There are no ideal humans

[DirkGently]

HEyHEY's post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8830411&mesg_id=8830411)

about the recent book suggesting that Teddy Roosevelt, along with his admirable qualities, had some wretchedly racist ideas as well got me thinking about the idea of group loyalty, and this tendency we have to stretch the truth to protect the idea that someone we admire is always right, or always deserving of support. Why?

I started to say the following, and it got too wordy, so here it is:


Teddy was also a great naturalist and protector of wilderness, which he loved to express by killing and stuffing every animal he could find. Again, a fairly typical point of view at the time that's disturbing to most people today. We wouldn't have our National Parks without him though.

It's a good point of discussion because it undercuts our tendency to idealize an individual person, instead giving credit where it's due to good ideas or admirable acts, and leaving the notion of perfect beings to religion.

That mode plays in our politics too, I think. We'd like our leaders to be all good or all bad, so that all we have to do is pick one to support or despise, and our job is done. But that's just intellectual laziness, isn't it? People should have opposed TR in his short-sighted views and his moral failures, regardless of whether they found themselves on the same side of a political fence as he. Some likely did, but we don't hear as much about them, because Teddy Roosevelt was an exalted person, and the comparably smaller voices of criticism, however correct, were too small a detail for history to track. History is lazy, too.

Another reason I think we'd like to judge a person once and exalt (or denigrate) them utterly rather than constantly evaluating their specific actions and responding accordingly is that our own egos would like to think that we can establish ourselves as "good" and that the words or deeds we put out there that don't quite meet that standard somehow become ancillary. Who wants to think that we might be intelligent and ethical and mindful, and yet, either by failing to see beyond the shortcomings of our culture as Roosevelt apparently did, or through a momentarily lapse of judgment or some other weakness, might embrace a horrible idea like racism? Cause a serious car accident? Scar a child through uninformed parenting?

It's disturbing because it's just easier to assume we are good, and not do the work of trying to keep doing good. It's a lot of work figuring out what's right, trying to be smart; trying to be fair. When it comes to ourselves, we assume we deserve the benefit of the doubt. We're sure that no matter how much we screw up, we deserve "good" label for life.

That's baloney, of course. No one's "good" for life, or right all the time, or holds all the right views, or take all the right actions. We can try for good, but end up accomplishing evil, and when we do, we deserve to be smacked down for it. We're not entitled to the world's unflagging support because we're trying, or think we're trying, to do right. But maybe we'd like to think we are.

So with our heroes and leaders. We'd like to pick one, decide that they reflect our view of what's right, and that they're both competent and ethical, and be done with it. But that's the lazy again. It's not simple. Leaders don't do the right thing by default every time any more than the rest of us. We can give the benefit of the doubt up to a point, but whether they are Teddy Roosevelt or Ed the dog catcher, when they fail or do wrong, we can't afford to pretend otherwise just to keep the easy, simple narrative of the ideal human going. That's bad faith, because it's a false argument that we know is false, when we think about it.

Thus these ongoing battles to characterize and re-characterize historical figures like Lincoln or the Founding Fathers and our confused and sometimes angry reactions when we're forced to recognize that while there are many worthwhile human ideals, there are no ideal humans. If we follow the easy narrative, then we have to re-label our heroes when it becomes uncomfortably certain that they screwed up. We like to sort of talk past things and avoid inconvenient complications like a racist, white supremacist Teddy Roosevelt, but in the long run it does no one any good to lie about these things. If true, whatever his reasons, Teddy was utterly, massively wrong, both intellectually and morally, on an extremely important issue.

So what to do with this information? If we want to preserve the narrative of the ideal human, we have to throw Teddy on the trash heap. Racists need not apply to anyone's pantheon of heroes. One way to resist would be to call this book and any other sources making the same claim a lie. But it doesn't sound like a lie, does it? Sounds like Teddy had a big, gruesome blindspot when it came to race. Not uncommon in his day, but still a great failing on his part.

Surely we can hold a more nuanced view of T.R. than choosing between labeling him an evil racist and disregarding his good leadership, or disregarding his racism in order to preserve the idea that good leaders never have terrible ideas.

