While the various two sides problems can arise in many circumstances, the American two-party system provides an unfortunate exemplar. As this is being written, the Democrats are endeavoring to remove Trump from office. The Republicans, including some who savagely criticized Trump before he captured the Republican party, are endeavoring to keep him in place. As would be expected in such a scenario, two sides problems abound.
One tactic that can be employed in such two-sided conflicts is claiming that the other side is taking its position for wicked or irrelevant reasons. While it is a fallacy to conclude that a claim is false or without merit simply because the person or group making it is alleged to have wicked or irrelevant motivations, this approach can have considerable psychological appeal. That is, it can be an effective persuasive tool despite (or perhaps because of) the bad logic. One way to employ this method is to simply claim that the other side is driven by wicked or irrelevant motives. For example, the Republican defenders of Trump have asserted that the Democrats hate Trump, that they want to undo the 2016 election, and that they want to win the 2020 election by impeaching Trump. While acting from hate, unjustly undoing an election, and cheating in an upcoming election would all be bad things to do, they have no bearing on the claims about Trump’s guilt or innocence. They do, of course, have bearing on one’s moral assessment of the Democrats, but that is another matter entirely.
In addition to simply asserting that the other side is driven by wicked or irrelevant motivations, one can also try to generate the appearance that the other side is driven by such motivations. It seems natural to be suspicious of a side that holds a position in lockstep. In politics this is doubly suspicious, for the party will certainly seem to be driven solely by partisan motivations and goals (which are presumably wicked or at best irrelevant). As such, the Republicans can point to the Democrats and claim that because they all seem to be acting as a party, that they must be driven by wicked or irrelevant partisan motivations. If they were acting from laudable or neutral motives, one might think, surely there would be some division in the ranks. Interestingly enough, the Republicans can also make the claim that if the Democrats had fair rather than foul motives, at least some Republicans would join with them. But since the Democrats have only the Democrats and they are all together on the matter, they must surely be driven by wicked motives.
While the Republicans cannot ensure that the Democrats all stick together, they can ensure that they stick together and that none of them break ranks. While the Republicans might want some Democrats to join them, there is also an advantage in acting in ways that makes this unlikely—they can push the notion that the Democrats are up to no good and are unreasonable because none of them are willing to work with the Republicans. Since the Republicans do not need any Democrats in this matter, this is a viable option. In contrast, the Democrats do want to win over some Republicans—they gain more by getting Trump removed than whatever political points they might score by accusing the Republicans of siding with Trump for wicked motives.
When one side acts to create this sharp division and use it for rhetorical purposes, one might think that this would be problematic for them. After all, when the Republicans all side together and leave the Democrats on the other side and then accuse the Democrats of being wicked partisans, an objective observer would notice that the same charge would seem to hold against the Republicans—after all, they are actively creating the partisan divide they are accusing the Democrats of creating.
Another two-sides problem is that a side will almost always regard its side as more credible and laudable than the other side; so, the Republicans will see the Democrats as wickedly partisan while the Democrats will see the Republicans that way. This allows each side to, oddly, accuse the other of wicked motives by pointing to the partisan division while conveniently ignoring their own roll in the matter.
This split does raise the usual moral problems of how people should, morally, divide on an issue such as impeachment. As noted in earlier essays, one could argue that truth an morality matter not in such cases: all that matters is victory for your side over the other side—which is yet another two-sides problem.
While it is a fallacy to conclude that a claim is false or without merit simply because the person or group making it is alleged to have wicked or irrelevant motivations, this approach can have considerable psychological appeal.
The motivations of one side do not bear on the truth of the matter, but they do affect the perceived credibility of the claim. If someone makes a claim, it may seem credible … until you find that the claimant is due to make a great deal of money out of a book deal or a political benefactor or a civil suit or a GoFundMe. Then, motivation affects credibility.
In this case, I think we can all acknowledge that neither the Congressional Democrats as a group nor the Congressional Republicans as a group are motivated solely by a pure burning passion for Truth, Justice, and The American Way.
