Things We Wish Weren't True But Are, #2

Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 04.23.2009

A stunning expose...

Two things that we wish weren't true but are

1) Pointing out an opponent's hypocrisy is not a good argument.

Look at it this way: if someone else is insincere in the point they're making, does that make you right?

It does not. It makes them insincere. Someone can, for example, say that the deficit is huge and dangerous solely to score political points—and still be saying something that's true. And you, because you're defending huge deficits can still be wrong.

I understand the argument—that there is a propaganda war going on, and the other side can't be allowed to win it. This is, basically, unfortunate but true. If Democrats let Republicans pin the woeful state of the economy on Obama, it would be a tragedy for the Democrats.

However, even then—and lord knows I wish this wasn't true, I am immensely guilty of it myself—saying "how come you guys didn't mind this junk when Bush was doing it" is not an ARGUMENT in favor of doing it.

One might say instead "I think that, while adding to the deficit sucks, it is necessary in order to correct the massive failure of the economy," which is still likely to be true (I'm not an economist, I don't know, but it makes sense to me) and has the benefit of being a point in FAVOR of what you believe rather than against what the other person believes---not even what the other person believes but WHY they are saying it.

And if you want to say, whilst you say that, that this is true because of how Bush mismanaged the economy, go nuts. Again, I really cannot claim and have no right to claim a personal comprehension of the intricate details of the economy, but I am saying if you are going to argue—make points.


2) Bush WAS given a chance and ultimately lost it to a degree that A) Bush criticism is not a logical basis for vengeful Obama criticism, B) he is actually something Republicans and Democrats could agree on if they didn't hate each other so much.

What I've heard from a lot of Republicans is that Obamaites have no right to be sore because of their shameful treatment of Bush. Even Bernard Goldberg's extremely laudable rebuttal of Sean Hannity, that you lose credibility if you go after Obama for EVERYTHING that he does no matter what it is, had the caveat that "I'm not going to be like the left was with George Bush and criticize everything he does."

This is a popular perception. But it isn't true.

According to Gallup, when Bush was elected, his popularity consistently fluctuated around 55-65%. Yeah that's not stunning, but only 25% of America DISAPPROVED. I don't know if anyone remembers, but January 2001 wasn't exactly a bitter political time. I am persuaded nobody really cared too much who was in the White House—it didn't seem like a big deal.

After September 11th, Bush had the highest approval rating Gallup has ever reported. 90%. It did not dip below 75% until June of '02. Didn't dip below 60, until July '03.

By the time he left office, he had a 29% approval rating with 67% of America actively disapproving.

It was not because he was Conservative. It was not because Liberals had an axe to grind. He lost 61 percentage points of approval rating between 2001 and 2008. That number alone is more than exists in either party.

And, unless Conservatives in this country were 75% in June of '02 (90% in September, but that would be an anomaly), and then miraculously fell to 29% by 2008, the idea that liberals were just out to get Bush is so untenable it is laughable—as is the idea that conservatives should be crucified for supporting him. I don't know why we pretend we don't agree with each other on anything at all—nearly 70% of America agreed that Bush wasn't a good president by the end.

In terms of using criticism of Bush as justification for Obama criticism—it isn't. As is obviously shown here, Bush earned his lack of support. He worked hard for it, over many years. Obama has not yet had that kind of time. Naturally, obviously, the nature of Obama's policies, much more revolutionary than anything specifically proposed in Bush's years, are apt to bring swifter criticism if they seem threatening. You are not obligated to wait and see if they work before you criticism him.

But, to say that it is the done thing to criticize the other guy's guy no matter what he does so it's okay for you to do it for THAT reason, is an unjustified fiction with no historical support.

I'm not trying to equate Bush with Republicanism and say that his failings were the failings of Republicanism.

The point I'm trying to make is that people should have better reasons for their opinions and statements then 1) revenge for something which never actually happened or 2) because the other side doesn't have the credibility to criticize what still very well might deserve criticism.

Intellectual honesty. You were able to admit that Bush was not very good at being president by the end. You should still be able to admit it. If you didn't like deficits before, you shouldn't like them now, even if the other side has nothing to act superior about.

Don't let pride get in the way of using your brain. I fail at this as much—and more—as the next person. But we should all try harder.