This election cycle has seen both Tom Carper and Michael Castle talking about “Bipartisanship” as if it is some kind of magic elixir that can remedy all of societies ills.
Even Joe M at Merit Bound Alley has drunk the “bipartisanship” kool-aid.
However, I think that there is a difference between the sort of rational compromise and deliberation (principled bipartisanship) that people think of when they think of “bipartisanship” and the craven style of “bipartisanship” that is actually being practiced by the likes of Michael Castle and Tom Carper.
Part of the confusion about “bipartisanship” arises from something called the “avgeraging fallacy”. The averaging fallacy allows for two ideological extremes to be “averaged out” leaving objective truth in the gutter. Say I’m thinking of a number between one and ten. Say that number is the number three. Now I ask two people what they think the number is and “person A” says three but “person B” says nine. A sensible bipartisanists would say that the naswer is probably “six”. It is a perfectly illogical guess, but logical (like objective truth) is a frequent causuality of cynical bipartisanship.
This logical fallacy runs rampant in the mainstream press. The averaging fallacy usually sounds something like this:
Conservative Position: “Life begins at conception.”
Liberal Position: “Life begins at birth.”
Typical News Report: “Life is generally regarded as beginning sometime after conception and prior to birth.”
The habit of constantly trying to accommodated two “extreme” views leads to the “averaging fallacy”. In addition to the craven press, this logical fallacy is also the refuge o cynical bastards who claim to be political centrist.
As the averaging fallacy is applied to the war in Iraq for example, it is easy to see how the idea of objective truth is raped and abused like a 12 year old Iraqi girl.
Liberal Position: “We need to get out of Iraq now!”
Conservative Position: “We need to stay until we win (eg. forever)!”
Cynical Bipartisanists: “We need to leave Iraq in the next few [insert random time periods here].”
Sadly main stream journalists, even some bloggers, are in the thrall of this type of “bipartisanship” which holds the concept of objective truth in absolute contempt.
Someone from the “other side” who has written eloquently in the concept of “pricipled bipartisanship” is Tyler Nixon. I’ll get more into the concept of principled bipartisan ship in the next installment.
December 4, 2006 at 3:40 pm
When did we leave Germany after WWII?
December 4, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Please. I’d laugh, but another three guys died today.
We had a plan for Germany. We raised taxes to pay for it. We sacrificed. Where is the plan for Iraq? Where is the call to sacrifice? What have you done for the war effort Duf?
What have I done? What has Michael Castle done?
Anyone…?
Anyone…?
Bullshit on this bogus war. US out now!
December 4, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Correction.
Four Marines killed in a copter crash in Iraq, and 50 bodies of murdered Iraqis found in Baghdad overnight.
I know you’d rather live in a fantasy world where Germany is like Iraq and Iraq is notlike Vietnam – but the truth is the truth. That was the point of the post.
December 4, 2006 at 4:22 pm
For bipartisanship to work there have to be some agreed upon facts. People have to face reality. Without reality there is no common ground for concensus. As long as the Republicans insist on living in la-la-spin-land it’s going to be hard to reach any bipartisan agreement that makes sense for the nation.
December 4, 2006 at 4:25 pm
The habit of constantly trying to accommodated two “extreme” views leads to the “averaging fallacy”.
Maybe by putting the word extreme in quotes you were alluding to the fact that an over reliance of the fallacy also forces the “centrist” into regarding ever other position as “extreme”?
Obviously there is nothing extreme about quickly ending this botched experiment in nation building, but the traditional media and bipartisan hucksters continue to spin it as such.
December 5, 2006 at 4:10 am
Responding to the first and second post.
According to Newt Gingrich, the Marshall plan cost us a steep 3% of our GNP. Those who fought WWII understood the price of peace.
Since then the investment has paid off over 100 times its value.
I did not have time to find out the humanitarian cost in dollars invested in Iraq. I’m asking Tommywonk for help here.
Yet our current GNP is so huge, that if we followed through with a 3% “Msrshal Plan”, as did our ancestors, we would have had no problem pulling our troops out of Iraq on time. This is the lost post-9/11 opportunity. This is a large part of why Iraq is falling apart today.
Instead we gave 1 trillion to the top one percent of our wealthiest citizens. Whoopee.
December 5, 2006 at 4:22 am
In all seriousness, something was missing on the analogy above, discussing at what point, life begins.
I believe it started with:
Conservative: Life begins at conception.
Liberal: No, life begins at birth.
But missing was the pragmatist version, which is:
No, you are both wrong! Life begins……. when the kids grow up and move out of the house………
December 5, 2006 at 7:51 am
Word! And good take down of the “How long did we stay in Germany” fella.
December 5, 2006 at 3:32 pm
On the other hand, the Mullahs in Iran have issued a fatwa that life begins at exactly 140 days after conception, which allows Iranian researchers to work on embryonic stem cell research without fear of going to hell.
Boy howdy, wouldn’t life be simple if we had Mullahs to tell us what to do? Too bad we here in a free society are burdened by debating moral issues amongst ourselves.
December 5, 2006 at 3:34 pm
…and Jay, we’re still in Germany but the Russians aren’t.