Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:54:25 PM
The left has an interesting view of what constitutes truth. In the global warming debate in particular, they seem to resort to a very strange argument. While reading the
comments to an article on the fictional polar bear extinction*, the response from the left is "Yeah, well Bush and McCain and Gingrich say there is AGW, so there!"
This shows how leftists establish truth, and why so many foolish ideas continue to persist on the left, even though they have been disproved everywhere else. To the left, truth is not an external, objective construct. For all their talk of being scientific and rational, their truth is of the Maoist/Stalinist** type, what the leader says is true is true, evidence be damned. And they apparently think everyone else abides by this rule as well.
It is evident everywhere one sees leftists arguing. From Gore's pronouncement that debate on AGW is over, to the left's attempts to use statements by McCain or Bush to say there is no argument over amnesty, to their attempts in the 1980's to prove heterosexuals were equally at risk for AIDS by pointing to the pronouncements of politicized groups, the left always resorts to argument by authority to establish the truth.
This is simply not valid. I think Aristotle, Maimonides, Isaac Newton, Marcus Aurelius and St. Thomas Aquinas were all brilliant men, but all were also in complete error on a number of issues. Just because they were brilliant men does not mean they were right about everything. Nor do I even accept all their statements at face value on those topics about which they were right. Even a genius can make a mistake.
But, apparently, the left is not comfortable with this concept. They think that by saying "Bush believes in AGW" they will cause the conservative movement as a whole to suddenly accept AGW's truth. What the left fails to grasp, leaving aside whether Bush or McCain are even conservatives, is the fact that a conservative leader accepts a theory means nothing. We do not blindly stand by the decisions of our leaders, but evaluate them and decide if they make sense. One only has to look at the reaction to Bush's supreme court nominations or his positions on amnesty to see that. We are not blindly led by our leaders. Instead we choose to follow those whose opinions agree with our own.
Then again, there is a cost to this. The liberals may be led into error by their obedience, but, on the other hand, it does create a very cohesive party. So, while we definitely are less prone to collectively stumbling into error, we lack the monolithic voting block the left has at its disposal. So, while they may make mistakes, they are also in a position to elect more office holders and enact more laws based on those mistakes.
On the other hand, fortune has smiled on us this election. thanks to the brutal internecine war between Obamaniac and Clintonites, we are in a rare position to keep the left out of the white house for another four years. It is a shame McCain is the best we could find to represent our side, but at least it isn't Obama or Clinton who will take the oath in January.
-------------------------------------------------------
* I call it fictional since it appears the actual numbers show a steady increase. This is supported by the Canadian government. As the only groups claiming falling numbers are also those using it as a political tool to push their agenda, I am quite skeptical. If they had the support of even one non-politicized wildlife group I would be more open to the argument, but as it is, the people without an agenda seem to be unanimous in saying polar bears are, if not thriving, at least doing pretty well.
** I was going to say "Orwellian", but since Orwell himself was such an opponent of all things authoritarian, it seems unfair to remember his name that way.