13 Comments:

• to answer your question...
  
  I teach the general Ethics course, split between ethical theory and applied ethics. I'm writing a dissertation in the ethics of war.

  By  Inside the Philosophy Factory, at 7:49 AM  

• Hopefully there is at least some middle ground between gullibility and cynicism. I've lately been trying find it and hang on to it myself.
  
  But politics, you know, is in a category all by itself. I'm not sure there has ever been a time when it's practices have been considered in any way honorable. So the voices coming out of that system have always tended to be a little suspect.
  
  Still, I think I prefer skepticism to cynicism. It's not necessarily expecting the worst, just doubting or witholding judgment - willing to be convinced, but with a bit more evidence. I can live with that. I don't believe I would be happy as a full blown cynic.

  By  Rebecca, at 10:55 AM  

• ITPF: That's really interesting. No, I mean it. I'm fond of both political philosophy and military history. I've never really thought about them in conjunction before in any serious way.
  
  Rebecca: I'm primarily concerned with being a "political evangelist" in that I assume that everything the other side does is evil, that every action masks some sinister intent. It just strikes me as paranoid. The problem is that the folks who do think that way vis a vis Republicans have been consistently right.
  
  Although I still don't believe the Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen.

  By  Arbitrista, at 11:25 AM  

• You say cynicism; I say realism. I believed Powell's "smoking gun" presentation to the U.N. I believed the initial terror alerts. I believed the Brooklyn Bridge plot. All lies. I didn't believe the Miami plot. I don't believe the Michigan plot. I don't believe the recent London plot. Oh sure, I believe it exists, but I don't believe it was as deadly as they make it out to be.
  
  You know the saying. "Fool me once, shame on..... shame on you. Fool me..... you can't get fooled again." Also, in the face of SO many obvious lies, I know that pretty much nothing said can be trusted. It's the old adage: how do you know when a Republican is lying? When you see his lips moving.
  
  Those articles you link to talk about some of the major policy lies, but there are countless smaller ones. Photoshopped rally pictures, global warming existing, evolution as a theory, x-raying shoes makes traveling safer, nobody could have predicted failure of the levees, people hate our freedom, prescription drug benefit helps seniors, and on and on.
  
  Ugh. I have to stop. I want to either pound my head on the floor or cry.

  By  sheepish, at 1:56 PM  

• The problem here is the tendency of cynics to view all politics from a paranoid perspective. Whenever I teach my Ameican politics students about the American system and its supposed virtues, I always tell them that I refuse to discuss Bush. As a political scientist, I am in the business of discerning the rules of the game, and Bush consistently defies those rules. I like the adage about the broken clock: it's right twice a day. Cynicism prepares you for exactly the things that are happening right now, but it also breeds an expectation for systematic abuses, and those expectations will be defied when a more virtuous regime is in power. Don't mistake today's political events for confirmation that this is how politics actually works. Yes, be suspicious of this regime, but don't be suspicious of all regimes. My advice: for the time being, act as if the U.S. is no longer a Republic operating under the rule of law, but is instead a monarchy, operating as Bush's personal fiefdom. It will help you anticipate many of the things happening right now. However, assume the Republic will return after Bush is gone (either via term limits or imminent impeachment).

  By  Marriah, at 5:09 PM  

• act as if the U.S. is no longer a Republic operating under the rule of law, but is instead a monarchy, operating as Bush's personal fiefdom.
  
  Act as if...???
  
  Sigh. Your point is very well taken though.

  By  sheepish, at 9:39 PM  

• Publius, it is amazing how prescient this particular post is. Thomas Frank has a NYT OP-Ed today about cynicism.
  http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22frank.html?hp
  
  For readers who don't have NYT Select, the key quote is here: "Conservatives are infinitely better positioned to capitalize on public disillusionment with the political system, regardless of who does the disillusioning. Indeed, the chorus has already started chanting that the real culprit in the current Beltway scandals is the corrupting influence of government, not conservative operatives or their noble doctrine." Or, to put it another way, liberal cynics will ultimately produce conservative politicians. As the adage goes, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

  By  Marriah, at 11:37 PM  

• Well I don't know how your comment is appropriate in my case, since my cynicism is directly solely at conservatives.

  By  Arbitrista, at 6:20 AM  

• The point Frank seems to be making is that it doesn't matter if your cynicism is directed solely at conservatives. The voters will interpret your cynicism as directed at the government in general, and thus vote for more anti-government conservatives. The only solution I see is to express an optimistic vision of government in order to vote in more liberals.

  By  Marriah, at 11:52 AM  

• So when Bush & Co. lie I should put on a happy face and say everything is great, and then ask the voters to get rid of them? How does that make any sense?

  By  Arbitrista, at 3:53 PM  

• I know it seems strange, but apparently this is exactly what voters want. A recent NYT Op-Ed by Charles Baxter about Minnesota politics made this exact point. "Minnesotans generally prefer their national political representatives to be in the Happy Warrior mode perfected by Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone. Cameras and microphones produce in such candidates an endlessly renewable form of intoxication. Even former Gov. Jesse Ventura, resplendent in Hawaiian shirts, seemed to be a variant on the Humphrey model, hugely enjoying himself as he claimed that he was being victimized by the local newspapers. Never in my memory has a politician expressed bitterness so joyfully." http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50612F73A5B0C758CDDA10894DE404482
  
  The political system is based on a logical structure bequethed to us by the Founders, but the voters themselves behave irrationally many times. If a candidate can tell voters how horrible everything is with a smile, the voters will vote for that candidate to help make things better. If, in contrast, a candidate lets his cynicism get the best of him, the voters will simply blame the messenger. Optimism seems to be the winning political formula, even when the sky is falling.

  By  Marriah, at 5:05 PM  

• Pardon me if I don't think that Prozac politics is the way to a healthy democracy. Maybe the reason people think that politicians are all rip-off artists is because they talk like game show hosts. How about some seriousness for a change? When someone is a crook, we should just point the finger and say "crook."

  By  Arbitrista, at 6:46 PM  

• I agree, calling someone a crook is a great way to get someone to vote for a candidate other than the crook. However, it doesn't inspire that person to vote for you instead of the crook. A "healthy democracy" is surely ideal, but right now we don't even have a democracy given the amount of electoral fraud Bush has gotten away with. So I will take a Prozac Democracy as a limited form of democracy any time over the absence of a democracy.

  By  Marriah, at 1:00 PM  

Post a Comment
<< Home