A good friend of mine gave $10 to the Kucinich campaign. Talk about pissing your money away. On the other hand, he takes the position that campaigns do not exist sole to win elections.
How about this (from Katha Pollitt column in the Nation) ?
"If you want a great platform on everything from single-payer health insurance (yes) to the death penalty (no), Dennis Kucinich is definitely your man. Indeed, some pundits predict that when Dean's lefty supporters discover Dean's center-right positions on such issues as Israel and welfare, his campaign will fizzle. "The guy they think Dean is, Dennis is," Jeff Cohen, Kucinich's ebullient communications director, told me, predicting an exodus of progressives from Dean to Kucinich as the truth comes out."
To be fair, her column is in support of Howard Dean, not Kucinich, but she seems to accept Kucinich as a potentially serious candidate. I have never been impressed with Pollitt, but it scares me to see such a utter lack of realism on the left.
"I'm probably supposed to make a reasoned argument why this isn't just untrue, but so untrue as to be a legitimate object of wonder and, perhaps, study. But, given the fact that this conclusion comes at the end of a 2000 word post, I'd say it's not a good day for reasoned argument."
As the author of the "inexplicable" post, which made it a bad day for "reasoned argument," I was wondering whether you actually read the post. Given that you recognize that it is the conclusion of an argument, rather than a mere assertion, it would have been nice to see some discussion of the argument before you dismiss the conclusion as so much nonsense.
The argument I gave was a rebuttal to an argument in favor of supporting Howard Dean. The author of that argument adduced criteria by which progressives could purportedly determine which Democratic candidate (i) was worthy of progressive support and (ii) could beat Bush. My argument was that, at this point in time, judging by those criteria, progressives have more reason to support Dennis Kucinich than Howard Dean.
I even went so far as to research the claims that I made and provide hyperlinks to detailed source materials that back up those claims.
Careless, irresponsible, flippant commentary, such as this post by "Ogged," helps make it difficult to carry out well-informed, well-researched, and well-reasoned political dialogue in the public sphere.
As a student of philosophy, perhaps you're familiar with Hegel's (apocryphal) response to the news that his metaphysical deduction of the necessary distances between bodies in our solar system had been proven wrong by new observations: "So much the worse for the facts, they have yet to justify themselves."
So it is with your argument about Kucinich. Some conclusions are so obviously false that they invalidate the arguments used to arrive at them. I did read your whole post and if you had left off with the point that "changing hearts and minds can at times be as important as changing the President," you would have had, in my opinion, a wrong but plausible argument that would have been worthy of discussion. But you chose to argue that support for Kucinich was consistent with support for an electable candidate. I didn't argue against that claim and I still won't: if you believe it, you are simply out of touch.
I believe we're on the same side and I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach the question, but well-informed, well-researched, and well-reasoned arguments that assume a state of affairs that doesn't exist are academic distractions from the business of removing George Bush from office.
This is an improvement over your original post, but still displays a lack of understanding of what the original argument was about. For the sake of argument, I accepted most of the criteria that Nico Pitney used to argue for the conclusion that progressives should be supporting Dean. Supposing those criteria to be genuine, I made the case that it plausibly follows that Kucinich is worthy of progressive support as opposed to Dean.
As for your claim that "some conclusions are so obviously false that they invalidate the arguments used to arrive at them," that's true, but the conclusion that Kucinich is a viable candidate is not the sort of thing that can be "obviously" false as it stands. It's a contingent proposition, so in order to deny the conclusion, you'd need to have some empirical evidence to think that it is false. It's not the sort of thing that one can rule out a priori.
As for whether I'm "out of touch," nothing you've said so far even remotely supports that. I provided actual evidence for thinking that Kucinich is a viable candidate. Is he a long shot? At this point, yes he is. From that it does not follow that he couldn't pull off a victory, or even that he probably couldn't pull of a victory. (Recall that Jimmy Carter did not even register in the national polls in 1975; Clinton was polling in the mid-single digits back in 1991.) And from the fact that he's a long shot it clearly does not follow that he is not worthy of progressive support.