If we are going for the less lazy, more nuanced view, the first thing that we have to do is abandon this simplistic, bad faith, nonsensical notion of seamless, unflinching loyalty to a leader. It's just not one of our best ideas. For one, blind loyalty puts the followers in an immediate position of arguing in bad faith, because that kind of loyalty again relies on the false narrative of the ideal human. Those arguing for perfect loyalty must try to pretend that a particular person or group is somehow inherently correct, which is neverthe case. That's not to say we cannot support a leader or belong to a group. But we can't be lazy about it. Each action and each idea has to stand or fall on its own merits. We help no one by denying that Teddy Roosevelt did (if true) these despicable things based on these horrible ideas, even while he did stupendous things based on wonderful ideas.

Some argue that unity is more important than the truth. That we should support T.R. for the good he did and the wisdom he showed, and not talk about the rest. Why? Saying that others lie in the same way is not an excuse if you're trying to do good.

Likewise, just because people aren't comfortable with the thought of supporting non-ideal humans who do some things right and some wrong, do we bend the truth and pretend T.R. wasn't (if true) a white supremacist, or do we get over our laziness, get off our intellectual rear ends, and tell the T.R.'s of the world that we will support them to the precise extent that their actions deserve it, and oppose them just as strongly when they do not?

Unsurprisingly, Teddy himself gave a great quote on the subject, which I've seen raised here often:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918Text

.

I think he was right.

[LWolf]

1. We get over our laziness, get off our intellectual rear ends,

and tell the T.R.'s of the world that we will support them to the precise extent that their actions deserve it, and oppose them just as strongly when they do not.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[nashville_brook]

17. agreed -that's called electoral politics and every elected pol is aware of their role in equation...

it's completely asinine to promise unquestioning support, and no campaign manager worth their expense account should believe that people behave that way. that's why there's pork barrel spending and horse trading. they KNOW they have to deliver on (at least some of) their promises.

for all the bluster about critical thinking dems...no one in the real world of campaigning expects us to vote against our interests. oh sure, many here will huff and puff and grow red in the face that we're not pissing our pants in anticipation of this election, you'd be hard-pressed to find a seasoned political operative who've included progressives in their calculus. they made the decision in 2009 that the next cycle would be won by centrists and have conducted themselves accordingly. if it doesn't work out for them they'll need to adjust their strategy.

[DirkGently]

23. "you'd be hard-pressed"

to find a seasoned political operative who've included progressives in their calculus." This is part of the concern. Why buy the hippie cow when you get the hemp milk for free?

Interesting divide between pragmatism and idealism there. Is it, in fact, more effective in real terms to engage in a bit of fact-bending personal propaganda to support "the team," or does doing that (as I think you suggest) ensure the opposite -- is unqualified support guaranteed to be returned with indifference or contempt? Are we "f****ing retarded" to believe that even an overall decent, liberal, Democrat leadership would consider the wishes of a group whose support they believe they have in the bank regardless?

[nashville_brook]

25. "Why buy the hippie cow when you get the hemp milk for free?" -- ahahblaahahahaa!

[nashville_brook]

27. unqualified support almost always generates contempt -- doormat syndrome

[LWolf]

26. Then perhaps

it will be our job to make sure it doesn't work out for them, so that they'll have to adjust their strategy to include us.

:hide:

[DirkGently]

28. The tricky bit. You don't want to shoot the horse you

rode in on, but you DO need it to go where you point it.

[nashville_brook]

30. who is the horse, again?

:)

[DirkGently]

33. Okay, the horse is the Party. No, wait, it's a party WITH a horse...

:rofl:

[LWolf]

32. That is not only tricky, but truly apt, since

I spent the time between typing that post and reading your response out doing a tune-up on, and physical therapy with, a horse that has been sidelined due to injury since last fall.

How did you guess? :P

[DirkGently]

34. That's a bizarre coincidence. Hope Senor Horsey is doing

doing better.

:toast:

[LWolf]

35. She's coming along pretty well.

Physical therapy started a couple of weeks ago; today was her first day under saddle. 40 minutes of walking and trotting; we're building muscle in the injured area after 7 months of rest, hoping to see her regain full range of movement. So far, so good.

[DirkGently]

29. Seems like something folks might agree on?

[Warpy]

2. A perfect human, like an earthly saint, would be hell to live with

or even be around. Most of our giants are flawed in one way or another: great presidents with mistresses or drinking problems, giants like Margaret Sanger seduced by the eugenics movement, too many amazingly creative musical artists sticking needles in their arms.

The flaws are what make us all human. Leave perfection to the honored dead.

