Faith is a tremendous virtue — when it comes to religion. It has dubious value in the political field, as Thomas Sowell so neatly explains:
What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way: "Demagoguery beats data."
People who urge us to rely on the United Nations, instead of acting "unilaterally," or who urge us to follow other countries in creating a government-run medical care system, often show not the slightest interest in getting facts about the actual track record of either the UN or government-run medical systems.
Those who believe in affirmative action likewise usually see no reason to find out what actually happens under such policies, as distinguished from what they wish, hope, or imagine happens.
The crusade for "a living wage" that will enable a worker to support a family proceeds without the slightest interest in finding out whether most people who are making low wages actually have any family to support — much less seeking out the facts about what actually happens after the government sets wages.
People who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts are a danger to the whole society. Since the votes of such people count just as much as the votes of people who know what they are talking about, politicians have every incentive to pass laws and create policies that pander to ignorant notions, if those notions are widespread.
There's more, which you can read here.
Filed under: Culture
See, it’s like Sowell says (more or less) “It don’t mean a thing, if it aint got that swing.”
And what Sowell means by that is simple enough, that you’re a stinkin’ demagogue, if your position’s not grounded in the shock and awe of fact and data.
But, oh, wait a minute. Sowell himself fails to offer a single fact in all of his smarmy little essay. In fact, he attacks others for what his essay proves to be an excellent example of … Talk about “faithing” your political view into being — Sowell shows us how it’s done. Which makes him a stinkin demagogue, by his own definition … And that’s a FACT you can believe in.
Isn’t G-raze just such an intellectual? He/she apparently knows everything. He made a stop at my site as well.
I found Thomas Sowell’s piece quite refreshing.
Oh come now, G-raze, by that standard you are a demogogue, too, because you offer no facts in your comment. The truth is that Sowell offers an example grounded in fact and offers two books as sources for that fact (go read the article, not just the excerpt above). You offer nothing but the ad hominem attack that the article was “smarmy” with no supporting facts at all. If you wish to dispute the truth of Sowell’s column, your comments will be welcome, but a comment that offers nothing but unsupported name-calling does not advance the dislogue.
G-raze did some name calling on my blog as well:
“I see that promoting Sowell’s mind-numbingly fact-free essay was required posting today by the fascist stooges conservative yah yah section. Please consult my comments at Bookworm Room.”
I suggested he find a blog to read that agreed with his views.
Part of me is tempted to delete G-Raze’s comments, because they’re impolite — which is entirely separate from comments that politely differ from my point of view. However, while hurling political invective, G-raze has avoided obscenities (thank you for that), nor has he attacked me in a way that hurts my feelings. Political invective of this type is reflexive, and almost without heat when directed at any single individual. In any event, I don’t mind having my blog as a forum for competing points of view — sans foul language or what I perceive as vicious personal attacks — so, here it stays.
Calling Bookworm a demagogue, is an insult to real demagogues. Real demagogues would hang themselves if they were that honest.
Why so many people become defensive when their pet UN gets attacked, is indicative of a greater disease. Facts and data are really overrated. Logic and reason counts for 3/4ths of the solution. Facts and data are only meant to check and to serve as a fail safe for your primary design.
Facts and data are part of Education. Education is only 1/3rd of the mind of a human. The others are Wisdom and Intelligence. Someone can have wisdom, without education or intelligence, and still get the UN and the War on Terror right. His reasons won’t be good or verified, but that’s the price you pay for running your brain on 1/3rd power.
The whole reason for intellectual honesty in relation to facts and data, is this. You are justified to believe in something if there are more reasons to believe it than reasons not to believe it. You are justified to disbelieve it, if there are more justifications against it than for it. And you are justified to withold belief if the data is split both ways, in which there are equally as many justifications for as against.
That tri-luminary system is important. The Democrats know how to raise an issue and get people to believe in it, because they are intelligent. They don’t need the facts, because they can make up the facts. For example, the felony charges in the immigration bill was voted for by the Democrats, in order to keep it in and damage the Republican party. A bill is composed through a lenghty and strenuous process that is supposed to make it better. The Democrats have made it worse, for political gain. At the same time, they give a justification for the belief that the Democrats are for immigration while the Republicans are hostile. Related to the draft charges, as well.
This means the Democrats are intelligent, but it does not mean they are either educated or wise in their choices. Demagoguery is the intelligent use of issues in order to obtain advantage and value from it. This may or may not have anything to do with real issues. This reminds me of AD and D, where there are 2 attributes for mental traits. Intelligence and Wisdom. Here in the real world, it is 3d and not 2d, with many many permutations.
Even Don Q agrees with me that 4/5ths of Sowell’s essay lacks factual substantiation. So, I am impolite in pointing that out, in the same way that we’re all impolite when we point out the king has no clothes — It may be true (and the point of the fable is that we *need* to recognize the king’s true condition), but it’s still impolite.
Fact is, a whole bunch of conservative bloggers — all of them acting on the very same day — reproduced a commentary that withers before the most cursory examination of its contents. Which makes the conservative bloggers who participated in making the commentary widely distributed look rather, well, herd-like. I guess it’s not surprising that they would take umbrage at having the commentary’s shortcomings articulated.
Now, Don Q, as far as that last paragraph of Sowell’s goes — You’re a lawyer, so I won’t belabor this. The two cited books and their reception among specialists are entirely beside the point in Sowell’s argument. At best, he trots them out as strawmen. At worse — and this is my speculation — Sowell found a novel way to fan the anti-Moslem flames, because the books really contribute nothing to the points Sowell was trying to make.
Self-esteem doesn’t come from saying the Emperor has no clothes, you know.
Oooops, Ymarsakar, you’re out of the loop. Conservatives don’t believe in self-esteem.
If I was a conservative, I’d never have understood psychological and guerrila warfare.
In what sense is it that you understand Psychology?