Darn people for supporting such things. Dirty hippies!

Among the usual feedback typical to message boards and such, there tends to be general themes and trends. And, as is my wont, general things that are personal pet peeves. Recent events (partially on Slate and its "fray," but not limited to there) bring to mind three in particular:

"They just whine and moan": The allegation that all liberals or Bush opponents do is whine, without providing much substantive content, and especially no realistic solutions. They just "hate Bush" and can't answer a simple question like "well, what are you going to do about it?" (The fact this sounds like a five-year-old underlines the annoyance factor)

Two responses. One, I'm not sure what one expects from people -- on a medium often used to respond and give quick remarks, yes, many emotionally express their disgust, anger, and depression at the state of the things. Two, yes, they do. For instance, someone complained that Dahlia Lithwick (and perhaps others) in effect spent five years just complaining about the President's abuse of executive power without doing more. This is false. It also is amusing when her co-conspirator (Emily Bazelon), so to speak, just wrote an article spelling out what Congress can do. Anyway, my technique often is to underline what I think is the constitutional or just thing to do. Saying they broke the rules in the process doesn't take away the presence of the "alternative" -- you know, THE RULES WE LIVE BY.

[This is not to say that the opposition doesn't "put up" enough ... but this is not quite the same as saying as various aspects of it doesn't do it at all. See next problem.]

Simplistic hyperbole. Thus, a response to an obviously sympathetic discussion of Justice Brennan's case notes noted the problems with "hero worship," but then exaggerated the problem by saying all he did was extend judicial power, and his fans are blinded by the light. Or, that all he did was to "make" law how he thought it "ought" to go, as if conservatives did not in some similar fashion actively promote a constitutional vision, using what they thought the law ought to be. IOW, what they thought the law (the Constitution, statutory law, etc.) already is.

Many are often wrong and very well might let their personal views cloud their judgment. I think Brennan tried to use the courts too much. But, this middle of the path debate -- short articles and such can feed it, if we realize the articles can only do so much, by nature somewhat simplistic and not dealing with all the complexities of an issue (and, yes, influenced by the ideology of the writer, since Slate etc. are not just neutral media resources) -- is different than continually saying how "stupid" such and such account is, or how such and such person or ideology is patently idiotic.

Confusion of terms. Certain terms are especially abused, leading to heated words that turn out to be based on confusion. Thus, we hear that some court is "antidemocratic" since they do not let legislatures decide a certain question the way they see fit. [One person even noted this was not "liberal," as if it is not "liberal" to uphold individual rights. Yes, John Locke, if the courts uphold rights the people themselves agreed to in constitutional documents (or that are simply found "in nature"), but not in simple legislation, they are not being "liberal."] I had some person who appears to have studied classical political philosophy much more than I use this line.*

Two problems there. First, we live in a republic. You know, listen to the Pledge all those schoolchildren cite ... it comes before the "under God" business. It is "for which it stands." This seems to confuse people -- a republic is not a simple democracy. If it was, Bush would likely not be President right now, since he did not win the popular vote in 2000. And, yes, republics have courts that secure certain rights and rules of the game. This in some fashion, yes, makes them "undemocratic."

Second, "democracy" is usually understood to mean the type of democracy we have. Inequality is not necessarily "undemocratic," if one uses a word to mean simple majority rule. Relatedly, especially with this definition in mind (which does confuse things somewhat), democracy is promoted by an independent judiciary in various respects. The First Amendment promotes democracy. etc. See, Democracy and Distrust by John Hart Ely Jr.

Sure, democracy is an important aspect of a republic, so a proper balance must be put in place. And, criticism of accepted wisdom can be used here to underline the point. This goes to the second category. But, it is in effect cheating to skip this step. And, it surely leads to talking past each other, and each side firmly thinking the other are idiots. This is bad news. This is reality.

Andy Rooney "doncha hate" off.

---

* "Judicial activism" is another abused word that often is used to mean "active in a way I don't like."