[dtexdem]

6. St. Joan.

Shaw nailed it.

[Warpy]

7. He usually did

Warpy, M.I.R.C.

Well, temporarily.

[DirkGently]

31. We have nothing to gain by pretending

someone or some group is or was right all the time. It short-circuits critical thinking, which is always in short supply. It also suggests, falsely, how very hard it must be to accomplish some good, if we insist that all of our heroes never put a foot wrong, even if we know better. And then there's the creeping notion of subservience. There's only a certain level of human-to-human loyalty and admiration that's even appropriate. Don't try to be Abe Lincoln, kid. Try to emulate his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. Improve the paradigm.

Be better than your heroes -- it's not as hard as we imagine.

[dmallind]

3. There are two aspects to this however

While no falsehood can be found, at least by me, in your post, we have to separate consideration of the person from consideration of the situation. It's certainly true that Teddy had some bad points for example, while Hitler was very kind to dogs personally. No doubt Shrub really was a pleasant companion as often stated, to some folks at least. That kind of distinction is inarguable really. But that does not mean we cannot be black/white good/bad situationally.

For example on DU it's frequent to see accusations leveled at those who want to support the party/Obama that they are blindly loyal fools who cannot see imperfections in him or them.

But the trouble is reality tels us we have a choice of Obama/Dems or whoever the Reps come up with and them. There is no even wildly imaginative scenario that gives us anything but two choices.

Analysis of the person/party then would then tell us Obama has faults, and the Dems. No problem there for anybody rational.

However analysis of the situation says that the better outcome will inevitably be Obama/Dems, so that it is perfectly consistent and rational to say "I will support him regardless"

Utilitarianism as so often makes this much easier and more definitive. Reducing universalized harm and increasing benefit is the only important metric, and each moral choice should seek that goal. Even if a person is so wildly far out on the fringe as to suggest that Obama is overall harmful to our society (in other words that we are worse off than we started because of him) we only have a choice of him or an option that surely nobody on any DU spectrum would deny would be worse. Minimizing harm is as important as maximizing benefit. Nobody argues that it would be stupid to scrape the skin off your hands to avoid falling off a cliff. Why do so politically?

[DirkGently]

8. I think you're skipping a step

When you say:

However analysis of the situation says that the better outcome will inevitably be Obama/Dems, so that it is perfectly consistent and rational to say "I will support him regardless"

Regardless of what? Regardless of failings? Regardless of choosing the wrong thing over the right thing? When you say that you will support someone "regardless" because you think that support will have a better outcome, you relieve the leader of all responsibility and therefore fail the cause of getting the right thing done. You're essentially abandoning your responsibility to have any role in the process other than choosing sides.

I think that's what's wrong here, out there, and pretty much everywhere. We've become a nation of sports fans, who want the Yankees to win, even when the Yankees suck. Deciding that you hate the Red Sox is no excuse.

There's also some conflation at least suggested by what you say. Many, including Teddy, in another quote I recently saw, insist that all is a zero sum game. Criticizing one lends support to the other, we are told, so hold your water, win the battle, and then argue your cause. I think that's wrong. Leaders and parties come and go. What ought to count is what is best for all of us, not whether some group we identify with is in charge, because when you lend support on that basis, you let the group define you instead of the other way around.

If you remain silent when one of "yours" screws up, you're cementing a kind of heedless, irresponsible mentality that replaces the marketplace of ideas with, again, an athletic field where only victory matters. And then what? When the red or blue team wins, why would it's leaders then listen to concerns you've already agreed to stifle in the name of victory? After all, there's always another battle, right?

This is where the bad faith comes in. You put yourself in a position to support the wrong thing, because you've sworn unqualified allegiance to someone.

Even love doesn't work that way. You love your child; you'd defend your child to the death, but if your child screws up, you owe it yourself AND the child to correct them, because otherwise, they do what they want. The easy thing. The convenient thing. The profitable thing.

Think of the "us" and "them" dichotomy another way. Think of thinkers vs. non-thinkers. We assume, many of us, that those we disagree with politically aren't thinking correctly, that they are either blindly following some cause based on bad information or silly group identity, or something else. So, to combat this ... we do the same thing?

How can you expect to improve things if you adopt the same approach that's at the heart of what you disagree with in others -- blind devotion to a person, or a faction?