As for whether my argument "assume[s] a state of affairs that doesn't exist," nothing you've said so far supports that claim. (I assume that by 'non-existent state of affairs' you mean a 'false premise'.) Which of my premises do you think is false?
In short, you're adding nothing to the conversation until you either (i) show that the premises of the argument, if true, don't support the conclusion, or (ii) show that one of the premises is dubious, or (iii) show that there is other relevant evidence that the argument failed to take into account. As far as "reasoned argument" goes, those are the only options available to you.
You really should think about these things more carefully before you level the charge that an argument fails to measure up to standard.
The ostensibly exhaustive enumeration of avenues of argument available to one's interlocutor is one of the bad habits of analytic philosophers.
I deliberately avoided the term "false premise" because I wanted to draw attention away from your "argument," which is well-drawn, and direct attention to the frame in which that argument occurs, which is an imagined political landscape in which Dennis Kucinich is a viable presidential candidate.
Why would I do that? Because I have a good sense of the audience of this blog, which is center-left and generally non-ideological. I know (and witness the first two comments) that that audience recognizes that Kucinich is not a viable candidate. The post serves as a reminder that not only are there the plentiful right-wingers of which we are well aware, but that we have fellow travelers who pull the debate into unreasonableness from the left.
That reminder is important because I really don't want George Bush to be reelected and even the hint that we on the left consider Kucinich viable, even the hint that he represents us, will damage the eventual nominee. It will hurt the nominee insofar as moderates are alienated from his party and it will hurt him insofar as people who are convinced to support Kucinich are liable to approach the eventual nominee with diminished fervor, since he'll be a "compromise."
I'm well aware that I haven't tried to give evidence for the claim that Kucinich is obviously not viable. I haven't done so, first, for a practical reason: I don't believe there's anything I could say to convince you. Absent knowledge of an impending damning revelation about Kucinich, the kind of evidence that would settle the question of his viability is extremely difficult to adduce (if it weren't, presidential campaigns would attract fewer people whom hindsight would show to never have had a chance). But I also don't engage the question because the very purpose of my post was to caution away from taking impossible hypotheticals seriously. Recall Aristotle's teaching (1094 b13,b25) that we judge matters according to criteria proper to them. You may think Kucinich's viability is a contingent proposition that can't be ruled out a priori, but in the realm of politics, it's about as obvious as it gets.
"The ostensibly exhaustive enumeration of avenues of argument available to one's interlocutor is one of the bad habits of analytic philosophers."
What you say below falls into category (iii): you think that there is some further evidence—some ineffable fact about what is possible in the realm of contemporary American politics—that is relevant to the conclusion, which the argument failed to take into account. As for whether the options I enumerated are exhaustive, if you can come up with a fourth, then you've proven something very interesting worthy of publication (seriously).
"I deliberately avoided the term "false premise" because I wanted to draw attention away from your "argument," which is well-drawn, and direct attention to the frame in which that argument occurs, which is an imagined political landscape in which Dennis Kucinich is a viable presidential candidate."
A "frame in which an argument occurs" sounds suspiciously like an assumption or un-argued premise. Call it whatever you want. The main point is that when you say that the argument is cast in "an imagined political landscape," you're just begging the question.
"Why would I do that? Because I have a good sense of the audience of this blog, which is center-left and generally non-ideological. I know (and witness the first two comments) that that audience recognizes that Kucinich is not a viable candidate. The post serves as a reminder that not only are there the plentiful right-wingers of which we are well aware, but that we have fellow travelers who pull the debate into unreasonableness from the left."
It's great to remind people that they need to be cautious about accepting what they read, regardless of whether it comes from the left or right. The problem, though, is that simply suggesting that an argument is "unreasonable" without providing any evidence for thinking so is exactly the sort of thing people ought to be cautious of.
