Although I suspect I am adding a microscopic amount to the credibility of the birthers by writing more about them, I find the subject rather interesting.
While it is generally reasonable to be skeptical, there are reasonable and unreasonable degrees of skepticism-at least when it comes to practical life.
From an academic standpoint, it is simplicity itself to get a skeptical argument going for anything. After all, no empirical evidence can provide certainty-for the reasons argued for by folks like Plato, Descartes and the various philosophical skeptics. The senses can deceive, evidence can be faked or changed, people can lie and so on. Then, throw in the dream problem (all this could be a dream) or even toss in Descartes’ evil demon and then nothing at all is certain (except perhaps, my own existence).
But, as Locke argues in his discussion of skepticism, it is not really that critical that we cannot achieve certainty. What matters is that we can achieve a degree of confidence appropriate for the belief. So, I’ll take a look at the birther view and see what this entails.
The birther view seems, at is base, to be that there is something dubious about the claim Obama is a natural born citizen. While any document can be called into question and witnesses taken as mistaken or lying, consider the fact that the Republican leadership accepts that Obama is a natural born citizen.
During the highly contested 2008 Presidental race, the candidates did their best against each other and had armies of folks at their disposal. If Obama is not a natural born citizen, then it must be explained why this was not used against him by the McCain camp. Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if just before the election McCain’s people proved that Obama was not eligible to be President. While Biden could keep running, a new Presidential candidate would be needed at the last second and he (or she) would be stepping in after a mortal wound. While the Democrats might have been able to still win without Obama, it would have been an amazing political feat.
So, it must be assumed that either McCain and the other top Republicans accept that Obama is a natural citizen or that there is something else at play here. Should we think that McCain and the others are in on a conspiracy with Obama? Should we think that they found out too late and are remaining silent because they do not want Biden to be President? Or maybe McCain is also not a natural born US citizen and he made a deal with his fellow foreigner, Obama, in order to run for President.
Now, if one can swallow that sort of stuff, it would be easy to swallow claims such as the ones casting doubts on the certification of live birth. Hawaii issues certifications of live birth rather than birth certificates. But, this is a matter of name and not a meaningful difference. To use an analogy, suppose that some states issued a License to Drive and other states issued a Driver’s License. Suppose that Obama had a License to Drive and then folks started saying things like “well, he doesn’t have a Driver’s License, so he cannot legally drive a car!” That would, of course, be absurd.
Because the Birther movement seems rather absurd, I have wondered if it is a clever research project to see what people will believe based on what amounts to no meaningful evidence. It would be interesting if someone is working away on his/her dissertation on how people will believe claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, simply because of internet rumors and skeptical arguments.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
The hospital only recently, like within the last couple of weeks released the certificate. At least I think so.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Barak-Obama-must-release-Original-1961-Hawaii-Certificate-of-Live-Birth
Obviously the media thought it was an issue, because a few days ago,the release of the certificat was the number one story on my Yahoo news aggregate. I mean their not reporting Elvis sightings so I guess they thought there may have been an issue or probably that they were just itching to get some hard vidence and were oh so happy to be able to show it.
Again, why did Obama wait so long? I knwo exactly where my certificate is, and I had to show it to get in the Army. As far as I know, he never did–and he’s the only president ever with a father from Kenya.
This article claims the left is pushing the birther nonsense for its own purposes.
Far from seeing these charges as any sort of real threat to Obama’s legitimacy, liberals report every outburst of the birther brigades with glee – because they derive maximum political benefit from stirring up the story as long as possible. Why debate the intricacies of a massive overhaul of the nation’s health care system when you can conflate principled conservative critics of the program with a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists?
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/05/2009-08-05_liberals_birther_obsession.html#ixzz0NJ9onuSS
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Birthers-and-Truthers-and-Mike-Stark-oh-my-52222302.html
Twenty-eight percent of Republicans believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and 30 percent are “not sure,” according to this poll.
But before liberals begin to smirk, here’s a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.
So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It’s a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they’re out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier — which is probably within the margin of error.
