In a message dated 2/16/2004 1:54:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, ulyss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Suppose I was arguing about motives from results in the same way? Let's look at welfare. I agree with much of your analysis on welfare but I believe that the debate was colored on both sides by selfish motives as well. You have correctly pointed out that welfare became entangled in politics and that many "liberals" ( I will use liberal and conservative here as names for groups but I want to be clear that I am uncomfortable with these labels for individuals who are spread out across a spectrum and who may hold beliefs that place them in one group some times and other groups other times.) did support welfare because they were in fact running the programs. But many conservative opposed it for less than noble reasons. There was and is clearly an element of racism for some people who oppose welfare.
Where I disagree with you can pretty much be encapsulated in the above argument. Just because someone disagrees with the means that you prefer to do certain things, a lot of people on this list seem to believe that means that we're hostile to your ends. I want to change welfare, so that must mean I'm hostile to the poor. Assuming arguendo I want to cut taxes, so I must be trying to help my rich friends. And so on. We agree on this completely. Similarly with the WMD thing. I don't think the Bush Administration relied upon WMDs because they were contemptuous of the American public. To the extent that the administration was trying to manipulate public opinion by emphasizing WMD they were acting as if the people could not be trusted to make an informed decision that would be costly in the short run but useful and even morally correct in the long run. They did because they provided a clear and unmistakeable justification _in front of the UN_. And they were forced to go to the UN by people who opposed invading Iraq. I guess we disagee on who the arguement was aimed at. Was it to convince the world or our own citizens. The _difference_ in views, and the reason this whole discussion got started, is that I've simply never heard any conservative express sentiments even vaguely like those that Tom expressed. I've heard lots of liberals talk like that, though. By their very nature liberals and conservatives will couch their critisms in different terms. Conservatives, in general want to maintain the current order and believe that things will work out best if the government does not interfer. So they will not come out and say that the people are idiots. But they will speak about how godless the country has become and how people are losing their moral centers. They will rail against all sorts of evils. But in essence they are saying that americans have become godless and immoral and that the liberals are at fault. Liberals by definition want to change the status quo. So they must rail against the government and complain about americans who do not see the agenda as they do. But in fact they love their country and its people just as much conservatives do. Chomsky was asked recently why he hated america. He said he did not. He said that the US was the greatest country in the world to live in. He said that he wanted it to be better. I must say thay by and large thoughtful liberals and conservatives do not treat the public with contempt. But I've never met an American conservative who didn't _like_ Americans, and I've never met one who didn't respect the extraordinary wisdom of the American public. I think you aren't looking closely enough. As I said, the conservative uses different language so lack of respect will come out in different ways. Use of buzz words that convey an allegiance to "american values" to obscure actions that are harmful to many americans is indicative of contempt for the american public. I am thinking now mostly of talking heads like Limbaugh, Hannety and O'Reilly. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