"That reminder is important because I really don't want George Bush to be reelected and even the hint that we on the left consider Kucinich viable, even the hint that he represents us, will damage the eventual nominee. It will hurt the nominee insofar as moderates are alienated from his party and it will hurt him insofar as people who are convinced to support Kucinich are liable to approach the eventual nominee with diminished fervor, since he'll be a "compromise.""
The fact that you don't want people to get the idea in their heads that Kucinich is a viable candidate is no reason whatsoever for other people to not take his candidacy seriously. If you have good reason to believe that he's not worthy of support, then that's another matter. The problem is that you adamantly refuse to provide any evidence for your view. Of course, when I say that progressives don't need to compromise themselves in order to support Kucinich, it's somewhat of an overstatement. What counts as a compromise for any given person will depend on their values and beliefs. To be more precise, I'd say that supporting Kucinich necessitates the least amount of compromise on the part of most progressives. Supporting any candidate will likely involve some amount of compromise. (By the way, your suggestion that taking Kucinich seriously will hurt the eventual nominee is puzzling, to say the least. How, exactly, is that supposed to work?)
"I'm well aware that I haven't tried to give evidence for the claim that Kucinich is obviously not viable. I haven't done so, first, for a practical reason: I don't believe there's anything I could say to convince you."
Of course there is. I'm just waiting to hear what you have to say. I have to admit, though, that it is a bit incongruous to hear someone who claims to worry so much about the status of "reasoned argument" to freely admit that s/he is engaging in discussion without any intention of providing evidence for his/her position.
"Absent knowledge of an impending damning revelation about Kucinich, the kind of evidence that would settle the question of his viability is extremely difficult to adduce (if it weren't, presidential campaigns would attract fewer people whom hindsight would show to never have had a chance)."
Damning revelations aside, there are lots of considerations relevant to whether a candidate is viable. And many of them are fairly easy to adduce. For instance, the fact that Kucinich has been re-elected five times from a district saturated with Reagan Democrats is good evidence that he has appeal across the political center as well as the political left. The fact that Kucinich is from Ohio would give him an automatic advantage in a key battleground state. Rank and file labor union members would have good reasons to support him (repeal NAFTA, pro-worker NLRB, vigorous enforcement of labor laws, etc). His commitment to free public education through college would appeal to lower-income voters and minority voters. Everyone who cares about the state of health care in this country has good reason to support him, since the centerpiece of his platform is single-payer national health care (supported by three-quarters of Americans even if it means repealing Bush's tax cuts). And some polling data suggest that a large plurality of people would prefer "any Democrat" over Bush. None of these reasons is conclusive, but taken together they belie your claim that it is just "obvious" that Kucinich couldn't unseat Bush. Now that I have (once again) provided actual evidence for my belief, it appears that it's your turn to provide some for yours. No more excuses, please.
"But I also don't engage the question because the very purpose of my post was to caution away from taking impossible hypotheticals seriously."
To say I'm advocating an "impossible hypothetical" is not only, strictly speaking, false, but it also begs the question (no surprise by now). I say, "If Kucinich were the nominee, then he could beat Bush." You say that's impossible. It's clearly possible. The real question is how probable is it. Of course, we're not going to be able to come to a precise conclusion on this question, but the evidence I've presented suggests that it is at least not improbable. The evidence you've presented suggests nothing because you've presented no evidence. You've done nothing more than proclaim your hunch that Kucinich wouldn't stand a chance.
"Recall Aristotle's teaching (1094 b13,b25) that we judge matters according to criteria proper to them. You may think Kucinich's viability is a contingent proposition that can't be ruled out a priori, but in the realm of politics, it's about as obvious as it gets."
Once again, to say that it is "obvious" that I'm wrong just begs the question. I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong; my belief that Kucinich is a viable candidate is defeasible. All you have to do is substantiate your claim. Or you can just keep quoting dead philosophers and repeating yourself.