[dmallind]

11. Don't think so - let me get even wordier to explain

I can indeed say regardless, because the only thing that could change that would be if Obama were to be more harmful or less beneficial than an alternative that is possible. Since this would involve an absolutely unprecedented and unforeseeable shift, I can I hope do without the caveat "...regardless, unless he becomes worse than Jeb/Mitt/Sarah/etc"

This is certainly not a sports team analogy, because the results/outcome is the metric. We would only support the Dems as long as they maximize benefit or minimize harm. It's not that we hate the Republicans more, it's that the Republicans do more harm or less benefit, and so are a worse choice.

Nobody is suggesting "remaining silent" when Dems screw up. Blagojevich is a fool at best and felon at worst. Obama did not do as good a job as he could have on single payer, and is moving more slowly on DADT than he could. Alvin Greene is a waste of flesh and Kendrick Meek and Martha are two of the worst campaigners since Burnside. That however does not say word one about whether they would be more beneficial and less harmful that the alternatives, which is the one metric I do care about and think everyone should care about.

I have no idea on earth how you could read my post and suggest my "unqualified allegiance" is to SOMEONE. It is to maximizing benefit and minimizing harm. When there is an alternative that is both a real alternative not a dream AND better able to maximize felicife calculus than Obama than bet your bippy I'll change like a shot. However I can still say regardless (with the implied but unnecessary caveat above) because that's not even close to being true or likely to be.

This "us and them" dichotomy is again missing the point. Who can do more good and less harm is the only question I care about. Let me know when you think it's anybody but Obama and the Dems, while remembering of course that they have to be able to get into the position of being able to do anything at all first.

Blind devotion, yet again, to felicife calculus. What's wrong, please tell me, with increasing benefit and reducing harm? Is it wrong to do so because you want to do so even more? That's like saying it's wrong to take a job paying 20% more because you want one paying 100% more, but you can't possibly get one.

[DirkGently]

13. Perhaps we're aruging about what "support" means

I think support of, say, President Obama or the Democratic Party (if one is so inclined) INCLUDES accurate harsh criticism.

I see you saying that no one need remain silent, but I'm still reading a suggestion that it might be wise or practical to "pretend" that a leader or group is all good for the purpose of the fight.

That's not the case.

I think casting things as Repubicans vs. Dems plays into the false zero-sum game idea. Criticizing one does not equal support for the other. We need not agree with a bad Democratic idea or leader on the theory that a Republican idea or leader is worse.

We not only can, but must argue at all times for the actual truth and the actual best result, not the nearest Democratic or Republican approximation *available without a fight*. Support your party or your leader, if you think it gives you the best chance of a good result.

But *responsible support* includes gigantic, loud, relentless criticism and argument for what that party and that leader should be doing.

Which leads back to the related issue of conflating criticism with an all-out rejection or attack, which seems to be a big part of the discussion, I'm not reading you clearly. Do you acknowledge that gigantic, loud, harsh, relentless criticism is a responsible mode of support? That a party or leader's supporters have an absolute duty to distinguish, at ALL times, between the good and bad, right and wrong that those leaders or parties do?

Do you agree that there can be NO "lie agree upon" in which we pretend, to any degree, to accept or admire anything short of that which is acceptable or admirable, regardless of the belief that one party or leader, no matter how bad, is the better alternative?

[dmallind]

15. Not much, but a little

While I agree criticism is not just warranted but needed, we do here have to look at real world effects too. Much as I would love it to be so, the country is not populated by deeply involved and interested policy wonks who employ purely rational decision making. The people who make up their minds on soundbites and image and TV chatter are far more numerous, and they determine more than the former who gets to govern.

As such I disagree that we should engage in loud, gigantic, harsh criticsim IF (and please remember anyone reading this that I did indeed include the IF) that criticism would tip the probability towards a more harmful/less beneficial alternative by swinging the low-information vote.

Harshly criticize sure, but let's do so in caucuses and primaries and committee meetings and so on, where the practical impact of increasing the likelihood of a Rep win is less.

[yowzayowzayowza]

18. Not all speech is advantageous, however true or righteous.

Understanding the likelihood that the majority of the football team masturbated last night doesn't mean holding up signs that say "WANKER" is going to help win the game.

Good points.

[DirkGently]

19. I think that's the nature of the divide right there

I lean more toward the idea that if you give support (free of strong criticism) first, and seek responsibility later, you remove the incentive politicians need to do the right thing. Their first rule is always political survival. Once in power, though, a politician's survival is more dependent on getting along with other politicians, on assuaging monied interests. So if a leader or a party can count on you to back them no matter what they do, why would they listen to you, especially when what you want is not easy, or cheap, or politically convenient?

