Ignorance & Arguments

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance: 
that principle is contempt prior to investigation."  
Herbert Spencer (AA Big Book, 9th printing, p. 570)

Sometimes I can barely stand to read “Letters to the Editor” in our local paper.  The antagonizing remarks and lack of any reasoned responses often bring out the worst in me.  In Sunday’s paper (May 26, 2013), one woman’s contribution began with this blast:

“The Republicans are finally doing what they do best, keeping their promise to bring down the first black president of the United States.  They’ve threatened this action since 2008 and now they are going at it full force.  In their constant weakening of this country by affecting monies for education and monies shoring up our infrastructure, Republicans are affecting jobs… …if the Obama haters in Washington did fund the above programs, there would be a spurt of growth in this country as never seen since the ’60s…”

I’m irritated just re-typing it.

There are so many things wrong with her statement, it’s difficult to know where to begin:

1. This is not the position of “Republicans” –– in fact, I do not know personally of a single Republican who actually embraces what she alleges––that “they” intend to “bring down” the President.
2. Republicans do this “best”?  As opposed to what?
3. I don’t remember any promise or threat to bring down the first black president by anyone, much less Republicans.
4. The insinuation is that the President’s race is what Republicans find most disagreeable:  he is black, and therefore should not hold this high office.  The truth is that he could be green or pink or Hispanic or Caucasian or Native American and it wouldn’t matter.  Not race but policy is what upsets conservatives, not Republicans.  
5. How are “they” going at it “full force”?  I identify myself as independent and conservative, not  Republican––but I know Republicans include everyone from Rand Paul (a libertarian conservative) to John McCain (an institutionalized big government progressive).  Lumping everyone together is both inaccurate and idiotic.
6. Her charge of “affecting monies for education…and shoring up our infrastructure” is simply not accurate.  “Republicans” did not stop the Stimulus––which flooded the economy with billions of dollars for “shovel ready” projects (few of which came about), and “green” projects (most of which went bankrupt), and did not do anything for “jobs”.  Jobs are created by regulating and taxing less, not more, so businesses will prosper and expand, and create more jobs.   Government-created jobs are funded by taxes, which are finite in amount.  Unless the Government intends simply to print money and pay people directly, it must extract a larger percentage of money from those outside the public sector.  If you don’t believe that, then why doesn’t the Government simply stop collecting taxes altogether, and simply print money to pay its employees?  Then there would be no need to worry about bond issues and approvals for taxes to pay for education and infrastructure.  BUT if money comes from somewhere, represents something other than paper, it is supposed to be a finite amount; so we borrow from other countries to fund our indebted living.  And we pay interest on that increasing debt in repayments.  The problem Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans”) have with spending money isn’t with education or infrastructure, but with the nearly $17,000,000,000,000 (i.e. trillion) of debt we have accumulated––six trillion of which has been added just in the past five years.  At some point, we  will not be able to beg, borrow, tax or steal enough money to pay our loan payments as a country.  Then, we go bankrupt.  Our currency is backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States of America.” What happens when we cannot afford to repay our loans, much less make promised salaries to those working in government jobs and payments to retirees (including Social Security which is projected by the Social Security Administration to be bankrupt in this coming decade)? 
7. Her notion is simply false that if those who hate Obama and control all the pursestrings approved Carte Blanche every government proposal and request, the economy would grow and thrive.  It would not.  Not only is that group a fiction in her mind, the money required to fund whatever programs she has in mind comes out of someone’s pocket, limiting what those business owners and taxpayers can do otherwise.  Besides, since February of 2009, nearly $800 billion has been spent to “stimulate” the economy.  After four years of stimuli, our national unemployment numbers at best remain virtually unchanged from when the stimulus began (7.5-8%).  More of the same probably will not bring different results.    

The first step in making a good argument is to understand and represent fairly the opposing viewpoint.  Such reasoned discussion is more likely to be persuasive to others, and make the original critic think.  

The bold by-line over this woman’s letter said, “How to spread hatred and fear”; she is an excellent example of how to do just that.