In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche writes, "It is indecent to show all five fingers. What must first be proved is worth little."
You chose to argue that support for Kucinich was consistent with support for an electable candidate. I didn't argue against that claim and I still won't: if you believe it, you are simply out of touch.
You've shown yourself to be an intellectual charlatan.
Your inability to respond speaks for itself.
What Ogged means, John, is that in the arena that is American politics if you have to prove to people that this is the person they should vote for, you've already lost. One thinks, based on past experiance, that Kucinich's weakness is that he runs on issues and ideas, not character and emotional appeals. Quite unfortunately he's probably right.
You make some interesting points, Michael. In response I'd say only that most candidates, at some point, have to "prove" that they're worthy of your vote.
I think you are correct to point out that Kucinich mainly runs on ideas and issues, rather than emotion. As counterintuitive as it sounds, this is indeed a "weakness" in contemporary American politics. I happen to suspect that such a weakness could be overcome, but it's just a suspicion.
I haven't jumped in because I figure Ogged has his reasons for not engaging you (John) in the debate. Ogged has more patience than I do, and a lot more political and philosophical savvy. But like Ogged, I was completely unvconvinced by your article, and I'm going to tell you why.
I read your last paragraph and had to reread the entire piece to make sure I hadn't just overlooked your argument. As I read it, your point-by-point refutations of Pitney amount to this:
Point 1: You disagree with the Greens, but their votes work against Dean and Kucinich equally.
Point 2: Kucinich's support for IRV and campsign finance reform is more convincing than Dean's.
Points 3 and 4: First you cite a poll that says that 43% of likely voters would prefer any Democrat to Bush, and Kucinich counts as well as Dean oes and "any Democrat." You also claim that Kucinich's more progressive ideas should play better to mainstream voters in light of Bush's awfulness.
Point 5: Kucinich is as not-Bush as Dean.
Point 6: You quote Kucinich's argument for why he may play better to swing voters.
Point 7: You simply say that you disagree with Pitney.
None of this convinces me. Nothing here adds up to, "Kucinich is still a viable candidate. Progressives should support Dean only if Kucinich's candidacy falters." You make a few points toward convincing me that progressives should prefer Kucinich's ideas, but nothing here convinces me that Kucinich will appeal to the mainstream of American voters. You make an argument that winning the election isn't everything when there are hearts and minds to be won, but that's not viability and that's not good enough for me.
I know, you cite a poll, and you think that Bush's unpalatability will push 43% of voters to the most progressive candidate. As far as I can tell, that's your only argument for Kucinich's electability, instead simply for his progressiveness. One poll cannot convince me, especially when it comes to 43% vs 43%.
Now, I know you want an interlocutor to grapple with each of your seven rebuttals. I don't have to for the same reason that you should not have grappled with each of Pitney's. Pitney's premises for the most part speak only to the progressive vote. As for the electability premises, including the campaign technology premise (which as a blogger you shouldn't dismiss so easily), you give them short shrift. For progressives who support Dean, these are the key premises -- the ones you should center your argument on. When you don't -- because you ignore them or let things rest on the 43%, your argument comes off like eristic.
Ogged wouldn't engage with your arguments because your argument was contained in biased premises. By the style of your writing and your arguements, you ask people to accept your premises and deal with your points. That feels manipulative and unfair, and I know that's part of why I wasn't going to respond -- until you got nasty.
Don't expect any more words from me on this subject, though I will read your response if you have one. I'm not blowing you off -- I have other commitments, and the existence of an opposing opinion does not oblige anyone to respond.
And why don't you have comments at your site??
"I haven't jumped in because I figure Ogged has his reasons for not engaging you (John) in the debate. Ogged has more patience than I do, and a lot more political and philosophical savvy. But like Ogged, I was completely unvconvinced by your article, and I'm going to tell you why."