The facts are simple:
Fact 1: Joe Biden explicitly threatened to deprive the Ukraine of a billion dollars in US aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the company who was paying his son a great deal of money for no reason that is apparent to any of us.
Fact 2. The prosecutor was fired the same day, and the Ukraine got their money.
Fact 3: Donald Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate Fact 1, while delaying (but not preventing) the payment of half a billion dollars in US aid, and not linking the payment to the request.
Fact 4. The Ukraine did not investigate and the money was paid anyhow.
Anyone who advocates impeachment for Trump, who did not advocate impeachment for Biden at the time, is being inconsistent, and a hypocrite.
Personally, I’ll give them both a pass, with a squint, because both were arguably in the discharge of their duty.
(Anyhow, Trump would be investigating in the wrong place. The decision to go after the prosecutor was made in Washington, not Kiev. If there is any guilt, Washington would be the place to find it.)
(And I’d be more worried about the Biden-China business than the Biden-Ukraine business anyhow.)
Just as the facts of Russia Gate and Kavenaugh did not support theories that crimes occurred. The “evidence” was selectively presented by bad prople witt bad intentions. These people are professional grifters and liars. The arguments in the impeachment case which point out Dem bad intentions are not presented as a defense. The facts you list are the defense. The bad intentions are presented to communicate that much of the public is now aware of just how evil and corrupt the Dem party has become and that many are very tired of this.
I made posts very similar to your’s during the Kavenaugh debacle. I posted facts. The arguments against mine were essentially philosophical abstractions. It’s easier to BS abstractions than empiricism. Sherlock Holmes > Socrates.
The Dems are a meandering band of lunatics at this point. Trump may be a liar, but he’s far more likely to leave me alone than Jefferson Davis’ party. I struggle to think of a single reason to vote for a Democrat. Can anyone tell me why I should? How will they make my life better?
I bet if we could see Mike’s 401k since Trump’s election, we’d see his life is better.
I made posts very similar to your’s during the Kavenaugh debacle. I posted facts. The arguments against mine were essentially philosophical abstractions. It’s easier to BS abstractions than empiricism. Sherlock Holmes > Socrates.
Damn. I had a post below in reply to CT’s link of which a good part of it referenced these abstractions. Browser reloaded the page or something while I was busy with actual work and lost it. If I can recall…Yes, the genesis of it was in regard to CT’s link which at some point called Kissinger a war criminal. Which is BS for various reasons and thus I couldn’t get much past that. But my explanation about why calling HK a war criminal is BS had to do with people who think for a living versus those who actually act/do things. I segued into The Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) , with which you may be familiar. The Trolley Problem semi-originated back in 1967 or so, but is really itself an abstraction of the military dilemma of sending out a platoon or such on an obvious suicide mission if by doing so you can save a battalion. Or something like that. It’s kinda what kamikaze strategy is based on. Relevant to your point, the suicide mission dilemma (which I recall being called the General’s Dilemma…which upon googling seems to be…or taken on…a different thing) is too realistic. One can think of realistic situation, kamikaze being one, by which discussing suicide missions would lead to some degree of accountability. The Trolley Problem had to be invented to sufficiently abstract the moral dilemma to a safe distance from reality such as to enable the philosophers to fall back on deniability and vague language and similar. They had to construct a scenario, one that would never happen in a million years, with enough cop-outs such that they could remain “above it all”. Which is what brings me back to this Two Sides BS. If there’s one thing (ok, there are a lot of things) that grind my gears it’s people who talk about how things should be done (or more often than not, after the fact point out how they should have been done) without having any real world experience nor ANY DESIRE to hold themselves to real world scenarios with their real world consequence. Even when talking in hypotheticals. They project themselves as being “above it all”. They have no biases, see? They’re not like you messy mortals. Every bad thing that ever happened was because someone didn’t think long enough or hard enough about it. But nothing is ever a failure if action is never taken. Always need more info. Until the ultimate failure of defeat due to inaction and/or constantly letting the enemy determine the field and time of battle.
Well, it was more coherent than that (no really!)…but that’s all I have time for right now. I think you get my point.
Whether Kissinger “is” a war criminal or not is not the point. Perhaps I should have worded my summary differently. The point is that for people who believe he is guilty of mass deaths, he is still more forgivable than someone saying transwoimen are men.
Sorry, CT. Yes, I understand that and in my original post that I somehow lost I nuanced that a bit more. In my reply to Magus here, I’m focused on the “philosophical abstractions” aspect that I had, in my OP, segued into.
I agree with your point, but even in the context of mass deaths and what is forgivable, what frustrated me is that there’s another side that is also committing mass murder on a much larger scaled as a means to a rather dubious ends. Sorry in my brevity I’ve confused that point.
No problem!
I’m sure we could find a more everyday murderer who has been accepted by the Woke more easily than Joe Rogan.
Well, IMNSHO Travon Martin was attempting murder. But then somebody did something. So, yeah. Quite easily.
It was better under Obama; https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/trump-obama-markets-comparison-s-and-p-500-dow-nasdaq-economy/
But the evidence seems to indicate that the President is not a major factor when it comes to the stock market: https://www.thebalance.com/presidential-elections-and-stock-market-returns-2388526
Now, if you want to give the president praise or blame for the stock market, then Bush is to be savagely condemned for the crash, while Clinton, Trump and Obama are to be praised. So if you want to praise Trump, you must also raise your glass to Bill and Obama for their skill at improving the stock market. Or you can chalk the stock market up to other factors and praise none of them.
Obama was definitely good for the stock market. Happy to give him credit.
Seriously, TJ? Perhaps you should vote for Bernie and get even more better stock market results. We’ve been through this before. Several times, I believe. And I’m growing quite tired of pointing it out. If you want to engage in a discussion on this, I would be more than happy to do so. But no cop-outs. Or clown noses.
AGAIN….Markets are forward looking. How the markets feel about who is elected president is generally built in to the market leading up to an election. And as I say below, it’s not all about just the president. To take a date such as the day the president was inaugurated, or even (though leaning more toward some degree of accuracy) the day he is elected (excluding surprise election results like perhaps 2016), is quite arbitrary in relation to the months leading up to the election when millions and millions of investors are making millions and millions of decisions, many based on some numbers but mostly based on gut feeling/emotion. I could go into further detail here but I’m not going to waste my time if this will just be ignored. There’s even an argument to be made that as markets look toward the end of a business-favorable term of office leading into a less business-friendly administration, the markets will begin to decline before the less-business friendly POTUS steps in and of course rise with the reverse, thus depressing a pro-business comparison on inauguration day and giving rise at the end of an anti-business administration. Again, we could discuss this. If anyone here is actually interested in the topics that get discussed here. But I’m growing very tired of wasting my time explaining these things in the detail necessary to communicate them. Which is why DH is my hero. God bless him.
While I agree with Mike (blind nuts and squirrels again) that presidents are not primarily, directly, responsible for stock market rises and falls, the economic-political environments produced by the policies that they AND THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS enact, and as interpreted by the courts, create either favorable or unfavorable economic environments. It is then up to the people, those being investors, employers, employees, etc. etc. etc. to actually do the work necessary to create wealth.
Disagree? Change my mind or admit I’m (mostly) right. Or just shut up about economics because it’s something you don’t understand or don’t want to understand. I think you know to whom I am referring here.
WTP, make sure you don’t confuse the stock market with the overall economy. The stock market did well under Obama. Wall Street gave him record breaking contributions, and he bailed them out. He wasn’t called “President Goldman Sachs” for nothing.
Big business loved Obama, but he left small businesses behind. Small business has done much better under Trump.
Oh, I definitely know better than that. I think I’ve stated as much here. However don’t confuse investment banks with the actual stock market equities.
Also note, the financial crisis was not one originating with Wall Street. It was at it’s roots a real estate problem. It’s roots run much, much earlier to the CRA and other similar programs that encouraged people to buy real estate well beyond their means, warping that market, and then influencing others, in many ways. It was the deleveraging that echoed into the stock market. But the genesis of the problem was “jingle mail”. If the student loan timebomb goes off during the Trump years (highly likely) watch Mike and his cronies jump on blaming Trump when it was Mike and his cronies who are the root of the problem. And to be absolutely clear, as much as I despise Obama’s policies, I don’t blame him for that crisis. I do blame him to some degree for policies that extended it, but even those are boilerplate Keynesianism of which a good chunk of the Republican party is even more responsible.
Also note that GS was actually one of the companies that did not itself need the bailout (which I believe was a 2008 GWB thing). They had $10 billion (IIRC) force upon them which they paid back as soon as Paulson (or whomever, I forget) would let them.
Big business loved Obama, but he left small businesses behind. Small business has done much better under Trump.
This I agree with, most definitely. But I don’t lay the whole thing at Obama’s feet. This sort of nonsense has been going on for decades now as regulations, which don’t get me wrong on a basic minimum scale are a good thing, favor bigger corporations and their lawyers and such. Whole other issue but it fits the old communist adage that the capitalists will sell them the rope by which they will hand them. Actually what it is is an early stage of fascism. See “Beefsteak Nazism”.
I could go into greater detail but gotta get back to work.
Dope! Got lazy with pronouns again as a result of re-editing…In s much as I despise Obama’s policies, I don’t blame him for that crisis, the “that crisis” to which I refer is the real estate one, not student loan one. Not that he’s 100% responsible. Much of that goes back well before him and the left-leaning R’s (which seems like most of them anymore) are to a good degree responsible as well.
OK, work. Work work work work work.
I’m perfectly happy to concede the limited role a president likely plays in the US economy. Perhaps we could remind Obama. No this isn’t whataboutism. It’s only a call for hallowed consistency.
In any case however, the analysis offered by Fortune and others on Obama’s economic performance is a bit deceptive. Focusing on “percentage increase” is kind of like deciding the winner of a race by who improves most over their last race as opposed to who actually ran the fastest. Obama took over an economy that had recently tanked. Then the government spent $831 billion on a financial stimulus package.
I stand by my assessment, which is really what my economics comment You don’t l like Trump for aesthetic reasons. You prefer Obama’s aesthetics, his “statesmanship” which I count as slick chicanery. I also do not prefer the decidedly feminine aesthetic of the Left and Dems, the constant whining and bitching and wanting to get into other people’s business.
This is why I do not focus much anymore on “policy”, though I do stand by the Bill of Rights. I’m more with Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche in that I think human tribes form a false consciousness and fool themselves into believing things to make themselves look noble and smart. And maybe there’s some Freudianism in here too, as I think the aesthetic we prefer has much to do with our childhood. Whatever we idealized or admired as children likely caries over, and some of that may have to do with the nature of our parents. Politics are too abstracted, and mostly serve “elites” who’ve done little to earn their elite status except be born to the right families and possessing a psychopathic ability to lie.
So I see Trump much less on the side of these elites even though he’s loaded with cash. The hipster thinks he can be elite just by thinking PC thoughts, and so it goes with Hollywood and much of academia. The typical screeching protesters at a women’s march find it easier to try to change the world with abstract arguments than it is to actually fix their own lives.
I will certainly agree that it was morally wrong for Biden’s son to get that position and it was clearly intended to influence Joe Biden. I do favor laws that would prevent this sort of thing; but I doubt congress will pass them because 1) they and their families benefit from these sorts of deals and 2) their allies benefit from these deals. Also, Trump’s kids are making bank on his influence, so I don’t see Trump doing anything as president.
The Biden Episode has now become so tainted with partisan paint that people either see it as the color of their paint or insist that the other side is doing just that. In effect, it is another case in which the facts have been magicked into alternative facts and discussion is now pointless. Trump supporters will see it the way it is cast above and there seems to be no way to address that.
For example, this https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html debunks the Biden conspiracy theory. But those who think it is not a conspiracy theory will simply reject the debunking. Since we seem to have no objective source we can agree on, rational discussion must end. Which is a win for the conspiracy theorist.
Most of us have to abide by conflict of interest rules. It is wrong when the rules don’t seem to apply to people like Hunter and Joe Biden.
I agree 600%.
Can we please avoid the word “debunk”? It is usually used as an argument from authority, without justifying the authority, Like it or not, you have to acknowledge that the NYT is simply gone as an authority on any US political issue. It is now a card-carrying member of the #resistance.
In reading up on this a couple of days ago I came across a “fact-check” on Politifact “Fact-checking Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Ukraine” which I found remarkable. It rates the claim “Half-True”, after verifying everything in the claim. Where’s the half that is False? But we are not allowed to fact-check the conclusions of those who present themselves as fact-checkers.
Every statement in the Politifact article is true, as far as I can tell. So is every statement in your NYT link that bears on this question. The problem with both is the statements they omit. Both claim the investigation into Burisma “went dormant” under Shokin. This is true, but omits the fact that during that period of dormancy, the new anti-corruption bureau was being formed. When it was formed, and a new head appointed, the house of Burisma’s owner was raided, on Shokin’s orders. Contact from Nurisma with the State Department, naming Hunter Biden, immediately followed. Joe Biden delivered his ultimatum to Ukraine one month later.
That puts a very different complexion on that “debunking”. The debunking needs debunking.
Here is a more complete timeline, with references: https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukraine-scandal-timeline-democrats-and-their-media-allies-dont-want-america-to-see/
I do agree with you that we can keep adding facts, but have no way to separate out all the claims and counterclaims.
But please don’t present more bunking as debunking.
So, what are the facts? One could speculate about what is unknown, but this starts to head into the appeal to ignorance territory.
One fact is that the fact-check you relied on omitted very pertinent facts in coming to its conclusion. Were the fact-checkers ignorant of these facts, or did they want to keep them out of the argument, out of public sight?
And it is a fact that on the basis of that deficient article, you characterised “the Biden conspiracy theory” as debunked.
I don’t believe that we have nearly all the facts about the Biden deal yet, but there is some hope that we might see more: Shokin has just filed a formal complaint with the head of the Anti-Corruption bureau about Joe Biden’s interference in getting him fired.
https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/
Now, I think the last thing anyone in the Ukraine government wants is to get in the middle of a war betwen the Democrats and the Republicans, either of which could turn off the aid tap, so maybe this will just go quietly away. Still, we might get some information out of it. (And now I’m wondering why I care.)
Anyway, my point was not about Biden being guilty.
My point is that there is at least as much reason to charge Biden with abuse of power as there is to charge Trump.
Those who would impeach one without accusing the other are being inconsistent, which goes right back to the theme of this essay.
The cases seem different. Biden’s son was given the job to influence Joe, but Biden did not push for the job and did not go after the prosecutor to protect his son. Trump had a concerted campaign to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe. Now if Ukraine had come to Ivanka and said “hey, here is some money and dirt on joe, can you talk to your dad?” and she accepted, then that would be like the Hunter Biden situation.
Federal ethics guidelines required Joe to recuse himself due to a clear conflict of interest.
Biden had a clear responsibility to recuse himself In that situation under federal ethics guidelines. Because he did not, I think an investigation is fully warranted.
I don’t see why you expect Republicans to believe that Joe’s motives were pure when Dems would never extend the same courtesy to Trump.
I don’t see why you expect Republicans to believe that Joe’s motives were pure when Dems would never extend the same courtesy to Trump.
Yes you do. I could go into further detail but life is calling.
I believe that Joe didn’t push for the job.
I have no idea whether Joe had the prosecutor fired, or made his firing a priority in the administration’s policy, in part to protect his son. If you have information that leads you to believe that, I haven’t seen it.
I don’t see your parallel at all. The equivalent I see is:
Two months after Trump’s election, Zlochevsky comes to Ivanka and immediately pays her firm and puts her partner on the board. Two months later, he appoints Ivanka as well. One day a couple of years later, Zlochevsky’s home is raided, and he immediately contacts the State Department, citing Ivanka. One month later, Trump tells the Ukranian government they will lose a billion dollars if they don’t fire the prosecutor who raided Zlochevsky’s home. (There’s apparently some money-laundering allegations in with the payments as well, but let’s not get sidetracked.)
How do you think the NYT would write that one up?
Again I say: I’m not interested in going after Joe Biden on this. I just don’t care that much. But the inconsistencies in treatment grate on me.
Well, they are being consistent in some respects. Biden’s kid cashed in on his dad and nothing was done. Trump’s kids are cashing in on their dad and nothing is being done. To Joe’s credit, at least he did not make his son into a government official.
I certainly agree with you about the problem with corruption; but the facts show that Trump was only after Biden to gain an advantage in the election and he did not care at all about Ukraine corruption in general.
Trump’s kids are cashing in on their dad and nothing is being done.
I really, really don’t see that happening. I mean, apart from being the children of a billionaire.
First of all, they don’t need the money. Then, they certainly aren’t cashing in on his position. If anything, they have been hurt because of it.
Ivanka had to shut down her successful clothing business because of all the protests. The Trump hotels’ business have also taken a hit.
Where are they cashing in?
If they were cashing in on his general position, it wouldn’t bother me much. For comparison, Hillary Clinton is a high profile case of a kid getting rich from the name and connections, raking in millions in board memberships and soft spots from media companies. None of that compromised either of her parents, though, or brought them into conflicts. She’s taking advantage of the free money, and so would I if I were her.
In the wake of the Hunter Biden news, I have seen some stories recently about other relatives of politicians also getting paid or backed by very rich people. Maybe it’s some hidden quid pro quo; maybe it’s just sucking up to power. It happens all the time among the rich kids; I think politicians are given a “rich people” stamp to join the club when they get prominent enough.
The Trumps were genuinely running their own businesses or making plenty in the Trump Organisation long before the election, on merit, plus of course their massive headstart. But they weren’t and aren’t pulling millions in no-show jobs and gimmes.
Where is this cashing in you allege they have done?
I’m sorry. I also meant to mention your other point.
Trump was only after Biden to gain an advantage in the election
Yup. No argument there.
He really could at least have camouflaged it better.
Motives are complicated. People barely know their own motives let alone the motives of others.
Biden clearly violated federal ethics guidelines, and the U.S. government is fully justified in investigating it.
Does anyone disagree?
Agreed that Trump was justified in investigating it. That’s his out.
Agree. Dangerous and borderline insane that something like this got taken as far as it was. It’s taken a lot of effort to make people this stupid/crazy.
Off Topic.
I came across this article,
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger
which argues that liberals (I think he means those who consider themselves “progressives”) think in deontological terms, whereas everyone else is thinking at least partly in consequentialist terms.
As an example, he shows how the same people might consider a rejection of trans ideology less forgivable than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Since it does tie into actual mainstream philosophical concepts, I thought it might be of interest.
An interesting argument. Anecdotally, I know deontological conservatives and utilitarian liberals; but the matter does require the use of a representative and large sample.
Mill, who was definitely liberal and progressive, was clearly a utilitarian. Kant, who was very conservative, was obviously a deontologist. But maybe philosophers reverse this relative to politicians?
There is a huge difference in values and beliefs between classical liberals and modern “progressives”, so I’m not sure the application to 17th-19thC philosophers is comparable.
I tend to think of these absolute rejections as motivated by fear and hatred rather than any proncipled; it just struck me as interesting to read a viewpoint that made a differ=nt split.