The idea is to challenge the oposition with accurate facts and superior logic and universally accepted human values. Demonizing the opposition does not serve our cause.
Henry
Tom Lehman wrote:
Dear Doug and the LBOers,
Charles Murray is on my short list of candidates for the position of anti-christ. Has anyone ever noticed if he has the number 666 on his right hand or forehead. I've only seen the potential beast on TV, and, he could be wearing make-up to conceal it.
----------------------
Henry,
I'll take your comment as sincere, but mis-informed. Allow me to explain that we have been living within a total media propaganda war for decades. Sometimes it is at a low ebb, sometimes it reaches new watersheds of the absurd. Within such an envelop, it is no longer possible to sustain coherent and reasoned discourse. Who can tell a clear, well grounded empirical statement of fact, from a complete fabrication? Factually accurate reports and absolute lies are both, always demonstrated with statistical charts and both appear to be well reasoned and of equal quality. Which part of a half lie is half true?
Let's look at Murray's piece. What is wrong with it from a completely rational stand point? Absolutely nothing. It makes perfect sense and is in all of its claims, a pleasant, even vaguely liberal sounding editorial. Of course not that liberal, since the subtext tells us that Clinton is a liar and the economic boom isn't what HE claims it is--in other words his doing.
There is only one flaw. Poverty is not a moral problem. Poverty is an economic problem. In other words, the trouble with poor people is, quite simply, they have no money.
Notice that all the indicators that Murray uses of poverty are moral or social indicators. There are no strictly economic indicators mentioned. The reason these are missing is because any account of the economics of poverty would reveal the economic system is the problem. Lord knows, we wouldn't want to think that our economic system has destroyed the all American family, created a vast underclass, ransacked our domestic manufacturing and production infrastructure, and brought us nothing but social and political ruin.
Instead, we the theoretically innocent readers of the WSJ are supposed to conclude that the reason there are poor people is because they are bad people. And, bad poor people have brought us close to moral and social ruin. Then pulling at our heartstrings, Murray, asks us, should we just condemn the poor to live in concertina wire compounds? Well, we suppose, due to our bourgeois sensitivities, that that might not be such a good idea. Maybe we should think of some other solution. Maybe shorter jail sentences and school vouchers to private church or military schools are the answer. Maybe no sex before marriage is the answer. Maybe this or maybe that.
So, the problem of poverty like all great moral issues appears intractable and we move on. End of story.
Tom is quite liberal and tolerant. Personally, I favor a Carthaginian peace.
Chuck Grimes