It's nice to hear that someone over there is actually serious enough to respond to arguments with which they disagree.
"I read your last paragraph and had to reread the entire piece to make sure I hadn't just overlooked your argument."
It would be hard to miss the argument, since there is a preview, a recap, and along the way each step is clearly marked.
"As I read it, your point-by-point refutations of Pitney amount to this:
"Point 1: You disagree with the Greens, but their votes work against Dean and Kucinich equally."
This is not quite right. I argued that membership in a political party is a means to an end, not an end in itself. So if one is forced to choose, and if the end is served better by supporting a Democrat rather than a Green, then it would be prudent to support the Democrat.
"Point 2: Kucinich's support for IRV and campsign finance reform is more convincing than Dean's."
If by "more convincing" you mean "actually part of his platform" and "a commitment that he has not yet wavered on," then this is an accurate interpretation of what I said.
"Points 3 and 4: First you cite a poll that says that 43% of likely voters would prefer any Democrat to Bush, and Kucinich counts as well as Dean oes and "any Democrat." You also claim that Kucinich's more progressive ideas should play better to mainstream voters in light of Bush's awfulness."
At this point, I think you've missed the mark by a wide margin. I don't think Pitney is correct that progressives should, at this point in the campaign, support only a candidate that can probably go on to beat Bush. I offered two reasons for thinking otherwise. First, I quoted Jonathan Schell's point that there are more ways to win than simply winning the election. Second, depending on one's values and risk-tolerance, one might justifiedly believe that supporting a long shot is worth taking the risk.
I then went on to assume for the sake of argument that Pitney was correct, that progressives should, at this point, support only a candidate that has a fighting chance at beating Bush. It is in this context that I cited the poll numbers that just as many Americans would vote for "any Democrat" as would vote for Bush. That's good news for all the Democratic candidates, including Kucinich. The point is that there is no clear advantage for Dean here.
I'm not sure what it means for something to "play better to mainstream voters." However, I did say, once again backed up by very recent polling data, that an overwhelming majority of voters prefer a universal health care plan, such as Kucinich's, to Bush's tax cuts.
"Point 5: Kucinich is as not-Bush as Dean."
I don't know what this means, or which part of my argument it is meant to correspond to.
"Point 6: You quote Kucinich's argument for why he may play better to swing voters."
Kucinich is telling the truth about this; you can look it up if you want. His overwhelming success in that district is evidence that he appeals to people in the center of the political spectrum as well as the left.
"Point 7: You simply say that you disagree with Pitney."
This doesn't function as a premise in my argument; it is part of the conclusion. The fact that I disagree with Pitney is irrelevant unless I provide good reasons for disagreeing, just as it is irrelevant whether Ogged disagrees with me unless Ogged provides good reasons for disagreeing. Moreover, your gloss even distorts my conclusion: I don't "simply disagree with Pitney." I disagree with Pitney for all the reasons that I gave. I have enough respect for my opponents and my audience to deal with the arguments on their merits rather than flippantly dismissing them as so much "inexplicable" nonsense.
"None of this convinces me. Nothing here adds up to, "Kucinich is still a viable candidate. Progressives should support Dean only if Kucinich's candidacy falters.""
At this point, you have to recall the context of the argument. It is a rebuttal to Pitney's argument in favor of Dean. I accepted the criteria that Pitney adduced, and argued that they favor Kucinich rather than Dean at this point. I demonstrated that no one should be rationally convinced by Pitney's argument.
Perhaps you think that there are other relevant considerations, and I'd be interested in hearing what they are.
"You make a few points toward convincing me that progressives should prefer Kucinich's ideas, but nothing here convinces me that Kucinich will appeal to the mainstream of American voters."
Perhaps, but is there any better evidence for thinking that Dean will appeal to mainstream American voters? If that's the decisive criterion, then Lieberman tops the list of Democratic candidates. He still has the greatest name recognition of the bunch, and he was on the ticket in 2000 that received the second most votes in American history (and should have won the election).
