Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Glory to Both Siderism in the Highest



Republican con man, Ayn Rand fan boy and zombie-eyed granny starver (h/t Charlie Pierce), Paul Ryan, made a lot of important-sounding word-noises about the corrosive state of our Trumpolitics these days come out of his mouth hole today.

And when he very deliberately fragged all of his important-sounding word-noises by dropping this in the middle of them and pulling the pin -- 
“How many of you find yourself shaking your head at what you see from both sides of the aisle these days?”
-- I knew I could stop even pretending to listen.

There can be no end to political madness in this country until this kind of speech is laughed at every time anyone tries it.

4 comments:

Robt said...

Maybe you are being a bit too critical of Ayn Ryan.

He is on to something as he points out both sides of the aisle.

When Nancy Pelosi and Kevin Mccarthy both went on Sean Hannity to brag about the Select Benghazi Committee that is going to detail Clinton's presidential bid. I am fed up!

When John Kerry and Swift Boaters for Truth both sided with Trump's disparaging comments of captured Vietnam veteran John McCain. Saying' McCain is no hero and he likes soldiers that do not get captured".
That makes me fed up.

When vietnam war 5 deferment hero Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump all say "deficits don't matter". I am fed up.

So when Speaker Ayn Ryan talks like a humane person but his actions are that of a sociopath.
Yeah, I am fed up. With no room for dessert.


White majority republicans in the Senate denying to give hearings to the black president's nominee to the SCOTUS.

Ayn Ryan is attempting to give cover for some ugly republican partisanship .
I mean Cruz and Trump trashing both of their wives as if that is a campaign issue?
What best to distract a K-9 than to call out, "SQUIRREL".
Works everytime.

bluicebank said...

Just musing on the "both sides" argument, as to its philosophical origins. It was called a political synthesis by Karl Mannheim in the early 20th Century, and later embraced in America. But the notion of so-called wise men finding a reasonable "middle" dates, of course, to the story about Solomon threatening to split the baby. Which story had nothing to do with finding a middle ground, but exposing a liar.

As a philosophy, both-siderism is bankrupt, since it is no philosophy at all, but a sloppy mathematical approach wrapped in the cloak of sages who knew better. Even in a static system, the in-between position is rarely ideal; often it is worse. In between anarchy and totalitarianism lies what? In between regent grade acid and alkaline lies ph7 water, so that's good. But usually, you get shit. Then add the Overton Window of one side of the equation becoming more acidic while the other side remains mild vinegar, and your supposed wisdom becomes more acidic my your own mindless adherence to a notion you never understood in the first place.

Principiis obsta. Finem respice.

The "both sides" position is so divorced from the concept that there are two sides to a story. The proponents of such forget that rarely are two sides equal. Not even in the creation at the Big Bang were both sides equal: matter won over anti-matter. One side is almost always superior to the other, and to think otherwise is intellectually lazy.

stratocruiser said...

I think the reason that Both-Siderism finds fertile ground is because it is fairly simple to extend from individual actions to group policy. Because one Democrat is found with $90,000 in his fridge, Democrats are corrupt. That cancels out the next 100 Republicans.
The difference is that Republican policy, as a group, is pro-ignorance, pro-denying reality, pro-violence.
It is fairly common to say that both parties are two sides of the same coin, to refer to the uniparty. That is Both-Siderism to the extreme. I think the fundamental difference is that the Democrats, (Left, Liberal, whatever) would rather restrict the actions of organizations, empowering people, and the Right would rather restrict the actions of individuals, giving greater autonomy to corporations.

Robt said...

As a thoughtful deduction, your conclusion is worth restating.

" I think the fundamental difference is that the Democrats, (Left, Liberal, whatever) would rather restrict the actions of organizations, empowering people, and the Right would rather restrict the actions of individuals, giving greater autonomy to corporations."

Consider this an officially approved peer review.

Professional Left Podcast #608

" Adjoining houses always burn. "   -- Bantu proverb  Don't forget to visit our website --  http://www.proleftp...