I bring this up because I did a short mid-afternoon segment today on MSNBC with Tamryn Hall and Donnie Deutsch, in which I was asked about the Birther poll. I brought up the Truther poll and wondered aloud whether MSNBC had ever brought as much attention to the Truthers.
The Birthers are getting an awful lot of coverage right now, and that’s great news for a White House desperate for distractions. President Obama is losing the public opinion battle over health care and putting his foot in his mouth over Henry Gates. His only major legislative accomplishment so far — the stimulus package — is widely perceived as a costly and ineffective boondoggle.
I’d just like to say that the Democrats sealed the deal for me when General David Patraeus testified before Congress:
Hillary Clinton stated to Patraeus, that his analysis for the situation in Anbar Province required: “a willing suspension of disbelief.”
Thiswas one of the most outrageous moments in public political history that I can remember. Thousands of our troops had died in Iraq, billions of dollars were spent, and Patreaus’ acknowledgement of our failures there required supension of disbelief? Did it take a genius to see we needed more troops?
http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-spars-with-petraeus-on-credibility/62426/
Then, IT GOT WORSE. When the violence dropped within a few months of the left-hate surge, Obama and Clinton claimed it wasn’t because of the surge at all, it was because local sheiks had already tired of Al-Qaeda. Ohhhhh—so what yo’re saying is the ORIGINAL Rumsfeld plan actually DID work, right Barack? Which is it?
To bring this foolishness to cartoonish levels, Obama brings in Clinton as Secretary of State. So now we have a president who couldn’t see reality happening in front of him (The surge quelling the violence) in charge of the woman who really has no opinion on the matter other than what she and Nancy Pelosi agree the polls say.
Which of course leads us to the “Good War”, Afghanistan, which as I’ve explained in my blog, is actually a complete sham.
Good point by Charles Krauthammer:
There is a certain irony in an administration denouncing ordinary Americans who get together to express what they believe and to confront authority, when that administration is led by a man who began his career as a community organizer, whose job, as I understand it, is to take ordinary Americans, get them together to express what they believe, and express demands against the authorities.
So it’s unbelievably hypocritical. And, of course, as we just heard, this only happens when you have a conservative protest. It is called a mob. If it’s a liberal protest, it is called grassroots expressing themselves.
Remember, just a year ago under the Bush administration, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. And today it is a kind of either organized anger, it’s a facsimile of anger, it’s unpatriotic, it’s whatever.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU1Njc5ZjQ4NGExNDU0MzcwMTExNWM3NTMxMzViMGY=
This is an excellent analysis of the Left-driven Birther dog-and-pony show.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/05/2009-08-05_liberals_birther_obsession.html
And you can you belieeeeve the number of conservatives that believe in God…. and they carry guns too! Pffft.
“Left-driven Birther dog-and-pony show”?
I don’t want to misconstrue your argument, but it sounds like you’re shifting blame for the “birther” movement onto “liberals.” Yes, media matters, but whatever happened to personal (or, in this case, PARTY) accountability?
Can’t we just say that this is a product of poor critical thinking with a conclusion informed by political bias?
Well, read the link I put up there. I do think there’s a group of Obamabots that want this story out there to show how “crazy” anyone who questions what Obama says is.
I see news stories written by syndicated columnists,
Like here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/28/birthers_are_truly_certifiable_97652.html
or here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/04/and_now_youre_latest_nutjob_97754.html
Not that I think it was crazy to ask somone where they were born if they’re going to be president of the US. Wha’s crazy is that we DON’T ask.
Right. And one could say the exact same thing about the right. Are we playing political football here or are we doing philosophy? Is this a blame game or are we actually interested in understanding the nature of such a controversy?
Let me clarify my own position: I hate conspiracy theories both from the Right AND the Left. I spend a good portion of my class time (I teach college comp) debunking the idiocy of the 9/11 truthers. We also spend a good portion of our time on how liberal ideology can influence pseudoscience and medical quackery.
But if we continue to to paint everything as a liberal/conservative conspiracy and/or “you do it, too” frames, then what’s the point of even having this argument?
I, too hate conspiracy theories.