"You make an argument that winning the election isn't everything when there are hearts and minds to be won, but that's not viability and that's not good enough for me."
That's fine. You're the best judge as to what is "good enough" for you. But whether it's "good enough" will vary from person to person. In any event, my conclusion doesn't depend on this claim (as I explained in my response to your rendition of points 3 and 4).
"I know, you cite a poll, and you think that Bush's unpalatability will push 43% of voters to the most progressive candidate. As far as I can tell, that's your only argument for Kucinich's electability, instead simply for his progressiveness. One poll cannot convince me, especially when it comes to 43% vs 43%."
I cited more than just one poll. I also pointed to Kucinich's electoral success in his Congressional district.
"Now, I know you want an interlocutor to grapple with each of your seven rebuttals. I don't have to for the same reason that you should not have grappled with each of Pitney's. Pitney's premises for the most part speak only to the progressive vote."
Of course you don't have to "grapple with" my argument. No one's going to make you.
Why, exactly, shouldn't I have engaged Pitney's argument? Pitney's argument was being widely circulated, cited, and discussed. I thought it was an unsuccessful argument, and consequently wrote up a rebuttal. Perhaps you're not interested in discussing whom progressives should support. I am.
"As for the electability premises, including the campaign technology premise (which as a blogger you shouldn't dismiss so easily), you give them short shrift. For progressives who support Dean, these are the key premises -- the ones you should center your argument on."
What evidence is there to think that Dean is "electable"? Aside from the poll I cited, which favors Dean and Kucinich equally, and aside from being able to draw in moderate support, which both Kucinich and Dean have a track record of doing, what specific evidence can you point to that shows Dean has a good chance at beating Bush?
"When you don't -- because you ignore them or let things rest on the 43%, your argument comes off like eristic."
I didn't ignore these issues. I discussed each of them. And, as I've already mentioned, I cited more than that poll.
"Ogged wouldn't engage with your arguments because your argument was contained in biased premises."
This sentence barely makes sense. An argument proceeds by laying out premises and drawing inferences from them. Arguments are not "contained in premises," biased or not.
"By the style of your writing and your arguements, you ask people to accept your premises and deal with your points."
I don't ask people to accept my premises; I provide evidence in support of my premises. Likewise, I don't ask anyone to deal with my argument. They can if they want.
"That feels manipulative and unfair, and I know that's part of why I wasn't going to respond -- until you got nasty."
So, let me get this straight, by communicating my ideas in as clear, precise, and informative a manner as I can, I am being manipulative and unfair. I can only assume that this is meant in jest.
As for "getting nasty," you might want to take a look at how this whole exchange got started. I was made an object of ridicule: my argument was dubbed "inexplicable," an object of "wonder" to be "studied" and marveled at. What's more, I had made it a "bad day" for "reasoned argument." Of little comfort was the fact that the inimitable Ogged did not want to "pick on" me.
I can only presume that you're referring to my accusation that Ogged had shown himself to be an intellectual charlatan. A charlatan is a pretender, someone who feigns knowledge or skills that he doesn't really have. In light of Ogged's unwillingness—indeed, I began to suspect, inability—to rationally respond to the evidence I presented, his bad habit of begging the question (over and over), and his penchant for quoting others rather than facing up to the question under discussion, the charge was warranted.
"Don't expect any more words from me on this subject, though I will read your response if you have one. I'm not blowing you off -- I have other commitments, and the existence of an opposing opinion does not oblige anyone to respond."
It's understandable given that you're pressed for time, and I won't read anything further into it. At least you bothered to engage the argument.
"And why don't you have comments at your site??"
Same reason you won't respond to this post—commitments.
I know yoku aru hanashi atlantic city casino why this was happening to me I once again found myself in the hospital.