Crisp - A Muddling Of Facts, Beliefs And Opinions
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By John Crisp-
Several columnists have pointed this out, but here’s an example that makes the point clearly: Eugene Robinson, writing for The Washington Post on May 28, quotes from the Romney campaign website: “Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.”
But Robinson points out that a recent analysis by MarketWatch, a financial news website owned by Dow Jones, reports “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president.”
In fact, the rate of increase under Obama is the smallest of any recent president. MarketWatch goes on: “Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.”
So the statement on Romney’s website appears to be completely wrong. In fact, Robinson calls Romney a liar.
This election is all about the economy, as many have said, but one wonders if more fundamental elements aren’t also at stake. Politics have always encouraged exaggeration, misrepresentation, dirty tricks, spin and lying. But have we moved into a transformed post-factual age where any position, no matter how outrageous, can be maintained in the face of concrete evidence?
If so, it helps explains the persistence of birtherism. It helps explain how, after the warmest spring ever recorded and in defiance of considerable scientific evidence, zealots continue to claim that climate change is a hoax.
On a smaller scale, it also helps explain the reluctance to give Obama credit for taking out Osama bin Laden. The raid was difficult and risky, and the decision to go was complicated, calling for extreme levels of calculation and courage. The execution was impeccable at every point from the president on down. It was a bold accomplishment that Americans should take pride in.
In light of the depreciation of evidence, rationality, logic and science in some arguments, is it fair to consider candidates’ religious beliefs, as well? In our political correctness we generally try not to hold their religious beliefs against candidates, and that’s a good thing. What people believe privately shouldn’t have much, or any, impact on our estimation of their fitness for office.
Still, conventional religious belief, a prerequisite for holding office in America, has found ways to accommodate religion’s inherent irrationality and our modern appreciation for evidence, science and logic.
Generally, the ancient origins of Christianity and Judaism permit and even encourage a disconnect between belief in the original principles of their beginnings and the practical application of those principles in a public way.
Nearly all of our leaders are “Christian,” but how often do they practice, on behalf of our country, fundamental Christian principles like “Love your enemies ... do good to them that hate you”?
Mormon beliefs are no more outrageous than those of conventional Christianity, but, in comparison, their origins are much more modern. They are more easily subjected to rational scrutiny, and they require a greater leap of faith and more commitment than conventional Christianity. In short, a devoted Mormon belief says something not only about what you believe, but how you go about believing it.
And if you want something badly enough – like the defeat of the current president – you can make yourself believe nearly anything. Even that Obama is a free-spending, glory-hogging, apologizing, foreign-born, vacillating socialist. The evidence says otherwise.[[In-content Ad]]
Several columnists have pointed this out, but here’s an example that makes the point clearly: Eugene Robinson, writing for The Washington Post on May 28, quotes from the Romney campaign website: “Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.”
But Robinson points out that a recent analysis by MarketWatch, a financial news website owned by Dow Jones, reports “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president.”
In fact, the rate of increase under Obama is the smallest of any recent president. MarketWatch goes on: “Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.”
So the statement on Romney’s website appears to be completely wrong. In fact, Robinson calls Romney a liar.
This election is all about the economy, as many have said, but one wonders if more fundamental elements aren’t also at stake. Politics have always encouraged exaggeration, misrepresentation, dirty tricks, spin and lying. But have we moved into a transformed post-factual age where any position, no matter how outrageous, can be maintained in the face of concrete evidence?
If so, it helps explains the persistence of birtherism. It helps explain how, after the warmest spring ever recorded and in defiance of considerable scientific evidence, zealots continue to claim that climate change is a hoax.
On a smaller scale, it also helps explain the reluctance to give Obama credit for taking out Osama bin Laden. The raid was difficult and risky, and the decision to go was complicated, calling for extreme levels of calculation and courage. The execution was impeccable at every point from the president on down. It was a bold accomplishment that Americans should take pride in.
In light of the depreciation of evidence, rationality, logic and science in some arguments, is it fair to consider candidates’ religious beliefs, as well? In our political correctness we generally try not to hold their religious beliefs against candidates, and that’s a good thing. What people believe privately shouldn’t have much, or any, impact on our estimation of their fitness for office.
Still, conventional religious belief, a prerequisite for holding office in America, has found ways to accommodate religion’s inherent irrationality and our modern appreciation for evidence, science and logic.
Generally, the ancient origins of Christianity and Judaism permit and even encourage a disconnect between belief in the original principles of their beginnings and the practical application of those principles in a public way.
Nearly all of our leaders are “Christian,” but how often do they practice, on behalf of our country, fundamental Christian principles like “Love your enemies ... do good to them that hate you”?
Mormon beliefs are no more outrageous than those of conventional Christianity, but, in comparison, their origins are much more modern. They are more easily subjected to rational scrutiny, and they require a greater leap of faith and more commitment than conventional Christianity. In short, a devoted Mormon belief says something not only about what you believe, but how you go about believing it.
And if you want something badly enough – like the defeat of the current president – you can make yourself believe nearly anything. Even that Obama is a free-spending, glory-hogging, apologizing, foreign-born, vacillating socialist. The evidence says otherwise.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092