To Ken Bingham (and Friends) With Love
I probably shouldn’t post this because it might be mean. But gosh darnit, I’m pissed and I’m tired of being angry. And when I think about how we ended up with this president, I think of Ken Bingham who posts here often (and may never come back after this) with the sincerity and glibness of Bill O’Reilly. Ken, is an echo chamber of the O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck crowd. He considers himself to be a man of God and to his credit, has decided to pursue a college degree. But Ken’s strength of conviction is terrifying because it is so widely out of proportion to his credentials on the subject.
Ken, like so many of his ilk, was swept into politics by the neo-conservative wave. His interest in politics, like so many, cannot be characterized as an academic one, but rather, a partisan one. Ken is interested in his side winning. If that means enjoining with the revisionist who shamelessly corrupt the thorough and well-documented intentions of the founding fathers, so be it. If that means twisting the most basic and long-standing interpretation of the Constitution, so be it. If that means suddenly claiming a scientific expertise sufficient to reject 100% of the scientific consensus on global warming, so be it. And if all that requires convincing himself he is the epitome of a good American, no problem. I imagine he has American flags plastered all over his life.
But I really mean it when I say with love. Tough love. In order to love you unconditionally Ken, we must also hold you to a certain level of honesty. A kind of honesty that requires humility. The humility to admit “we” may not be as well-educated and informed as “we” could be and until we get there, we must do more listening than preaching.
But this is not really about Ken. Ken is merely an archetype.
If it is true that we Americans have fallen far behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of basic knowledge of the world around us, is it more patriotic to announce it, or ignore it?
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that having a “right to [your] opinion” does not excuse one for exercising that right in an irresponsible manner.
At some point, the loud, verbose screeching by those who present erroneous statements as fact but then defend them under the new catch-all retort, “I am entitled to my opinion” must stop.
You do have a right to your opinion. But it is disingenuous to call a statement claiming a factual basis, an opinion, and it is irresponsible to run around loudly pronouncing uninformed opinions just because you have a right to.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Interesting post. I would suspect that you and I agree that robust dialogue is important to informed, rational decision-making. You seem to suggest that participants in political dialogue should possess certain bona fides. Would you please clarify what those are and how one acquires them?
July 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
“You do have a right to your opinion. But it is disingenuous to call a statement claiming a factual basis, an opinion, and it is irresponsible to run around loudly pronouncing uninformed opinions just because you have a right to”.
So what do you wanna be, the cop?
July 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for stopping buy Steve.
Bona fides is an even better word than credentials.
What I mean is simply and sort of qualification that would be generally considered as acceptable to contribute value to a meaningful discussion on policy. (I note you said political discourse. I wonder why you chose to narrow my statement)
For example. Sometimes people argue that the second amendment means something outside of the context of a “well regulated Militia”. It is unlikely that such a person would be a lawyer, constitutional scholar, or a serious student of constitutional law and yet millions of Americans claim their personal right to own and conceal an assault weapon is somehow protected by the constitution. It is not, and neither is that position an opinion. It is simply a factually wrong statement.
I especially love all the nascent experts on Islam and the Middle East who couldn’t find Iraq on a map without the word spelled out in bold letters.
..or the economics experts who preach that and unfettered free market is good policy, or that trickle down worked, or that socialism is bad on its face.
I remember arguing with self-professed experts on foreign policy who didn’t feel that Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war was a material change from long-standing policy.
One need only look at the current disaster in Iraq to extend my point all the way to the top. We didn’t listen to the experts before invading Iraq. Why for example is Freddy Kagan the architect of the surge. Bush couldn’t find someone with a bit more bona fides?
Somehow in this new free for all of everyone’s right to express their opinion, we’ve lost a basic respect for expertise. Somewhere along the line a whole chunk of right-wing fanatics made it OK to dismiss the value of a life and career spent studying a subject.
Remember when Bill O’Reilly decided he knew more about the constitution than a really smart lawyer?
Whatever happened to seeking out really smart people and listening to what they say before spouting off at the mouth after a radio session with Head-Rush Limbaugh?
July 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Cliff - I am sorry but this video pissed me off. People believe in faith., big deal. This guy thinks a hat and some shades will keep people from identifying him. We all have our beliefs.
And America is a great country because we used to have leaders that wanted to invest in our people. Now we have Republicans that think this country just magically got this way and want to strip out all of public investment for their gain.
I do agree that we need to spend more on education and I am open to some of his ideas but overall I just want to punch the guy. I was talking to buddy at work about how I agree with most liberal policies but generally can’t stand liberal culture (and in this case - condescending) types. This guy is example one of that.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Hi Marshall,
Good to hear from you. Sure he’s a bit arrogant, but if you consider the sad facts, it seems to me we should get more excited.
I’m fine with faith until it challenges scientific fact. When faith contradicts science and materially affects peoples behavior, then it is something more than faith and potentially harmful to society.
I’ll be specific. The literal belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago should not be a requirement of faith. Any version of any religion that measures ones spiritual worthiness based on such absolute conviction of a literal interpretation of something which is scientifically impossible is something more than a harmless religion and should be viewed with some skepticism.
Society can tolerate unscientific “belief” that does not extend into absolute unflinching conviction. Beyond that, I do not think words like faith and belief are a valid defense.
I assume you are talking about the majority of Americans who believe in the creation story. Substitute creation with inertia.
Should I be concerned about a faith that disbelieves inertia? We cannot scientifically explain inertia but we sure do wear seat belts.
I hope I’ve expanded your understanding of faith and its potential for misuse.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
It is however a persons right to “believe” whatever they want in this Republic, as long as they operate within established law. Might be nuts, but better their fantasies than a mind controlled fascist reality. Works both ways.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Science as an endeavor is regularly updated from its errors and incorrect assumptions, so complete orthodoxy to the conclusions of “new” science, is not only narrow in its focus but also not very intelligent. Science is no guarantee that we will do the “right” things for the stated scientific reasons.
There is always being wrong and science once believed the world was flat, and that vapors made you sick. What is wrong that science holds true today?, time will tell us soon enough.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Meanwhile, I think its time for Americas’ culturally arrogant dirt nap.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:53 am
The problem isn’t credentials. With the advent of the internet any person who wishes to become informed on a given policy issue can do so. But it requires a lot of work and most don’t.
The problem is people who start with the conclusion AND THEN look for the facts. I often complain about this on KVNU. Having blind and unconditional loyalty to organizations is OK in organized sports, say for the Aggies or the Jazz. I support them even when they suck (btw, another football season is starting, ugh).
The problem is when we decide to support Team Republican or Team Democrat or whatever organization or movement unconditionally. I hate to say it, but pretty much anyone who still supports the Bush Iraq Policy, for example, is guilty of this. And liberals and Democrats have been guilty of this at times too.
We should be guided by principles, both philosophical and ethical, and a fearless quest for truth. We shouldn’t be afraid to abandon organizations that betray our principles. I am a Republican, but the GOP deserved and earned the ass kicking they got last fall. They breached civil liberties, offered no scrutiny to the executive branch and exploded federal spending. My loyalty is to principles of transparency and limited government, not to an organization.
Americans need to quit treating their politics like they do sports. Save the blind loyalty for the Jazz.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:06 am
And people wonder why Canadians won’t give tax breaks to professional sports teams, and they mostly decide to move south to the Land of Stupid.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Draft College Republicans!
July 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Exactly Tom,
I summarize it as self-validation over intellectual curiosity.
Independent thinking vs tribalism.
Strength of conviction vs respect for objective truths.
What I can’t figure out is…why are you a republican?