I think it's too late for the rank-and-file electorate to try to define the process without the ultimate carrot, political victory, being brought into play. I think we lose a lot of ground in terms of making the Democratic Party what *we* want it to be by playing into the notion that "the left has nowhere else to go."

If that's true, then the only opinions that matter belong to conservative and independent voters, right?

I just don't think we need to engage in propaganda on the personal level. Leave that to the professionals. People should not spin, and I mean that equally -- criticism should not be overstated to make a point either. I think that's a lot of what people are arguing about. Does it "hurt the cause" to express strong criticism, because it's poor propaganda in a world everyone likes to pretend is black and white? Or is it essential to criticize, in order to define exactly what this group of ours is, and what conduct we will accept from those we *choose* to represent us?

Do we just work for them? Or do they work for us? Who should fear whom's disapproval? I think the best government leaders live in fear of how people will react to what they actually do, not what team they play for.

I do recognize, as I think most people do, that political victory and actual goodness are not necessarily related, but I don't think we get anywhere by conceding the point. I like to think that self-criticism and an honest political discourse are progressive values, and that we lose an important distinction if we submit to the idea that we must simply back our strongest horse at all times, and accept whatever we can get.

Is there a way to describe limits more people could agree upon as to what constitutes fair and constructive critique, or will the argument always be that support is a binary proposition, "with us or against us?"

[dtexdem]

4. Many hunters are great allies on the environment.

They have a strong self-interest in keeping nature "undeveloped" and animal populations thriving.

And so says a strong gun-control advocate, yet.

[DirkGently]

10. Sure. But few of us now look at killing an animal as the best

way to appreciate it, no? T.R. was a trophy hunter and an amateur taxidermist. He "loved" the animals he killed ... but he still killed them. I think that's a hard notion for people to wrap their heads around these days. Part of it was again the cultural wisdom of the time -- one thing "outdoorsmen" of the day favored was eliminating predatory animals to increase the herds. Of course, it looks like that view still prevails among some in Alaska.

[ixion]

5. Humans are all flawed creatures

there is simply no such thing as a perfect archetype. Which is why I think it's so futile to try and legislate what constitutes 'the norm.'

[nashville_brook]

9. damn, inspired post.

unflinching loyalty is for royal subjects, not citizens of a democracy.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. Simply not true....

This is DU -- try to remember.

The answer is Kucinich!.

Now, what was the question again?

[DirkGently]

14. Well, ok, Dennis. But IS he human? Or magical socialist gnome? nt

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. He's both...

...yet strangely neither, simultaneously, which partially explains his awesome powers to bring the disparate factions on DU together in peace and harmony.

[proteus_lives]

20. TR was no racist.

Flawed? Yes.

Sometimes made the wrong decision? Yes.

But he was one of the greatest men who sat in the Oval Office.

[DirkGently]

21. Ah. The heart of the matter

So, do you contend the book is dishonest or inaccurate? Or are you saying that we should give T.R. the benefit of the doubt whatever the "facts" appear to be, because he did so much good otherwise?

Should we lean on the facts to promote the man, or the other way around?

[proteus_lives]

22. There are facts.

His friendship with Booker T. Washington.

How the southern politicians hated him because he wasn't racist.

How he took on the entire state of Mississippi to save a black postal worker's job.

Does that scream racist to you?

[DirkGently]

24. And LBJ called MLK "that uppity N***** preacher"

while hammering through the Civil Rights Act. Sound like a progressive to you?

Facts are indeed stubborn things. When it comes to our leaders and heroes, they often send uncomfortably mixed messages.

Just answer this (no snark here -- I want your thoughts): If T.R. did say: (from HEyHEY's post and the book):

"The world would have halted," he once wrote, "had it not been for the Teutonic conquests in alien lands."

was that not, at the very least, a racist, white-supremacist *thing to say?*

[Lilith Velkor]

36. The Teutonic conquests were mostly white on white violence

I'd say it's more a Eurocentric (and therefore pretty racist) thing to say, considering how the rest of the world just kept on truckin without ever having seen or heard of any kind of white people.

