Viewing entries tagged
Ideology and Politics
My debate club will be hosting a debate next week on the Trump administration’s recent actions in Venezuela. Speakers will argue for and against the capture of President Maduro as well as U.S. plans to “overhaul” the country post-Maduro. Here are some of the arguments for and against the administration’s actions and plans for Venezuela.
Over the multi-month exchange, this individual mocked and misrepresented counter-arguments and never budged from her original position. Nothing could penetrate her fortress of moral certainty or widen her perspective beyond a narrow moral reasoning. She repeatedly brushed off considerations such as evidence of culpability and constitutional protections as nothing but a smokescreen used by bad people to hide their bad values.
Between October 15 and 26, 2025, the Manhattan Institute surveyed 2295 Republicans and/or 2024 Trump voters (aka the “GOP coalition”), plus an additional 500 registered voters. The sample was reached primarily via online panel interviews.
Gallup and Pew Research also conducted 2025 surveys that included questions on immigrants and immigration. This post will compare Republican responses in those surveys with what the Manhattan Institute found for the GOP coalition.
Now, why would people be afraid of being thought a Republican? Because an awful lot of Democrats and others on the left see Republicans as morons, hysterics, racists, benighted fools, ignorant jerks, self-justifying assholes, callous, immigrant-hating, morally bankrupt, thick…
One would think if people truly cared about achieving a valued social good - say, the elimination of poverty - they would also sweat over the details as to how to achieve this social good without jeopardizing other social goods. Which means they and their shared-values fellows would be having robust and thoughtful arguments on policy, no consensus expected.
I am not quoting Paxton as the ultimate authority on fascism. No scholar is. Historians and political scientists (aka “experts”) differ in their definitions of fascism and opinions of Trump. However, I have noticed that definitions of fascism have morphed over time, perhaps repurposed to boost present-day relevance and create a tighter fit with current figures or political movements.
According the the College Board, first-time full-time students at public two-year colleges have been receiving enough grant aid to cover their tuition and fees since 2010, on average.
But the fact the some types are strongly Democrat or Republican doesn’t mean that most Democrats or Republicans belong to those types. No type claims the majority of Democrats, Independents or Republicans. For example, less than half the Democrats in the NORC survey were Classical Liberals and less than half the Republicans were Mostly MAGAs.
Grouping people by types also runs the risk of seeing individuals as static, unchanging essences. People and patterns change. Within-group affinities and between-group differences may weaken over time, eventually rendering a whole typology obsolete. But the typologies keep coming, partly because humans love to categorize and partly because new typologies unsettle our certainties and assumptions and help us see the world with fresh eyes. Case in point: the Five Types of Americans, as developed by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.
When NORC framed the American Dream as a general rule - working hard leads to success or each generation will be better off than the last - respondents were deeply pessimistic. However, they were less gloomy about their own personal futures.
Just what is the American Dream? Depends on who you ask. Here’s a smattering of definitions, as well as some survey data on whether Americans still believe in the Dream, as defined by the survey makers and takers
James Truslow Adams is credited with coining the phrase ‘American Dream’ in his 1931 bestseller The Epic of America. Adams provided several definitions in his book, including “a dream of a better, richer and happier life for all our citizens of every rank” and “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.”
I’ve often seen “perception” contrasted with “reality” as if they were mutually exclusive: perception versus reality. But perceptions don’t erupt out of nothing. They have some foundation in the real world. In the case of perceived public safety, that foundation includes…
If one wants to return to an issue in a conversation, one can simply say, “I’d like to return to subject xyz…” and then proceed to restate and elaborate the original subject. There’s no need to label the other person’s imputed intentions. And if that person keeps changing the subject, mention that and ask them why.
So, “emphasizing the absurdity and inequity of singling out a person to rake over the coals” for a common behavior is justified whataboutism? Basically, that’s the defense of pointing out double-standards and hypocrisy, which is usually condemned as just plain ole whataboutism
…That is a pattern I’ve seen for years, both in the debate club and on the internet. Does that mean accusations of whataboutism are mostly attempts to maintain partisan narratives and preempt challenges to those narratives?
The term "whataboutism" first appeared in print in 1978, but wasn’t much used until 2007-2008, when British journalist Edward Lucas popularized the term in The Economist. The use of whataboutism in American political discourse increased sharply around the 2016 US presidential election…
The whys and what-fors of whataboutism accusations are the two sides of speech motivation: belief and purpose. Behind every utterance is a felt-truth - which may or may not be conscious or expressed - but the reason we actually say something is to achieve a goal. So what felt-truths are behind accusations of whataboutism, and what do the accusers hope to accomplish?
The accusation of whataboutism often stings, because it implies a moral deficiency in the accused. It’s less about logic and evidence than the accuser’s moral convictions.
But how do we know another’s intent? What appears to be an attempt to change the subject may actually be an attempt to improve the quality of a discussion, to add proper context or examine the speaker’s assumptions. Besides, what’s wrong with trying to redirect attention (“distract”) from a topic if one takes issue with how a claim is presented or defended and wants to sort that out first? And what’s wrong with pointing out double standards or hypocrisy?