[DirkGently]

37. Ah. Makes sense. Then there's this . . .

Nineteenth-century democracy needs no more complete vindication for its existence than the fact that it has kept for the white race the best portion of the new world's surface," he wrote in 1897.

[proteus_lives]

38. It was more about strength and culture rather then skin color.

If he was the racist so many claimed him to be, the acts of his life (like his fierce support of the Melting Pot and the strength it gave the country) would be considered very strange.

A progressive like TR wouldn't get elected today, sadly.

[DirkGently]

39. Again, insisting on an all good / all bad label is a mistake

You say he couldn't have done good things "if he was a racist." Sure he could -- he did, despite holding some distinctly racist views. That doesn't make racism okay somehow, because that's not the way the world or human beings work. You can choose to admire the admirable, and reject the not admirable, without pretending that there was nothing to criticize. That's a propagandist's trick, in my opinion, that we all have been asked to fall for. Lincoln didn't think that black people should hold office (or claimed that was his view) which is not acceptable. But it doesn't discredit the worthwhile views or the fact that he got us through the Civil War and began the abolition of slavery. We're so used to people making ad hominem arguments that we've absorbed them. "Well, you wouldn't live in a country invented by slave holders, would you?" Well ... we do. And they laid down a lot of valuable ideas, and at least one despicable one, regarding the ownership of one human being by another. There's no point to spinning this kind of thing, but people seem afraid to let go of it in an atmosphere in which someone's career can be destroyed by one unflattering video.

Qualitative distinctions are important. This was good. That, not so much. We're not getting anywhere until we're all willing to do the work to distinguish one thing from another, and that includes making fair analysis of our leaders's good and bad qualities and actions.

[tjwash]

44. What made him great is that he hardly ever sat in the Oval Office

He was always out pounding the pavement, on whistle stop tours, and making things happen out in the world.

[bvar22]

40. It is not really honest to judge someone who lived in another era

by today's prevailing morality.

[DirkGently]

42. Yes it is, although context matters

Whatever the era, supporters of white supremacy or racism were wrong, and failed both intellectually and morally. It's not like the idea of racial equality was an undiscovered element that no one had intellectual access to. It's fair to take cultural context into account, but the "weren't we dopes" view of history shouldn't let anyone off the hook -- rather these are lessons learned.

And it's a bit beside the point here. We could be talking about a contemporary figure in the same way.

The greater dishonesty -- the one I was trying to address in the OP -- is this effort to either smear or whitewash our heroes with the aim of slapping them with a permanent, black or white label that supposedly either swaths them in golden robes of perfection, or discredits them utterly.

Actions matter more than the people who take them. We CAN judge actions to be good or bad, and that includes using our best understanding of the world. Actions have discernible values; people are mixed bags of contradictions who are never just one thing or the other, and it's dishonest to pretend that's the case.

We can criticize the bad and laud the good in every case. And we should. Casting a human being as all good or all bad is nonsensical and encourages a zero-sum discussion of competing lies. That's where bad faith gets you.

People, on the other hand, do a variety of things with a variety of qualities. It's convenient to decide that someone is all good, and try to downplay or paper over their mistakes, or all bad, in which case anything wise or just they may have done is ignored. But that's inherently dishonest. T.R.'s apparent racism wasn't okay, either because it was a prevailing view among intellectuals at the time, or because of his many worthwhile thoughts and achievements.

We can hold opinions of the net effect of someone's actions, of course. Hitler's alleged kindness to animals doesn't redeem the evil of his overall impact, so you could say it's hardly worth mentioning. But lying about it wouldn't be justified. The same goes for our current leaders. We discredit and devalue any discussion by insisting on either supporting or condemning someone utterly.

It may be that these truths are uncomfortable, or it may be just that it's inconvenient to debate honestly. We have a long tradition of painting horns and halos on people as a shortcut to discussion. But it's a lie to do so, and lies always have an impact.

Likewise all these exhortations in the name of group unity for critics to be quiet. The idea is that because the "other side" is already busy making up false critique, it's somehow ... hmmm. "fair and balanced" to lie right back. But that's not a paradigm anyone should be buying into, particularly not progressives.

[Ross K]

41. Except for Elizabeth Warren

[DirkGently]

43. Ok, Elizabeth and Dennis are perhaps perfect beings,

deserving of a cultish worship. But that's IT. No more room on Mt. Olympus. Everyone else is a mixed bag, not a monolithic paragon of good or evil.

O8)/ :evilgrin: